Board of Supervisors Meeting Minutes June 10 2008
Virginia:
AT A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors at 2:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors 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 2:05 p.m. with all Supervisors present to establish a quorum.
A. Moment of Silence
B. Pledge of Allegiance – Mr. Bruguiere led the Pledge of Allegiance.
II. Consent Agenda
The Board briefly discussed the following Consent Agenda items:
II. H: Mr. Carter gave some background information regarding the original MOU, noting that thirty (30) acres are available in the Colleen Business Park for marketing and development. He noted that the EDA proposed the Amendment No. 1 in order to allow for their purchase of the property which would speed up sales to future buyers and create the potential for the EDA to realize larger revenue. In response to questions, Mr. Carter noted that the price of the land could be negotiable as an incentive to prospective businesses, there is no fiscal impact to the County, the Board reiterates its agreement to work cooperatively to market the property, permission is not required from all parties for sale of property, CVEC or the EDA can sell property with CVEC only for economic development purposes (not for profit), and the EDA retains the difference in sale price per acre over $3,000.00.
II. C: In response to questions, Mr. Carter noted that the auditors, Robinson, Farmer & Cox (RFC) wanted to ensure that the Board is aware of the magnitude of the FY08 audit requirements. Mr. Carter stated that their audit responsibilities have increased in his tenure and that FY08’s audit would cost $10,000 more than last year. He also noted that annual audits are required by the State’s Auditor of Public Accounts and are based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In conclusion he related that an RFP for auditing services is issued by the County every three (3) years and the contract stipulates an annual renewal with an option of a two (2) year extension, and that RFC was the only respondent to the last RFP issued by the County.
II. A.: Ms. Brennan requested clarification on the April 24, 2008 minutes regarding the Board’s approval of Special Use Permit #2006-006 for J. Coffey. It was clarified that the removal of the recommended restrictions pertained only to those not required by the normal process. Items 1-4 requiring Agency approvals and Planning Commission approval of the final site plan were already expected and Item 5, the limitation to the number of trailers on site of fifteen (15) was dropped.
Following discussion, Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda and Ms. Brennan 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-R2008-49
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
(April 14, 2008 & April 24, 2008)
RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the minutes of said Board’s meetings conducted on April 14, 2008 & April 24, 2008 be and hereby are approved and authorized for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.
RESOLUTION-R2008-50
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DESIGNATION OF JAUNT PROXY FOR ANNUAL STOCKHOLDERS MEETING
RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that Ms. Janice Jackson, Nelson County JAUNT Board member, be the designated proxy empowered to vote the shares held by Nelson County at the 2008 annual JAUNT stockholder’s meeting; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Ms. Jackson is hereby designated the JAUNT proxy for Nelson County for subsequent annual stockholder’s meetings for the length of her term expiring September 30, 2010.
RESOLUTION R2008-51
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
AUTHORIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT
RESOLVED by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the Chairman of said Board and/or the County Administrator be and hereby are authorized to execute the letter of engagement with Robinson Farmer Cox Associates for provision of professional services (public accounting) necessary to complete Nelson County’s Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (audit).
RESOLUTION (R2008-52)
AMENDMENT OF FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008 BUDGET
NELSON COUNTY, VA
June 10, 2008
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County that the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Budget be hereby amended as follows:
I. Appropriation of Funds (General Fund)
Amount Revenue Account Expenditure Account
$154,530.00 3-100-002401-0045 4-100-093100-9201
70,470.00 3-100-009999-0001 4-100-093100-9201
7,500.00 3-100-009999-0001 4-100-012110-1001
14,078.17 3-100-002307-0001 4-100-021060-3002
1,273.00 3-100-003303-0007 4-100-031020-5401
12,454.28 3-100-002404-0002 4-100-032020-5650
3,041.00 3-100-002404-0015 4-100-032020-5648
5,000.00 3-100-009999-0001 4-100-043040- 5415
$268,346.45
II. Appropriation of Funds (VPA Fund)
Amount Revenue Account Expenditure Account
$225,000.00 3-150-004105-0001 4-150-053500-3001
RESOLUTION-R2008-53
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE 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 Category Payee
$30.00 Business License Fee Dr. Douglas R. Fonteyne
4201 Thomas Nelson Hwy
Arrington, VA 22922
RESOLUTION R2008-54
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING GOVERNOR KAINE AND THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ENACT A SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PACKAGE
WHEREAS, an efficient transportation network is crucial to sustainable economic growth in the Commonwealth, a cleaner environment and enhanced public safety and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth faces a documented transportation funding shortfall including a recurring and inflating road maintenance funding shortfall resulting in the Commonwealth Transportation Board eliminating and reducing programmed project spending totaling $1.1 billion in the new six-year transportation program; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation is transferring almost $400 million in Fiscal Year 2008 from road construction funds to support road maintenance activities; and
WHEREAS, the eliminated and stalled project monies include primary, urban, and secondary construction funding reductions to regions and localities of up to 44 percent for Fiscal Year 2009; and
WHEREAS, funding for new highway and bridge construction is diminished as the annual road maintenance shortfall continues to escalate and the estimate to repair the Commonwealth’s 1,700 deficient bridges totals more than $3 billion; and
WHEREAS, regions of economic importance to the Commonwealth, including Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia, confront major transportation funding challenges in addition to those shared by all other areas of the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, transferring state general funds to transportation neither adequately supports documented and recurring transportation infrastructure investment needs, nor serves to protect the Commonwealth’s additional core services including public education, health care, mental health and retardation, and public safety; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth last enacted dedicated, new, significant and recurring annual statewide revenues for transportation in 1986; and
WHEREAS, since 2006 the Commonwealth has enacted significant reforms to improve the coordination between transportation and local land-use planning;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby call on the Governor of Virginia and the Virginia General Assembly during the forthcoming transportation special session to enact a significant transportation funding package to include dedicated, new, significant and recurring annual revenues to address the Commonwealth’s documented transportation infrastructure needs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governor of Virginia and the Virginia General Assembly are urged to enact dedicated, new, significant and recurring annual revenues to eliminate the road maintenance shortfall; increase funding directed to interstate and primary highways, urban and secondary roads, and transit projects; guard against the transfer of general funds to transportation; and address the unique transportation needs of specific regions of the Commonwealth including initially Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.
BE IT LASTLY RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Honorable Timothy M. Kaine, Governor, the Honorable Watkins Abbitt State Delegate, the Honorable Creigh Deeds State Senator, and the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo).
RESOLUTION R2008-55
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE NELSON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION THE SUB-RECIPIENT AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR OF FY 2009 FEDERAL INDOOR PLUMBING REHABILITATION PROGRAM FUNDS
WHEREAS, Nelson County receives Indoor Plumbing Rehabilitation Program funds (IPR) from the Department of Housing and Community Development; and
WHEREAS, Nelson County’s current sub-recipient and Program Administrator of these funds is the Nelson County Community Development Foundation (NCCDF);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby affirm the continued designation of the Nelson County Community Development Foundation (NCCDF) as the sub-recipient and Program Administrator of FY 2009 Indoor Plumbing Rehabilitation Program funds (IPR) from the Department of Housing and Community Development.
RESOLUTION-R2008-56
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLLEEN BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL PARK
WHEREAS, the existing Memorandum of Understanding regarding the development of the Colleen Business/Industrial Park, made between the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, the Nelson County Service Authority, and Nelson County in February of 1997 is proposed to be amended; and
WHEREAS, the amendment is proposed to facilitate the expediency of future land transfers, for economic development purposes, with potential buyers; inclusive of initiating a marketing agreement with the Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment adds the Nelson County Economic Development Authority as a party to the amended agreement,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors does hereby authorize the acceptance of Amendment No.1 to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Development of Colleen Business/Industrial Park as proposed and attached hereto; inclusive of authorizing Stephen A. Carter, County Administrator or Thomas D. Harvey, Chairman to sign said amendment on behalf of the County.
Amendment No. 1 to
Memorandum of Understanding
Regarding the Development
of
Colleen Business/Industrial Park
This Amendment No. 1 to Memorandum of Understanding is made among Central Virginia Electric Cooperative (the Cooperative), Nelson County Service Authority (the Service Authority), Nelson County Board of Supervisors (the County), and the Nelson County Economic Development Authority (the EDA).
RECITALS
A. The three first-named parties hereto executed the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Development of Colleen Business/Industrial Park in February of 1997.
B. In order to facilitate the transfer of property in the industrial park to a commercial purchaser, the Cooperative is in the process of transferring the property to a wholly owned subsidiary. In addition, the Cooperative will record a plat containing the Colleen electrical substation and define a boundary that will run from the existing cul-de-sac to the substation and then to the southern border of the remaining property in the Colleen Business/Industrial Park.
C. And to further promote the marketing of the business/industrial park, the parties hereto wish to add as a party to the Memorandum the EDA.
NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Paragraphs E.5, E.5a, E.5b, and E.5c are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following:
“E.5. At the time of any sale of property to a commercial purchaser, the Cooperative or its wholly owned subsidiary will transfer the subject property to the EDA and EDA will pay the Cooperative or its wholly owned subsidiary a sum equal to the Cooperative’s original purchase price for the subject property, plus the original cost of a proportional share of the green space that will be maintained within and around the Park. The EDA will then sell the subject property to the commercial purchaser, retaining the entire sales proceeds.”
2. Paragraph G. dealing with the County’s agreements shall be amended by adding a new paragraph 9. reading as follows:
“9. The County, through the EDA, will actively support the promotion and marketing of the business/industrial park, including hosting or visiting prospects, developing information for promotional brochures and other activities where it is appropriate for the County to participate.”
The undersigned parties accept the above modifications to, and in all other respects ratify, the Memorandum of Understanding effective as of the ___ day of _________, 2008.
III. Public Comments and Presentations
A. Public Comments
1. NC Electoral Board - Proposed Relocation of Polling Place
Mr. David McBee and Mike Crabill of the Nelson County Electoral Board noted a letter requesting that the Shipman Polling place be moved from the Shipman Civic Center to the Oak Ridge Carriage House citing the following concerns regarding the current facility:
• Poor visibility/safety issues for vehicular traffic at the intersection of Route 56 and Nelson Avenue.
• Poorly constructed, limited, and ill-defined parking area.
• Poorly lighted parking area, leaving some voters to negotiate uneven ground in the dark.
• Facility interior has limited accommodations for Officers of Election and voters.
He also noted the following positive attributes of the Oak Ridge Carriage House facility:
• Handicap accessibility
• Centrally located within the Shipman Precinct
• Easy Access
• Well lighted parking
• Modern facility with handicap accessible bathrooms
• Large room, enabling privacy for voters
• Secure storage for the “black box” for the AccuVote voting machine
The Board expressed concern regarding the potential use of a privately owned building for this purpose. It was noted that the Shipman Civic Center is privately owned but is a non-profit organization, whereas the Oak Ridge Carriage House is owned by a private individual. Mr. Crabill confirmed that the Electoral Board had a verbal arrangement for use of the Oak Ridge Carriage House, with the owners indicating that they were willing to sign a long-term contract. He also noted that at the time, the Shipman Civic Center was the best location for a polling place and there were no other options.
Mr. Carter noted that $15,000 had been spent three (3) years ago to improve handicap accessibility of the current polling place. He also noted that the Board would have to hold a public hearing to amend the current Ordinance in July or August in order to meet the sixty (60) days prior to an election requirement and give the required notice to the State Electoral Board and Justice Department.
Following discussion, the Board’s consensus was that the Carriage House at Oak Ridge had the potential to be a good location for a polling place given confirmation that there were no legal issues with its private ownership. The Board agreed to move forward with the public hearing and to seek resolution to the legality question in the interim.
Mr. Hale made a motion to advertise for a public hearing to move the South District polling place from the Shipman Civic Center (American Legion Hall) to the Carriage House at Oak Ridge to be held on July 8, 2008 and Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.
B. VDOT Report
Mr. Kevin Wright gave the following report:
• Maintenance activities are ongoing – patching, leveling, and mowing with patching and leveling in process on Rt. 639 Laurel Rd. and Fish Hatchery Rd. in Montebello.
• Plant mix on Rt. 56, 29, and 665 are now complete with center reflectors added on Rt. 29.
• Revenue Sharing deadline is August 1, 2008. The program has been updated per State Code changes to allow accelerated construction, maintenance and paving on Six Year Plan roads whereas the County can put up matching funds up to $100,000 for projects. He noted having no recommendations to the Board for this program.
• Rt. 631 (Mountain Rd.) resurfacing repairs have begun. Will confirm when surfacing is complete; Tan Bark Rd. included.
• New staff Engineer has been hired – Sharon White, P.E. will be joining us soon to oversee our land use and contract administration sections, and will be working with you in these areas as well as transportation planning in the very near future. She is coming from the District office in Lynchburg with 6/10/08 being her first day.
The Board expressed concern regarding the height of grass along roads and in the medians. In response to questions about mowing, Mr. Wright noted the following:
• Mowers cannot drop the mowers as they travel down the road without first establishing a work zone with signs posted.
• The mowing work is being balanced between the contractor and VDOT staff; however there are only two (2) mowers at the area headquarters and 9-10 crew members performing patching and other duties, creating a manpower issue. The contractor is behind due to the late growth season but is mowing as fast and as best they can; with additional mowers being brought in.
• Contract mowing is currently on Rt. 29 up to Davis Creek with the two (2) lane primaries to follow. He noted that Rt. 29 is done first (as opposed to Rt. 151 and Rt. 56) because this receives the most complaints and has the most traffic traveling at higher speeds.
• The mowing Contractor is from Waynesboro and starts in different areas each year.
• Mowing decisions are made locally, with full local control over the mowing.
• Inmates pick up on roadways occasionally and VDOT pays for them.
Other VDOT issues were discussed as follows:
Mr. Bruguiere:
• Asked about abandonment of Rt. 665 at the Colleen Dairy Isle. Mr. Wright noted the County would have to hold a public hearing and recommend abandonment and he will help the County pursue it if so desired.
• Cub Creek Rd. is wash-boarding badly.
Mr. Hale:
• Asked what is meant by leveling? Mr. Wright explained that a six (6) ft. wide middle part of the road is leveled with a scratch coat that fills in the ruts, then surface treated, and finally slurry sealed with tar and gravel.
Ms. Brennan:
• The stop sign at the Buck Creek median going north is down again.
• Asked if VDOT uses ground glass for paving, with Mr. Wright noting they do not.
• Asked about installing more 45 mph signs on the Rt. 151 corridor, with Mr. Wright noting that they are as close as they like to put them, which is every two (2) miles and at through roads and that extra signs don’t do any more good – drivers become immune to the signs being up.
• Asked about another Rt. 151 meeting with Mr. Wright noting that information on the turn lanes project was being gathered prior to meeting again.
Mr. Johnson:
• Noted the request for a Children at Play sign on Phoenix Rd.
• Noted Diggs Mtn. Rd. speeding complaints and the impending request for a reduced speed there.
Mr. Harvey:
• Asked about work on Berry Hill (Virginia Lane) with Mr. Wright noting that this is a Rural Rustic Road project due to start in 1-2 months.
• Asked about correcting the entrance to Rt. 151 there with Mr. Wright noting that intersection improvement money can be used for this.
• Asked if the speed can be dropped to 45mph on Rt. 151 past the Rhodes Farm entrance and Virginia Lane extending the 45mph zone to improve safety at these intersections, with Mr. Wright noting that this request can be made by him or by resolution and sent back to the traffic engineers.
Ms. Brennan made a motion to request that a resolution be sent to VDOT, requesting the speed limit be decreased to 45 mph on Rt. 151 from Rt. 6 to Nellysford. Mr. Hale seconded the motion with Supervisors directing that the resolution indicate that this would save $2.6 million and improve safety. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.
C. Presentation – Broadband Phase II Report (K. Hill)
Mr. Keith Hill gave the following Report:
With the assistance of the Virginia General Assembly and the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD), Nelson County has undertaken a comprehensive telecommunications planning effort to identify and develop all elements of a successful community broadband network. This project, part of the Virginia Rural Broadband Planning Initiative (VRBPI), is designed to create competitive communities and ensure community sustainability by building and utilizing telecommunications infrastructure. This report presents the results of Phase II tasks completed as part of the overall Community Broadband Planning Study for Nelson County.
Investment Rationale
Rural communities, specifically Nelson County, should consider investing in a fiber network to stimulate economic development in a variety of ways:
Grow Existing Businesses: Fiber optic networks allow existing businesses to access cost-effective data services enhancing Internet commerce opportunities to market products and services to areas outside of the County. T-1 (1.5 Mbps symmetrically) services in urban and suburban areas typically range in cost from $500-$600 per month. Businesses in Nelson County report T-1 costs of nearly $1000 per month currently, and are dependent upon proximity to incumbent telephone company facilities.
Attract New Businesses: The majority of new businesses will seek to locate in areas served by high bandwidth infrastructure. Rural areas without service provider competition to ensure competitive pricing or areas located significant distances from provider facilities will not be considered due to higher costs for services.
Enable Home-Based Businesses: Nelson County’s rural setting is attractive to residents seeking to escape congested urban and suburban areas of Virginia. Many of Nelson County’s residents have established home-based businesses that depend on the Internet to thrive and potentially to provide jobs for other Nelson residents. High bandwidth costs restrict their ability to grow and may force them to leave the County to be closer to advanced services. Local service providers report several instances of Nelson residents paying high costs for T-1 service to their homes as their only means of high speed access.
Enable Teleworking: The Virginia Employment commission estimates one-half (50%) of Nelson
residents commute daily to employment outside of the county. Many of their expenditures for goods and services will be made outside of Nelson County. The State’s initiative to encourage teleworking as a means of easing impact on transportation infrastructure can also improve the quality of life within home communities. Commuting costs for employees are reduced while more money is spent within the local community. The ability to telework relies on residential access to cost-effective Internet services which are not available to a large number of Nelson residents today.
Encourage Competition for Services: Placing access facilities nearer to subscribers and their existing equipment allows service providers to realize reduced costs for deploying new and additional services. Competition among providers enables customer choice in providers and service delivery methods, and ultimately more attractive pricing for services. In reality, the reduced density of homes and businesses in rural areas makes it unattractive for many providers to provide services in rural areas. Cost effective access to these customers through a community broadband deployment closes the ‘uneconomic gap’ that currently impedes broadband deployment by private providers. The Needs Assessment completed in Phase I of the Community Broadband Planning Study indicated solid residential and business support for higher speed of Internet and data connectivity. Broadband availability is considered a top priority for the County to address. Current broadband service availability is limited. DSL expansion is unlikely due to the incumbent telephone provider’s investment in fiber services in areas outside of Nelson County. The current cable company is investing in infrastructure upgrades in the Wintergreen/Stoney Creek areas primarily. Wireless service is available in a limited area only. Large numbers of residents and businesses have no choice in access methods other than dial-up.
Authority to Build and Operate Broadband Infrastructure
Virginia Law provides explicit authority for municipal provisioning of “qualifying communication services” including but not limited to high-speed data and Internet access, but specifically excluding any video services1. Municipalities are also authorized to enter into public/private partnerships to provide services, and construct and lease dark fiber. Additionally, the Virginia Wireless Services Authority Act authorizes the formation of an authority to construct facilities, issue revenue bonds and provide qualifying communication services. This Act also permits conveyance or lease of systems and facilities by the locality to an Authority with or without consideration.
Proposed Fiber Distribution Network
Private service provider fiber currently exists along Highway 29 between the metropolitan communities of Lynchburg and Charlottesville. Currently, this fiber has no connections to any locations within Nelson County that is available for either County or multiple provider use. To enable service delivery to the business communities and municipal facilities county-wide, a fiber distribution network is proposed that links Afton, Nellysford, Woods Mill, Lovingston and Colleen. An additional fiber route is included that extends fiber from Highway 29 along an access road to tower facilities location on High Top Mountain in the center of the County. These areas allow for service delivery to the greatest numbers of potential subscribers while meeting the requirements of the VRBPI to connect municipal, education, major employer, and healthcare facilities for bandwidth aggregation. To extend the reach of this network, agreements with the private provider network would be necessary to allow for high bandwidth Internet connectivity outside of the county. Some areas of the County are not feasible to reach by fiber either because of terrain impediments that would severely impact construction costs, or due to low numbers of potential subscribers in relation to the cost to reach them with fiber. Initially, the Massie’s Mill and Piney River areas have been excluded but should be considered for future deployment. An extension of the network could be made from either the Colleen Business Park or Nellysford (Hwy 151) termination points. Wireless appears to be the best short term method of broadband access to subscribers in this area, and tower facilities located on High Top Mountain are best positioned to reach this area. Montebello, Gladstone and Wingina are areas containing few subscribers and located the furthest distance from proposed fiber facilities. Arrington and Shipman are candidates for future extensions of fiber; these communities needs are currently met by DSL and wireless deployed in the area.
Municipal and school facilities located beyond the reach of the proposed distribution network include:
• Wintergreen Fire - Mtn
• Piney River Vol. Fire
• Wintergreen Rescue-Mtn
• Tye River Elementary
• Montebello Vol. Fire
• Gladstone Vol. Fire
• Montebello Rescue
• North Branch School
• Wingina Vol. Fire
• Wintergreen Police
• Gladstone Rescue
• Animal Control
• Faber Vol. Fire
• Nelson Co. Rescue (Irish)
• Roseland Rescue
• County Service Authority
Last Mile Access Options
The components of broadband service beyond the long haul Internet connection are the last mile or final connections to the end user. If a connection can be made to a long haul carrier either at the incumbent telephone company facilities or elsewhere along the network route, a final connection (wired or wireless) to the end user is still required. One option is to use the incumbent’s existing copper infrastructure, but charges for this connectivity, called local loop charges, are a major reason why cost effective bandwidth is not currently available. By placing fiber closer to the end users, incumbent providers are afforded the opportunity to extend services into additional areas through their current delivery methods. This would allow, for example, the incumbent telephone provider to extend their DSL service beyond the approximately three mile limitation imposed by the use of an all copper infrastructure. The local DSL provider has shown no interest in extending their services, but the incumbent cable and wireless providers have indicated interest in exploring access options with the County which would be afforded by the
construction of a fiber optic cable network. However, new providers have expressed interest in using a fiber distribution network to offer traditional access solutions such as DSL (to multi-tenant facilities) and wireless.
Wireless services are an efficient near-term last mile broadband delivery method to areas where fiber deployment is not feasible. To cost effectively offer services, providers must be able to access reasonably priced backhaul to their facilities and the Internet. For rural providers, this typically involves purchasing backhaul from incumbent telephone providers via a T-1 line (the local loop). Non discriminatory access to fiber for transport to their facilities reduces their deployment costs and enables providers to shift capital investments to equipment for reaching additional customers. Additionally, offering higher speeds of access using new wireless technology requires backhaul bandwidth in excess of the current 1.5 Mbps T-1 lines currently used. High Top Mountain located in the center of the County is an optimum location for wireless transmission to areas such as the Massie’s Mill community that do not meet the feasibility requirements of the current study. For this reason, fiber along the access road to the tower site at the top of the mountain has been included in the proposed distribution network to enable wireless deployment to additional areas of the County.
Offering direct fiber connections to subscribers located within approximately five hundred (500) feet of fiber can also be achieved more cost-effectively from a County constructed fiber optic network. This delivery method is most attractive to high bandwidth business users as it enables multiple services delivered over a common platform and the ability to reduce technology expenses. Through a Request for Interest (RFI) process, no private providers have indicated an immediate interest in investing in fiber to the premise (FTTP) services in Nelson County, but the incumbent cable provider expressed an interest in potentially using the fiber to offer ‘triple play’ (voice, video and data) services sometime in the future. As bandwidth demands increase through use of new applications and broadband adoption continues to grow in the County, the proposed fiber infrastructure may become attractive to other providers for all fiber last mile services.
In the absence of private provider interest, an alternative for providing high bandwidth services to the municipal, education and healthcare facilities is the development by the County of a lit network serving only those customers. The network could also contain dark fiber reserved for future use by the County or other entity as a potential revenue source. The County would install electronic equipment at each facility to be served, make a fiber drop to each facility and connect these customers to centrally located networking equipment. This increases costs for deployment, operation and maintenance by the County or some other public entity (over-building a dark fiber network), but provides the bandwidth which is either not currently available or available at much higher cost.
Proposed Network Construction Costs
Costs to construct a dark fiber transport network, followed by additional costs to light some of the fiber and serve end-use customers are provided as follows:
Dark Fiber Transport Network
Dark fiber networks include the fiber optic cable infrastructure but no electronics between the various users. A private provider would lease the fiber and pay the expense to light and operate the network. Base costs to build a proposed dark fiber distribution network include only labor and materials for the fiber and other outside plant hardware. The majority of fiber (85%) is anticipated to be deployed aerially on utility or communication poles owned by the local electric utility. An annual cost for pole attachment (the rental fee to hang fiber on incumbent-owned utility poles) is also included. Costs for make ready (work to ready the poles for attachments in conformance with the National Electric Safety Code) were estimated based on a site survey to be approximately $4,000 per mile. Costs are presented in table ES-1 below and anticipate a fiber distribution network passing 22 municipal facilities, school buildings, healthcare providers and the majority of commercial businesses in addition to numerous residential neighborhoods. The network is robust enough to transport the telephone and video traffic of private providers in addition to very high speed Internet and data services. The fiber will provide reliable network connectivity and can be provisioned and operated from a single location in the County. These
costs are only for the network’s construction and do not include the costs of adding customers (the fiber to reach the customer, the drop, or serving equipment), or lighting the fiber network.
ES-1 - Dark Fiber Network Costs
Subcategories Totals
Design and Construction Management $120,658
Outside Plant Labor exc. Make-ready $798,730
Make Ready $155,691
Outside Plant Materials $518,700
Contingency @ 15% outside plant $239,067
Total Project Costs $1,832,846
Fiber Miles Route Portions
1.2 Downtown Lovingston Area $65,912
5.4 Lovingston South to Colleen Business Park $248,694
14.8 Lovingston North to Nellysford $690,199
9.5 Greenfield to Afton $443,268
5.3 Highway 29 to High Top Mountain $145,705
36.2 Miles Cost by Route w/out Contingency $1,593,778
Construction and materials costs as estimated above include providing a splice point in the fiber every 300 feet of aerial and every 500 feet of underground placement. While splicing adds significant cost to the network’s construction, it is important to build a network that can grow with the community’s needs. The network provides a migration path to economically serving additional customers as funds and potential customers become available. Last mile connections via fiber can be feasibly made to those premises located within approximately 500 feet of the distribution network. The network as proposed passes 15 municipal, 4 education, and 3 healthcare facilities.
Lit Fiber Access Network
If no private provider can be found to lease dark fiber, an alternative is for the County to build and operate a network which would serve at least the 22 municipal, education and healthcare facilities. This network could also backhaul Internet traffic for wireless providers and wholesale Internet access to the cable and Broadband over Power Line provider. Additional municipal customers could be reached using wireless communications from a site on top of High Top Mountain. Approximately $103,000 in equipment costs would be necessary to light this network. The outside plant fiber network proposed would handle far more than this small number of customers. Should the County decide to serve customers beyond municipal, education and health care, there will be for each additional customer an approximately $525 premise cost (electronics at the home or business, fiber drop and installation), and approximately $300 per customer incremental central office electronics. The additional costs to serve 500 customers directly with fiber would add approximately $595,500 in equipment and construction costs to the distribution network estimate. The network as proposed could potentially reach as many as 170 businesses and approximately 800 residences located within approximately 500 feet of the fiber.
Reoccurring Service Provisioning and Operating Costs
Although localities are authorized to provide retail communication services through the formation of a Wireless Services Authority, the State encourages municipalities to pursue partnerships with private providers for the delivery of services. Should private providers not be capable of or interested in providing the high bandwidth services desired, the County or an Authority could elect to ‘light’ the network and offer services to its own facilities and other key stakeholders in the communities. Beyond the capital costs of building a network are ongoing operation and maintenance expenses. Several items that must be included in the project budget and depending upon the ownership and operation structure and agreements are as follows:
• Pole attachment fees, the cost of attaching fiber to a utility company’s electric poles, typically $5 to $30 per pole, per year
• Developing and maintaining fiber splicing information (fiber management) and occasional repair expenses due to accidents and fiber cuts
• Electronics repair and replacement (generally electronics have a service or obsolescence lifetime of no more than seven (7) years)
• License fees for software and equipment of approximately 7% of the total equipment cost per year
• Operational and licensing support for a data-only network budgeted at a minimum of $100 per
customer per year
• Content costs for wholesale Internet access, ranging from $25 to $250 per mbps on a monthly basis
• Network operating center utilities expense
• Staffing - total employee expense
The operating costs for leased space, utilities, and staff of approximately $80,000 per year would be required to service the municipal network supplying services to 22 municipal, education and health care customers. Operating costs will increase gradually with the number of customers to reflect customer support, billing and provisioning needs.
Network Organization and Operation Options
The county has several choices in the ownership and operation structure of a fiber network. Virginia Code authorizes municipalities to own and operate a network to provide services to themselves, and to other municipal entities. There are restrictions, however, in providing retail services to businesses and residents in direct competition with private providers. The State encourages municipalities to seek partnerships with private providers for the provision of services to the public. Municipalities that do not currently operate utility services such as electric systems have limited experience in providing the level of customer service and billing support required for offering telecommunications services. To mitigate these concerns, operation can be outsourced to companies with expertise in these areas.
Based on the results of this study, the County is urged to consider the following ownership structures:
Owns but Does Not Operate: The County has clear authority to build and lease dark fiber to private providers. Alternatively, they can convey or lease facilities to an Authority for the provision of services if private providers do not materialize. Based on the interest of multiple service providers and the access revenue potential, this option would provide the open access scenario envisioned by the State of Virginia if operated by a neutral third party.
Does Not Own: Based on the interest of private providers in offering services over fiber, the County could solicit a provider willing to build and operate the network in full or partial consideration of sale. In this structured arrangement, the municipality could receive discounted services in exchange for municipal contributions such as public facility lease for housing equipment, water tank attachment, etc. in lieu of payment of fees. An alternative structure attractive to many services providers is whereby the County builds the network and then sells to a private provider. The County may have access to attractive funding rates that can be passed to a private provider in a lease-purchase agreement. Again, the County could receive discounted services in exchange for full or partial payment.
Owns and Operates: The first two ownership structures assume that private partners can be found to operate or purchase and operate the network. In the absence of such partners, the County may build and operate a community network subject to significant restrictions under Virginia Law. One of the financial models included provides such an ownership and operation structure which will provide service to municipal, healthcare and school facilities as well as providing backhaul to wireless providers.
Funding Strategies
Funding for capital costs is the largest impediment to network deployment for both municipalities and private providers. Feasibility is ultimately determined by the amount of upfront capital costs paid for through grants or private partner contributions to the project and the amount of revenue that can be generated to cover ongoing maintenance and operation expenses. A common misconception regarding municipal deployment is an expectation of revenue generation to benefit the general funds of the municipality. In reality, any revenue in excess of that necessary to cover ongoing expenses will likely be spent to fund equipment replacement, network upgrades, and future extensions to bring services to additional areas. Successful municipal network owners treat the network as a separate business entity (enterprise activity), with detailed accounting and a constantly updated business plan. Municipalities often have access to grants to deploy networks as part of economic development efforts. The Federal Economic Development Administration has historically granted funding to localities for infrastructure investments aimed at diversifying and expanding a region’s economy. In years past, the Rural Utilities Service has made small grants available for supporting rural broadband networks though recent announcements indicate future grant funding may be severely reduced or eliminated as part of recent budget cuts. In recent years there have also been homeland security funding grants to improve communication infrastructure for police, firefighters and other emergency response agencies.
The key to acquiring funding is participation by a variety of community stakeholders working together to aggregate needs and solve common problems. Funding assistance is more likely to be granted by showing the commitment and investments by community stakeholders, with assistance requested to fill funding gaps and move the project to completion. Various funding mechanisms are available specific to stakeholders such as schools (eRate), healthcare (rural health initiatives and eRate pilot), and public safety (Department of Justice, Homeland Security, Interoperability). Each stakeholder should apply for funding assistance in support of their network needs. Stakeholder commitments can also consist of in-kind services or asset use for which a value is defined. Ongoing maintenance and operation expenses should primarily be funded by end-user fees for service or private provider access fees. To support expenses attributed to municipal use and benefit, each department or public entity using the network should be allocated a portion of the network’s total expense relative to the services or amount of bandwidth used. In the absence of or to supplement grant funding, the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) provides low cost loans for municipal telecommunication investments. VRA financing options include fixed rate loans, term financing, and an attractive Pooled Financing Program offering below market rates, terms up to 30 years, and no bond insurance premiums. Recent legislative action amended §§ 62.1-198 and 62.1-199 of the Code of Virginia to clarify that the VRA may be used as a funding mechanism for all projects involving the provision of broadband services, and not just those utilizing wireless broadband technologies.
Financial Modeling
Financial modeling is a method to examine the costs, revenues and cash flows which can be expected from various network options such as dark fiber and community network options. When all of the network costs and revenues are not fully known, the model can be adjusted to determine what level of revenue is necessary to make a network self-sufficient. When the additional information is developed from discussions with providers, the model can be adjusted to take the additional revenues and changes to costs, if any, into account.
In the case of the dark fiber model, discussions with providers have not progressed to the point where the estimated revenue can be predicted. The cost to build and operate a given network can be predicted with the self-sufficiency point determined to assist in negotiating agreements which are fair to both the County and the private provider. The recommended network contains approximately 36 miles of fiber and passes approximately 170 businesses, 805 residences and 22 governmental, health care and school facilities. Annual revenue of approximately $3,230 per mile ($117,000+) would cover the expense to build and maintain the fiber (assumes 50 percent of the cost of construction is funded by grants). Whether this level of revenue production could be generated will depend on negotiations with private providers exhibiting interest. Details of the model are presented in Section 5.1 of the main report.
A second option covered in detail is the Community Network plus dark fiber model. Under this model the County would build and operate a network which would provide broadband services to 22 governmental, health care and school facilities and backhaul Internet traffic for wireless providers. To make the network revenue self-sufficient, additional revenue would be necessary from dark fiber leasing, providing services to key customers or from other sources of funding. The model provides a starting point to show the level of additional funding required. This model is more complicated than the dark fiber model because the County would need to install and maintain the network and premise electronics. The network would incur approximately $100,000 in costs for electronics beyond the cost of the dark fiber build and would cost approximately $90,000 per year to operate. Assuming fifty percent of funding assistance in the form of grants or donations, the network would have a shortfall in revenue of approximately $100,000 per year without additional revenues. Details of this model are presented in Section 5.2 of the main report (Community Network plus Dark Fiber Model).
A third option is a FTTP (Fiber to the Premise) all fiber wholesale network. Under such a scenario the County would build and maintain a complete network over which retail providers would pay for access to the customer. To provide such services, private providers generally want fiber access to as many homes as possible. A complete fiber build out with Nelson County would have outside plant costs in excess of $20 million dollars (in excess of 800 miles of fiber). Given the high cost and with no RFI response indicating a desire to provide such services, this option is not recommended. Progress towards building out such a network could be made as more revenue is generated.
Next Steps
This Planning Study has attempted to accomplish two goals—first to document the conditions within the County and second to lay out the choices which allow a broadband network to be constructed. The following remains to be done:
Develop the required partnerships based on RFI responses
Select Last Mile and Main Network Connectivity Solution(s)
Complete Extent of Fiber and Network Architecture Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates
Select the Organizational Governance and Structure of the Network
Create a Funding Plan
Create an Implementation Plan
Nelson County has applied to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development Office for authorization to participate in a grant program that would fund the work necessary to accomplish these Next Steps. Ultimately the overall objective is to provide enough detail to ensure that the local leaders have sufficient information to make an informed decision as to what model is appropriate, how much local investment and support will be required, and why such an initiative is critical for their community. Through this study, the County has accomplished identifying the needs of business, education, healthcare and residential demand for broadband communication services and developing a variety of models to address this high community priority. Like any large undertaking, it will be important to maintain positive momentum in moving forward towards implementation. The consulting team looks forward to assisting the County in this important endeavor.
Phase III – Implementation Assessment
Mr. Hill noted that the next steps involve use of the DHCD grant funding of $50,000 to do Phase III, an implementation assessment. This would refine the costs associated with the last mile solutions presented; create a funding and implementation plan, and a recommended scenario for Broadband employment.
Ms. Corum, Tourism and Economic Development Director noted that in reference to the DHCD grant funds, Nelson is one of two (2) localities along with Page County to be allocated grant funding with a $10,000 local match requirement for Phase III. She noted that the EDA is to fund half of the local match of $5,000 with the County to provide the other half. Mr. Hill noted that Nelson and Page Counties are the only localities that have completed Phase II and will likely be the only communities to get Phase III grant money.
In response to the Board’s questions Mr. Hill noted the following:
• Fiber or conduit can be laid with water and sewer lines along major routes where possible
• The recommended solution will likely be a combination of technologies
• Can’t bundle services over wireless networks, it struggles with video and Hi-Def TV
• More specific results regarding funding possibilities and infrastructure will result from Phase III
• The Broadband studies have been made available to interested providers; however provider strategies have not been shared between providers.
• Broadband over power lines (BBOPL) is a limited use technology with trouble tapping transformers and it is not a dominating technology with some dissatisfaction per the survey results from Phase I.
Mr. Hill noted that the Board was not being asked to make any decisions, but rather to hear the results of Phase II and discuss the potential for Phase III which will take about six (6) months to complete. At that point the County may decide to what extent if any a Broadband solution would be implemented.
Mr. Hale noted that the executive summary cover letter noted that “there is insufficient revenue to satisfy the return on investment requirements of the incumbent providers” which would result in County investment. Mr. Hill noted that some of the rate of return on investment requirements would be mitigated or eliminated by the grants that the County can qualify for that service providers cannot. Mr. Hill acknowledged that grant funding for this could become limited or reduced, but noted that 50% grant funding is considered successful. The Board and Mr. Hill discussed T-1 service costs and usage in the County. He noted that existing businesses would benefit from implementation of a solution and it would be an economic development factor for those businesses in search of a location. Use of Satellite was discussed with it being noted that there is limited download capacity of large file sizes and trouble with signal interference due to weather and foliage.
Mr. Hill noted that there may be more fiber in the County than is known but its whereabouts and its use is limited, due to its owner’s not wanting/allowing competition.
In response to Mr. Hale’s question regarding the utilization of communication towers to co-locate County equipment, Mr. Hill noted that a reservation of space on towers in the County is recommended for municipal purposes. He noted that they may not be willing to do this if the County wants the space to provide a service that is in competition with a service that they provide; however it is a negotiating point. He suggested that the County look at other localities that are implementing Broadband to see what they are requiring of those who are putting up towers.
Following Mr. Hill’s presentation, the Board took a five (5) minute break until 4:25 pm.
D. Presentation – Web GIS (S. Rorrer)
Ms. Rorrer distributed a color coded tax map produced from the GIS system for the Board to see and noted that the new zoning layer was almost complete and all updates had been done except for the new orthophotography. Ms. Rorrer then briefly demonstrated the features of the web GIS application which can be accessed on www.nelsoncountygis.org . Ms. Rorrer noted the following relative to the web GIS application:
• Black parcel lines are a problem when using the orthophotography, but are good when the photography is turned off.
• New 2007 building footprints will be updated with building addresses.
• Base imagery should be turned off when using a dial-up internet connection.
• The Query builder function is more advanced and needs some tweaking.
• The data is there and it will continue to be improved.
• A public computer is set up in her office on a trial basis and will eventually be installed in the Clerk’s Office.
• The tax maps are being corrected based on recorded records passed through to the Commissioner of Revenue’s Office.
• Cannot download or upload digitized surveys right now, but GPS coordinates can be used for reference.
IV. Unfinished Business
There was no unfinished business considered by the Board.
V. New Business
A. Procurement Exception (R2008-58)
Mr. Carter introduced a resolution authorizing a procurement exception (sole source procurement) for the CAD replacement in the Emergency Operations Center. He noted that this enables the County to avoid additional expense related to data integration of another vendor’s equipment. He noted that even though 80% of the equipment costs are to be paid by the State, the County must still comply with the Virginia Public Procurement Act for purchases over $50,000.00.
Mr. Hale made a motion to approve resolution R2008-58, Procurement Exception for DaPro, Inc. and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION (R2008-58)
PROCUREMENT EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Nelson County Purchasing Manual effective January 1, 1996 prescribes procurement by a formal bidding procedure of competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation for contracts $15,000 or greater;
WHEREAS, Title 2.2-4303 of the Code of Virginia requires the local governing body to make written determination and documentation that competitive sealed bidding or competitive negotiation is either not practicable or not fiscally advantageous;
WHEREAS, the County currently utilizes the DaPro, Inc. incident based reporting system and desires to implement a computer aided dispatch system that shares a common data base and server with the incident based reporting system;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that the formal bidding process is not practicable or fiscally advantageous because the computer aided dispatch system provided by DaPro, Inc. is the only system that will allow the County to share a common database without the County incurring significant cost for the programming and implementation of an interface to pass data between systems;
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors that a procurement exception be allowed to award the contract for computer aided dispatch software licensing to DaPro, Inc.
III. Reports, Appointments, Directives, and Correspondence
A. Reports
1. County Administrator’s Report
Mr. Carter gave the following report:
1. Courthouse/Government Center Project – Wiley and Wilson is continuing work on the completion of the project’s final design with final approval and authorization for construction bidding projected to be scheduled at the second July or first August 08 regular meeting of the Board. W&W has submitted 35% final drawings to USDA-RD, VA-DHR, the Nelson County Historical Society and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for review and comment. Input from these entities that would have a substantive impact on the project’s design will be reported to the Board. In conjunction with consideration of the use of funding from USDA-RD, staff is in discussion with Davenport and Company (and anticipates receipt of a services proposal) on provision of assistance to determine a recommended plan of finance for the project’s completion.
2. Health Department Facility Funding: The local Health Department remits monthly lease payments to Nelson County for use of the County owned facility that houses its offices. The current annual lease amount is $9,480 and is a shared state/local expense per a funding formula of 60.88% (state) and 39.12% (local). Per its efforts to assist the County with funding for new facilities, the Thomas Jefferson Health District has facilitated access to additional state funding that can be secured and utilized for renovation, leasing or construction. The total amount of the additional funding is $53,777. It would be based upon the current formula relationship such that the respective shares are $32,742 (60.88% state) and $21,035 (39.12% local). The $53,777 would be in addition to the current $9,480 such that total available funding would be $63,257. The funding can be obligated for 20 years such that a total of $1,265,140 would be available for (as noted) renovation of the existing or another facility, leasing of a new facility, or construction of a new facility. It is understood (and is being confirmed) that the funding (i.e. $63,257) remain in place as the annual lease payment (rent) at the conclusion of the 20 year period. In addition to the $63,257 in total funding, there is a current set aside amount of $117,282 previously paid to and being retained by the County that can be utilized for project planning, acquisition, design, etc.
Staff’s efforts associated with this subject have been focused on developing, perhaps identifying, a facilities solution for the local Health Department that could integrate the above described funding prior to the additional state funding being allocated to another locality. As an example, Ms. Brennan and I met in late March with representatives from the Health Department and the Nelson Center to discuss a possible expansion at the Center that would encompass the Health Department and, potentially, the local Department of Social Services. There is a planned footprint at the Center for an expansion. This example is one of several considerations.
With respect to DSS, it is staff’s understanding, that any state funding allocated to Nelson County for capital purposes would be specific to a 20 year amortization period and would conclude (i.e. no additional funding) after the twenty years. And, as was noted at the most recent Board meeting, there is no state funding currently in place albeit this can be an objective for the 2009 General Assembly Session or currently, should there be an identifiable source of state funding that can be allocated to the County.
In summary, funding is available to address facility improvements for the local Health Department. The analogy is “use it or lose it”. Integrating DSS into a plan of co-location requires resolving the question of availability of state funding or eliminating DSS from consideration until such funding could be secured.
The Board briefly discussed this item; reaching consensus to hold a workshop to discuss this further in detail.
3. Piney River 3 Project: Certification of Substantial Completion of Phase I (E.C. Pace) is in progress. The Phase II contractor (Atkins Excavating) has re-mobilized and is in the process of installing the system’s primary pump station. Phase II expected to be at substantial completion by the end of June or early July. The Phase III contractor (Commonwealth Excavating) is continuing to make substantive progress and reiterated at the monthly construction progress meeting on May 22 that they anticipate construction completion will be accomplished by the end of August or early September 08 (contract completion date is January 09). Commonwealth Excavating also proposed at the 5-22 progress meeting that it be authorized via change order to complete the project’s last phase (Phase IV) which encompasses installation and connection of all water and sewer laterals, including meters and grinder pumps. A scope of work for this service is being developed by the project engineer (Draper Aden Assoc.), which will also complete an analysis of and recommendation on Commonwealth’s cost proposal, thereafter. The project is within budget and has the potential to be below budget at completion.
Mr. Carter stated that the contractors encountered some difficulty due to the presence of fiber optic cables and has had to hand dig a lot of the ditches. He also noted that twenty (20) or more additional easements were being secured so that the Contractor can move work out of the VDOT right of way which is cheaper than the contractor having to use the select fill material as specified by VDOT. Mr. Carter noted that the project is still well within budget.
4. Piney River 4: Preliminary discussions with VA-DEQ and the Department’s project consultant firm, Vista Environmental, have resumed regarding the feasibility of extending water service from the Nelson County Service Authority’s water treatment plant in Colleen through the County’s Piney River Water (Distribution) System to the Roseland area. The specific purpose of the initiative is to address groundwater contamination from petroleum storage tanks that has impacted private well systems. A source of project funding would be DEQ. However, it is understood that such funding would not provide for the full cost of the project, which is estimated, subject to design, at $1,687,970 (Route 151 Corridor from intersection with Route 56 to Roseland). County and NCSA staff will continue to work and report on this initiative with a goal of identifying funding sources to eliminate or substantively minimize provision of local funding as a basis for local government authorization (i.e. local costs, including debt service would be paid entirely through system revenues, excluding County funding as a source of such revenues).
Mr. Carter elaborated noting that due to some contamination in the Roseland area, DEQ has suggested use of their remediation funds to extend the water line to address these contamination issues. He noted that the remediation funds could be available in 2010, but the funds are not sufficient to cover the costs of the installation of the entire project. County and NCSA staff are working together to put together non-local funding options to get this accomplished. Mr. Bruguiere noted that Roseland Rescue Squad had received a letter from DEQ advising them that the monitoring wells be pulled and the use of the charcoal filtration system be discontinued with a plan to permanently address the contamination issues in place by August. DEQ advised them that the remediation funds were running out and to approach the County about the possibility of a water line extension. The affected water supplies were noted to be the Roseland Rescue Squad, the Johnson Senior Center and the Byrum-Parr Funeral Home. Mr. Bruguiere noted another option was to secure a well site on adjacent private property that could cost upwards of $100,000 and not offer a permanent solution. Mr. Carter noted that there are roughly 105 possible connections within 1,000 ft. of the proposed water line.
5. Solid Waste - Collection Centers Project: Final equipment orders for the balance of County collection sites, including Blackrock and School locations, have been placed with Mid-Atlantic Waste Systems. Delivery will be on or about July 15. Roll-off vehicles (two) are still on schedule for delivery on July14. Interviews with prospective employees for driver positions (two) are scheduled for June 9 (a.m.). A transportation services contract with Thompson Trucking has been executed by the County and the company with service to commence upon receipt of notice to do so. Given these schedules, staff will endeavor to initiate start up of the County’s stand alone operation by July 21, 28 or August 4. This will provide for equipment inspections, licensing and staff training. The Shipman and Massies Mill (staffed) collection centers are in full operation and, per preliminary indications, working according to plan.
Mr. Carter added that the equipment vendor, Mid-Atlantic advised the County that the cost of steel had risen 35% and they would not be able to honor the current contract past a certain date; so the balance of the equipment including the future Faber/Schuyler site equipment had been ordered.
Mr. Carter noted that he has inquired with DEQ regarding the use of glass as fill material at the Transfer Station and will report back.
The Board briefly discussed the establishment of re-use sheds at Shipman and Massies Mill, with Mr. Carter noting that these would likely eventually be put in place.
6. Solid Waste (Other): Work is still process on concluding the gas monitoring program at the closed landfill facility, as is installation of an additional monitoring (sentinel) well for the groundwater monitoring program. VA-DEQ staff is still reviewing the County’s gas monitoring submission. As to the sentinel well, a lease application has been completed and submitted to Norfolk Southern. Approval is expected, with installation of the monitoring well to follow thereafter.
7. Budget (FY 07-08 and FY 08-09): Staff will report on the close out of FY 07-08 at the Board’s the first session in July. This will include a report on fund balance. With regard to FY08-09, staff will present an appropriation resolution at the June 26 Board meeting to establish authority for operational use of the budget at its commencement on July 1.
8. Broadband Project: VA-DHCD is proceeding with approval of a Phase 3 for the project. This will provide an additional $50,000 ($40,000 state and $10,000 local, via the EDA) towards implementation of broadband within the County.
9. 2007 Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program: The state Department of Emergency Management has officially advised the County of the allocation of $1,310,000 for the installation of a microwave network repeaters for 800 megahertz radio communications. The project will link the communications centers in participating localities via microwave to provide network connectivity that will enhance the ability of centers to communicate and share information. The project will also provide connectivity for the COMLINC project through the use of the shared STARS tower at High Top. Use of microwave facilities will provide the most reliable and cost efficient means of connectivity for the County. Staff (S. Rorrer) is working on the necessary grant implementation requirements. A 20% local match is required but is projected to be offset by in-kind matching expenses from the County, its partners, VDEM and other localities throughout the Commonwealth. A more in-depth project report will be presented to the Board once staff completes the requisite program requirements to insure the County’s receipt of this funding.
10. RVCC: An auction of the modular building at the Rockfish Valley Community Center was completed May 23 but did not result in the sale of the structure.
11. New Hightop Communications Tower: A meeting was conducted on June 3 with representatives of the Nature Conservancy to discuss securing the organization’s approval for proceeding with the measures necessary to construct and operate a new Hightop Communications Tower. County representatives included Chairman Harvey and Supervisor Brennan, S. Rorrer and S. Carter. Representatives from the VA State Police include Messrs. John Agee and Ronnie Rice. Ms. Judy Smythers, a property owner in the area of the tower’s proposed location, also participated in the meeting. Outcomes included 1) conducting a public informational meeting with the Nature Conservancy to utilize input from this meeting as a basis for whether or not it would consent to leasing its property for the proposed purpose, 2) balloon tests facilitated by VSP and 3) photographic simulation of the tower at installation. The County and VSP will facilitate scheduling and conducting the public information session.
12. Maintenance Building Roof Replacement: In process and nearing completion.
13. Blue Ridge Tunnel: A meeting is scheduled with the project consultant on 6-13 to endeavor to conclude negotiations for provision of final design and construction services. Appraisal reports have been received for properties located in Nelson County and will be utilized, as necessary, to support acquisitions for the trail project.
14. Staff Reports and Summary: Department reports will be forwarded on 6-9. Please advise should additional information on the above or other subjects be required. Your continued support is appreciated.
2. Board Reports
Ms. Brennan:
Reported that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District had formed a search committee for a new Director and that fiscal responsibility for the PWN had been transferred to TJPED. She reported attending a Wintergreen town meeting and the FFA Banquet.
Mr. Bruguiere, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Harvey and Mr. Hale made no reports.
B. Appointments
Given that the Nelson County Times had failed to publish the submitted advertisements for Board and Commission Appointment vacancies, the Board agreed by consensus to defer all appointments until June 26th. The Board discussed the recent trend of ads not being published by the NC Times with Ms. Erin McGrath, reporter for the NC Times noting that there had been a new ad system in place with lots of bugs to be worked out. The Board expressed interest in meeting with the editor to resolve these issues.
C. Correspondence
Mr. Carter overviewed a letter received from Dr. Collins, School Superintendent, requesting additional funding in the amount of $47,110.58 to cover fuel for school buses over budget and legal fees over budget in the amount of $ 45, 711.82. The letter also noted the current cost of filling the heating oil tanks prior to July 1, 2008 to be $51,770. Mr. Carter recommended that the Board not consider filling the schools oil tanks now due to fluctuations in pricing, but rather address the first two (2) items requested.
The Board concurred and after brief discussion of the request, Mr. Hale made a motion to approve additional funding for fuel for buses in the amount of $47,110.58 and additional funding for legal fees over budget in the amount of $45,711.82. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion.
D. Directives
The Board considered this item as the last order of business in the evening session as follows:
Mr. Hale:
- Noted that he is pleased that staff is re-looking at glass recycling and would like to see a
feasibility analysis of collecting and crushing the glass. Look at possibility of using purchased
Faber site bins at the existing staffed locations to collect glass, if shown to be cost effective.
The Board discussed the use of crushed glass in asphalt.
- Noted he would like to see pictures of the proposed tower at High-Top as promised by John
Agee of the State Police. Mr. Carter noted that this is forthcoming.
- Noted that he will be absent at the first July meeting but would like to see a report of last year’s
expenditures vs. budgeted and the related percentages over or under for each category.
Mr. Johnson:
- Wants to receive monthly financial reports.
- Wants to follow up with the Nelson County Times on ad publication mishaps. Mr. Carter noted
that staff has been working to resolve these issues.
Ms. Brennan:
- Inquired as to whether the Beech Grove sign insurance can be purchased by the County as a
rider to cover the sign. The Board’s consensus was to do what had been done previously in the
case of the welcome to Nellysford sign. Mr. Carter noted that he was in receipt of a letter
from Ms. Nicholas requesting this and that staff will report back.
- Wants to receive the Treasurer’s report also.
- Wants to receive an updated punch list.
- Will check on the use of crushed glass in asphalt.
Mr. Bruguiere and Mr. Harvey gave no directives.
IV. Recess and Reconvene for Evening Session
At 6:00 PM, on a motion made by Ms. Brennan and seconded by Mr. Hale, Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to recess and reconvene at 7:30 PM.
EVENING SESSION
7:30 P.M. – NELSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ROOM
I. Call to Order
Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM, with all Supervisors present to establish a quorum.
II. Public Hearings
A. Special Exception Permit, Verizon Wireless Class II Comm. Tower – Buck Creek
Mr. Fred Boger, Planning & Zoning Director overviewed the application noting that Verizon Wireless wants to install an 88 ft. Class II metal tower at 18115 Thomas Nelson Highway in Faber on property owned by John B. Young, Jr. He noted that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the application waiving the landscaping requirements and approving a special exception to permit the proposed tower to be located within the view shed of the designated scenic by-way along Thomas Nelson Highway. He noted that the Planning Commission had received opposition to the tower from an adjoining property owner who did not want to see the tower from his property.
Ms. Lori Schweller, attorney for Verizon Wireless, noted that they are requesting the landscaping waiver and the view shed exception since the site is well screened and heavily wooded. She also noted that the balloon tests that were conducted indicated that the tower would have no visual impact on surrounding properties noting that it cannot be seen from the North or South on Rt. 29.
In response to questions, it was noted that the Board could grant exceptions and waivers at its discretion based on the merits of each request. It was also noted that wooden poles are prone to problems with termites and woodpeckers. The base diameter of the pole was noted to be 3 ft. and tapering towards the top.
When asked if the County can have the right to use the tower for broadband purposes, Ms. Schweller noted that Verizon is open to it if there is room available on the monopole and they have provided conditional language on this before. Mr. Boger suggested the Board note a reservation of space in the motion if approving the application.
There being no further questions or discussion, Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing. There being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.
Following the public hearing, Ms. Brennan made a motion to approve the application by Verizon Wireless for an 88 ft. Class II communications Tower as presented, granting an exception to section 20-7-5K (2) and (3) waiving the landscaping requirements, and an exception to Section 20-7-2e to permit the metal pole within the view shed of the scenic byway; additionally requesting a reservation of space for County use on the tower. Mr. Boger noted that the landscaping requirements had already been waived by the Planning Commission and Ms. Brennan amended the motion to exclude this. Mr. Johnson seconded the amended motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the application.
B. Application, Verizon Wireless Class III Comm. Tower – Eades Hollow
Mr. Boger gave an overview of the application noting that Verizon Wireless is requesting approval of a Class III communications tower, 114 ft metal pole to be installed on property at 10777 Thomas Nelson Highway, Lovingston, owned by Randy Daniel Perry. He noted that the application includes requests for two (2) exceptions; one being for an exception to the 142.5 ft setback requirement and the second being for an exception to the proximity requirement of no Class III towers closer than two (2) miles to another Class III or Class II tower. Verizon proposes a setback of 20 ft. from the side yard with the pole designed such that it will collapse within the property line and will not be a detriment to the adjacent property owner. Mr. Boger noted that the Commission had received a letter from an adjacent property owner expressing general opposition to the tower. Mr. Boger then noted that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the application with the two (2) exceptions.
Ms. Schweller, attorney for Verizon Wireless, reiterated the details of the application and noted that the balloon tests done indicated that the tower will be visible going North on Thomas Nelson Highway, about 10 ft above the tree line however the tower itself is in a wooded area of the property. She noted that the height appears acceptable from the other directions. In conclusion she noted that the tower is designed to collapse on itself.
There being no further questions or discussion, Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing. There being no persons wishing to be recognized the public hearing was closed.
Following the public hearing, Mr. Hale made a motion to approve the application as presented for a 114 ft. Class III communications tower on the property of Randy Daniel Perry, Tax Map # 58-A, Parcel 4 with the approval of the two (2) requested special exceptions and the added condition that should the County wish to place an antenna on the tower, that it be allowed if technically feasible to do so. Ms. Brennan seconded the motion and there being no further discussion, Supervisors voted unanimously (5-0) by roll call vote to approve the motion and the application.
C. Region 2000 Solid Waste Authority – Appomattox Membership (R2008- 57)
Mr. Carter noted to the Board that Mr. Gary Christie Director of the Region 2000 Local Government Council was in attendance on behalf of Clarke Gibson of the Region 2000 Solid Waste Authority. He overviewed the proposed resolution noting that Appomattox County was not an original member of the Authority during its formation and now wishes to become a member. He noted that they would be remitting back to the Authority a pro-rata share of the costs of establishing the Authority which would be used to offset its future budgetary costs. He also stated that the other member localities were in the process of conducting their public hearings and are expected to approve of Appomattox’s membership. He stated for the public that the public hearing was to amend the articles of incorporation and to amend the member use agreements to include Appomattox County. It was noted that allowing Appomattox to join the authority would enable the tipping fees to stay stable longer.
Mr. Carter noted that while the amendment to the member use agreement was not in the Board’s packets, it is essentially the same as the previously adopted agreement including Appomattox.
There being no further questions or discussion, Chairman Harvey opened the public hearing. There being no persons wishing to be recognized, the public hearing was closed.
Following the public hearing, Mr. Hale made a motion to adopt resolution R2008-57, resolution approving the membership of Appomattox County in the Region 2000 Services Authority and Mr. Bruguiere seconded the motion. Ms. Brennan noted her delight that Appomattox wants to join the authority; however she noted that she would be abstaining from the vote without having seen the amended agreement. Mr. Carter noted that the vote could be deferred until the second monthly meeting.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Harvey called for the vote and Supervisors voted 4-0-1, Ms. Brennan abstaining, to approve the motion and the following resolution was adopted:
RESOLUTION-R2008-57
NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MEMBERSHIP OF APPOMATTOX COUNTY IN THE REGION 2000 SERVICES AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Counties of Campbell and Nelson and the Cities of Lynchburg and Bedford established the Region 2000 Services Authority (the“Authority”) by adopting Articles of Incorporation which were approved by the Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission effective December 28, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Appomattox County has indicated its desire to become a member of the Authority and to participate in the regional solid waste effort; and
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of the other Member Jurisdictions are willing to allow Appomattox to become a member of the Authority,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Authority and the Boards of Supervisors of Appomattox, Campbell and Nelson Counties and the City Councils of Lynchburg and Bedford, pursuant to Section 15.2-5112 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and following duly advertised public hearings, that Appomattox County shall become a member of the Authority, effective upon issuance of a certificate approving such expansion of the Authority by the State Corporation Commission. Appomattox has paid the Authority $27,000.00, and shall make an additional payment of $95,607.00 to the Authority prior to August 1, 2008 to reimburse the Authority its proportional share of the engineering, legal and other costs associated with the initial creation of the Authority.
The Board of the expanded Authority shall consist of the following five members, who shall serve for an initial term of three years expiring June 30, 2008. Subsequent terms shall be for three years.
Appomattox County
Member – Aileen T. Ferguson
P.O. Box 863, Appomattox, VA 24522
Alternate – ( )
Campbell County
Member – R. David Laurell
P.O. Box 100, Rustburg, VA 24588
Alternate – Clifton M. Tweedy
Nelson County
Member – Stephen A. Carter
P.O. Box 336, Lovingston, VA 22949
Alternate – Susan E. McSwain
City of Lynchburg
Member – L. Kimball Payne, III
900 Church Street, Lynchburg, VA 24504
Alternate – David A. Owen
City of Bedford
Member – Charles Kolakowski
P.O. Box 807, Bedford, VA 24523
Alternate – Barrett F. Warner
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Authority and the Boards of Supervisors of Appomattox, Bedford and Nelson Counties and the City Councils of Lynchburg and Bedford that the First Amendment to the Region 2000 Services Authority Member Use Agreement is hereby approved, and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and/or Mayor of each governing body is authorized to sign the Amendment on behalf of each locality.
III. Other Business
There was no other business considered by the Board.
IV. Public Comments
There were no persons wishing to be recognized.
V. Adjournment
At 8:15 PM, Mr. Hale made a motion to adjourn, Ms. Brennan seconded the motion and Supervisors voted unanimously by voice vote to adjourn the meeting.
Copyright 2009 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
