Board of Supervisors: Board of Supervisors - Meeting Minutes May 13, 2008

Board of Supervisors - Meeting Minutes May 13, 2008

Virginia:

AT A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 2:00 p.m. in the Circuit Court Room located in the Nelson County Courthouse.

Present:     Thomas H. Bruguiere, Jr. West District Supervisor
       Allen M. Hale, East District Supervisor
       Constance Brennan, Central District Supervisor
       Thomas D. Harvey, North District Supervisor
       Joe Dan Johnson, South District Supervisor
       Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator
       Candice W. McGarry, Administrative Assistant/Deputy Clerk
       Debra K. McCann, Director of Finance and Human Resources
       Fred Boger, Director of Planning & Zoning

Absent:   None

I.   Call to Order

Mr. Harvey called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm, with all members present to establish a quorum.
A.   Moment of Silence
B.   Pledge of Allegiance – Mr. Bruguiere led the Pledge of Allegiance

II.   Consent Agenda

Supervisors made minor corrections to the March 11, 2008 minutes for approval and Ms. Brennan moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolutions were adopted:

RESOLUTION-R2008-37
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES

(February 28th, March 11th, March 19th, and March 27th 2008)

RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the minutes of said Board’s meetings conducted on February 28, 2008, March 11, 2008, March 19, 2008, and March 27, 2008 be and hereby are approved and authorized for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.

RESOLUTION R2008-38
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE NELSON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION THE SUB-RECIPIENT OF FY 08-09 FEDERAL HOUSING FUNDS FOR NELSON COUNTY

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

WHEREAS, Nelson County’s allocation of these funds beginning July 1, 2008 will be $115,300 to be used to assist low-income families to become homeowners and to facilitate the rehabilitation of substandard housing, provide assistance to first time home buyers, and provide support for affordable rental properties in Nelson County; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on May 13, 2008, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors designates the Nelson County Community Development Foundation the sub-recipient of the Thomas Jefferson HOME Consortium FY 08-09 local allocation of Federal housing funds, and authorizes the County Administrator to give signatory affirmation of this designation.

RESOLUTION R2008-39
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION ENDORSING ENHANCED PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE FOR THE US29 CORRIDOR IN THE STATE RAIL PLAN INCLUDING DAILY DIRECT SERVICE BETWEEN LYNCHBURG & WASHINGTON D.C. WITH EXTENDED SERVICE TO NEW YORK AND BOSTON

WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) is developing a State Rail Plan that will address the present and future needs for rail in the Commonwealth and provide a strategy to address them, and

WHEREAS, the State Rail Plan will address commuter, intercity, higher speed and high speed rail services as well as multimodal integration of rail with other modes of transportation, and

WHEREAS, the DRPT has asked for public input on the needs, priorities and rail improvements to be considered when developing the State Rail Plan, and

WHEREAS, the US29 – I-66 (Piedmont) rail corridor between Danville and Alexandria is home to 30% of the state’s population, and

WHEREAS, the cities, towns and counties of the Piedmont Corridor have experienced significant growth — both residential and commercial — and with it, significant increases in highway traffic travel time for through-corridor trips, and

WHEREAS, fifty years ago, the Piedmont Corridor was served by 22 passenger trains a day operated by the Southern and C & O Railroads, and

WHEREAS, today, Piedmont Corridor communities are served by only one round-trip train a day between New Orleans and New York, and for those north of Charlottesville, by an additional train three days a week between Chicago and New York, and

WHEREAS, these trains are frequently overbooked and cannot meet the passenger demand in our area, and ridership is hampered by poor on-time performance (Crescent 68%; Cardinal 18%), due largely to interference with freight and poor infrastructure in non-Virginia portions of the route, and

WHEREAS, in spite of these impediments, the station at Charlottesville maintains the highest Amtrak ridership per scheduled weekly train among all Virginia Amtrak stations, including Richmond, Newport News, Alexandria, Fredericksburg and Williamsburg, and

WHEREAS, a Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce survey found that more than 60% of area businesses regularly conduct business in DC and Northern Virginia; 84% of the time they travel there by car, and more than 2/3’s (66.6%) said they would use rail as an alternative if a speedy rail line were available, and

WHEREAS, access to Northern Virginia and Washington, DC is becoming increasingly important to our local economies and is an important factor in attracting new investment and maintaining a healthy business climate, while at the same time, intercity rail contributes to patterns of transit-oriented development that help protect our rural environment, and

WHEREAS, the rising cost of oil and the environmental concerns brought on by carbon based emissions have heightened the interest in energy efficient and environmentally friendly alternatives to the automobile, and

WHEREAS, recognizing the Piedmont Corridor as an underserved market, Amtrak has recommended to VDRPT that steps be taken to implement new Lynchburg to Washington rail service “as soon as possible” – including any capital improvements needed to the existing rail line by the host railroad, and

WHEREAS, Amtrak reports that the addition of a second daily train can be accomplished easily and at a relatively low cost, and

WHEREAS, ridership on the Piedmont Corridor can be expected to increase significantly as direct service results in reliable, on-time trains with available seats, and

WHEREAS, the Route 29 passenger rail corridor is significantly under-served compared to the I-95 corridor, where the State has made massive investments for rail infrastructure and operations, and

WHEREAS, an application for State Rail Enhancement Funds (REF) for capital investments in the corridor in support of the proposed new Amtrak passenger service has been developed by Norfolk Southern Railroad and is included in the list of projects recommended by VDRPT for inclusion in the State’s 2009-2014 Six Year Improvement Program,

   NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors urges the VDRPT to include enhanced passenger rail service for the US29 (Piedmont) Corridor in the State Rail Plan, specifically the proposed new daily direct    service between Lynchburg and Washington, DC and on to New York and Boston, as proposed by Amtrak, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors urges the Commonwealth Transportation Board to approve DRPT’s recommended REF funding for infrastructure investments needed to support new passenger service in the corridor, and requests that DRPT identify the US29 corridor as the state’s top priority for funding new rail service according to Amtrak’s recommended Short Term Action Plan for Advancing Passenger Rail in the Commonwealth attached hereto.

RESOLUTION R2008-40
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
2008 BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK (MAY 11TH -17TH)

WHEREAS, Nelson County recently celebrated the 200th anniversary of the founding of the County and looks forward to beginning a new century of partnership and service with our vibrant business community; and

WHEREAS, Nelson County businesses play a pivotal role in strengthening our economy by preserving the economic well-being and safety of all our citizens; and

WHEREAS, Nelson County is pleased to recognize the accomplishments of all our businesses, including our many small businesses that contribute greatly to the economic diversity of our locality; and

WHEREAS, Business Appreciation Week offers the citizens of the County a unique opportunity to recognize local businesses for the critical role that they play in continuing to move the County and Virginia forward; and

WHEREAS, the theme for Business Appreciation Week 2008 is “The State of Small Business”, and this focus enables us to celebrate the many ways in which our small businesses positively impact state and local government, major industries, as well as the lives of individuals in Nelson County and other communities throughout Virginia;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize May 11-17, 2008, as Business Appreciation Week in Nelson County

RESOLUTION-R2008-41
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROVAL OF SIX YEAR PLAN & PRIORITIES FOR SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM (FY 2009-FY 2014)

WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of §33.1-70.01 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on February 12, 2008 to consider public input on the Secondary Road System Six Year Plan & Priorities for FY 2009-2014 and conducted it’s workshop on said plan and priorities on April 14, 2008;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the FY2009-2014 Secondary Road System Six Year Plan & Priorities are hereby adopted as presented and attached hereto.

III.   Public Comments and Presentations

A.   Public Comments

1.   Ms. Paulette Albright, Keep Nelson Beautiful Council

Ms. Albright noted to the Board that the late Lynn Grosz had been awarded KNB’s 2008 Stewardship Award as a memorial tribute. She read the award aloud and noted that the award had been presented to Ms. Grosz’s sons.

Mr. Harvey echoed Ms. Albright’s sentiments and noted his appreciation of her sharing this with the Board.
B.   Presentation – Piedmont Virginia Community College (F. Friedman)

Dr. Frank Friedman, President of Piedmont Virginia Community College, gave his annual report to the Board. He noted that the County’s Board member, Ms. Deborah Harvey is an asset to the Board and that she is up for re-appointment at the end of June. Dr. Friedman’s report included the following:

Enrollment: He noted college enrollment to be up overall and that Nelson Co. enrollment is up 10% with 282 enrolled. He noted that 69 of these were in the dual enrollment program through the High School. He stated that these classes are free to the school system and have a community college value of about $40,000 and are worth about $120,000 if the student transfers to a 4 year State University. He also noted an increasing trend in enrollment in on-line courses - approximately 57 enrolled.

Facilities: He noted that the main building and library renovations were complete and that they would break ground on the $9 million dollar Science building in June. He noted that the college would be gaining possession of the visitor center that was being vacated by Monticello; which would become the Workforce Development Center.

Programs: He noted that the college had 130 students complete its Construction Academy which taught unskilled workers basic skills which are the foundation for the Apprenticeship Program and then Construction Management. He also noted thriving programs in the health field such as phlebotomy, pharmacy tech, and medical coding- a work at home opportunity.

Future Plans: He noted future plans to expand dual enrollment classes and sites with Broadband such as the Nelson Center and Rockfish Valley Community Center.

Recruiting & Marketing: He noted wanting to increase recruiting through the school system and utilize community forums to get input from the community on program offerings. Mr. Johnson noted that grades 6-12 have email addresses through the schools that can be utilized to reach Nelson Co. students.

Graduates: He noted that the college had 373 graduates this year with Nelson County graduate Jacob Neil making the 1st Team all Community College Academic Team.

Following Dr. Friedman’s report, Supervisors noted support for the expansion of dual enrollment classes and the Home Health Care Aide program.

C.   VDOT Report

Mr. Kevin Wright noted the upcoming paving of Rt. 56 and in Montebello and the patching work being done throughout the County and thanked the Board for its prior approval of the Secondary Six Year Plan. Following Mr. Wright’s comments, the Board discussed the following items:

Mr. Johnson: In response to Mr. Johnson’s question, Mr. Wright noted that if more transportation money became available, it would be programmed in accordance with Board’s approved SSYP priorities. Mr. Johnson asked to meet with Kevin re: Tye River Rd. the following week.

Ms. Brennan: Ms. Brennan questioned the reimbursement clause in the State Code §33.1-70.01 in relation to funds that have been spent in Schuyler. Mr. Wright noted that this does not apply to that project and that he would not allow the Board to be in a position where VDOT funds would need to be reimbursed. Ms. Brennan inquired as to when the center-line reflectors would be installed in the newly paved Rt. 29 on the Northern end of the County with Mr. Wright responding that they would be added later, which he would confirm.

Mr. Hale: Mr. Hale noted a sight distance problem due to growth on the bank near the Faber Post Office entrance. Mr. Hale inquired as to the availability of traffic counts for the County and Mr. Wright noted that they are generally done every two (2) years and that he would forward this to Deputy Clerk, C. McGarry. Mr. Hale asked about the bracketed marks on the new pavement on Rt. 29 and Mr. Wright noted that these were density testing marks.

Mr. Bruguiere: Mr. Bruguiere noted that there has been significant water on Cub Creek Road due to the leaves accumulating in the ditching and forcing water into the road. Mr. Wright noted that road surfacing was their #1 priority, but he would look into it. Mowing of the medians was discussed and Mr. Wright noted that this is assessed yearly and the decision is made by different people. He noted that the tall grass in the medians blocks sight distances. Mr. Bruguiere noted that mowing twice in summer is plenty and he’d rather see the money spent on keeping roads up rather than mowing.

Mr. Harvey: Mr. Harvey noted that there is a hole on Tan Bark that needs patching.

D.   Presentation – High Top Communications Tower

Ms. Susan Rorrer, Director of Information Systems and Mr. John Agee of the Virginia State Police reported to the Board on the status of the High Top Communications Tower. Ms. Rorrer reported that the County has had a lease at the site for thirty (30) years with the tower having been there prior to that. In 2006, the County, CVEC and WVTF planned to upgrade the site. She noted that the State Police identified the tower site as one that would meet their needs for enhancing their state-wide communications and offered to provide an upgraded tower facility that would serve their needs and help the other co-locating entities. She noted that they had been working with the Nature Conservancy to draft a lease agreement and would be meeting with them the next week to iron out the details on the sites continued use. She noted the importance for enhancement of the County’s radio communications system as identified in the RCC radio study and that the site is the only one that will talk to the County’s Emergency Operations Center. She also noted that grant money was to be used to employ microwave technology at the site that would allow the County to link into the STARS system on High-Top enhancing the overall interoperability in the County, Region 3 and Region 6. She noted that the use of the High-Top tower site was necessary to accomplish these objectives. In conclusion, she noted that twenty-two (22) agencies would be served by the STARS system and that the site was the best in the County since was already cleared and ready to upgrade.

Mr. John Agee, Chief Telecom Engineer for the Virginia State Police addressed the Board. He noted that all State agencies had updated their radio systems from analog to digital with a 2004 contract with Motorola. He noted that the Richmond and Tidewater areas had been built out and that the High Top site, was part of this Region’s expansion from 87 existing sites to 131 sites for enhanced radio redundancy purposes. He noted that Nelson County is currently covered from the Afton Mountain Site and that narrow-banding will require less power to run from base stations but that more sites were needed. He noted that the High Top site works strategically and geographically providing the best radio coverage for the County. He noted that if High-Top could not be utilized, then two (2) towers would need to be constructed. Mr. Agee noted that the State Police would clean up the site, build the tower, and provide back-up generators.

In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Agee noted the following:

-   Three (3) towers exist at High-Top now, one (1) tall one and (2) smaller ones.
-   The existing AEP tower cannot be used because it cannot handle the load.
-   The required tower height is 180 ft – 199 ft so it does not have to be lit, 160 ft could be sufficient.
-   All potential users (CVEC, State Police, & County) need microwave as a way to connect sites together.
-   An expandable tower could be built if the base is built large enough to expand later if needed.
-   The current tower is not strong enough to handle the microwave technology.
-   They want to allow for future capacity with 20 years antenna growth desired.
-   The lightning rod adds an additional 10 ft. but the diameter is so small it can’t be seen.
-   The site is an essential piece of the COMLINC project which allows the County to link into the State Police system to talk to other localities.
-   The tallest thing on the tower would be a receiver, not the microwave dishes.

During discussion, Supervisors noted the following:

Mr. Harvey suggested not compromising the system by locating the antennas too low, which can cause some interference if they are spaced too close together.

Ms. Brennan stated that she wanted to provide for public safety with minimal visual impact.

Mr. Bruguiere stated that the tower needed to be done as soon as possible, the poor radio communications in the County are a safety issue, and to negotiate with the Nature Conservancy as necessary to make it happen.

Mr. Johnson noted that the receivers etc. needed to be kept as high up as possible and he agreed with Mr. Bruguiere that this needs to get done for safety reasons.

Ms. Rorrer noted that the State System of 131 sites is planned to be operational by 2010 with all of the sites but two (2) being secured – High Top being one of them. She noted that the full design of the site could not be done without the lease in place. She noted that the site could be operational by early next year with the installation needing to go forward in order for the County to progress with its next grant funded project.

Supervisors and staff discussed the desired lease arrangement, with Ms. Rorrer noting that the County could lease the site with all parties having rights (signing the lease), but this needs to be nailed down. Mr. Agee stated that an MOU with the TV stations and other users would be advisable. Limiting those entities on the towers was discussed, with Ms. Rorrer suggesting that co-location would be limited to those who were already there and Mr. Agee noting that the State Police would limit who was co-located on the tower.

Mr. Hale noted that seeing a plan and foot-print drawing/picture of the tower and 60x60 base building would be helpful.

In conclusion, Mr. Carter noted that he is in the process of scheduling a meeting with the Nature Conservancy, Mr. Harvey, Ms. Brennan, Ms. Rorrer and Mr. Agee on the lease. He noted successful resolution to this to be very important for the County and the $1.3 million in grant funds to implement its radio strategy.

IV.   Unfinished Business

A.   Solid Waste Collection System – Operational Approvals

Mr. Carter reported the following:

Completion of the solid waste project (i.e. construction of three staffed collection sites, purchase of disposal and transportation equipment, and County operation of collection system) is in process. Mr. Carter noted that the roll-off trucks were on schedule to be delivered on July 14, 2008 and that the County is advertising for drivers. Pending is the acquisition and construction of a staffed collection site for the Faber/Schuyler area. He noted next steps to be to order the balance of equipment for the un-staffed sites and decide on equipping the Wintergreen sites. He also noted that the 2007 Solid Waste and Recycling Report is the basis for the data presented. Additional considerations that require Board review and decision include:

*I. Recycling Program (Does not include costs related to equipment maintenance and repair)

A. Considerations

1. Discontinue Glass Recycling
2. Discontinue Recycling at Montebello and Wintergarden Collection Sites
3. End Recycling at Lot F and Public Schools

B. Summary

1. The projected expense of maintaining glass recycling is $66.80 per ton versus $40.87 to dispose of glass in the waste stream (see attached report)

2. The projected annual expense of maintaining recycling at the Montebello and Wintergarden Collection Sites is $9,996 ($155.96 per ton at 64.09 tons per year) versus the cost of disposal at $3,235 ($50.48 per ton at 64.09 tons per year).

3. The estimated annual expense of maintaining Lot F and three public school locations is $8796 ($184.33 per ton at 47.72 tons per year) versus the cost of disposal at $2,372 ($49.71 per ton at 47.72 tons per year).

a. The 2006 solid waste project proposal did not include maintaining these locations.

b. Recycle and Solid Waste Personnel estimate that 25% - 50% of recycle loads at Lot F are contaminated with solid waste, requiring landfill disposal, with the majority of the contamination resulting from commercial use of the recycle cans for solid waste disposal.

c. Lot F provides commercial recycling only.

4. Implementation of recycling at the consolidated Shipman Collection Site (staffed) will offset the reduction in recycling tons. Based on the Rockfish Collection Site (staffed) the consolidated Shipman Collection Site will generate 4 tons for every one (1) ton lost.

5. The feasibility of expanding the recycling program can be annually developed and submitted to the Board with the draft budget for the ensuing fiscal/operational year.

6. The additional equipment expense (excluding interest cost) to maintain glass recycling (staffed locations only) is $23,400. The additional expense of maintaining Lot F and Public School recycling locations is $35,100. The cumulative cost is $58,500.

7. Expense reductions in equipment purchases (excluding interest cost) for discontinuing recycling at Montebello and Wintergarden is $23,400.

*II. Maintaining Blackrock Collection Site (Does not include costs related to equipment maintenance and repair)

The primary considerations include: 1) the distance from the Blackrock Collection Site to the Wintergarden Collection Site – one (1) mile, 2) the cost to purchase an additional compactor unit (compactor and receiving can) at $23,418.39 , 3) reports from Transfer Station personnel denoting that the waste streams from both compactors will contain 25% - 50% commercial waste per load delivered to the transfer station., which increases the County’s expense and reduces its revenue stream and, 4) the need to increase the tons per pull (at either sites) to reduce the expense of operating one or both of the collections sites.

The annual tonnage from both sites (per 2007 Report) is 434 tons ((Blackrock - 151.10 tons and Wintergarden – 282.87 tons). The average tonnage per pull at both sites is 4.79 tons. This is versus the ten (10) ton capacity of the compactors used at this location. The objectives in either the removal or maintenance of the Blackrock Site include a) increasing the tons per pull and b) reducing commercial waste. These are the same objectives for the Wintergarden Site. If these objectives could be realized then there would be less need for two sites as the waste stream would be reduced from the present 434 tons per year to between 326 tons (25% reduction) and 217 tons (50% reduction) and, based on the Rockfish Collection Site’s average ton per pull ratio of 7.945 tons per pull, would require only 27 to 41 pulls per year versus the 89 pulls made in 2007 to service both sites. Additionally, funding was not projected to provide for maintaining the Blackrock Site. As such, continuing with this location will add an unanticipated expense of $23,418.39 (excluding interest if an additional compactor is purchased using funding secured from the VA Resources Authority).

In summary, removal of the Blackrock Site would save an unanticipated expense of $23,418.39 and afford greater ability to reduce operational expenses and increase operational revenues without a substantive burden on residents having to drive the additional mile to the Wintergarden Site.

Mr. Carter also reported the following tonnage data:

SITE           Montebello   Wintergarden   RRES   NCH/NMS    TRES   Lot F

Tons P/Year           13       53      3.6          14.4   0      30

Pull P/Year           10       31        2             8       0      19
(Recycle)

Pull P/Year               2       12        2             6       0        7
(Solid Waste)

Recycle Miles           97       122   100            67   63   122
(Round Trip)

Trans. Sta. Miles       47       70        48             15   10       70       (Round Trip)

MPG                  5          5         5              5   5         5

$ Per Gal                $4.40            $4.40   $4.40         $4.40      $4.40   $4.40
Personnel               $18.60           $18.60      $18.60        $18.60    $18.60       $18.60
$ Per Hr w/Benefit

Recycle Trip Hrs       3.5       4        3       2   2        4
(Round Trip)

Transfer Sta. Hrs       2.5       3        2       1   1        3 (Round Trip)

1. Recycle Costs = Pulls Per Year x Round Trip Recycle Miles / 5 MPG x $4.40 + Wage Per
                              Hour x Round Trip Recycle Hours x Pulls Per Year = Estimated Cost

2. Solid Waste Costs = Pulls Per Year x Round Trip Solid Waste Miles / 5 MPG x $4.40 Per             Gallon + Wage Per Hour x Round Trip Solid Waste Hours x Pulls
           Per Year + Tons Per Year x $25 Per Ton = Estimated Cost

               Recycle Vs Disposal Costs (Per Above Computation Methods


Site   Recycle Cost   Disposal Cost

Montebello   $1,505        $501
WntGard   $5,635        $2,734

Schools
RRES   $288        $249
NCH/NMS   $770        $551
TRES   $0        $0

Lot F   $3,454        $1,572

Sub Tot   $11,652        $5,607
Equip P/YR   $ 6,426           $      0

Total P/YR   $18,078           $5,607



Notes:

1. Recycle equipment costs would be incurred in total upon purchase and installation. The lump sum amount (9 recycle containers) is $52,650.

2. The equipment per year cost (chart) is based upon ten year amortization of VRA debt, which includes recycle equipment.   Annual cost (principal and interest) is $713.92 per year. The cost of nine units over ten years is $64,252.89 ($52,650 in principal and $11,602.89 in interest).

3. Cost of recycle equipment for Montebello and Wintergarden (only) is $23,400 (manufacturers cost). Amortized over ten years the total expense is $28,556.84 ($23,400 in principal and $5,156.84 in interest).

4. Provision of equipment for Public Schools and Lot F was not included in 2006 Project Strategy.

Montebello – Use of Compaction Equipment (1 Unit) Vs Open Top Containers (2 Units)

Open Top Cost ($4,400 per unit):   $8,800

Compactor Cost:                  $23,419

Tons Per Year (2007)                221

Pulls (2007)                     58 (Using Two Open Top Containers)

Tons Per Pull                       3.81

Est. Compactor Tons Per Pull               7

Est. Compactor Pulls Per Year          34

Comparative Costs Using Solid Waste Costs Computation

A. Open Top Containers: 58 (Trips) x 47 (Round Trip Miles) = 2,726 (Miles Per Yr) / 5 MPG x $4.40 (Per Gallon) = $2,398.88 + $18.6 (Personnel Per Hr) x 2.5 (Rd Trip Hrs) x 58 (Trips) = $2,697

Total ($2,398.88 + $2,697) = $5,096 (Rounded)

B. Compactor: 34 (Trips) x 47 (Round Trip Miles) = 1,598 (Miles Per Yr) / 5 MPG x $4.40 (Per Gallon) = $1,406.24 + $18.6 (Personnel Per Hr) x 2.5 (Rd Trip Hrs) x 34 (Trips) = $1,581

Total ($1,406.24 + $1,581) = $2,987 (Rounded)

C. Operational and Equipment Cost Comparison

Equipment       Open Top       Compactor

Cost (Per Yr)       $   537           $2,858

Operation (Per Yr)   $5,096           $2,987

Total           $6,440           $5,845

Mr. Carter provided the following summary regarding solid waste and recycling equipment:

I.   POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL EXPENESES

A.     GLASS RECYCLING (4 CONTAINERS @ $5850 EA):       $23,400

B.    ADD’L RECYLCE CONTAINERS LOT F & SCHOOLS
        (6 CONTAINERS AT $5850 EA):                   $35,100

C.   ADDITIONAL COST TO MAINTAIN BLACKROCK
SITE (1 COMPACTOR @ $23,419):                   $23,419

D.   POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL COST (A - C)
   (Equipment Only):                   TOTAL   $81,919

II.   POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS

A.   SAVINGS IF RECYLCING DISCONTINUED @
   MONTEBELLO & WINTERGARDEN (4 CONTAINERS   @ $5850 EA):   $23,400

B.   PURCHASE OF OPEN TOP CONTAINERS (2) FOR
   MONTEBELLO VS COMPACTOR
   (Compactor @ $23,419 – Open Tops (2) @ $8,800):       *$14,619

C.   POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS:            TOTAL          $38,019


*    This would offset additional operational cost for use of open top containers, $595 per
      year, by $1,190 for 12.29 years.

Mr. Carter noted the handout that detailed the costs of recycling glass versus land-filling it as provided by Susan McSwain, Solid Waste and Recycling Coordinator as follows:

Glass Recycling @ $66.68/ton versus Land-filling Glass @ $40.87/ton
I contacted 9 nearby counties and 3 recycling facilities to get a snapshot on the current state of glass recycling in our area. Bryant Salvage, the closest facility to Nelson, charges $25/ton to accept glass. Lynchburg is closer to Bryant than Nelson, but the City dropped glass from its recycle program over 3 years ago due to cost. A facility in Harrisonburg, the next closest location, charges $22/ton.

On a visit to Bryant Salvage in February, I was told that they had more glass than they could process. For a while, they hauled glass to the landfill in Fluvanna County for use on the landfill internal road system. Just recently, however, they worked out an arrangement with Page County to get rid of their glass backlog. The arrangement is on a trial basis; if it is economically feasible for both partners, it will continue. If not, Bryant would only say that they hope to continue taking glass in the future. Page County hauls paper to Bryant and returns with glass that is ground and used as daily cover at the County landfill. Glass collected for this purpose is technically re-used, not recycled. In the few counties in Virginia that have purchased a grinder ($60,000 - $80,000), glass cullet is re-used as road base material, daily cover at landfills, or decorative mulch.

The May 8 national scrap price averages for baled products put glass into perspective:
$5,880/ton – copper, $680/ton – aluminum, $362/ton – steel, $126/ton – corrugated cardboard,
$120/ton – sorted plastic, $28/ton – mixed paper, $2.25/ton – mixed glass.

At my request, Tidewater Fibres (TFC), a recycling facility south of Richmond, made a presentation at a Region 2000 meeting last fall. TFC told us that they were pleased that Lynchburg did not collect glass for recycling or re-use, and that they were far more interested in doing business with Region 2000 if glass were not part of the recycle mix. In subsequent Region 2000 meetings, the various member counties and cities all agreed that we should jointly work on possible future recycling/re-use opportunities for all types of materials, glass included.

In order to collect glass for recycling, we would have to purchase 30-yd. recycle cans for the four staffed sites, at a cost of $23,400. Assuming that 60% of the weight in our co-mingle cans over the past three years has been glass weight, then Nelson could expect to collect around 100 tons of glass per year. Averaged over 10 years, the recycle cans would cost $23.40 per ton of glass collected. (The cost of trash compactor space for the same 100 tons of glass would equate to $3.69 per ton.)

Recycle Cost: A full glass container weighs about 3.5 tons. The distance to Bryant Salvage is on average a 64 mile round-trip from the four sites. At 8 miles/gallon, each truck trip would require eight gallons of fuel. At $4/gallon for diesel, the cost of fuel would be $32/trip, or $9.14/ton. Each trip would require about 2 hours’ driver time ($32 including the 22% full-time factor), or $9.14/ton. The cost for recycle cans ($23.40), fuel ($9.14), drivers ($9.14), and delivery fee ($25) comes to $66.68 per ton (increased maintenance costs on our trucks due to the added miles not included).

Landfill Cost: $25/ton tipping fee plus $12.18/ton haul fee, plus $3.69/ton to account for the 1.45% of compactor space for 100 tons of glass at the four staffed sites total $40.87 per ton.

Recommendation: Based on my research and conversations with other counties, I recommend that Nelson discontinue glass-cycling and, instead, spend money on projects that will be more productive than a program that is, in my opinion, a “feel-good” program with marginal benefit. (S. McSwain)

Notes:

Based on observations at Rockfish, less than a third of the glass arriving at the site is put into the co-mingle can; the rest is put into the garbage compactor by people who do not recycle. Another – not insignificant – stream of glass ends up tossed on the side of the road.

Derivation of the $3.69/ton compactor cost:

$25,406 x 10 compactors = $254,060 / 10 yr = $25,406/yr
6,877 tons garbage at 4 staffed sites (includes 100 tons of glass from co-mingle can)
glass portion of cost is 100 / 6,877 = 1.45%
capital cost attributed to glass: 1.45% of $25,406/yr = $368.39/yr
$368.39/100 tons = $3.69/ton

The haul fee for garbage includes $9.58/ton from the Transfer Station to the Regional Landfill in Lynchburg (external hauling vendor), and $2.60/ton for the internal haul fee from collection sites to the Transfer Station using our own trucks.

Maintenance costs for the trucks belonging to the hauling contractor are factored into the price of trips between the Transfer Station and the landfill, but I did not include maintenance costs in the cost to direct haul glass in our trucks. The increased mileage put on our trucks if we haul glass to Bryant will definitely increase the $66.68 per ton cost, but the primary issue could be use of the drivers’ time. In the past, co-mingle cans were merely hauled to the Transfer Station, but now all of them must be hauled to Bryant.

Mr. Carter reiterated that recycling costs three (3) times the cost of disposal overall and that including the cost of equipment, the cost of recycling per year is $18,078 vs. $5,607 for disposal. He also noted that the recycling at Montebello, Wintergarden, Lot F, and the schools accounts for less than 1% of the County’s waste stream. He also noted the contamination issues at Wintergreen that results in 25%-50% of the recycling going into the waste stream. He noted in terms of recycling glass, the local receptor of glass for recycling, Bryant Salvage, may discontinue accepting glass.

The Board discussed glass recycling noting that glass is not a pollutant in landfills. Mr. Hale suggested that the reuse of bottles by area wineries needs exploration. He noted that his concern was that the decision to discontinue glass recycling had been made without sufficient public notification. Recycling at the remote sites and schools was discussed with Board support for continuing recycling at the schools.

Mr. Carter noted that there is approximately $600,000 remaining to complete the Faber/Schuyler site with the plan not including keeping Lot F. at Wintergreen and the schools may cost more than planned for. He noted that Montebello was budgeted for but do the numbers warrant its continuance. Mr. Carter suggested keeping one (1) recycling bin at NCHS and noted that Tye River Elementary was not recycling and that Rockfish Elementary recycling was pulled twice in 2007. He also noted that a reduction in the equipment for Wintergreen would pay for the containers at the schools.

Following discussion, the Board reached a consensus to discontinue glass recycling for now and to re-evaluate it later.

The Board then discussed recycling at Wintergreen with Mr. Carter noting again that Wintergarden had been budgeted for, but Blackrock Circle had not with the cost of a compactor being an additional $23,418. He also noted that aside from the additional equipment costs, the closeness of the two Wintergreen sites, contamination issues at the Blackrock Circle site, and the inefficient loads coming off of the mountain had warranted the recommendation to close the Blackrock Circle site. Mr. Johnson suggested talking with Wintergreen about funding a staff person or other means of keeping commercial waste out of the compactors there. Ms. Brennan noted her preference to go look at the Wintergreen sites with the Recycling Coordinator and the WPOA Director prior to the May 22nd meeting and any decisions being made.

Mr. Carter noted that the County needed to order equipment and not delay delivery which could necessitate keeping Waste Management’s services online. He also noted that Waste Management has indicated that they have no equipment that they can sell the County right now.

The Board’s final consensus was to go with recycling compactors as follows: (1) for Rockfish, (1) for Nelson Middle/High School, (1) for Montebello and to determine what to order for Wintergreen at the May 22nd meeting following an on-site meeting with WPOA, Supervisors, and County staff.

The Board and staff briefly discussed options for covering the compactors and the need for the compactors to have doors. Mr. Carter noted that staff is working on this.

Mr. Carter noted that in relation to the County employing drivers, the applications are being taken with interviews to follow and employees in place by June 15th.

Mr. Carter reported on remaining solid waste items including:

- The Shipman and Massies Mill sites are up and running.

- The contract for the hauling of solid waste from the transfer station to the landfill has been
   awarded to Thompson Trucking who currently does this under the Waste Management
   contract. Mr. Carter in concurrence with Mr. Harvey noted the need for the inclusion of a fuel
   surcharge in the hauling contract; which staff has developed and included.

- Specifics of the C. Grant agreement (Montebello site) request regarding fencing, buffers, and paving will be brought to the Board for consideration on May 22nd.

Mr. Hale noted the difficulties in securing a Faber/Schuyler convenience center site. He noted that an ideal site had been located off of Rt. 29 on Rt. 670 Cove Valley Road that was owned by the Cove Valley Recreation Center. He noted that he would like to get the Board’s input on how to proceed as the Cove Valley Recreation Board members are unwilling to convene to discuss the matter. He noted that some members had indicated support for the County’s interest in the land; however no progress has been made in a year’s time. The tax exempt status of the organization was briefly discussed. Mr. Hale also noted that interest in a park on that site had been expressed and he noted that it could be possible if linked to the allowance of a convenience center site. Mr. Hale and Mr. Harvey indicated that they would continue to work on this.

Mr. Hale also noted that he has visited the convenience center sites and they are a terrific improvement as noted by area citizens.

In conclusion, the Board noted that the County is not obligated to Wiley & Wilson for design of the Schuyler/Faber site.

V.   New Business

There was no new business considered by the Board.

VI.   Reports, Appointments, Directives, and Correspondence

A.   Reports
1.   County Administrator’s Report

Mr. Carter reported the following:

Courthouse/Government Center Project – Wiley and Wilson has scheduled a two day work session (May 15 and16) with County staff to review and receive comment on the final design drawings at 35% completion status. County staff has also begun to work towards development of a financing strategy for the project (i.e. discussions with Davenport, Sun Trust and VA Resources Authority). Additional borings have also been completed that will insure a lower project cost due to the test results enabling the project to obtain a lower seismic rating for design and construction. Per input from R. Vaughan of Wiley and Wilson, approval of the final design and authorization to bid the project is anticipated for the second Board meeting in July. The related financing strategy is also projected to be in place for Board review and approval coincident with final project approval. Staff will likely request W&W to submit 35% final drawings to USDA-RD, VA-DHR, the local and a regional historic preservation organization for review and comment in order to insure RD funding is maintained as a possible funding source.

2. Piney River 3 Project: The project’s construction (all phases) is ahead of schedule. Phase I (E.C. Pace) is anticipated to be at substantial completion by May 30 with lateral installation and area clean up thereafter. Phase II (Atkins Excavating) which provides for installation of the primary pump station is expected to be at substantial completion by the end of June or early July. And, Phase III (Commonwealth Excavating), the contractor is working five crews and has indicated construction completion will be accomplished by the end of August or early September 08 (contract completion date is January 09).   Staff is continuing to work with Draper Aden Associates towards securing additional project easement and pipe realignments in the Phase III construction area, which will assist with an expedited project completion and reduce costs through avoidance of installing select material (i.e. stone) to backfill pipe trenches. A meeting is scheduled for 5-14 with DAA and NCSA to work towards development of Phase IV, which will provide for lateral installations to each residence/business. The project is within cost.

3. Collection Centers Project: The Shipman and Massie Mill staffed collection sites are operational. Un-staffed collection sites have been closed. Purchase of a site for the Faber/Schuyler facility is pending. Sealed bids were received on May 9 from four companies for provision of transportation services from the transfer station to the Region 2000 Service Authority facility. Thompson Trucking Co. was the low bid respondent at $210.65 per haul (the other three bids, per haul, were $335.00, $365.00 and $460.00 respectively). Staff is in negotiations with Waste Management related to retaining the company’s services to July 15 – July 30 (as may be necessary). Roll off truck equipment is anticipated to be received on July 14. Recruitment of drivers is in process. Additional equipment orders will be placed on May 14 to equip un-staffed collection sites. Contract negotiations with the owner of the Montebello Collection Site are in process with the draft agreement anticipated to be submitted to the Board for approval on 5-22.

4. FY 08-09 Budget: The public hearing is scheduled for the evening session on 5-13. D. McCann, Director of Finance and HR will overview the budget by power point.

5. Broadband Project: VA-DHCD has selected Nelson County to receive $40,000 in additional grant funding to continue its work towards implementation of broadband within the County. A $10,000 local match is required (funded by EDA or jointly with BOS; TBD). Icon Engineering will present its project report to the Board on June 10. The report will encompass finding and recommendations pertinent to the County’s efforts to establish broadband services.

6. RVCC and Nelson Heritage Center: Auction of the modular building at the Rockfish Valley Community Center is scheduled for 2 p.m. on May 23. Re-installation of the second vent stack at the Nelson Heritage Center has also been completed (past 30+ days). Neither center has provided additional input on their short or long range plans.

7. Maintenance Building Roof Replacement: Formal quotations for replacement of the Maintenance Building roof were solicited directly and through a public advertisement in the NC Times with a due date of May 5. Three quotes from Lynchburg based companies were received (no Nelson County business responded; all licensed firms were contacted). The low quotation was submitted by W.A. Lynch, Inc. at $19,168 for either of the two specifications developed by County staff. The other two quotes were $25,693 and $27,209. A contract has been issued to W.A. Lynch with work anticipated to be completed by June 30, 08.

8. Blue Ridge Tunnel: Staff has facilitated the established of a non-profit entity, Crozet Tunnel Foundation, through application to U.S. – IRS, which will serve as a fund raising element for the project’s completion. A detailed report is due from G. Whitesell on May 16 to provide the County with a status of work completed to date and work necessary to complete final design and move the project into bid and construction phase. Appraisals are expected to be completed and submitted to the County by the end of May for use in acquiring properties located in Nelson and Augusta counties for the project’s completion.

9. Staff Reports and Summary: Department reports were forwarded on 5-2. Quarterly reports from agencies were forwarded to the Board on 5-13. Please advise should additional information on the above or other subjects be required. Your continued support is appreciated.

2.   Board Reports

Mr. Bruguiere:       No report

Mr. Hale:           Mr. Hale reported that he attended the Dental Clinic opening and participated            in the ribbon cutting ceremony.

Ms. Brennan:       Ms. Brennan reported attendance at the following meetings/events:

- Piney River Organics opening at Black Eagle Farm
-   PWN Council Meeting in Charlottesville
-   Home Care Health AID program through PVCC
-   VaCo Regional Courthouse Meeting
-   TJPDC meeting
-   VaCo Board of Directors Meeting
-   Interagency Council meeting

Mr. Johnson:       Mr. Johnson reported attending the VaCo Regional Courthouse Meeting.

Mr. Harvey:       No report

B.   Appointments

Ms. McGarry reported that there would be a number of appointments expiring in June noting that a list of these had been distributed to the Board with some discussion of which of these had term limits.
C.   Correspondence – There was no correspondence discussed

D.   Directives

Mr. Hale:   Noted receipt of calls regarding EMS revenue recovery bills from citizens and    noted the need for improved affiliation between DAB and Nelson County on    the bills. The Board briefly discussed the program and how the billing process    is working, noting citizens should be directed to call the 800 number on the    bill. Mr. Carter confirmed that volunteers do receive free transport services,    with Mr. Harvey stating that they need to be on the Clerk’s roster.

   Noted the need for greater press coverage in general and suggested sending    periodic press releases to the paper. Mr. Hale and Mr. Harvey noted that they    would meet with the NC Times editor regarding the lack of coverage and poor    service and would   report back.

   The Board briefly discussed the use of other media to broadcast County    business and information.

Ms. Brennan:   Inquired about an ad that PHA said they would publish regarding mortgage    foreclosure help.

   Inquired about the status of the accessibility issues at the Courthouse, with    Mr. Carter noting it was in process.

   Inquired about the status of the fund balance in the General Fund, with Mr.    Carter noting that D. McCann would report on this.

   Suggested discussion of alternate payment plans for taxes for the low-income    or the elderly, with it being noted that the County has programs in place to    help these taxpayers and when and how taxes are paid are a Commissioner of    Revenue and Treasurer issue. The Board briefly discussed the possibility of    having the    Treasurers Office set up automatic payments etc. for citizens in    addition to accepting credit card payments.

Mr. Bruguiere:   No Directives

Mr. Johnson:   No Directives

Mr. Harvey:   No Directives

VII.   Recess and Reconvene for Evening Session

At 4:45 p.m., on a motion by Mr. Johnson, and seconded by Ms. Brennan, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to recess and reconvene for the evening session at 7:30 p.m. at the Circuit Courtroom in Lovingston.

EVENING SESSION

7:30 P.M. – NELSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ROOM

I.   Call to Order

II.   Public Hearings

The Board considered item C. the FY08-09 Budget public hearing as the first order of business.

A.   Amendment to NC Zoning Ordinance – Sec. 12-5 Uses Not Provided For

Mr. Fred Boger, Planning Director noted that the Planning Commission has requested this Zoning Amendment in order to comply with the Circuit Court’s ruling that this section is void. He stated that the Planning Commission is recommending repeal and reservation of Sec. 12-5 Uses Not Provided For, in order to avoid possible confusion and procedural error in the future.

Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing and there being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

The Board’s discussion included Chairman Harvey noting his disagreement with repealing this section due to the higher probability that people can circumvent the intent of the Ordinance; explaining that the current Ordinance is a permissible one such that if it doesn’t say you can do something it means you cannot; this necessitates the application for a special use permit and then the Ordinance would be amended thereafter if approved. He noted that the Judge’s decision said that the Board was automatically deciding to amend the Ordinance with the approval of a special use permit.

Mr. Hale noted his understanding to be that if a use not provided for is to be established and the Board decides to permit the use, it is a decision that permits the use anywhere in the County; whereas if a SUP is required, you are advertising the use only for a specific property – so that if you want to permit a use in a specifically zoned District, as opposed to on specific sites, you need to revise the Ordinance, advertise it, hold a public hearing, and then adopt the amendment; and then there is no question that the use is permitted by SUP or CUP in the zone. He stated that the Judge is saying that the current process essentially amends the Ordinance without going through the process.

The Board briefly discussed this further, debating the difference from being site specific as opposed to applying to zoning districts overall and whether or not in each case the public is informed.

Following discussion, Mr. Johnson moved to adopt an Ordinance to amend and re-enact Sec. 12-5 of the Code of the County of Nelson, 1989, relating to Zoning and Ms. Brennan seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted (3-2) by roll call vote to approve the motion with Mr. Bruguiere and Mr. Harvey voting No and the following Ordinance was adopted:

O2008-04
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
§ 12-5 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
NELSON, 1989, RELATING TO ZONING

WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of Nelson County has ruled that Section 12-5, “Uses not provided for” of the Nelson County Zoning Ordinance is void;

WHEREAS, the presence of a void provision in the Zoning Ordinance can lead to confusion and procedural error; and

WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice require revision of the Zoning Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2008, a public hearing was held by the Nelson County Planning Commission on repealing Section 12-5; and

WHEREAS, the Nelson County Planning Commission recommends the repeal of Section 12-5;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NELSON:

1.   That §12-5, “Uses not provided for” be repealed, and the same hereby is amended    to read    as follows:

   Section12-5. Uses not provided for. Reserved

   If in any district established under this ordinance, a use is not specifically permitted and a property owner makes an application to the Administrator for such use, the Administrator shall refer the application, accompanied by a fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) to the Planning Commission, which shall make its recommendations to, the governing body within thirty (30) days. If the governing body as applied for approves the use, the ordinance shall be amended to list the use as a permitted use in that district, henceforth. The provisions for notice and hearing by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors provided for in Section 15.1-431 of the Virginia Code, as amended, shall be applicable to the amendment procedure herein set forth.

2.   That this ordinance shall become effective on May 13, 2008

B.   Amendment to NC Zoning Ordinance – Sec. 2-8c Auto graveyard, Class C

Mr. Boger overviewed the Amendment noting that the current definition is in conflict with that of an inoperative motor vehicle in Section 2-51a in the Zoning Ordinance and can lead to confusion and error in enforcement of Section 2-8c; specifically, the wording “which would not be economically practical to make operative”. He noted that this should have been deleted in May 2007, when the Zoning Ordinance was amended. He also noted that the wording recommended by the Planning Commission is similar to Section 2-8b, with the difference being “more than five (5) inoperative vehicles” rather than “a maximum of five (5) inoperative vehicles.

Mr. Harvey noted not being clear on the set-back requirements and questioned if the Ordinance says 300 ft for lots 20 acres or more. The Board agreed to hold the public hearing and defer a decision until the setback requirements can be confirmed.

Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing and there being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.

Supervisors agreed by consensus to defer the vote on the proposed Amendment to NC Zoning Ordinance – Sec. 2-8c Auto graveyard, Class C until the setback requirements could be confirmed and no action was taken.

Staff noted that the 300 ft. setback requirement may be applicable in a Conservation District which would be confirmed and reported back.

C.   FY08-09 Budget

Ms. McCann, the Finance Director gave the following Power Point presentation:

There are ten funds that comprise the overall county budget. The primary fund is the general fund which often supports other funds as is the case with the School Fund and the Debt Service Fund. The remaining funds are generally project oriented such as the Community Development Block Grant fund or a fund may relate to an enterprise operation such as Piney River water & sewer operations.

Compared to the current year budget as amended, the proposed FY09 General Fund budget reflects an increase of just over $2 million which is a 6.89% increase.

Significant revenue factors impacting the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 budget include…an overall 107% increase in real estate values due to the reassessment which is estimated to yield a 35% increase in real estate revenue ($3,945,389) based on the reduced Real Estate tax rate of $0.55 per $100 of assessed value. Public Service tax which is property tax for public service corporations is also impacted in a reassessment year when real estate values are re-established relative to the fair market value. Public Service Tax is projected to increase by 41% in FY09.   ... Declining trends in interest earnings after significant growth… record high receipts in FY06 from recordation taxes and building permit fees have continued a downward trend due to the slowdown in the housing market… these economic trends are also forcing the state to deal with revenue shortfalls by reducing aid to localities. The General Fund has received reductions in excess of $100,000 and the school division received reductions based on a revised composite index of more than $700,000.

FY09 local revenue makes up 77% of the total General Fund budget. The primary source of local revenue is general property taxes which account for 79% of all local revenue. The FY09 budget reflects a 19% budgetary increase in local revenue primarily due to the reassessment impact together with a reduction in the Real Estate Tax rate.

State revenue makes up 12.4% of the total General Fund budget. The largest sources of state funding include Compensation Board funding for Constitutional Offices and state support of public assistance and social services programs. State aid to localities is projected to decrease by $107,534 due to the General Assembly’s overall across the board reductions to localities. Public Assistance and Welfare funding from the state also reflects a decrease (of $457,988) due to an accounting change in the reporting of federal funds passed through the state. These pass through funds are now reported as federal revenue and as such federal funding reflects an increase. Cost share funding for the Comprehensive Services program for At Risk Youth is also increased due to an anticipated increase in expenditures for these services. The FY09 budget reflects an overall net reduction of $290 thousand.

Federal revenue makes up 1.5% of the total General Fund budget. The primary sources of federal include social services funding and the payment in lieu of taxes from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.   The increase as noted previously is due to a change in reporting of federal funds passed through the state for social services programs.

Local, state and federal revenues together with an intergovernmental transfer of dedicated E911 funds and prior year receipts dedicated to the Courthouse project (balance of windfall switch to 2xyr PP and unbudgeted June 08 RE collection) and borrowed funds for the solid waste convenience centers make up all projected revenue that supports the FY09 proposed expenditures.

Expenditure highlights include the Courthouse renovation project which is in the final design phase with the design projected to be complete and ready to bid by Sept. 2008. The new facility will house the General District Court, the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, the Sheriff’s Department and the Dispatch Center. The FY09 budget includes a set aside of unbudgeted June Real Estate tax ($1.8 mil) for this project in order to reduce the amount of debt required.

The Shipman and Massies Mill solid waste convenience centers are currently complete. The new Faber convenience center is projected for development in FY09.

The FY09 budget also includes a set aside of $467,511 for capital improvements (specific projects TBD).

The County currently has two grant funded projects that are underway.

The Blue Ridge Railway Trail project is a public hiking trail along the right of way of the former Blue Ridge Railway located in Nelson and Amherst counties. The trail is complete from the trailhead at the Piney River Depot to the Roses Mill Bridge. The county is currently completing the second phase of the Blue Ridge Trail which included repair of several bridges along the existing railway bed. The next phase will encompass trail surfacing to extend the trail from Naked Creek Bridge to the Tye River Depot.

The Blue Ridge or Claudius Crozet Tunnel restoration project encompasses tunnel restoration and development of access trails (located in Augusta and Nelson counties). Grant funds will be utilized to work towards completion of the Final Design for the restoration. Additionally, a non-profit foundation has been established to assist with project funding.

Operational increases within the proposed budget include a 3% salary adjustment and Agency increases range from 0-4% with an average increase of 1.96%

The proposed budget also includes installation of hardware and software to facilitate acceptance of credit card payments.

Within the General Fund, the school nursing program has a recommended increase of 1.8% over FY08 (as requested $215,000). Operational funding is proposed at $11.2 million ($11,247,472) which is a 15.4% increase over the current year. The budget proposes funding for the purchase of 5 new school buses moving away from five year financing leases. The total to School Operations is 11.8 million and 3 million for school related debt.

The School Fund budget compared to the current year (original budget) reflects an increase of $883,122 or 3.8%. Although the budget represents an overall increase of 3.8%, it includes an 18.5% increase of $1.8 million in local funding. This is due to reductions in state and federal funding for education in FY09 totaling over $800,000.

The School Fund budget includes approximately 9.3 million in state revenues which is a 7.38% decrease (745,641) over the current year. Federal revenue is also projected to decrease by 4% (71,809). Other revenue includes such items as field trip fees and food services revenue and shows an increase of $150,843 (12%). This reduction is primarily due to the outsourcing of the after school program. The local contribution from the General Fund is 11.8 million, an increase of $1,851,415 (18.6% including nursing and school buses).

More detailed expenditure breakdowns are pending approval by the School Board.

To conclude, I have noted all the funds that make up the county budget. We have discussed tonight the General Fund and the School Fund which are by far the largest components of the budget. I would like to note that the County anticipates construction on the Piney River 3 project to be complete by February or March of 2009. This project will provide water and sewer service in Piney River, generally encompassing Route 56 and certain areas to the south not currently served with sewer and portions of Lowesville Rd, Firehouse Rd, Shady Lane, Whispering Pines Drive, Tye Brook Hwy, and Jenny’s Creek Rd.; approximately 100 households/businesses. The Community Development Block Grant fund includes continued funding for community planning relative to Broadband. The Street Light tax will be removed for FY09 (applicable to Shipman, Arrington, and Lovingston). I will note however that all tax amounts in arrears are still due.

Following Ms. McCann’s presentation, Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing on the FY08-09 Budget with the following persons being recognized:

1.   Pete Perdue, Afton

Mr. Perdue spoke in favor of the Board fully funding the Senior Centers’ requests for the FY08-09 budget year.

2.   Mildred Trent, Old Stoney Creek

Ms. Trent noted her agreement with Mr. Perdue.

3.   Jerry Hatter, Nellysford

Mr. Hatter thanked the Board for its continued support of the Senior Centers.

4.   David Hite, Roseland/Massies Mill

Mr. Hite questioned what was in the Transfers Line item of the Budget, noting that breaking this out for the public on the handout would be helpful.

5.   Dr. Roger Collins, School Division Superintendent

Dr. Collins thanked the Board for its support and noted that the division had made cuts and added staff where needed. He also noted anticipating that fuel costs would be a concern and requested the Board’s continued assistance.
There being no other persons wishing to be recognized, the Chairman closed the public hearing on the FY08-09 Budget.

Mr. Carter briefly explained the Transfers line item of the budget and indicated that this would be more clearly presented for the public in the future.

Mr. Harvey thanked staff and noted to the public that the Board was still fine-tuning the budget. He thanked the public for attending and noted that the re-assessment cycle was being shortened to four (4) years, which should help lessen the impact of future reassessments.

The Board took a five (5) minute break from 8:00 pm to 8:05 pm.

3.   Other Business

River Clean-up request (R. Nelson):

Mr. Carter noted meeting with Roger Nelson to facilitate the Board’s directive to assist the Friends of the James with the provision of solid waste collection at no charge, during the Bateau festival.

Broadband Phase III Grant Funding (DHCD):

Mr. Bruguiere asked whether or not approval of the Grant funds from DHCD for Phase III of the Broadband study was necessary, with Mr. Carter noting that approval was not incumbent upon the Board until the EDA determines if they will fully fund the local match in funds and at that point it could be brought back. He noted that based on input received from three (3) of the five (5) Board members, he told DHCD that the Board supported it. Mr. Bruguiere noted his preference to vote to spend funds for this purpose in open session, with Mr. Carter stating that something formal will be forthcoming from DHCD. The short notice given by DHCD for the County to indicate its interest in the potential grant funds was discussed. Mr. Carter noted that the Director of DHCD called him approximately two (2) days ago about the funds asking for a quick turnaround on the County’s interest. Following this discussion, no action was taken by the Board on this matter.

Basketball Team Banquet:

Chairman Harvey confirmed that the Board did receive invitations to the Basketball Banquet to be held on May 24th at 6pm at the High School, to present the State Championship rings.

Courthouse Project Meetings:

Mr. Hale noted that Courthouse project meetings would be held on Thursday and Friday with the first day devoted to architectural and landscaping from 9am to 5pm and Friday devoted to mechanical and electrical. He noted that neither he nor Ms. Brennan would be in attendance on Friday, freeing up space for two (2) other Board members to attend if desired.

Septic System Reserve Requirements for Subdivisions:

Mr. Boger noted that the Planning Commission is working on this issue and has drafted some language allowing three (3) divisions without soils work for the Board to review.

4.   Public Comments

There were no persons wishing to be recognized.

5.   Adjournment

   At 8:45 pm, Ms. Brennan made a motion to adjourn and continue the meeting until 2:00 pm on June 10, 2008 in the Board of Supervisors Room in the Courthouse, Lovingston Virginia. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to approve the motion and the meeting adjourned.