November 15, 2007
Virginia:
AT A REGULAR RESCHEDULED 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
Jean Payne, Commissioner of Revenue
Fred Boger, Director of Planning and Zoning
I. Call to Order
Mr. Bruguiere, Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:02 P.M. with four members present to establish a quorum. Mr. Harvey joined the meeting at 2:05 P.M and all members were present.
A. Moment of Silence
B. Pledge of Allegiance – Mr. Hale led the pledge of allegiance.
C. Resolution R2007-100 Recognition of Service (E. Embrey)
It was noted that Mr. Embrey could not be in attendance for the meeting, however his replacement, Mr. Houston Roberts was introduced by the Chair and welcomed by the Board.
Ms. Brennan moved to approve R2007-100 Resolution Recognizing Edward L. Embrey as presented and read aloud. Mr. Harris seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following Resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION R2007-100
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING EDWARD L. EMBREY
WHEREAS, Edward “Eddie” Embrey, a Nelson County High School graduate, began his Forestry career as Chief Forest Warden for Nelson County on January 1, 1972 and served as the County’s first Forest Technician beginning in 1981until his retirement on October 31, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Eddie’s exemplary service including: developing regional fire prevention and readiness programs, serving as the lead trainer at the Charlottesville District Forest Fire Simulator activity for the Department of Forestry and Virginia Fire Department, instructing Basic Fire Training and teaching at the Forest Law Enforcement School, as well as providing over 200 fire tactic and suppression training sessions earned him the distinction of 1993 Forest Warden of the Year; and
WHEREAS, Eddie’s longstanding commitment of 40 years to volunteerism and public service and continued community involvement in the Faber Volunteer Fire Department and the Nelson County Rescue Squad is hereby acknowledged and greatly appreciated,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize, thank, and congratulate Edward “Eddie” Embrey, upon his retirement from the Virginia Department of Forestry, for his 37 years of outstanding public service to the citizens of Nelson County and the Region.
II. Consent Agenda
Mr. Harris moved to approve the Consent Agenda and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolutions were adopted:
RESOLUTION-R2007-101
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
(September 27, 2007 & October 9, 2007)
RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the minutes of said Board’s meetings conducted on September 27, 2007 and October 9, 2007 be and hereby are approved and authorized for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.
RESOLUTION-R2007-102
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROVAL OF PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS
RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the following refunds, as certified by the Nelson County Commissioner of Revenue and County Attorney pursuant to §58.1-3981 of the Code of Virginia, be and hereby are approved for payment.
Amount Tax Category Payee
$529.56 Personal Property Victoria Gayle Heflin
1478 Davis Creek Lane
Lovingston, VA 22949
$121.69 Personal Property Saab Leasing Co.
Attn: Property Tax Dept.
P.O. Box 7101
Little Rock, AR 72223
$59.00 Personal Property Chrysler Financial Services LLC
CIMS 405-24-00
Attn:Alicia Atkins, Property Tax Specialist
27777 Inkster Road
Farmington Hills, MI 48334-5326
$321.84 Real Estate Robert E. Smith
1815 Afton Mtn. Rd
Afton, VA 22920
$120.35 Personal Property Brandon Ross McGann
1776 Greenfield Road
Afton, VA 22920
III. Public Comments and Presentations
The Board agreed by consensus to change the order of the agenda and allow Mr. Keith Hill of Icon Engineering to give his presentation on the Broadband project, prior to hearing public comments.
A. Presentation – Broadband Project (Keith Hill, Icon Engineering, Inc.)
Mr. Carter introduced Mr. Keith Hill from Icon Engineering, Inc. and Mr. Matt Fitzgerald from DHCD and noted that Phase I of the Broadband study had been completed and Mr. Hill would report on those results. He also noted that with the Board’s approval, the County could proceed with Phase II after consideration of the distributed resolution of authorization. He noted that funding for Phase II had been approved and allocated by DHCD.
Mr. Hill gave the following presentation:
Virginia Rural Broadband Initiative:
Created by Dept of Housing and Community Development (DHCD): Broadband telecommunications infrastructure is an essential public utility in the same regard as public water and sewer service.
Goal: Create strong, sustainable communities that can compete in a global marketplace
Objective:
Provide tools for communities to build, utilize, and capitalize on telecommunications infrastructure to compete with larger urban areas for
• Economic development growth
• Enhanced educational opportunities
• Improved medical services
• Improved quality of life.
VA Rural Broadband Planning Tools and Approach:
• Financing assistance from DHCD for developing plan
• Local stakeholder involvement mandatory
• Encourage investment by private providers
• Focus on ‘last mile’ access solutions
• Outcome of the assessment and strategic planning → Road Map
1. Prioritizes efforts to meet economic development goals and provides tools for the community to implement solutions,
2. Brings together all stakeholders to insure achievable solutions are developed that meet the needs of all sectors of the community.
Economic Development Focus:
• Local Government
• Public Safety Data Communications
• E-Government Services
• Economic Development Marketing
• Healthcare and Education
• Connectivity and Reliability (Redundancy)
• New Applications
• Private Businesses
• Expand marketability beyond Nelson County
• Better utilize tele-commute/tele-work applications
• Attract new businesses/jobs
• Entrepreneurship Development
• Home-based businesses
Lower Costs and Increased Bandwidth for all!
Project Team and Approach:
ν Local Management Team
• Monthly meetings
• Provide input
ν Engineers and Consultants – IBT and SSM
• Collect and map existing County data
• Collect input from residents and businesses
• Extensive use of GIS mapping
• Extranet used for efficient communication between Management Team and Consultants
• Monthly status reports and meetings
• Local stakeholder input meetings
• Discussions with service providers
• On site to develop conceptual routes and construction costs
ν Local Stakeholders
• Provide input
Phase I Tasks Accomplished:
ν Active project management team, off to a fast start!
ν Good project marketing support
ν School district support for surveying families
ν Needs assessment results mapped
ν Economic development features/assets mapped
ν Community training resources identified
ν Broadband education assessment made
Residential Survey Results:
ν Over 60% of responses from working age adults (20-59 yrs)
ν Families with children represented 31% of responses
• 63% have children aged 5-17, 32% 18 or older
ν 88% of residents have Internet access
• Majority using dial-up (63%) – compared to only 28% nationally
• 12% DSL, 4% cable modem
• 68% of all Internet users say bandwidth (speed) is Inadequate
• Majority using dial-up, 14% using satellite
ν 77% of dial up users say higher speed services not available
ν 26% say higher speed options are too expensive
ν Dial up subscribers paying at or slightly above $20/per month
ν Cable modem available in limited areas
ν DSL available in limited areas
ν Wireless in limited areas
Business Survey Results:
ν Respondents primarily small businesses employing 1-4 persons and annual revenue/sales of $50-$500k per year
ν 96% of all businesses using the Internet, 68% say current speeds are Inadequate to meet their needs
ν Dial up users account for 55% of businesses and nearly all say speed is too slow – high speed not available
• 14% DSL, 18% satellite
ν 87% of all business Internet subscribers express some level of dissatisfaction with current Internet access options
• 66% poor connection speed/not enough bandwidth
• 26% service is unreliable
• 20% price too high
ν The majority do not spend more than $50/month for service
• Only 7% spend more than $100/month
How businesses are using the Internet:
ν Communication is top use
ν 54% conducting customer service
ν 40% use for advertising, 31% online sales
ν Only 4% using the Internet for voice traffic
ν Advertising
ν Voice Service
ν Web Hosting
ν Online Sales
ν Distance Learning
ν Video Conferencing
ν Training
ν 20% or more of businesses anticipating future Internet use that will increase bandwidth usage:
At this point in the presentation, Mr. Hill presented several overlay maps of the County showing current provider service areas, Internet connection method by businesses, Internet connection method by residents, and Subscriber dissatisfaction and work or school use.
Broadband Education and Training:
Phase 1 – Community Education and Training
• Resources for broadband education are available but limited
• Schools actively using technology to teach
• PVCC community partner with High School, dual enrollment opportunities
• Survey shows only 19% of residents using the Internet for job search
• Library and two community centers source of access to computers and Internet
Conclusions:
ν Businesses and residents of all ages actively using the Internet
ν High demand for increased bandwidth, speed of access
ν Large numbers of residents using Internet to work from home or for school – dial up access limits opportunities for teleworking
ν Businesses frustrated with dial-up or satellite access
ν Residents used to higher speed access at work – frustrated with dial up at home
ν No clear community computer and application training providers
ν No higher education facilities within the County contributes to “Brain Drain”
ν Need one-stop community network in place to advertise resources
• Nelson County website good start
ν Lack of technology-dependent industry in the County
ν Cost of service will be a limiting factor initially
ν High amount of interest in high speed wireless for last mile access
Where Do We Go From Here?
Phase 2: Strategic Planning
• Broadband access options to consider
• Fiber distribution network routing
• Preliminary engineering design and cost estimates
• Investigate service provider interest
• Organization and operation options
• Funding strategies for future projects
Mr. Hill noted that businesses had a lower level of dissatisfaction due to the availability of DSL and High Speed Internet and access to bundled services, although Business voice services were lacking due to poor cell phone reception. He also noted a high level (74%) of interest in wireless Internet within the County. He also stated that the cost of higher speeds is a deterrent and that workers migrate to high-speed availability.
In discussing phase II, Mr. Hill noted that the focus would be on businesses, education and healthcare and that an evaluation of costs to show providers the business model would result. They would identify the best options and interested service providers with the cost effectiveness of the business model being key in attracting interest. In terms of interoperability, it could be a consideration but not a primary focus of the study. Mr. Hill stated that the goal would be to minimize public investment but recommends an investment by the County in the fiber itself due to its long life. He noted the availability of seed money and state programs that could defray the public investment costs and incentives the County could offer to encourage providers to provide the infrastructure, such as deferral of a franchise fee if it is re-invested in network expansion.
The Board discussed the hesitancy of some members to pay a provider to provide the service. Mr. Hill noted that telecommunications could be viewed as an investment in infrastructure just as roadways etc. The potential competition between using fiber and Broadband over power lines was briefly discussed, with Mr. Hill noting that BPL speeds are not addressing future needs ahead in 5-10 years, but is adequate for telemedicine usage. The feasibility was discussed as using fiber could be a deterrent to BPL which was being developed by CVEC. Mr. Hill reiterated that a wireless solution has promise for rural Counties due to varying topography.
Mr. Carter noted that DHCD has committed $50,000 for Phase II of the project to determine the best means to deploy Broadband and asked the Board to favorably consider the presented resolution to enable proceeding with Phase II. He noted that Phase II results would be forthcoming by the second Quarter of 2008 and no local match is required for use of the DHCD funding.
Ms. Brennan moved to approve the Resolution (R2007-103) titled High-Speed Broadband Deployment, stating the intent to continue the telecommunications planning with the intent of planning and building an open-access, high-speed distribution network and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.
Supervisors discussed that the County was not in a financial position to invest in Broadband expansion with the primary financial responsibility of the Courthouse project; however it was the consensus of the Board to move forward with Phase II of the study. Following discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following Resolution was adopted:
R2007-103
NELSON COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
HIGH-SPEED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
WHEREAS, affordable high-speed broadband access has become an essential economic development tool in all areas, particularly rural regions, and;
WHEREAS, Nelson County is underserved with choices for affordable high-speed broadband access, and;
WHEREAS, the Phase One Report for the County’s Community Telecommunications Plan has been completed, identifying need and aggregated demand, particularly with regard to educational institutions, public safety entities, and community-serving businesses and organizations, and;
WHEREAS, Nelson County would like to continue into Phase Two of the Community Telecommunications Planning process, and;
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) needs commitments from Virginia localities in order to authorize use of its funds for continued planning, and;
WHEREAS, the commitment that DHCD needs from each locality is a commitment to plan for a distribution network that be open-access;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the duly-elected members of the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County, hereby state our intent to continue our community telecommunications planning with the intent of planning and building an open-access, high-speed distribution network.
B. Public Comments
1. Pete Perdue – MACAA Board Member
Mr. Perdue re-addressed the Board in support of the passage of a resolution urging the Governor and State Legislators to enact legislation preventing exploitative pay day lending practices in the State. He noted some specific practices of the PayDay Loan industry, the impact on military personnel, the status of the resolution around the State, and considerations for the Board to note regarding the passage of the resolution.
The Board’s discussion included encouraging Mr. Perdue to contact his State Legislators, with some expression of support made by Ms. Brennan and Mr. Harris for passage of the resolution as it would strengthen the Legislative Priorities already adopted by the Board.
Following discussion, Mr. Hale moved to approve the Resolution of the County of Nelson, Virginia to Request that the General Assembly and the Governor of Virginia Take Action to Prevent Exploitative Pay Day Lending Practices in The Commonwealth and Ms. Brennan seconded the motion.
Mr. Carter noted that the Staunton Resolution had been modified for Nelson County. Mr. Harvey and Mr. Bruguiere noted they were not in favor of considering the resolution as it is State business. Mr. Hale noted the payday lending practices to be bad and supported the General Assembly’s efforts to regulate them.
There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted by roll call vote (3-2) with Mr. Harvey and Mr. Bruguiere voting no, to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:
R2007-107
RESOLUTION OF
THE COUNTY OF NELSON, VIRGINIA TO REQUEST THAT THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
AND
GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA
TAKE ACTION TO PREVENT EXPLOITATIVE PAYDAY LENDING PRACTICES IN THE COMMONWEALTH
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nelson, Virginia, represents the citizens of the County of Nelson, Lovingston, Virginia;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nelson, Virginia, senses from the citizens of the County of Nelson significant concern over what are perceived to be some exploitative payday lending practices in the County of Nelson and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, including practices which may exploit dedicated, brave women and men who are called for deployment as part of the armed forces of our Nation both in the United States and various parts of the world in the cause of freedom and security of our Nation;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nelson, Virginia, shares these same significant concerns and wishes to express the collective sentiments of the People of the County of Nelson, Virginia, that the General Assembly and Governor of Virginia, ought to take action to prevent further exploitative payday lending practices; and
WHEREAS, it is vital that the General Assembly and the Governor of Virginia give their earnest attention to these matters at the next regular session of the General Assembly and enact laws that will prevent further exploitative payday lending practices.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nelson, Virginia, that the General Assembly and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia are requested to take action in connection with the next regular session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact laws that will prevent further exploitative payday lending practices, including but not limited to:
Enactment of an annual interest rate cap of 36% for any consumer loans made in the Commonwealth of Virginia;
Prohibition of the use of a personal check or other method by a creditor to gain access to a consumer's bank account or method to gain title to a consumer's motor vehicle as collateral for a payday loan; and
Enactment of supplementary and complementary provisions which mirror the provisions of what is commonly referred to as the Talent-Nelson Amendment (Senate Amendment 4331), entitled "Terms Of Consumer Credit Extended To Service-member Or Service-member's Dependent" and referenced on page S6352 of the June 22, 2006 Congressional RecordSenate, a copy of which is annexed to and incorporated by reference in this Resolution.
2. Mike Hundley, Region Ten
Mr. Hundley gave the Board a status report on local Region Ten operations noting the number of persons served and the various programs that are offered. He noted that a new clinic is proposed for construction beside Horizon House with a January 2008 groundbreaking anticipated. He also noted that Robert Johnson was the new Region Ten Director.
3. Gordon Koerner, Shipman
Mr. Koerner expressed concern that the Heritage Center gym was roped off as unsafe whereas the Massies Mill Community Center has not been. He urged the Board to get a structural engineer’s assessment to start repairing the Community Centers so they don’t further deteriorate.
C. Presentation – Wingate Appraisal Services
Mr. Harold Wingate of Wingate Appraisal Services provided an update on the current re-assessment. He noted that they had requested a two (2) month extension to complete their work and sited incorporating more of 2007 work into the book for the Commissioner of Revenue and computer issues as the cause. He stated that the notices would be mailed out to the public in mid-January with hearings to be held the last two (2) weeks in January. He noted that he could not give any figures or percentage increases in values at this time. He noted that the Board needed to get the Board of Equalization in place and their training done by the Virginia Dept. of Taxation.
Mr. Carter noted that it could be tight getting the tax tickets out in mid April to early May.
The Board enquired as to whether the cost of re-assessment services would be less if the years in between re-assessments were less. Mr. Wingate replied that he would think it would be less costly because there would be less field work involved. He stated that the sales trends would still be evaluated but assessors wouldn’t have to knock on every door. He noted inflation to be an unknown factor but doing it more frequently would avoid high increases and managing the tax rate would be easier.
D. Presentation – CSA Program
Ms. Allison McGarry, CSA Coordinator gave the following report:
The Comprehensive Services Act for at Risk Youth and Families (CSA) is the result of a 1993 Virginia Law that provided for the pooling of eight specific funding streams used to purchase services for high-risk youth. The pool of funds came from the Department of Social Services, Department of Juvenile Justice, Department of Education, Department of Mental Health and an Interagency Consortium. Nelson County’s CSA program began in 1994. At this time the County Administrator oversees the program with The Department of Social Services housing the CSA Coordinator and the fiscal agent. The CSA Coordinator oversees the Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT) and also the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT). Both of these Teams consist of representatives from the Schools, the Dept of Social Services, the Health Department, the Community Service Board, the Court Service Unit, a Parent Representative, and members at large. The FAPT hears the cases that are presented and determines eligibility and course of treatment. If the FAPT approves the case it is forwarded to the CPMT for final discussion and fiscal approval. The case is then followed by the agency that presented the child and is responsible for all paperwork and updates as required by the CSA Coordinator.
The State allocates funds to the locality for mandated and non-mandated cases. Mandated cases are those children placed for purposes of special education in approved private school education programs, children with disabilities placed by local social services agencies or the Department of Juvenile Justice in private residential facilities or across jurisdictional lines in private, special education day schools, if the individualized education program indicates such school is the appropriate placement while living in foster homes or child-caring facilities, and children for whom foster care services, as defined by (Code of Virginia) § 63.2-110, and 63.2-905 are being provided to prevent foster care placements, and children entrusted to local social service agencies by their parents or guardians or committed to the agencies by any court of competent jurisdiction, or placed with a local department. Non-mandated cases consist of any eligible child who does not meet the above criteria. The initial allocation of mandated funds historically falls well short of what is required to meet our population. Therefore, during the course of a fiscal year requests for supplemental funding are required. The non-mandated population is allotted $12,721.00 per year and no supplements to this amount may be requested. The local match rate of CSA expenditures is 31.32%.
The attached spreadsheet is an overview of Nelson County’s CSA population and expenses for the past 5 years. The sheet shows how many children were served, their average age, gender, race, referral source, and expenditures. As noted on the spreadsheet the number of children served fluctuates from year to year while the average age of the children served has increased. The numbers also reflect that the majority of the children served are white males. The number of children served is broken down by the referring agency and the amount of expenditures each agency uses per year on those children. The sheet shows that the majority of the children served are those referred by the schools and the majority of the expenditures are spent on their education. The non-mandated funds have been spent on outreach detention and shelter care costs that could not be covered by the VJCCCA budget.
The costs are increasing due to the average age of the children increasing, children with more intensive needs, and the costs of placements increase annually. The projection for FY08 is similar to FY07. At this time we are serving the same amount of children and have encumbered $737,017.00. Of course this number can change, either decreasing or increasing. Unfortunately, we are in a position where we can not meet all of the needs of the children within our community which leaves us vulnerable to increases in expenditures.
Child Count
21
16
25
28
27
Age
13y 6 m
13y 9 m
14y 5 m
14y 6 m
15y 4 m
Gender
Male
16
76%
10
63%
17
68%
15
54%
19
70%
Female
5
24%
6
38%
8
32%
13
46%
8
30%
Race
White
17
81%
11
69%
18
72%
21
75%
17
63%
African American
4
19%
5
31%
7
28%
7
25%
10
37%
Referral Source
Dept of Social Services
5
24%
5
31%
7
28%
9
32%
5
19%
Education
16
76%
11
69%
14
56%
10
36%
13
48%
Juvenile Justice
0
0%
0
0%
4
12%
9
32%
8
30%
Region Ten
0
0%
0
0%
0
4%
0
0%
1
3%
Initial Allocation
$ 93,266.00
$ 140,099.00
$ 158,315.00
$ 213,101.00
$ 267,135.00
Supplemental Allocation
$ 311,898.00
$ 440,351.00
$ 383,889.00
$ 324,742.00
$ 528,011.00
Total Expenditures
$ 405,164.00
$ 517,056.00
28%
$ 510,939.00
-2%
$ 516,237.00
2%
$ 781,283.00
52%
Local Match Rate (31.32%)
$ 126,897.36
$ 161,941.94
$ 160,026.09
$ 161,685.43
$ 244,697.84
Allocation of Cost
Dept of Social Services
$ 133,554.00
33%
$ 170,651.00
33%
$ 120,790.00
24%
$ 178,686.00
34%
$ 159,354.70
20%
Education
$ 271,610.00
67%
$ 346,405.00
67%
$ 383,198.00
75%
$ 328,348.00
64%
$ 464,183.80
60%
Juvenile Justice
$ -
$ -
$ 6,951.00
1%
$ 9,203.00
2%
$ 120,807.50
15%
Region Ten
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 36,937.00
5%
$ 405,164.00
$ 517,056.00
$ 510,939.00
$ 516,237.00
$ 781,283.00
Ms. McGarry noted it is unsure what the affects will be of new regulations making those eligible for Foster Care Prevention eligible for CSA funds. She noted that there are still many criteria to be met to be eligible under these guidelines. She noted that the culture in Nelson County is to use non-mandated case funds for one-time expenditures, an example being covering VJCCCA budget shortfalls and this is expected to continue. She pointed out that most kids in the program are 12+ years old with a high percentage being white males and most referrals coming from the educational system, being IEP driven. She noted that although not many kids come from Foster Care placement, their costs can be higher due to the need to use residential facilities for lack of foster homes in the County. She noted there being not much control over the educational referrals which are mandated, and in some cases only residential facilities will meet the child’s needs. She also attributed the fifty-two (52) percent increase in expenditures to more intensive needs being served, children staying in the program longer, and more special needs in the school system. The hidden costs associated with program were noted to be in the areas of the two (2) committees required to administer the program (FAPT and CPMT) and case management paperwork.
In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. McGarry noted that there is no way to tell when services will be needed and cannot be met in the school system. She noted a case where one child’s needs cost approximately $170,000 per year. The Board discussed the need for the State to consider a cap on CSA program expenses with Ms. McGarry noting that Nelson County is very conservative and applies a strict interpretation of eligibility to control costs where possible. In conclusion, Ms. McGarry noted that program participation ends when the child turns eighteen (18) or twenty-one (21) if the child is autistic, with there being no real way to track the success of the CSA program beyond this point.
At approximately 3:50 pm. Mr. Harris exited the meeting.
E. Presentation –VDOT Report
Mr. Wright gave the following report:
1. Work continues on the Route 6 bridge repair projects. Our construction engineers are working with the contractor to complete the work as soon as possible.
2. Work is complete on the first section of Wilson Hill Rd. The remaining piece into Arrington is scheduled to be completed late next summer utilizing the same method.
3. A public hearing needs to be scheduled for the 2008-09 Secondary Six-Year Plan this winter, with a Board workshop to follow.
4. The Route 151 Working Group has been formed and had its first meeting. Many good ideas were brainstormed and shared. VDOT has begun looking at many of those ideas in more depth, and we hope to soon continue our productive discussions with the group as we gather more traffic data. Mr. Carter and I have kept in contact and are willing to work together to assist the Board in any way we can.
Mr. Write noted that VDOT had issued a press release on October 24, 2007 regarding the Route 151 work group’s initial meeting. He stated that the next meeting will be late November or early December. Mr. Harvey noted increased speed enforcement by the State Police on Rt. 151 which seems to be making a difference.
Other road issues discussed were:
1. Collapsed pipe on Tanbark Road with gravel not staying in the pot-holes.
2. On Rt. 639, Laurel Rd, between the Rockfish River and Rt. 6 the shoulders have deteriorated badly. Mr. Wright noted shoulder improvements would be done in the fall.
3. Route 6 bridges taking too long. Mr. Wright noted that the contractor is under penalty now for not finishing on time.
4. Request for the speed limit on Cub Creek Rd. to be lowered to 35 mph.
5. Confirmation from K. Wright that the Rt. 151 Work Group is discussing lowering the speed limit on Rt. 151.
6. Confirmation from K. Wright that the Rt. 613/151 intersection was moved to first priority in the SSYP during a workshop last year.
7. Ditches need to be cleaned of leaves that are spilling out onto the roads. Mr. Wright noted that it can be done where possible.
8. Wolf Run at Wolf Run Subdivision is not yet ready to be accepted into the State system per Mr. Wright. He noted that the road is complete but doesn’t have the three (3) occupied dwellings necessary to meet the public service criteria. He noted that the road was built to specs approved by VDOT and once the three (3) occupied dwellings criteria is met, the Board can pass a resolution provided by VDOT requesting that the State maintain the road. He noted that the road would have to be brought back up to State standards if deterioration occurs between now and its eligibility for acceptance.
9. There is no shoulder going up the mountain on Rt. 250, right above Route 6, the ditch comes right up to the pavement which caused a tractor trailer truck to lay over.
10. Need a stop-ahead sign on Rt. 56 West approaching Route 29. Mr. Wright noted that the VDOT team is investigating this due to the fatality at this intersection.
IV. Unfinished Business
A. RVCC Lease Extension
Mr. Carter noted the response received from RVCC acknowledging the Building Inspection’s assessment of the facility, their preliminary plans for fund raising, and request for a long term lease or conveyance of the property with the latter being preferred. The Chair then invited anyone from RVCC to address the Board.
Mr. Hank Meinka and Pat Gooch RVCC Board members noted that they are asking for conveyance of the building and grounds to be able to raise the significant funds needed per the County’s assessment of the building’s needs. They noted reluctance to being granted funds when they do not own the building.
Mr. Carter distributed an aerial photograph of the building and grounds and recommended favorable consideration of RVCC’s request; however he recommended that the County retain most if not all of the property other than that around the Center to be utilized by the County’s recreation department. He also suggested the conveyance include a reverter clause, as recommended by the County Attorney, such that the building could come back to the County if the Center is unsuccessful. Mr. Carter also noted that a public hearing would be required prior to conveying the property per the County Attorney. He also noted that the land approximated 10 acres in total with a present value of $1.2 million dollars with the new assessment revised downward to around $800,000 with declining value of the building but increasing value of the land.
The Board enquired as to what has been done in the conveyance of the other Community Centers, with Mr. Carter noting that in the other conveyances, the County maintained the right of first refusal to purchase the property. The County Attorney noted that in that instance, the County would have to meet the sale price or it would go to another purchaser. It was noted that in the other agreements it was written in that the proceeds of the sale of the building would be used for similar community purposes.
Mr. Meinka noted that a significant part of the Center vision includes plans for recreation; utilizing the property and building in partnership with County recreation purposes hence conveyance of the property and building is preferable.
It was the consensus of the Board that their intent is to convey the building. Mr. Harvey and Ms. Brennan will meet with RVCC to work out the details of the conveyance and come back with a drawn plat and an agreement possibly by the December meeting such that the public hearing on the conveyance could be held in January. Items discussed as relevant points of consideration: retaining ownership of the trash collection site may require a boundary line adjustment; consideration of a partial conveyance of land – which would require surveying, and the conveyance price – other Centers have paid an amount equal to the County expenses put into the buildings.
In conclusion, Mr. Carter noted that staff would coordinate the meeting with RVCC.
At approximately 4:30 pm Mr. Harris re-joined the meeting.
B. Courthouse Project
Mr. Carter noted meeting with Mr. Hale, Judge Gamble, Clerk Smythers and the County Attorney. He noted Judge Gamble’s direction was for the Board to give favorable consideration to a phased approach to the project, beginning with the new Courts facility, followed by an Administrative Building and then renovation of the historic courthouse for the exclusive use of the Circuit Court, Circuit Court Clerk and Commonwealth Attorney. Another request was that one point of secured entry be developed for the new building and existing Courthouse. It was noted that Mr. Vaughan of Wiley and Wilson is working on options for the single point entry, however he is waiting for direction from the Board.
Mr. Hale elaborated on the meeting with Judge Gamble, noting that his concerns seem to be in concert with those of the Board and was persuasive in suggesting that the Board not put any money into major renovations of the existing Courthouse. He noted that the vacated spaces would be put to best use; however everyone would stay where they are with the consensus being to move forward and come up with a solution to the single point of entry issue. Mr. Hale noted a subsequent meeting with Mr. Vaughan on November 16, 2007 to see his ideas on this.
The Board discussed Lunenburg County’s use of one courtroom for all of the Courts there and for Board of Supervisors meetings; noting it is working for them. Also noted were some changes that need to be made in the Circuit Courtroom such as fixing the witness box, replacing the carpets and removing the HVAC equipment from the balcony area.
In conclusion, the Board’s consensus was to direct Wiley and Wilson to proceed to the schematic phase and develop a proposed final design for the new Courts building, as discussed.
The Board took a break from 4:40 pm to 4:50 pm.
C. Subdivision Ordinance
The County Attorney briefed the Board on the problems that have arisen from the current septic requirements of a 100% drainfield reserve for both the subdivided lot and the existing lot when subdivided- which is costly. He noted that some of these requirements could be changed and that he and Fred Boger, Planning Director have drafted some potential exception language for consideration.
One of the options noted would be to exempt the survey requirements on the existing residence parcel of land. The other option would be to set an acreage limit in a subdivision. Mr. Payne noted his suggestion would be to come up with a minimum or maximum lot size for requiring the information that is now in the subdivision ordinance. This could cause piece-meal subdivisions and Mr. Boger has suggested a single division exception, except that this could become a record keeping problem. Mr. Payne, County Attorney, stated that it is his opinion that the most easily applied rule would be to pick an acreage limit, 10 acres or less would require the drainfield reserve, for example. He noted the real question to be what is the minimum or maximum lot size for the cut-off; maintaining a single cut exception.
The Board discussed the buyer being responsible for finding out whether or not the land perks when making the purchase and whether or not the drainfield requirement should apply to subdivided parcels not intended to be developed.
Mr. Payne noted that it would be possible to remove these requirements altogether from the ordinance and revert back to utilizing the Health Department standards of a 50% drainfield reserve requirement. Mr. Boger noted this would not be to the County’s advantage, and noted that another option is to move it from the Subdivision Ordinance to the Zoning Ordinance and essentially adopt a buyer beware policy.
The Board further discussed various scenarios of subdivision, also discussing the definition of subdivision with it being noted that true subdivisions are the exception in Nelson County.
Also briefly discussed was the affect of the drainfield requirements as applied when boundary line adjustments are made and the subsequent impact on division rights.
Mr. Carter recommended that the Board consider referring the matter to the Planning Commission for their recommendations; providing them with the suggested language as presented by Mr. Payne and Mr. Boger as follows:
Mr. Payne’s suggested language amends Section 5-5C (12) D of the Subdivision Ordinance to include the following:
D. Individual Septic Systems
Add:
Exceptions: (1). A lot with an existing septic system on it, is exempt from the one hundred percent reserve area requirement, provided the system complies with current Health Department Regulations for an individual septic system; (2) No more than two (2) lots may be divided from the primary (parent) parcel of land with a size of twenty (20) acres or larger and they are exempt from the this Section. The residue of the primary (parent) parcel of land is exempt provided it is twenty (20) acres or larger in size. Any further division of the primary (parent) parcel of land or the lots created from it shall comply with this Section.
Mr. Boger’s suggested language amends Section 4-4 Water and Sewer of the Subdivision Ordinance to include the following:
D. Individual Septic Systems
Delete:
Subdivisions containing lots two (2) acres or greater in size may utilize individual septic systems. Where individual septic systems are used, the developer/subdivider must submit a soil report, prepared by a soil consultant, for approval by the Health Official. The soil report shall show the primary drainfield area together with a reserve area equal to one hundred percent of the primary area. The soil report shall be filed as an addendum with the final subdivision plat.
Add:
In subdivision having lots two (2) acres or greater or greater in size, individual septic systems may be utilized provided that the developer/subdivider states on the face of the plat that approval of the subdivision plat by the County of Nelson does not certify or guarantee the purchaser that the soils on this property will support a septic system for the purposes of the subdivision (whether residential, commercial or industrial) as no demonstration has been made by the developer/subdivider of the same.
Mr. Boger also proposed to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Article 12-1-3 (d) as follows:
Add:
(d) Where an individual septic system is used, the developer/subdivider or property owner must submit a soil report, prepared by a Virginia Certified Soil Consultant, for approval by the Health Official. The soil report must address the suitability for on site sewage disposal system for the lot. The soil report shall show the primary drain fields area together with a reserve area equal to one hundred percent of the primary area.
Mr. Hale made a motion to refer the proposed changes to the Subdivision Ordinance, as presented from the County Attorney and Planning Director, to the Planning Commission
with the idea that they tackle the question and come back to the Board with their recommendation.
More discussion followed regarding the issue of division rights and the application of the new Ordinance with regards to how it is intended to work, discussing various examples. It was noted that the intent of the Board in crafting the new Ordinance was to not create a net gain or loss in division rights when subdividing property. The issue of moving division rights from one tract to another within a parcel using boundary line adjustments was also discussed as an issue needing further clarification and discussion.
Mr. Carter re-iterated to the Board what Mr. Payne stated previously - it is unfair for citizens to expect Board members to provide interpretations of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and debate the answer; interpretations are made by the Planning Director with an appeal process in place, and if necessary the Ordinance can be amended.
Mr. Hale noted that it is very hard to go through these division right examples without seeing it on paper. He stated that there are problems with the drainfield requirements, but that staff has made every effort to be consistent in fulfilling the intent of the Ordinance which is to not create more (or less) division rights than existed when then Ordinance was adopted.
Mr. Carter noted that a motion was still on the floor and Mr. Hale restated his previous motion. Ms. Brennan seconded the motion and clarification was made that the referrals to the Planning Commission deal with the septic system requirements. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously by roll call vote (5-0) to approve the motion.
V. New Business
The Chairman deferred item A. and the Board considered item B.first under New Business
A. Proposed Ordinance on Establishment of Deadlines for Equalization of Real Estate by Board of Equalization – Authorization for Public Hearing (R2007-105) – Deferred
B. EMS Interest Free Loan Fund Application (Wintergreen Fire Department)
Mr. Bruguiere noted that the EMS Council had voted to approve the loan application for $450,000 made by the Wintergreen Fire Department for the purchase of a ladder truck. He noted that the established maximum loan amount has been $250,000 and the current balance in the loan fund was approximately $46,000. He noted that Wintergreen plans to pay back their current outstanding loan which would bring the fund balance to around $208,000.
Mr. Carter noted that after Wintergreen paid back the loan an additional $241,654 would have to be authorized in order to provide the $450,000 loan request. He noted that the Treasurer’s loan repayment schedule shows annual loan repayments of around $102,000. He noted that the $241,654 would have to be allocated from local funds to meet the request. It was clarified by Curtis Sheets of Wintergreen Fire Department that Wintergreen does intend to pay back the current loan per the policy, prior to taking out the requested loan.
The Board discussed raising the loan fund up to $1 Million dollars. Mr. Harvey noted that Rockfish Valley Fire Department intends to make a $50,000 payment in the near future and noted anticipating a loan request to be made by the Piney River Fire Department, who has never had a loan. Mr. Harvey noted that the ladder truck is an exorbitantly priced piece of equipment at $861,000; however it would be protecting the most valuable tax base in the County and would be available to any area of the County.
Mr. Sheets noted to the Board that Wintergreen Fire Department intends to load the repayment schedule heavy on the front end, paying $100,000 for the first two years. He also stated that the Council can call in the overage any time with one (1) weeks notice to allow establishment of bank financing, if Piney River makes a request, and Wintergreen will donate two (2) pieces of surplus equipment to other agencies within the County – a brush truck to Montebello and an engine to the Lovingston Fire Department for the Wingina station.
The source of the $250,000 needed to raise the fund to $1 Million dollars was discussed. Possible sources discussed were the Courthouse set-aside monies or the General Fund Balance. Including a provision to replace the monies borrowed from the Courthouse set-aside or General Fund balance with reassessment money or carry-over funds was discussed. Mr. Carter noted that the balance of all General Funds as most recently reported by the Treasurer is around $7 Million dollars.
Mr. Carter noted that the $725,000 in the Courthouse set-aside would be used to pay A&E fees until the long-term financing is established and anticipates using the funds within the next year. He noted to the Board the ability to fund the $250,000; however he cautioned that the means to continue to provide this level of funding every time it comes up is diminishing.
Additionally he cautioned the Board about committing to using any re-assessment money until it is decided what it is going to be.
Mr. Sheets noted to the Board that the funds would be needed in late March or Early April.
Mr. Carter noted that FY08 will be fiscally challenging due to the re-assessment and the increase in the Composite Index.
The Board discussed that the loan limit has been $250,000 per the policy and some concern was expressed over raising this limit to $450,000. It was noted that the limit was not being proposed to be changed, but rather a one-time variance in the maximum amount loaned would be granted. Another point of discussion was the practice of purchasing used equipment by squads to save money. Mr. Sheets stated that the ladder truck they are purchasing is used with a new chassis but a refurbished ladder.
The fairness of granting the exception to the loan limit was discussed with Mr. Bruguiere noting that the EMS Council voted unanimously to approve the loan and acknowledged that doing so requires deficit spending. Mr. Carter noted that there may be some margin in the cash balance at the end of the year, however the more this is eroded the less ability the County will have in the future.
Mr. Harvey moved to approve the loan application and let the County Administrator figure out the money side. Ms. Brennan seconded the motion.
During discussion it was clarified that a re-write of the loan policy was not necessary because the approval is a one-time variance. Additionally, the loan fund would be increased to $1 Million dollars from $750,000 with the loan authorized for a repayment term of 8 years and $100,000 being repaid for the first two (2) years. The Board discussed the need for two separate motions, one to increase the loan fund to $1 Million dollars and another to approve the loan application. The consensus being that two (2) motions were preferred, the previous motion on the floor was withdrawn.
Mr. Harvey then made a motion to increase the EMS Interest Free Loan Fund from $750,000 to $1 Million dollars and Ms. Brennan seconded the motion. There was more discussion regarding the timing of providing this amount of funding with the other financial obligations upcoming in the near future and also the benefit of providing financial assistance to the squads to relieve the burden of fundraising for large ticket items.
Following discussion, the Chair called for the vote and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion raising the loan fund to $1 Million dollars.
Mr. Harvey made a motion to approve the recommendation by the EMS Council to approve the loan application for Wintergreen Fire Department in the amount of $450,000 under the terms that were agreed upon with the Council. Clarification was made that the term of the loan is eight (8) years and it will be repaid at $100,000 per year for the first two (2) years with the County Administrator to determine how best to follow through. Following discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the interest free loan to the Wintergreen Fire Department.
VI. Recess and Reconvene for Evening Session
At 6:12 P.M., on a motion by Mr. Harvey, and seconded by Ms. Brennan, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to recess and reconvene for the evening session at 7:30 PM.
The remaining afternoon agenda items were considered during the evening session.
EVENING SESSION
7:30 p.m. – Nelson County Courthouse
I. Call to Order
Mr. Bruguiere, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with five members present to establish a quorum.
II. Adjourn and Reconvene Meeting in the Auditorium at Nelson County Middle School, 6925 Thomas Nelson Highway
Mr. Hale made a motion to adjourn the Nelson County Board of Supervisors meeting to the Nelson Middle School and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion. Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion. Supervisors reconvened at the Nelson County Middle School Auditorium at 7:40 pm.
III. Presentations
A. The Millennium Group
Reverend Rodney Sandidge, member of the Executive Board of the Millennium Group enquired as to the status of the roof replacement at the Heritage Center. Mr. Bruguiere noted that the bids for the roof project were received with Ms. McGarry, Deputy Clerk, confirming that three (3) bids had been received and opened and that all of the bids had been good with the apparent low bidder most likely being awarded the contract. She stated that the award would be issued either the next day or the first of the next week with the start of the work being dependent upon how fast the contracts can be signed etc. but certainly within a week to 2 weeks the work would be started.
Reverend Sandidge enquired about the warranty (if any) for the roof over the auditorium, hallway and gym area as it has been leaking and needs to be looked at. Mr. Carter noted that that work was warranted for one year and has probably lapsed but could be looked at again. He also noted that the work done on that section was repair work not a replacement.
Mr. Carter reiterated that after confirming the bids, the notice of award and contract will go out to the low bidder on the classroom section and staff should get things finalized in the last week of November. He stated that once mobilized the work should take less than 120 days to complete. He stated that the low bid company is very reputable and should do a wonderful job.
Ms. Edith Napier Wardlaw, Member of the Board of Directors of the Millennium Group addressed the Board. She noted the various entities that the group is working in partnership with to improve Nelson County and services offered to the Community. She noted they are currently leasing out space to five (5) tenants. She noted the importance of the Community Center in offering opportunities for citizens and expressed concern regarding the manner in which the recent gym closure was handled. She noted that the signs posted from Friday to Monday on the gym/cafetorium area of the building were not correct and said Condemned as Dangerous and Unsafe. She stated that based on the posting of these signs, functions have been cancelled and lease opportunities have been lost even though it has been noted that the information on the signs was incorrect and not intended to be there. She noted the Group’s desire to work with the Board and requested that they be contacted if problems arise.
She noted the roof replacement on the classroom section to be a positive, however noted concern that the County staff and Supervisors had been previously notified about the leaks in the repaired section of the roof.
In conclusion, Ms. Wardlaw reiterated the importance of the Heritage Center, the Group’s interest in keeping it operational with the Board’s support, and their interest in a longer term lease. She urged the Board to give clear directions and ensure that they are executed.
Mr. Bruguiere asked Mr. Carter to speak to the events that unfolded leading up to the posting of the signs at the Center. He noted that they didn’t have the correct sign, but at the time it was the only thing the Building Inspections Department had until further review of the building could be done and didn’t want anyone in there due to safety concerns. He noted safety concerns were of the utmost importance no matter who was using the building
Mr. Carter noted that in carrying out the Community Center Assessments as the Board had instructed, and putting together the roof specifications for the classroom section, it was noted that there was some structural deterioration in that part of the building that caused concern about putting a new roof on, and a structural assessment was recommended. He noted that quotes were obtained from several engineering firms and ultimately Wiley & Wilson was retained to do a visual inspection of the facility. The input received from the structural staff was that it would be advantageous to put on the new roof; however they noted utmost concern regarding the structural integrity of the gymnasium. This was related to staff late in the day on Friday and afterwards the Building Official was instructed to cordon off the gymnasium until additional information could be obtained. He noted being unaware until Monday that the signs the Building Official had used were condemnation signs and apologized for that misunderstanding. He noted that there were still significant safety concerns with further evaluation being necessary. He noted his recommendation would be to maintain limited access to the gym until this could be done as it is unsafe.
The Board discussed it being prudent to request further evaluation of the building and see what needs to be done to fix it.
Ms. Wardlaw questioned the posting of the signs around the cafetorium area and the gym if the engineers were only concerned with the gym. The chair and Mr. Carter acknowledged again that the condemned signs were inappropriately used, with Mr. Carter noting that it was unsure whether or not if the hall and cafetorium would be affected if the gym area collapsed, so his instructions were to post that whole area until more was known. He noted that the restrictions on the hall and cafetorium side have been lifted. He also noted that when the decision was made to instruct the Building Official to cordon off the area, he called Ms. Rose and Mr. Thompson that the action was being taken and explained that it was being done as a precautionary measure and as soon as more information was available he would get back to them.
Ms. Wardlaw noted that the gym area is already locked off and stated that they would not have allowed anyone to use the gym and that the signs unnecessarily caused several functions to be cancelled.
Mr. Bruguiere noted that the gym has problems and whether there was possible miscommunication or not, the primary concern was safety and making the public aware of the safety concern no matter if the Millennium Group went in there or not. He noted that unfortunately the condemned sign was put up and apologized for that – stating that everyone must be protected and an engineer will be sent back to find out what needs to be done to make the building safe. He acknowledged that mistakes were made and that it is time to move on. He noted that staff has been out to check the leaks on the repaired section of roof but it is hard to determine on that type roof where the leaks are coming from because they run along the roof trusses. He noted that he and Mr. Harvey had been out there to find the leaks. He noted that putting the new roof on over the classroom section to be a step in the right direction.
Mr. Harris questioned how an inspection of the gym area occurred when the evaluation was initiated because of the old classroom section underneath the new roof area. Mr. Carter noted that he could’ve asked for an assessment of the whole building, however with the fee being minor he didn’t consider it inappropriate for the engineers to do as thorough an assessment as time would allow. He noted that from his perspective more is known about the building than before.
Mr. Carter stated that these structural problems have existed for some time and these results are not a surprise. He also said that the school division had done similar studies noting the same problems that have never been addressed and the property was transferred to the County as is – in not very good condition.
Mr. Bruguiere suggested that Mr. Carter contact Wiley & Wilson to come back with a structural engineer to give a proper assessment of what needs to be done and at what cost. Mr. Carter noted that he could do that immediately.
Ms. Wardlaw noted to the Board that the Heritage Center does not wish to be under stronger scrutiny than anyone else or held to higher standards than anyone else.
In conclusion, Mr. Bruguiere noted that the Heritage Center was not singled out and that all of the Community Centers had assessments done.
B. Senior Advisory Committee
Ms. Frances Mitchell, Chair of the Senior Advisory Committee gave the following report:
The Senior Advisory Committee Mission is to promote the well-being of Nelson County’s seniors and those who care for them by identifying needs and issues as well as resources and solutions.
The purpose of the annual report is to review issues confronting seniors that affect their status within the community and to share those determinations with the Board of Supervisors and the public at large. The report will identify some of the issues facing seniors, actions taken to support seniors as well as propose solutions for the near and distant future.
A Brief Profile of Nelson County Seniors:
The 2000 US Census indicated that Nelson had 3,246 seniors 60 years of ages or over. Of these 826 seniors were between the ages of 60 and 64; 1,410 between the ages of 65 and 74; 777 between the ages of 75 and 84; and 233 seniors were 85 or older.
During the 2000 census there were 2,352 non-institutionalized seniors 65 years and over, of these seniors, 1,037 had a disability. That is, nearly half of these seniors had a disability.
In 2005 Nelson seniors 65 years old and older represented 17.3% of the residents in Nelson.
Between April 2000 and July 2006 the number of residents in Nelson grew to 15,161 residents, a population increase of 5%.
It is reasonable to infer that a 5% increase in the numbers of seniors aged 65 and older between April 2000 and July 2006 would be 118 additional seniors.
It is also reasonable to infer that nearly 50% of these seniors most likely have a disability. We define a disability as an inability to independently perform one or more of the activities of daily living such as bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, eating/feeding or maintaining bladder control.
Where We Are Now:
The following discussion considers the solutions the community has established on behalf of the seniors to meet needs specifically identified by seniors.
Seniors want to maintain personal independence and socialize in community activities. What steps have been taken to facilitate this need?
Community-Based Gathering Places
There are four centers addressing specific issues for Nelson Seniors. There are Senior Centers in Lovingston, Gladstone, Schuyler and Rockfish. The Nelson Senior Center in Lovingston was established as a Central Senior Center for the County. The Gladstone, Schuyler and Rockfish centers continue to provide local and neighborly activities for area seniors. Additional detail about the centers and the services provided for the seniors is contained below.
Senior Meals
• In FY07: 12,263 meals were served to Nelson seniors:
• 2,840 meals were served at the Nelson Center,
• 775 at the Gladstone Center (including 35 home-delivered meals),
• 845 at the Schuyler Center (which includes 143 home-delivered meals),
• 1,421 at the Rockfish Center (which includes 71 home-delivered meals),
• Another 9,222 meals were delivered to homes by volunteers under the direction of JABA.
• JABA is required to meet the Virginia Department of Aging nutrition requirements for meals at the Nelson Center as well as their home-delivered meals.
Senior Health Care
Seniors want to maintain their personal health and have access to healthcare resources. What steps have been taken to facilitate this need?
• In 2006, 1,830 seniors received health care at Blue Ridge Medical Center (BRMC). Seniors comprised 22% of the patient load in 2006.
• Nelson County has three primary care sites, all of which offer a sliding fee scale. The County is listed as an official “medically underserved area” primarily because of the distances residents must travel to get to specialty care and hospital based care.
• BRMC’s Rural Health Outreach Program provided affordable dental care to about 25 seniors through a voucher program.
• Nelson Center provided 121 health promotion activities which include assessments, screenings, health education, physical activity and other therapeutic social recreational activities.
• The Medication Assistance Program has served 41 seniors so far in 2007.
• The Health Department and Social Services provided 35 health screenings to seniors to evaluate their need for nursing home care and or personal care. The Health Department and Social Services has seen a 60% increase in screenings in the most recent quarter compared to a year ago.
Senior Home Care
Senior citizens want to maintain personal autonomy, dignity, independence, mobility and their quality of life. Seniors want access to community-based services and assistance acquiring those services that support activities of daily living.
• In FY07: JABA provided 200 field visits to seniors to ensure that they had access to programs to assist with home safety, nutrition and health care.
• Social services also provided home visits for Companion Services (assisting with house-cleaning, medication supervision, laundry or fixing meals).
Senior Housing
Seniors want to age-in-place and remain in the residences of their choice with autonomy, dignity and the best quality of life possible for as long as possible. What steps have been taken to address these issues for Nelson Seniors?
• At Ryan School Apartments, 14 of the 31 units are leased to seniors.
• Lovingston Ridge Apartments currently have seniors in 32 affordable units
• Construction has begun on Rosewood Village at Wintergreen; in September the first family moved in. Rates at Rosewood Village may not meet the standards of low income seniors.
Senior Transportation
Seniors want to be mobile and have access to community-based resources by use of private and public transportation. What steps have been taken to address the concerns of Nelson Seniors?
• In FY07 JAUNT provided 5,988 trips to seniors.
• JAUNT services include three commuter routes, two to Charlottesville, Monday – Friday; one to Wintergreen seven days/week from Sunday – Saturday. A Mid-day route to Charlottesville on Monday-Wednesday-Friday, and an intra - county service Monday-Tuesday-Thursday which primarily goes to the senior centers.
• The Nelson Volunteer Coalition helped over 280 clients in FY07, 90% of them were seniors. The Nelson Volunteer Coalition traveled over 50,000 miles this year.
Senior Safety & Security
Seniors want to be safe and secure in their homes and in the community. What steps have been taken to address these concerns?
• In FY07 seniors reported being victimized by scams such as buying unneeded merchandise. National statistics suggest this means that there were at least three times more scams not reported by seniors.
• Over 157 Personnel Emergency Devices have been installed, with 17seniors on the waiting list. These are provided by TRIAD as a public service.
• Project Lifesaver, which can track wandering participants, received funding from the Board of Supervisors. The balance is being raised by TRIAD, which will coordinate the installation.
• The Senior Advisory Committee is distributing awareness cards for seniors to discourage them from giving out personal information over the telephone.
What’s coming to Nelson County?
The Age Wave – It is well accepted that by 2025 the number of seniors in Nelson will double. The following discussion references only a few of the many challenges that will confront Nelson County residents and the growing senior population. What is needed to meet the coming challenges?
What’s Needed This Year?
Health Care Issues:
• Affordable dental care that is integrated with primary care. (BRMC has a goal of adding a six-operatory facility on site within 4 years.) There are many more seniors who are suffering from serious oral health problems.
• Improved and more affordable home-based services so that low-income seniors can remain in their own residences longer.
• Mental health services that cater to seniors.
• Funding to sustain the Mobile Dental trailer program.
Home Care Issues:
• At-risk seniors need monthly visits to help with paying bills.
• Currently there are seniors who are on the waiting list for home health care and for companion services.
Senior Meals and Nutrition Issues:
• Expanded meals programs at the Nelson Center, Rockfish, Gladstone and Schuyler to allow more seniors to participate as well as to attend more often.
• JABA notes that 2,563 additional home-delivered meals are needed. Seniors are now getting meals five days a week and need the full seven. Funds are needed to meet meal cost increases.
Housing Issues:
• Three seniors are on the waiting list for Ryan School Apartments.
• Additional units of affordable housing are needed for seniors.
Transportation Issues:
• More flexible services to reduce long waiting times for pick up after doctor visits, as well as to reduce long ride times.
• Two more buses on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays to allow all seniors to attend the centers.
• Five day/week service to doctor appointments, etc. in Charlottesville.
• Five day/week service to destinations within the County.
How Do We Get There?
• Increase the dialogue and exchange of information between the Nelson seniors, other Nelson residents, the Nelson Senior Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee’s Nelson partners and Nelson’s elected public officials.
• Form additional partnerships and coalitions to encourage the entire community to understand the problems confronting seniors and work jointly towards smart growth solutions designed to address the needs of the increasing population of seniors.
• Additional funding is needed from the County Board of Supervisors, State and Federal governments. The County can leverage State and federal funds to improve the lives of Nelson’s senior citizens.
• The Nelson Senior Advisory Committee can identify needs, problems and issues confronting the Seniors in Nelson; prepare and share reports on the status of the Seniors with the County Board of Supervisors; provide the Board of Supervisors with information related to the steps that have been taken to address the needs of Nelson Seniors; and propose solutions for those issues needing the support and intervention of the members of Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Mitchell asked that the Board designate members to meet with the SAC on the fourth Monday every other month, with the next meeting to be held on January 8th at the Nelson Center. It was noted that Ms. Brennan and Mr. Harris were on that Committee.
1. Resolution – Recognition of Senior Advisory Committee (R2007-106)
Mr. Hale made a motion to adopt R2007-106 Nelson County Board of Supervisors Recognition of Senior Advisory Committee as read aloud and Mr. Harris seconded the motion. There being no discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION R2007-106
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RECOGNITION OF SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, The Senior Advisory Committee was established by the Board of Supervisors on June 14, 2005 and consists of representatives from County Community/Senior Centers, JABA and JAUNT; and
WHEREAS, said Committee is tasked with advising the Board of Supervisors on issues affecting the lives of senior citizens of Nelson County; and
WHEREAS, said Committee has adopted Vision and Mission statements and Goals as follows:
Vision: Nelson seniors age with grace and dignity in a place where their physical, social and economic needs are met.
Mission: The Senior Advisory Committee promotes the well-being of Nelson County’s seniors and those who care for them by identifying needs and issues as well as resources and solutions.
Goals:
1. Act as a conduit of information and make recommendations on senior issues to the Board of Supervisors.
2. Promote public education on key issues that impact seniors and their families.
3. Advocate for program, policy and funding changes as they relate to seniors.
4. Facilitate communications among senior centers, county agencies and private non-profit agencies involved with providing services to Nelson seniors and their families.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby acknowledge and endorse the Vision and Mission statements, and Goals adopted by the Senior Advisory Committee on March 27, 2006 as provided herein.
C. Blue Ridge Medical Center (Ms. Peggy Whitehead)
Ms. Peggy Whitehead, Director of the Blue Ridge Medical Center gave the following report:
As I am sure the Supervisors are aware, Blue Ridge Medical Center has transitioned from paper charts to electronic health records. We did this for several reasons: 1) to improve quality of care, 2) reduce the risk for errors, and 3) insure that patient records are available to personnel when and where they need them. This transition has required changes in every patient process. To minimize the temporary negative impact on appointment scheduling, we chose to make this change during the summer when demands on patient care are somewhat reduced. We are most definitely beginning to reap the intended benefits, although we are still working hard to continue to customize and refine the system specifically for our patients. During the months of July and August as our health care providers were learning the new system, we did not have as many appointments available. As a result, we did have to make some temporary service related decisions in order to successfully implement this change while maintaining quality of care standards. We had to prioritize services for our current patients over non-emergency services for new patients. We also prioritized sick, urgent, and emergency care over follow-up appointments. Our follow up schedule is just about caught up now, and we are almost up to pace in terms of the number of patients seen per hour. We are accepting new patients, and everyone can expect quality services and can see our commitment to mission in action.
We are exploring expansion of the center in two ways. The Board of Directors has approved submission of a federal grant proposal (due December 18th) to establish a new site in Amherst, where 30% of our patients reside. We are also doing preliminary groundwork for a spatial expansion for our Colleen site. As has been the case for some time, we are looking for the means to add dental care to our scope of service. Ms. Whitehead also stated that the Center has gained over 2,000 patients in the last five (5) years which is prompting the need for expansion. She also noted that the administrative staff has been moved out of the building providing for three (3) more exam rooms.
Programs Supported by the County
The county has received our latest report on the status of the program funding from the county for school health, dental, and volunteer services.
School Nursing: You may be aware that Sara Tomlin, RN is our new Director of School Health. She has been quite active in this role and comes to us with a long history of school nursing experience. Lee Gordon continues to provide school nursing services one day a week and is also working at the center. Nurses had over 3100 student encounters in the month and a half of school as well as over 2500 encounters with parents.
Dental Services: In addition to continuing the dental voucher program, we are working collaboratively with the Free Clinic of Central Virginia, a volunteer dentist, and members of the Nelson County Dental Task Force to establish care at a dental trailer we have placed on the grounds of the Rockfish Valley Community Center. We are raising the $22,000 that we estimate is needed to open the trailer for services. Ms. Whitehead noted that the Rotary Club had donated $2,500 for this program.
Volunteer Coalition: The Coalition logs over 5,000 miles and 200 hours monthly of services by volunteers and the volunteer coordinator. Transportation continues to be the most needed service. We are working hard to line up and train more volunteers in the southern and eastern parts of the county.
Other Rural Health Outreach Activities: RHOP continues to provide Health Depots, Latino Outreach Services, home visits, a Corporate Wellness Program, and many other services thanks to grant funding and donations. More community based support is needed for RHOP because of the end of several three-year major grants. Although we are pleased that we are continuing every program we have started, with reduced funding we have been able to serve fewer people. Notable examples are health depot services at the Gladstone and Rockfish senior centers. We are continuing to look for funding to support those depots. It costs RHOP about $300 to do each health depot at those remote locations. We are continuing to provide Health Depot services at the senior center in Lovingston and at the Nelson Pantry.
Additionally, Ms. Whitehead noted that the Medication Assistance Program has been reduced, serving forty-one (41) seniors, mostly due to the introduction of Medicare Part D.
Mr. Harris noted, from serving on the Board of Directors, that recent survey results showed the Center serving 8,100 patients with 47,000 visits last year, and 200 prescriptions are written per day. He noted that Center expenditures totaled $2,704,083 with a budget of $3,487,482 contributing greatly to the local economy.
IV. Public Hearings
A. Amendment to NC Code – Elderly & Disabled Tax Relief (O2007-010)
Mr. Carter introduced the amendments noting that the Commissioner of Revenue, Jean Payne was also present. He stated the amendments pertain to Article II Section 11-43 of the County Code and propose to increase the allowance for the elderly and disabled tax relief in association with the County’s Real Estate tax; increasing the combined household income maximum from $20,000 to $50,000 and increasing the maximum income level for each non-spouse living in the household from $3,000 to $6,000. Also included is a proposed increase in the combined annual net worth maximum from $50,000 to $100,000 and a section that provides the matrix used by the Commissioner of Revenue’s office in determining the percentage of relief an applicant is eligible for, with the minimum exemption being 10% and the maximum 80%.
Mr. Carter also noted that staff had not received any input from the public to date on the proposed amendments. Commissioner Payne recommended passage of the amendments.
There being no further input from Commissioner Payne, the Chair opened the public hearing and the following persons were recognized.
1. Gordon Koerner, Shipman
Mr. Koerner recommended passage of the proposed amendments.
2. Edith Napier Wardlaw, Arrington
Ms. Wardlaw endorsed passage of the proposed amendments.
There being no others wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.
The Board noted for the benefit of the public, that the home of the applicant for this relief is not counted in the applicant’s total assets. Mr. Carter clarified that the Ordinance has been in place and is to be amended to increase the thresholds. Ms. Payne noted that the thresholds were reviewed approximately three (3) years ago and that the affect of passage of the amendments on County revenues is unknown. It was also noted that the elderly and disabled must apply with the Commissioner of Revenue for the tax relief by the deadline.
Ms. Brennan made a motion to approve O2007-010 Amendment and Re-enactment of Division 2 (Exemptions for Elderly and Disabled) Article II (Real Property Tax) of Chapter 11 (Taxation) of the Code of the County of Nelson, Virginia and Mr. Harvey seconded the motion.
There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following Ordinance Amendments were adopted:
ORDINANCE – 02007-010
AMENDMENT AND RE-ENACTMENT OF DIVISION 2 (EXEMPTIONS FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED) ARTICLE II ((REAL PROPERTY TAX) OF CHAPTER 11 (TAXATION) OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF NELSON, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 (Exemption for Elderly and Handicapped) §58.1-3210 through §58.1-3215 of Chapter 32 (Real Property Tax) of Title 58.1 (Taxation) the Code of Virginia, 1950, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby amend and re-enact Division 2 (Exemptions for Elderly and Disabled) Article II (Real Property Tax) of Chapter 11 (Taxation) of the Code of the County of Nelson, Virginia, by enactment of the following:
Sec. 11-43. Restrictions and Conditions subparagraph (3) is amended to state:
The total combined income received from all sources during the preceding calendar year by
(a) Owners of the dwelling used as their principal residence and
(b) Owners’ relatives who live in the dwelling
shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) provided, however, that the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) of income of each relative who is not a spouse of the owner living in the dwelling and who does not qualify for the exemption provided in subparagraph (4) hereof shall not be included in the total combined income calculation, and further provided that the amount of six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) income for an owner who is permanently disabled shall not be included in such total.
Sec. 11-43. Restrictions and Conditions subparagraph (5) is amended to state:
(5) The net combined financial worth, including the present value of all equitable interest, as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year, of the owners, and the spouse of any owner, excluding the value of the dwelling and not more than one acre of land upon which it is situated, and the furniture, household appliances and other items typically used in a home, shall not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00).
Sec. 11-48. Determination of Exemption is enacted as follows:
The percentage of exemption available to an Owner or Owners qualified pursuant to Section 11-43 shall be determined from the following table. The minimum exemption is 10% and the maximum, 80%.
$ Net Worth
$ Income
0-20,000
20,0001-40,000
40,001- 80,000
60,001- 80,000
80,001-100,000
0-12,500
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
12,501-25,000
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
25,001-37,500
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
37,501-50,000
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the amendments, as herein set out, shall be effective on January 1, 2008.
Ms. Brennan thanked Commissioner Payne and noted that the General Assembly will consider a bill this year that will give Counties the option to not tax the first $20,000 of value of Real Estate property.
The Chairman deferred item V. Other Business, until after consideration of item VI, Public Comments.
V. Other Business
A. Closed Session as Permitted by Code of Virginia §2.2-3711 (A) (7) – Consultation with Legal Counsel, Regarding Actual Litigation Pertaining to the Nelson Circuit Court Decision, Lois Bennett v. Nelson County Board of Supervisors, CL06000039.
Mr. Harris made the following motion “I move that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors convene in a closed session to discuss, as permitted by Virginia State Code §2.2-3711(A) (7) – Consultation with Legal Counsel regarding actual litigation requiring the advice of Counsel pertaining to the Nelson Circuit Court Case Decision, Lois Bennett v. Nelson County Board of Supervisors, CL06000039, whereby such consultation in open meeting would adversely affect the litigating posture of the County.”
Mr. Hale seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and go into closed session.
Following the conduct of the closed session, Mr. Hale made a motion that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors come out of closed session and reconvene in public session.
Mr. Harris seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and reconvene in public session.
Mr. Hale made the following motion: “I move that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors certify that, in the closed session just concluded, nothing was either discussed or considered except public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, Virginia State Code §2.2-3711(A) (7), and which were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened.”
Ms. Brennan seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and certify the closed session.
VI. Public Comments
1. Gordon Koerner, Shipman
Mr. Koerner urged the Board to consider using another engineering firm other than Wiley & Wilson for a second opinion on the Heritage Center structural evaluation. He also noted a conflict in that the Massies Mill Community Center also received an unfit for occupancy evaluation during the Building Official’s assessments and was not roped off as was the Heritage Center. He also suggested that the Board pass a resolution asking the General Assembly to pay its fair share.
VII. New Business
A. Proposed Ordinance on Establishment of Deadlines for Equalization of Real Estate by Board of Equalization – Authorization for Public Hearing (R2007-105)
Mr. Carter noted that the proposed Ordinance establishes a deadline for the submittal of applications for consideration by the Board of Equalization of April 15, 2008 and a date by which the Board of Equalization must complete its work, June 1, 2008. He noted a similar Ordinance was adopted in 2003 for the last re-assessment and that R2007-105 authorized a public hearing on the matter. Mr. Carter also noted that the Judge will order the two month extension for completion of the re-assessment and will set the deadline for notices to go out.
Ms. Brennan made a motion to approve R2007-105 and Mr. Hale seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following Ordinance was adopted:
ORDINANCE – O2007-011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF NELSON, VIRGINIA
ESTABLISHING A DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTAL OF LANDOWNER OR LESSEES APPLICATIONS FOR EQUALIZATION OF REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENTS TO THE NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND FOR THE BOARD OF EQALIZATION TO COMPLETE IT’S DELIBERATIONS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, The County of Nelson, Virginia is currently undergoing a general reassessment of real property within the County to be effective January 1, 2008; and,
WHEREAS, §58.1-3370 of the Code of Virginia requires the establishment of a Board of Equalization to receive applications from landowners seeking equalization of their real estate assessments; and,
WHEREAS, §58.1-3378 of the Code of Virginia provides that the Board of Supervisors may establish a deadline by which applications for equalization of real estate assessments must be filed with the Board of Equalization; and,
WHEREAS, §58.1-3378 of the Code of Virginia also provides that the Board of Supervisors may establish a deadline for the Board of Equalization to finally dispose of all applications for equalization of real estate assessments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that April 15, 2008 be and is hereby established as the deadline date by which applications for equalization of real estate assessments shall be filed with the Nelson County Board of Equalization; and,
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by said Board of Supervisors that June 1, 2008 be and is hereby established as the deadline date by which the Board of Equalization shall finally dispose of all timely applications for equalization of real estate assessments.
Mr. Carter noted that the Board needed to recommend a 3-5 member Board of Equalization for appointment by the Circuit Court and noted that the State Code requires a 30% expertise requirement, noting that staff would send these requirements out to the Board for consideration.
VIII. Reports, Appointments, Correspondence, and Directives
A. Reports
1. Staff Reports
No staff report was given.
2. County Administrator’s Report
The County Administrator gave the following report:
1. 2008 General Re-Assessment: The Nelson County Circuit Court has authorized (by order dated December 4, 07) the two month extension for completion of the 2008 re-assessment. Appointment of the Board of Equalization is pending completion and is an important consideration at this time as the BOS must be trained by the state Department of Taxation with the training projected to be completed in early January 2008.
2. Courthouse/Government Center Project – A correspondence has been submitted to Wiley and Wilson delineating the County’s direction for completion of the project’s schematic phases and requesting proposals from the AE for the project’s final design and construction phases. A final report on the schematic phase is anticipated for receipt within the ensuing 30 – 45 days, approximate.
3. Piney River 3 Project: Construction of the project is in process. The first project construction meeting was conducted on November 29 with E. C. Pace Construction (Phase I). The project’s Phase 3 contractor, Commonwealth Excavating is beginning construction start up and the Phase 2 contractor (Atkins Construction) is working on shop drawings and related installations. First pay requests are being processed and paid with funds drawn from USDA-RD and federal STAG monies through state DEQ and VDH.
4. Wintergreen (Economic Stimulus Grant) – The current draft of the ESG with WPI is scheduled for consideration on 12-11. It is understood from a discussion with WPI staff on 12-10 that they may propose additional language to Section 4.A (the project description) to establish additional flexibility with the project’s final scope. Subject to the Board’s review, it is projected that the local EDA will consider the ESG at their meeting on 12-20.
5. Solid Waste Project: A. Collection Centers Project: Both projects (Shipman and Massies Mill) are in process with paving at both sites anticipated to be completed this week. Interviews for site attendant personnel are being conducted this week and prospects for successful recruitment are promising. Coordination of equipment placement with Waste Management is a related responsibility. At present a 1-30-08 start up of both sites is projected with an earlier commencement to be implemented if possible. A third collection site location is becoming of utmost importance. Staff is beginning development of procurement documents and position descriptions for the ensuing equipment purchases for each collection site and assumption of all collection system operations from Waste Management, other than transportation services from the Transfer Station to the regional landfill.
B. Region 2000 Services Authority: The Authority is proceeding with responsibilities necessary to provide for commencement of its operations on July 1, 2008.
C. Environmental Management: DEQ staff will visit the County’s closed landfill facility on 12-17 in conjunction with the County’s application to close out its gas monitoring program. County and Draper Aden Associates staff are continuing efforts to secure approvals from Norfolk Southern Railway associated with the installation of an off site sentinel well as a component of the ground water monitoring program.
6. Nelson Heritage Center Roof Replacement (Classroom Section Only), Structural Evaluation and Lease Agreement – Contract documents have been executed and the notice to proceed issued to W.A. Lynch (the low bidder on the roof project). Per the contractor, construction work will begin the week of 12-10 subject to receipt of materials. Staff will also finalize, the week of 12-10, a solicitation for completion of the structural evaluation of the facility, as directed by the Board. The scope of the project will be limited to specific areas of concern. With regard to the current lease agreement, staff recommends that the Board establish a committee to negotiate terms for the conveyance of the property to the Millennium Group, as is currently being conducted with RVCC.
7. FY 06-07 Audit: Staff is currently reviewing the draft audit report for FY 07 with the final audit anticipated for receipt in later this month or in early January 08.
8. FY 08-09 Budget: Work on the FY 09 Budget has been initiated. Associated with this subject, staff has also forwarded an email to Del. Abbitt and Sen. Deeds to express concern with the substantive change in the state Composite Index that the County will be subject to over the ensuing two year state biennium.
9. BOS Retreat: Ms. Tyler St. Clair has been asked to facilitate the Board’s next retreat. Current dates for scheduling of the proposed two day retreat include: January 3-4, February 18-19 or February 13-14 or 14-15 (the last of which is least conducive to Ms. St. Clair’s calendar).
10. Meeting with RVCC: The Board committee (C. Brennan and T. Harvey) and staff (S. Carter) met with RVCC representatives on 12-5 to discuss (i.e. negotiate) conveyance of the community center property by the County to RVCC’s non-profit entity. The meeting resulted in agreement to complete and share information prior to further consideration by the BOS and RVCC’s BOD. Staff is facilitating.
3. Board Reports
No Board Reports were given.
B. Appointments (As May Be Presented)
No appointments were considered.
C. Correspondence
1. Virginia Sesquicentennial of the American Civil War Commission
Mr. Carter noted that a Committee had been formed and the names sent to the State.
2. Isle of Wight, Supporting Legislation to Ban Plastic Bags
The Board briefly discussed this noting that plastic bags were a litter problem and a threat to marine life elsewhere in the State, with no action taken.
3. Gladstone Fire Department
Mr. Carter and the Board noted that the location of the land requested for transfer is in question, with the Board requesting staff to gather more information from the Fire Department and Rescue Squad regarding the request.
4. Congressman Goode re: FEMA Maps
Mr. Carter noted having scheduled a December 5th meeting with Congressman Goode with Mr. Bruguiere, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Boger, Planning Director to also attend regarding the use of the FEMA flood plain maps.
5. Request to Place Monument on Courthouse Property
The Board discussed this request noting that staff should confer with Judge Gamble and the Historical Society prior to further consideration.
6. Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Funding Request
Mr. Carter gave a brief over-view of this request noting that the money requested was to be for substitute hours for the remainder of the year. The Board’s consensus was to pass this request over and no action was taken.
D. Directives
There were no directives given.
VII. Adjournment
At 10:02 P.M., on a motion by Mr. Harris and seconded by Ms. Brennan, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0), to adjourn the meeting.
Copyright 2008 Nelson County, Virginia
Maintained by the Nelson County Convention & Visitors Bureau
and Department of Economic Development
Questions? Contact us 7 days a week from 9 am to 5 pm EST - 1-800-282-8223
Site theme can be downloaded here
