Board of Supervisors Meeting   6/14/2022

Mr. Barton, will you lead us?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, everyone, for coming out here today.

We are now going to go into our public comments section.

First person who has signed up is Shannon Irvin, who will now open public comments.

I wanted to give you an update on where we were after the special session of the General Assembly.

In terms of our budget, we are receiving an overall 72,041 less from our CalSTOL calculations.

based on what the governor had given us, $72,541 less.

We are getting some federal funds of $146,899 in federal CARES Act ARPA funds to give $1,000 bonuses to staff members next December.

It only covered 136 staff members, and we have 304 staff.

In order to trim our budget from the $3.4 million request to the $1.5 million

The budget that was presented to the school board last Thursday night that was balanced included the elimination of seven divisions overall to reduce the

Support staff scales from the $20 minimum wage down to $15 minimum wage and took out the step corrections for the teacher's scales that we had to do from steps 20 through 20.

The balance budget would be $30,817,759, which would require a $1.5 billion contribution from the county to balance.

I'm here to answer any questions.

I can do that if I'm needed to the budget set.

But I just wanted to give you an update on where we were as of last year.

Great.

We'll save you the budget.

All right.

Moving on, we have nobody else who has signed up to speak in public comments.

This is your opportunity to speak if you wish to.

Again, that's three minutes per individual.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak with public comments from

Okay.

Hearing and seeing none, I now will close the public comment section at this time.

Moving on to the consent agenda.

Hopefully you all have a chance to review.

I have, I believe, it's the chair's recommendation that we approve the consent agenda as is.

Do we have a motion?

So moved.

We have a motion, Mr. Parr, do we have support?

I will second.

Second from Mr. Reed.

Any further discussion?

Hearing no discussion, we will do a vote by acclamation.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Abstentions?

Hearing none, let the record show that this motion passes unanimously.

Moving on to presentations, Ian Baxter with the Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Thank you for coming out here from the TJPEC.

And for those of you who don't know, Mr. Baxter and I have interacted a lot with the Regional Housing Partnership and talked a lot on affordable housing.

My name is Ian Baxter.

I'm a regional planner at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

I'm here today to talk to you all about the current 2023 update of the natural hazard mitigation plan for the region.

I'm going to go through some of the high-level details about the process, talk through some of the data that we used to make our determination, and then give you a roadmap for what the next six months will look like in terms of the plan.

So the purpose of the plan is basically to prepare for natural disasters before they occur.

So we're looking to reduce loss of life, property damage, and destruction of commerce.

But there's also obviously an incentive baked into this that FEMA requires natural hazard mitigation plans as condition for eligibility to receive certain mitigation grants.

So a locality or region-wide effort will have to be conducted every five years to update this plan.

So there's six sections of the plan and I'll briefly highlight them.

I don't want to belabor what's already on the screen but essentially we're looking to document both the planning process as well as high-level details about the community that we're

Conducting the plan update for us, that's the planning district, our six localities.

That is general information about housing, transportation, the economy of the region, et cetera, what might have changed since 2018 when the last plan was conducted and approved.

Then we get into the hazard identification and analysis section.

I'll talk a little bit more specifically about this in a moment.

But this basically includes a determination made by the hazard mitigation working group.

which is comprised of stakeholders and representatives from all six of the localities in the planning district as well as some state experts.

They basically take a set of data and then generate what's called a HIRA which is basically a ranking matrix determining sort of the most hazardous, natural hazard events in the planning district all the way down to the least.

So that, I'll show that in a moment but that's a pretty big part of the plan because it kind of determines

What, as a region, is most dangerous?

Then we conduct both a vulnerability and capability assessment.

The vulnerability assessment is an analysis of the human impacts that these could cause.

So we use some proprietary software from FEMA to determine potential economic losses, as well as different types of damages.

We use a variety of tools to basically determine how bad or how damaging

A natural hazard could be for the region.

A capabilities assessment is basically a survey of local capacity to not only plan for natural hazards, but respond accordingly.

And then finally, we have a mitigation strategy, which is basically a list of actions for each locality to sort of what over the next five years they're planning on doing to not only prepare for natural disasters, but also respond to them.

So that's sort of what's just included in the plan.

And where we are on the timeline, we're actually in the midst of our public comment period.

So the draft plan is up for public comment on the TJPPC website.

This is just a brief overview.

This is conducted every five years, but the plan update process itself takes a little bit over two years.

We're hoping to have all of these be adopted formally by our member localities in 2023.

But this kicked off midway through 2021, and we're hoping to wrap it up in early 2023.

So this is the high road I was referring to and basically the chapter itself there's a lot of data that's included in the packet that I sent over and that's just an overview of the type of data that we use but basically this describes all the natural hazards that affect the planning district so we're not

Obviously referring, you know, we're not talking about volcanoes or tsunamis.

We're talking primarily about, you know, thunderstorms, tornadoes, earthquakes, things that actually happened in our planning district.

There's data about the frequency, duration, and severity of these events.

And so, yeah, they're presented in order of the relative risk that they pose to the region.

We use a risk matrix developed by Kaiser Permanente.

And so this is the high run, the draft high run for 2023.

You'll notice the top three hazards are hurricane, high winds, and wind storms are one.

They all are attributed to one natural hazard type, flooding and winter storms and weather.

And I just want to reiterate that the process by which this was created was this matrix I sent out along with some of the data that you have.

There's a lot more and a lot of it is included in the plan.

Two members of all of the localities in the planning district, and I basically took all of their scores and combined them.

So this is the region-wide HIRAS.

So you'll notice in the appendix of the plan, it'll have what I received individually from each locality, but obviously due to geographic variation, population differences,

There are different risks associated with each locality of the planning district, which is why we have those distinct mitigation action items in a different section, but this itself illustrates the relative risk of these natural hazards for the planning district at large, so before we do.

And I'm not going to walk through each of these mainly because you probably can't read them.

These are some of the information that's on these slides included in your packet.

But I just wanted to give you a general overview of the type of data that the working group used to make some of these determinations.

We're looking at historical data from NCDC and NOAA as well as the National Weather Service.

Basically determining how often these events happen, how dangerous they are, and how much property loss is incurred.

So you'll see most of the data that we use really rests on that frequency, duration, and severity.

And so we use a real big variety of data sources, whether that be from national organizations,

and the agencies to state departments, but these are just examples of some of the data and the way it's presented within the draft plan to illustrate the relative risk.

And so again, we're looking primarily at severity, duration, and intensity.

I will actually highlight this and forgive some of the formatting on the slides.

After obviously the COVID-19 pandemic, FEMA indicated that pandemic slash communicable disease section be added to the plan.

So obviously while we focused a little bit on the COVID-19 pandemic within the planning districts, we were talking more broadly in that chapter about communicable disease.

So things like hepatitis,

And this slide is just a brief overview, again, some of the data sources that I was mentioning.

If you'll notice, it seems like almost every department in the state of Virginia we engaged for data.

I mean, we really relied on state experts.

We actually had a few of them sit in the working group.

from the Virginia Department of Energy, but we had contacts at the Department of Forestry, Health, Conservation and Recreation, Environmental Quality, et cetera, using VDOT information as well, and also accessing national data sources, so Center for Disease Control, American Society for Civil Engineers,

And obviously the National Weather Service providing the bulk of the data.

I do want to highlight and sort of say thank you I guess to the locality staff.

We're sort of able to, we're getting this data from the National Weather Service.

These aren't people obviously that live in, for example, Nelson.

So some of the, basically we relied on locality staff to provide sort of narrative information highlighting some of the storms.

So anecdotal information about, for example, how severe a storm was that you really wouldn't get from anyone else other than emergency management personnel.

or folks that actually live in the community.

So if you kind of think of that top part of the data or those top organizations, it's really kind of the base of the knowledge and that it's filled in by locality staff and local news and local resources.

And so that's for the high road.

The vulnerability assessment, like I said earlier, is mainly providing an overview and analysis of vulnerability.

So in, you know, amount of economic damage that can be caused by natural hazards, as well as potential loss of life.

We use a proprietary software developed by FEMA called Hazus.

which is required by FEMA in the update of this plan.

It's actually a really great tool.

It does require a little bit of GIS expertise, but it can produce these really, I think, great-looking maps that can mainly look primarily at hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes.

And so this is a model based on Hurricane Fran, which came near the region in 1996.

And so you'll just notice this is a good example of biceps

And this does the same piece of software.

It does some really cool flooding.

It can produce some really cool flooding maps.

So this is the town of Scottsville in southern Alamo County.

And you'll notice on the left there's the projected economic damage for

In this case, we're looking at a significant amount of economic damage and presumably loss of life in Scottsville where this to occur.

This is a little harder to read.

It looks better within the report, but it's just another tool we use from the southern group of state foresters.

It's basically a burn probability metric.

And so you'll notice this is detailed in the report that most of the playing district is not really at very high risk of wildfire, but there are pockets of Nelson, Green, and parts of Albemarle that are a little bit more.

So this is just, again, another example that we use to determine vulnerability.

potential damage from storms and other weather events.

And finally, the Mitigation Action Items section for each locality and town within the planning district that's expected to adopt this in 2023.

FEMA and VDEM want them to have a list of action steps that they're willing to take to prepare for natural hazards.

And this, of course, is similar to a comprehensive plan type

I'm talking to where a lot of these goals are aspirational and there's no real penalty for not achieving them, but I think the purpose here is to bake into the county's next five years some emergency

or other proactive steps.

And so presented with each of these tables is basically how much it will cost, when it will be done, how highly the county or city prioritizes this action, and then what type of hazard it's intended to mitigate.

So within the draft plan, you'll find a whole section of Nelson County activities that was provided to me by Russell Gibson here at the county.

And this whole table will be filled out for all of those actions.

And finally, our next steps.

So again, we are in the midst of a public comment period from now until June 30th.

On the TJBC website, the draft is available and all public comments can be sent to me.

My email and phone number is on the website accompanying that draft.

We'll then submit it to VDEM, get it turned around from them.

Hopefully we don't need to correct anything, but if we do submit it again, then to FEMA with the same process.

And then we'll come before you again in 2023 to ask for formal adoption of the plan.

So that's kind of

Great, thank you so much.

Again, thank you for your hard work.

Thank you for asking me to come back.

to Mr. Rutherford, who serves on our Community Criminal Justice Board, also Jim Hall, who serves from Nelson County.

I also want to express my appreciation to Superintendent Mark Coomer at the Regional Jail.

Without his collaboration, what you're about ready to see would simply not be possible and isn't available to most jurisdictions in the Commonwealth.

So what you're going to be looking at is the third in a series of these reports that document trends in jail utilization specifically for Nelson County at the Elmore Charlottesville Regional Jail.

And these trends are tracked demographically by race, by gender, by age group, by charge type, by charge level.

And they're tracked over a 10-year period of time.

But as you are probably acutely aware, the last two years have been unusual from the standpoint of the COVID pandemic.

So I take some effort in this report to also isolate those two years from the rest of the trend lines to show you how influential those two years have been on your daily utilization trends.

So first let me describe some definitions.

An intake is a person taken into the jail.

Doesn't matter how many charges they're taking in on.

It doesn't matter what type of charges they're taking in on.

Doesn't matter how long they stay.

It's simply the taking of the inmate into the jail.

and I had to take out Weekenders because of the way the two different systems, the old legacy system called Pistol and the new system called New World at the jail count Weekenders differently.

So I had to remove them to cleanse the data.

Once that was done, you can see where Nelson intakes were up 51% specifically starting in 2015 and then dropping sharply during the pandemic years of 20 and 21.

However, as a share of total intakes at the jail, Nelson's increase was 108% compared to a very modest increase in Almonte County of 9% and an actual drop of 25% in intakes for City of Charlottesville in Maine.

By race,

Most significant was the intakes of white inmates of 63% compared to a much smaller increase among black inmates and a much higher increase of intakes of female inmates, 217%, compared to those of male intakes.

By age group, and I have been seeing this routinely in every jurisdiction I've studied,

The only group that is down in terms of their intake volume are the very youngest inmates, age 18 to 24.

And this has ramifications for your bed-day's expenditures at Jules and Charlotte.

Most significantly are the increases in the age 30 to 39 group and the age 50 plus age group.

By and large, the average age of an inmate in the jail has increased slightly, but not nearly as significantly as other jurisdictions that I study.

A little bit about weekenders.

Once I isolated the weekenders from the rest of the data, I determined that they averaged about 2.4% of all Nelson County intakes, and that increased from 2017 to 2021, and specifically increased during the two pandemic years.

Okay, now for another definition.

A booking is a charge.

It is not a person.

I can be brought in, I can be taken into the jail on breaking and entering in grand larceny for instance, and that's two bookings.

They are the best measure of the kinds of charges that people are coming in on the jail, into the jail on, as an intake is a better metric of how many people are coming into the jail.

Booking volume increased more than twice as fast as did your intake volume and there's a reason for this of 133%, again dipping strongly during 20 and 21.

Felony booking specifically

are the most influential charge level that is impacting your booking volume of 352%, again with a significant dip in 2020 and a partial rebound in 2021.

One of the reasons why your bookings are up stronger than your intakes are is that you have more charges per intake event, 47% more, in 2021 than you had in 2011.

And now for a little bit about the pandemic.

There's been a general downward trend, which was actually beginning before the onset of the pandemic with the exception of an anomaly in the third quarter of 2019.

The trend was down, and the trend continued down over the course of the four-year period.

And that trend was down both among felony charges and misdemeanor charges, but down more strongly among misdemeanors.

and interestingly enough trending up very slightly among felonies even during the pandemic.

So the next thing I'm going to show you are the top 10 looking charges by type that pertain to Nelson County inmates at ACRJ.

They are narcotics,

driving while intoxicated, assault, larceny, operator's license charges, probation violations, contempt of court, weapons charges, alcohol charges, and fraud.

And those are by volume over the entire 10-year period.

When I look at the rates of change among these different charge types, you can see most specifically the increase among probation violators of 610% over that 10 years.

followed by a 400% increase in narcotics and a 308% increase in weapon, although there are four more charge types that have increases of more than 90% being alcohol, excuse me, assault charges, large means, contempt of court, and fraud.

The only things that were down

where operators license charges and alcohol offenses.

When I look specifically the four years to prior to the pandemic and to post onset of pandemic, you can see a significant change in

The patterns of booking types over those four years, everything down strongly except for assaults and larceny which continue to increase by volume during the pandemic.

Now for probation violation specifically, the rate

At which probation violations represent percentage of all Nelson County bookings increased 142% during the last 10 years.

By 2021, they represented 6.82% of all bookings.

So this is a depiction of that data.

Much more significant increases at the felony level than at the misdemeanor probation violation level.

All right, so intakes are an important metric.

Intakes plus average length of stay equals cost.

So keeping that in mind, let's talk about average length of stay.

Average length of stay for Nelson County inmates increased 65%, all of that after 2018, and climbing very, very strongly during the two pandemic years.

I'll also remind you that there was a difference in the rate of increase among felony and misdemeanor charges and that's likely accounting for much of this increase in length of stay.

The entire increase is associated with white inmates, up 116%.

Every length of stay among black inmates actually fell 27%.

And again, female inmate average length of stay up more than twice that of males.

The most significant increase in average length of stay is among your oldest inmates over the age of 50.

With fairly strong increases also among the age 25 to 29 group, you will notice almost no change in average length of stay among your youngest inmates.

And again, this will have implications for your cost.

So bed day expenditures, take your intake volume and multiply it by your average length of stay.

and that results in an increase in your bed day expenditures at the jail of 175%.

The cost of an inmate day is $112 currently as calculated by the Virginia Compensation Board.

And one of the things that's important to consider, at least in terms of bill you get from ACRJ,

is how you fare relative to the other two members of the ACRJ Authority.

And in this particular case, you're up 243% in terms of your share, whereas Albemarle's is up fairly marginally at 14%, and Charlottesville's down 35%.

As recently as 2006, you have about a 5% share of jail bed day expenditures that's now over 17%.

Again, all of that associated with white inmates.

And twice the increase in bed day expenditures among female inmates than male inmates, although male inmates are also up very strongly.

When we look at the age characteristics of bed day expenditures, we see a 500% increase among inmates who are over the age of 50 years old.

And no, essentially no increase among your youngest inmates.

So I'm going to talk a little bit about the fact that you actually support two jails.

One of them is a catch and release jail.

About 35% of your inmates are arrested, booked, and released within 24 hours.

The average length of stay for somebody who's serving less than 30 days is only five days as a result.

But the inmates that are costing you the most money

are actually the orange line at the top, up 103% inmates who are serving more than 30 days at ACRJ.

And when I say more than 30 days, in fact, they're up 28% as a percentage of all of your intakes and releases.

They serve over 200 days on average.

Some of these are very, very long-staying inmates who are pulling up your average.

Consequently, if you want to see where your bed day expenditures are increasing, it is specifically among this group of longer-staying inmates serving an average of over 200 days a week.

and they represent about 95% of your bed day expenditures even as they represent almost.

They represent a little less than, a little more than 35% of your overall inmate count.

So you put all this together,

You've had sizable increases in intakes, mostly associated with probation violations and narcotics charges in terms of the rate of increase.

When you add that to increases in your average length of stay, they have a combined effect on your bed day expenditures and ultimately on your cost.

And while there was some mitigation in this trend during the pandemic years,

There are suggestions at least comparing 20 to 20, 21 to 22 data that I have so far that that trend might be reversed.

I don't have a crystal ball.

I cannot tell you what your metrics will look like this time next year.

There are too many variables involved.

One of them is quite simply whether the COVID pandemic has changed human behavior, both offender behavior and criminal justice behavior.

I would say that that is a jurisdictional discussion for you to have with your stakeholders within the county.

I try to stay away from answering why questions.

I see my role as providing you with the data that allows your jurisdiction to have discussions among stakeholders involving those why questions.

I think from the data, simply from the data,

Right?

I've got a question.

It's a great question.

It was actually asked by your Commonwealth's attorney a couple months ago, and so I did an analysis which showed about 50% of the charges, about 50% of the intakes, so we're talking people,

Fifty percent of those are of individuals who live in a zip code that is not affiliated with Nelson County.

Having said that, I ran the tape the other way.

And there are equal numbers of Nelson County inmates at ACRJ on Charlottesville without the moral charges.

So there's a flow going both ways.

Nelson County residents committing crimes in other jurisdictions and residents of other jurisdictions committing crimes in Nelson County.

And the fact is that's true for every jurisdiction that I've studied.

There is significant mobility and particularly at the felony level among individuals who live on the fringes of your jurisdiction.

It does.

Any other questions for Mr. Grudlow at this time?

Yeah?

Thank you so much.

One person is in jail.

He is in jail during his trial.

If he doesn't get bond, let's say, how often are they in jail to serve their sentence?

So only about 4% of your intake volume can be identified as inmates who end up being transferred into DoC custody.

It's a very small number.

Obviously, it's largely populated with felons.

But even at the felony level, you are more likely to get booked into ACRJ, whether you're bonded or not, if you end up getting a sentence, to end up serving your sentence locally.

And in fact, most individuals who are serving two years or less are going to serve it locally.

The state will provide a per diem of, I think it's $12 a day.

to support what are called state responsible inmates who have been sentenced on a felony.

Zero.

We pay.

Well, it covered $12 of it.

Right, that's very nice of them.

There was some legislation in the General Assembly this year to raise that per diem.

I'm not sure how generous that raise would be.

Any other questions for Neil?

Thank you Neil.

Appreciate you traveling up here and circulating this data.

Thank you for inviting me.

Absolutely.

Moving on to VDOT, SmartScale.

Rick?

I got a phone today.

Yes, Mr. Parr?

We had this before and it makes you very interested.

Sure.

Would you ask the Commonwealth's attorney to do something to explain things?

It would be interesting to get your input for a review of this and the earlier report, it would be interesting to get the review from Russell

Well, greetings.

We're starting to get out more and more.

I'm here today to discuss smart scale applications that Nelson County has put into the pre-application process and for those unfamiliar with smart scale it is the program by which VDOT scores and measures performance of transportation

We've approved the projects and to date we're in round five of SmartScale.

This is a competitive process that is undertaken every two years.

In those two year cycles between rounds, we conduct studies most often.

The projects that you're seeing today have all been the result of either older or some newer studies and are projects that have yet to be funded through SmartScale.

To date, Nelson County has been pretty successful with our studies that we've done in conjunction with VDOT and Nelson County.

We've seen a number of improvements along the 151 corridor and also in addition to the Route 29 corridor.

What I'm going to show you today are the three projects that are in the kiddies and the terminal at times.

that are indicated, so to speak, in the pre-application.

They have been validated and have been justified to move forward in the SmartScale application.

And so, billing and planning staff are working towards fulfilling those applications and getting those completed.

As a requirement of the applications, it is a requirement of the SmartScale procedures for the board of supervisors and the local jurisdictions in the past.

The first two projects that I'm going to show you are previous projects that have been submitted in previous rounds and are still feasible in the design and in the concepts and each one of these are on the 151 corridor and these are results from the study that we did on the 151 corridor back in 2013 which

Mr. Harvey and Ms. Brennan at the time were the two champions board members that participated in that effort.

151 and 6, this is at the large intersection with the AAP site located there and as part of that this is going to be a roundabout concept.

The current cost is going to be pretty much being inflated from this figure.

This is the cost that we pulled out of the Round 4, submitted up in Round 4.

As you all are aware, costs were going up day by day in this part of the process, so we're anticipating that this will be no different.

The $13 million price tag on this one is probably going to jump.

We'll be able to do the $17 million and $18 million by the time it's all said and done.

Projects are not getting cheaper.

They're getting more expensive.

Supply chains are an issue as well.

Despite that, we're still staying on target on budget with most of our projects.

Again, this is what we call PSI, Attention for Safety Improvement.

It's one of the higher PSI intersections in the county.

The previous board

I think this one was just out of the funding scenario in the last round.

I'll jump to this one before we get into it, until we get into the conversation.

The last one is brought up by Senator Harvey, which is a 10-bar and 150 points to $7 million

Both of these projects were previously submitted under smart scale supported by the board.

Now, let's go back.

So, one of the new projects that we have identified as what we call our project pipeline.

This was a new state initiative.

Our overreaching transportation document, D-Trimmings, identifies what they call priority one, two, three, and four locations.

You were privileged enough to have this intersection identified as a priority one location.

So, that is pretty much a direct result of the number of accidents that occur at this location.

Not only from cross feeding, turning movements, rear end collisions, you name it, you've had just about every accident at this location.

Back when we did the Lovingston study, I think it was in 2005, I think it was when this traffic signal was first put in, soon after that study.

And we've continued to see this as a problematic intersection over the years.

So, up comes a little project pipeline, which is charged with looking at the high priority one.

locations in our district.

We had a couple in Lynchburg, a couple in Danville, and we had one rural jurisdiction.

Nelson County was the proudest one to have this intersection reviewed and studied over the last really year that we've gone through.

And one of the unique things about the private pipeline is because of the virtual environment, we did what was called a potential request survey.

My request survey of the virtual meetings that we had allows the general public to have access through social media feeds, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and so forth.

Go morning and answer questions in regards to the project.

And I'll be honest with you, anytime we throw out alternative intersections as we call them roundabouts are one of those.

R. Cuts are one of the other alternatives that you're seeing more and more up and down through the corridor.

You'll see one going in at tight squeeze, that 29.

They had one that was almost identical to this one that was funded in the last round, and that one's going to be going in at tight squeeze.

and you're going to see up at Remington and some of the places up towards north of Charlottesville, a couple of other ARCA intersections that will be going in.

Now the one unique thing about the ARCA projects is they're not, they are newer to Virginia but they're not newer to other jurisdictions in other states.

North Carolina, if you're familiar with Wilmington and 17, going down from Wilmington to Myrtle Beach,

Back years and years ago, the North Carolina DOT went in and put our cuts in before any economic development came in through the area.

And despite that, the same issues you guys are going to bring up, economic development came, economic development flourished through that section of 17, and it created a very safe corridor.

Now the other unique thing about this particular location is Route 29.

It is a corridor of statewide significance, so VDOT has a specific interest in seeing this corridor maintain its thoroughfare approach.

You're generating 28,000 to 30,000 vehicles at some sections through

29 will be the district.

I think we're probably sitting around 16 to 20 vehicles per day coming through this particular location.

And so most of your movements are the commuter through movements serving the travel and public.

We've got heavy freight units through here as well.

So there's only so many different types of alternatives that you can look at when you look at a particular signalized intersection in a real jurisdiction.

And the R-cut is the preferred alternative.

Now, through the Metro Court Survey, again, your local jurisdictions, so that you may participate in it, were able to answer questions in regards to what the general feel was for these particular projects.

Now, I don't have to sit here and tell you that everybody was overly excited about this new alternative coming in.

at this location, but no matter what project we put forth as part of the review, nobody was really overjoyed.

Now, we can say the same thing about roundabouts.

Most people absolutely hate roundabouts until they start traveling in an environment that they're actually much easier than any other thing.

What the archive does, if I were to throw up a diagram of the intersection there at Front Street,

and Cal him, you will see 32 conflict points.

In any typical signalized intersection, there's 32 potential conflict points.

So any type of turning movement, cross movement that you can think of, they're there in that particular intersection.

What the R-cut does, it doesn't eliminate, but it does reduce.

So the R-cut, you go down to about 24 potential conflict points.

Roundabout would take it down to about 16 conflict points.

Roundabout would be feasible at this location based on topography, form, and some of the general movements.

You've got to have some quality in some of the movements and form to work effectively.

So the R-cut here reduces from 32 to 24.

It is still cyclized in certain capacities, and that's mainly for your laptop movements.

Movement that is taken away is the cross-feed from Front Street to Calico.

And that will require a U-turn movement downstream.

So if you're coming out of Front Street,

You'll make a right.

You'll go down to crossover.

You'll go down to U-turn movement area.

There will be a signal there that will help flow that traffic through.

Now, the signal is we go down to what we call two-phase.

So we go from a four-phase, which is all stops, to a two-phase, which is allowing more movement through the through movements and then controlling the left-turn movements to associate those movements at the appropriate time.

Also, if you're coming out of Coward Hill from the Plume Yard Chocolate Center, you'll make a right down.

If you're trying to get across, you'll go down.

You turn to prove to be more safe and effective, and that's one of the reasons why you see these particular alternatives.

Coming into play, these recommendations on basically parkway type four lane design properties.

We can fit them in with limited right-of-way.

We still have some right-of-way here, but for the most part it fits within the footprint of the roadway.

So this is the third project that Nelson County has pushed forward for smart scale application.

I was asked to come today basically to explain to each one of these two.

Let's take the easy ones first.

Let's go to the circle.

So if it gets funded, again, these were round four figures that we pulled up.

We're going through the review process now for the new budgets.

You'll see the kick out date will more than likely be about 2017-18 on the start now versus the year before the last.

So basically, the end date that you see on here will more than likely be posted on the start date.

My only comment is not soon enough.

Based on this past December, there was some money that became available.

We were able to get that product funded, so that's going to come on faster.

If we get opportunities to advance, we do when we can.

And it depends on how flush we get with money, and that's up in that process.

So let us know when that opportunity is.

That's right.

All right, any other comments about the traffic, sir?

Round it up.

Round it up.

Mr. Harvey, I think you know a little bit about this one.

Take it all?

Yeah, I got you.

So that's 2030.

I tell you, that's not working 10 years out.

If we don't now, let's go to day and day.

So just to give you an idea from a pricing standpoint, $9.5 million, that's pretty much current in today's dollars.

OK.

So here's the deal.

I did have a chance to talk to the several constituents on Front Street, Calla Hill.

and around EMS, and of course, and any new thing that a EMS person, it's always a difficult thing, so I absolutely understand that.

I'm in the construction business, so I do get it, I do get it.

You know, some of the concerns are obviously, you know, safety is perhaps something that we want to talk about, and that intersection has taken lives of people that I knew and grew up with, and it's a serious intersection, and you know,

Well, let me put it to you this way.

We're required to look at all options.

Sure.

We go through a very detailed analysis looking through 30 different alternative analysis.

Sure.

Back when we did the Lovingston study, we had a full blown image image.

from a long-term perspective, access roads on the backside, roundabout it, 256 and so forth.

So you've got signal around those lights at the two left turn movements at the middle of the intersection.

And then you've got two-phase signals.

And they're all two-phase, which basically means stop and go.

You're allowed to go.

You've got a phase now that will stop the flow of traffic on a limited basis to allow the movements.

So you've got four signals.

But you're actually, because they're two-phase, much less than you are a typical four-phase.

Much less than what you currently have now.

There, many of which would be a crossover on Front Street.

We have another access point just on the other side of town.

There's a crossover there.

It's not as problematic now.

More than likely, when you put this in, you'll see more people go to that access point.

I don't know if they make that enough time to leave.

I just wonder if, you know, where a lot of people, and this is just not anything more than my experience of seeing them getting into accidents is, you know, when they make a left-hand turn.

I remember that was a very big deal, you know, initially.

And I remember specifically hearing my friends tell a story about when the caps came to the

For me, I look at this from not only the economics and traffic perspective.

I just think it might be a little bit soon for us to be the experiment for an archive, at least for our general area, because I can't name one.

Frankly, we were through for that one.

Yeah.

That was an object-based design, which we were able to justify in eliminating that project because some of the other smaller projects that we did there.

Sure.

But you guys were actually the first one.

Gotcha.

The other one, I'd like to say, is under design now, and that's at five schools.

Right.

Almost exactly.

It is reminiscent that if you lay these two over, they would be, I think,

You guys would have probably seen this a couple years ago when we did what we call the two preservation plans.

Because of the massive problems in this area, we didn't look at Nelson.

Personally, we stopped and pretty much tried to get the bypass in the county.

There's no traffic going across.

And to turn left into the supermarket,

You would go beyond the intersection?

If you're trying to come out of Front Street... No, no, yeah.

If you're coming from the south at 29, you want to go to the food line.

So if you're going from 29 south heading towards Charlottesville, you would...

We get into this lane here and make that left.

So that left turn movement, these two left turn movements are still there.

The only thing that's going to eliminate it is the cross movement, which is where most of the accidents are affected.

So if you're coming on north or south on 29, you still have access for right turns on Park Street, right turns on Cali Hill, and you still have access for left turns, protected left turns,

In the Calhoun, in the Front Street.

Campbell County, if you've gone down Ward's Road or anything in Campbell County, we've got a few of those off-cut prints already in place, protected ones.

They got such a high traffic thing going on up there on Ward's.

Well, the other problem here too, because of the speeds that are coming through this, this will actually slow the speeds down.

So what did you say?

What I'm saying is your speed limits now are through your 45.

Most people are still on the 60, coming through the signal.

Which is another part of the problem.

If you are cutting the pushing signal and putting the signal out a little bit more so you'll have more advanced limits.

So if you're coming, I'll just say south, the first light you're going to see is going to be just down from the cell storage and that will be, you know, stop, go, yellow, etc.

Right.

So they'll be coordinated based upon how much traffic flow is done.

Because your left-turn movements, your U-turn movements, even though they're more problematic accident areas, they're lesser so they can stack a little bit longer than the three limits and then you get a gap.

Those signals will go on, left turns will make their U-turns, and as soon as they're through, the coordinated signals will then allow other continual through limits to basically join in with them.

And the only warning before you get to the first stop line would be a lower end speaker.

Well, what we're looking at is actually advanced deacons coming in before the turn, so you have class.

But you know, the problem with the class and deacons is anybody can probably tell you when you get so used to them over a period of time, you just practically see them, but you already registered them.

So, you know, sadly where we're at with this particular intersection,

You know, the three alternatives that came up were different varieties of RFA options that were the safest, most beneficial projects.

The problem with, and this is strictly a county decision, it's the board's decision on whether to push the project through or not.

We're going to be back here again in two years, probably the same as that project.

The possibility when you guys want us to go back and restudy the intersection in here because of the accidents that were coming, some recommendations, you know,

Well, I'm just a little bit hesitant at this time.

I would suggest at this time that the current setup be amended to omit the Lovingston intersection.

But there wouldn't be an opportunity to kind of say, no, we changed their mind, we don't want this argument.

I mean, you had that option.

But that option does exist.

It does exist.

So we can see it's not something that, I mean, it doesn't look good from a county perspective.

Yeah.

You know, you go through that, you go through the competition and the project was funded.

When we did it with the other project, we built the justification

We have made that decision so it's a little easier.

This one would be more challenging, I think, to go through because you've still got a problem at that intersection.

And if you've got a project that will supply the existing issue and create a more sacred environment, it's going to be a little bit more challenging to eliminate it because you've still got a problem.

We saw the public comments.

So that opportunity will still exist?

I understand that, but we've got to let the public be educated on what an archive is, because everyone's going to be learning something, if it's something that makes sense.

You know, and I think in the support of what you're saying, because we did a lot of this virtually,

Right there, that stoplight.

Can you?

As you can see, as you can see, you know, anytime we do construction projects, there's certain limits that we have to time it to that are some more than likely most of that hillside and that intersection would be redundant as part of that project.

And that's what really kicks in the utility costs is when you get into those areas.

That's where most of your electric lines, power lines, and everything else is sitting there.

So it's just a problem with every problem.

Every time it's fixed, it comes back within days.

Every single time.

It's just a temporary fix.

All right, so moving on, it's the chair's recommendation that we approve Resolution R 2022-35 smart scale submission as presented.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second from Mr. Parr.

Any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, we'll do a vote by acclamation.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any objections, abstentions?

Hearing none, let the record show that this vote was unanimous.

Thank you, sir.

I met with Mr. Reed back early this spring and he brought up 151 corridor.

We discussed the past study and we discussed what the timeframe is.

Taking place from the past city where we are currently in the growth that we will continue to see and be happy to tell you guys that we will be taking off in order for the city this fall.

Some people have probably already seen some traffic counts being conducted.

We're going to see some more in July.

We'll see some more in the fall as part of that to support the data going into that study.

I should have a scope of work hopefully by the end of this week once I get that.

Of course, I'm going to look to Mr. Harvey and Mr. Reed.

You guys have a few champions on that study team just like you were before.

And so we'll ask Nelson County to review that and make sure it meets your guys' needs.

and I've got the funding for it and we're ready to move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir, for coming.

All right, can you do the VDOT report?

Last month I was reading around and I talked about something I didn't know about as well.

I hope you get up to the Nelson Coast site and see the new pavement up there.

That's what I have for the rocks.

It's kind of complete there.

Good.

We are in the process of procuring the contractor to climb that up into the wind.

Well, I mean, seriously, we did an ASD, you know, in a trade service contract, but I don't know if the debt was in it, but it has a shorter tax period, so we can get someone in there to a contract to provide them with that free item.

I hope it's 90 days or less.

Again, once that is removed, we are going to get rid of that cobble.

That's a cobble on the ground.

I think we put that there as part of the bridge project.

We're going to remove that.

It's my intention to completely clean up that area and not use it as a disposal area.

That area has to be too high profile.

We just renovated Wayside and hopefully the new launch is coming right there.

We'll move away from using that VDOT right away for those partnerships.

That's my goal.

Thank you.

Also, Wilson Road, we're working on Wilson Road, the real rustic project.

We are mowing 29-4 lanes as we speak.

And also, I don't know if you've been on Todd River Road, we've been doing some major patching and widening over there in preparation for a center line to be put on Todd River Road.

That should be coming very quick.

And that's, you know, Jim, we might have a tiny mountain lane that's in your area, isn't it?

Yes, you spoke with... You spoke with Ms. Collins.

Yes.

I'm going to send her that information today or tomorrow.

Great.

But anyway, I know...

If that were to pursue revenue sharing, that would be the first one that I think, that I think, first one I've done with Nelson County, so we might need some help on that with some folks.

Which I think, we'll take revenue sharing applications with revenue sharing.

Alternates between smart states, so it'll be next year.

Next year.

Mr. Parr, do you have anything to add?

No.

All right, Mr. Reed?

No.

Mr. Parr?

No.

All right, I don't have anything at this time.

Thank you so much, guys.

Thanks for coming out.

It's a good day.

All right, moving on to, we have another series of new and unfinished business.

I would suggest before we get to the budget probably take a quick break or somewhere in there we'll see how these next few items go.

So I have a couple proposed subdivision and zoning ordinance updates for you guys to review today.

Our departments received two inquiries regarding permitting one for a commercial kennel and two for a service dog facility as the primary use of property.

The proposals were attached with your packet.

They both proposed to locate along Route 151.

So in order to facilitate and process these, staff seeking feedback regarding a potential update to the current definition for kennel

potential new use for assistance dog facility as well as their use of classifications.

So before we go on, I'll show you the proposals we've received.

This one is for Service Dogs of Virginia, it's a service dog facility.

They've been in operation for about 20 years and they have a location where they do some training in Charlottesville, but nothing on this scale.

And so what they're proposing is a training center, adult kennel, nursery,

The facility manager's residence and the client dormitory where the clients will come watch all the property and train with the animals for two weeks at a time.

It's a non-profit agency accredited through Assistance Dogs International which is who I did some research through.

So there's the client dorms, I'm pretty sure about that.

The parcel is about 10 acres and here is its location on 151.

So here's a Chapel Hollow and One Mill Hollow, right in the middle there.

So the reason I show you this is because if we're going to discuss a proposed new use for this, this is what it would be for.

You can turn the lights off.

So there's the Blue Ridge Bed and Breakfast.

So currently our definition for kennels is a place prepared to house, hoard, breed, handle, or otherwise keep a care for dogs, cats, or similar small animals for sale or in terms of compensation.

This is a by-right use in A-1 agriculture, PESSE service enterprise, and N-2 industrial.

It's not a special use permit in any other districts.

Right now it's a by-right use for a kennel.

So some options we have is we could update the current definition of kennel to align it with state code and with the other county code for animal control.

That's any establishment in which five or more canines, feline, or hybrids of either are kept for the purpose of

Breeding, hunting, training, renting, buying, boarding, selling, or showing.

I would recommend keeping that as buy-write status in those districts, A1, SE1, and industrial, and I'd add it as a buy-write use if you want business.

That could be in conjunction with introducing a new use for assistance dog facility as a special use permit in the A1, SE1, buy-write if business and industrial.

So assistance dog facility proposed definition would be any organization that provides services such as breeding and training of assistance dogs and educational and training programs to clients including lodging facilities.

Associated definitions would be assistance dog and client and finding who is permitted on the property.

Another separate option, which the Planning Commission has reviewed, would be to amend the current definition of kennel to make it inclusive of this project and other projects that would come forward.

That definition would be kennel, a place where the primary use is to house, board, breed, handle, groom, train, or otherwise keep or care for dogs, cats, or similar, salon, moles for sale, and return for compensation.

Camels may include associated facilities necessary to support the operation, including but not limited to office space, meeting space, and temporary lodging accommodations exclusive to the client's training with the animals.

If this is the route we recommend, we would recommend removing it as a buy-write use in A1 and SC1, add as a special use permit in A1 and SC1, keep as a buy-write in industrial, add as buy-write in business.

So I'm looking for some feedback from the board on which route the board would like the Cleaning Commission to take.

We could, like I said, the first option is update our definition of kennel to align it with state code and county code, keep it by Wright.

And add this new use for assistance to our facilities as a special use.

Or, expand the current definition for Kendall to include all of these uses under one umbrella.

I am fine with either.

Either option I'm fine with.

The Planning Commission reviewed the second option but has not reviewed the first option.

So I'm looking for feedback if the board has a preference on this or you can just send it back to Planning Commission for their recommendation too.

I think one of the factors is if you're adding a new use for assistance dog facility it would be dependent to some level on if you're supportive of this project here in this location because you wouldn't want to add a new use have them apply for it

and then get denied.

Now that's not saying if you add this use that you're guaranteeing their approval.

They're aware that they're not guaranteed any approval.

They requested us to consider updating our ordinance so that they can apply.

The issue right now is they can't even apply because we don't have a use that fits what they're asking for.

It's always good to be consistent.

That came from some feedback within county staff about updating it to align those definitions

I don't know.

So that's the first option, right?

I'm sending it back to the, or sending it to the Planning Commission since they are

I think that's a great idea.

I mean, I think it's fine.

Ms. Parr, does that seem reasonable to you?

Okay.

Yeah, we will take this to Planning Commission.

and bring back their recommendation to you for review.

No.

No?

For planning commission?

Yeah.

Got it.

So they'll be able to give us, by our July meeting, we'd be able to do something for this action, right?

I think it's a great pathway.

Skip's not going to need it.

Right.

And at this point, so it still will involve public hearings to update the ordinance at both Planning Commission and at the Board of Supervisors.

I think that's the best way to go about it.

Let's do that.

Sound good Mr. Harvey?

All right, well you got another chance to complain about it.

Okay, and I have one more which I'm assuming will be similar direction from you to head back to planning admissions, but just so you're aware in subdivision ordinance we have a couple proposed updates.

These are a little easier because they follow state code exactly

Sometimes we receive questions regarding requirements for family subdivisions of land.

There are protections that the state provides to reduce requirements as opposed to regular subdivisions of land for sale.

For example, the minimum lot size requirement for a subdivision is two acres, whereas a family division only requires one acre.

So state code allows the counties to adopt an ordinance that would permit family divisions to beneficiaries of the trust.

That's not something our ordinance permits right now.

I'm sure you know that it's fairly common practice in Nelson County.

So the purpose of the update would be to reflect state code and allow family divisions to begin to beneficiaries of the family trust.

And that would put, normally with the family division, there's a restrictive covenant that the property cannot be transferred outside the immediate family for a period of five years.

With the trust language, it's a period of 15 years.

And then other topics of discussion for this code particularly is access with the required width of the right-of-way for family division lots, which are less than five acres.

Currently, our ordinance is 30 feet.

State code actually indicates that all lots less than five acres have reasonable right-of-way, no less than 10, and no more than 20, providing egress and egress to the reported street.

So our ordinance is not compliant with that right now.

So we'll take that to Planning Commission.

And then minimum lot area, there was some concern about by allowing a one acre lot to be created, we're effectively creating a nonconforming lot because normally the minimum lot size is two acres.

So another topic of discussion for the Planning Commission, unless you have any specific feedback.

And then we've also had some issues with a fire code for subdivision roads as far as the

Sounds good.

I see you said that's the planning commission too.

Great.

Anybody else?

Everyone else fine with that?

All right.

Sounds good.

Thank you, Dylan.

All right.

Let's get through B and C, then take a quick recess before we get to budget.

Property acquisition, financing, and candy.

Oh, also, I forgot to mention, this is Andy's, like, person.

Day kind of sort of.

I know, she's doing a good job.

All right.

All right, so this is where just informational

thing about the issuance of the RFP by our financial advisors that import public finance.

So they're looking to issue the RFP likely tomorrow in the amount of $2.6 million.

They're going to provide for two options for a three-year term and a five-year term.

And then you would have three other options, A, B, and C.

They're going to ask for tax-exempt non-bank qualified quotes, taxable quotes, and then option C, which is tax-exempt non-bank qualified with an option for the county to convert to a taxable district at our discretion.

So the tax-exempt non-bank qualified option would be if the county is primarily looking to use the land for governmental purposes.

The taxable option is if the county is thinking more along the lines of private for private business and that would be typically at a higher interest rate.

Our estimated cost of issuance is about $87,000 and the estimated interest costs for a rate somewhere in the low 4% is about $104,000.

Included with the packet is a schedule.

These RMPs would be due July 6th.

Then Davenport would cover a report to this board on July 12th meeting to present results of the RMP and then would ask the board to consider the options and select one to move forward with.

So then the EDA would then meet on or about July 13th.

because financing has to include them as well.

And our closing would be sometime late July.

It is not for this meeting.

It's just informational.

That action will come July 12th once we have the RFP results in.

Does anybody have any questions in reference to Davenport financing mechanisms and all that?

Okay, thank you, Candy.

Yes it is, and Ms. Britt cannot be here today.

She's on vacation, but she has submitted a request to the board to fund removal of a wall in her office to provide for ADA compliant

Accessible space for their electoral board meetings and training for their officers of election.

She was only able to get one quote.

She solicited several other contractors to come look at the job, and she only got one quote for $4,260.

She has got verbal approval to make the renovation from the building owner.

What is the budget of the board on this?

I think it's pretty cut and dry.

All right.

You good?

All right.

Let's get a motion approved as presented.

Motion for Mr. Barton.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second for Mr. Barton.

Any discussion?

We're going to do a little bit of an affirmation.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposition or abstentions?

Very none.

I'm going to call a quick 10-minute recess.

Five minutes.

Five minutes.

That's a little bit much.

We're going to talk about our regional transit plan.

I just want to bring this up.

This is kind of a good, exciting thing.

So Christine, if you could just

Thank you, Chair.

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has been working with Department of Rail and Public Transit as well as some private consultants to look at expanding transit within the footprint, which includes Nelson County.

We are conducting a public hearing on some draft network designs that the consultant has come up with and how transit can be expanded both within the urban ring but also out to our urban jurisdictions.

They present both a

Constrained vision, which means assuming a certain set of assumptions about funding and an unconstrained vision.

If they were to meet all of the needs that have been dictated to us without thinking about budget, it presents both of those two network visions.

We have a public meeting coming up June 23rd, which I'll share with Nelson County to be putting out to the community.

There's also a survey that's going to be available that we would love as much participation in that survey.

A transit vision is only as good as representing what the community's vision is and not necessarily what a consultant's is.

So we would love to get as much rural participation in that as possible.

So I'll be passing that along to you all.

Great.

Thank you, Christine.

All right.

Now for the fun one, the budget.

Okay, so right here on this sheet, this is where we ended our last budget work session.

We needed to remove $1.1 million related to the proposed increase to the transient occupancy tax.

Some areas of expenditure reduction we looked at, including this main case of $1.5 million was full operational funding.

We have a recurring contingency of $881,750.

We made a staff adjustment due to our increase in solid waste hauling costs of $132,000, which reduced that recurring contingency to $749,750.

We had also budgeted a transfer to debt reserve of recurring revenue of $2,010,000, which made our total available recurring revenue of $2,759,750.

We suggested offsetting that decrease in the TOT revenue here, which would lead to a subtotal of available recurring revenue of $1,609,619.

The staff recommendation was to keep and transfer the debt service reserve of $610,000, and that would realize the $57 million debt capacity in 2023-2024

for some future capital projects for both county and school division.

So reducing $1.6 million by the $610,000 provides an adjusted balance of available recurring revenue of $999,619.

So I guess we're at a point where we're needing to have a budget to adopt by June 30th.

In conclusion of our evening meeting, we will need to, if we do finish the budget, continue this meeting to appropriate.

Yes, it just takes some time.

It takes some time to, once the numbers are all solidified, to put the resolutions together that the board needs to consider for adoption and appropriation.

All right, great.

So at this time, we obviously discussed the budget.

This time it is for the board to bring up any items they think are pertinent, and then hopefully we'll get around to some motions.

Before you move on to that, if you don't mind, another adjustment the staff would like to make is to go ahead and include the $2.6 million in the funds

We just need to make sure we have our amendments right so that's 2.6 roughly

Just make sure we get that when we get to motions that we're adding that in there.

All right.

Any questions for Candy at this time before the board starts discussing?

This is a big question which hopefully has a simple answer.

We have currently, let me see if I have this right, currently we've got 3.3 million in our debt service budget.

That shows us a transfer to the debt service fund.

Currently we have $3.1 million and then next year it's proposed to be $7,741,000 and that includes the debt service reserves of the $2.3 million in non-recurring funds and currently includes the transfer of

That's probably close to being right, I haven't assessed the fund balance here recently, but that's

The 9 million?

Yeah.

I think that is the 25%.

Okay, okay.

So, what

I mean usually you want to reserve your fund balance for one-time expenditures, not recurring costs.

And that's probably the main criteria is you don't want to use non-recurring money on recurring expenditures.

Yes.

And there's no, currently there's

No policy on that, or any real definitions of what it can be used for.

It's just been loosely used as our compensation as you described it.

Now, some of that cash reserves also plays along with bond ratings, how financial institutions look at us and equate us, right?

To a degree?

Correct, to a degree it does.

That's it for now.

Any other questions for Candy before we begin discussion?

Then we can always ask Candy to come back after you ask more questions.

All right, Candy, thank you so much.

If you just agree on consensus on what the numbers are supposed to be, you know, I can take note of those and then

Gotcha, okay.

All right, so, board, we need to adopt this budget.

We've worked real hard on this over the several months.

I'm sure there'll be more discussion.

Some board members mentioned they'd like to revisit the school discussion, and I think that is appropriate.

And I think that can be a discussion

I think other than the school's revenue that anyone wants to discuss, I think one thing that would probably be helpful for housekeeping hearings is if we just go ahead and add the acquisition into the $2.6 million acquisition, as staff has asked.

We could probably just go on ahead and add that in there before we do the school discussion and figure out that dollar number.

Does that sound reasonable?

Yes, is there any objections to going ahead and adding the $2.6 million from the Larkin acquisition?

No objections from Mr. Harvey?

No objections from Mr. Reed?

You're fine with that.

Mr. Parr, are you fine with that?

So that, we don't have to worry about talking about it anymore.

Okay.

The tax that we decided to eliminate, we're going to take 5%.

We never had it.

So that, we didn't budget for it, correct?

We had originally budgeted for it, right.

So we originally budgeted for around 1.2 million dollars-ish.

You were, yes, a general, generally.

Four of the five.

It would be coming from the recurring revenue as it sits, right Candy?

Correct.

That's correct.

Right.

So, which we've already decided on that.

So currently, Skip, I'd say there's $900,000 available to do other things.

That's not allocated to do it.

Does that make sense?

I mean, hey, yeah, we'll just go to a million dollars.

So that is after, correct Candy?

Correct.

So after that, otherwise it would be an additional $1.290.

Yeah.

So that is after we agree to only keep it at 5%.

Alright.

Would we like to go on to the school discussion?

Is that where everyone wants to go start?

We've got some notes, so it will take a while.

And I may take up more than one.

That's okay.

Okay.

We understand.

Okay.

for teachers and support staff.

And we had some comments from some teachers who had contacted us with information for us to consider about this.

I have the names of people that have contacted us.

Hailey Osborn, who's taught at Rockfish River Elementary for eight years,

gets the same amount now in terms of teacher salary as a first year teacher with no experience.

Tom Allen, who's been a teacher for seven years, actually makes less than a new teacher with no experience after being here for seven years.

And the general comment from them comes that teachers are leaving Nelson County

due to burnout because of the perception of being unsupported by the leaders of the community.

And Gordon Dalton, who's been a 20-year employee of our school system, said in a letter to the board that it's especially disappointing to see our veterans staff teachers leaving due to relatively low pay we offer our most senior staff.

We're shorting our most effective, most experienced, and most committed staff.

School administration has done what they have had to do with having unfulfilled and financially unsupportive teaching positions by consolidating those positions, which results in more stress, more workload for remaining staff.

And this quote, what is this, creates a perfect storm of disregard for the sacrifices of teachers.

And I got some information from Ms. Irvin.

I appreciate this very much.

that the years between 2014 and 2020, I guess up to 2019, we were averaging about a 10% turnover of teachers yearly through either resignation or retirement.

And I guess that's kind of the benchmark.

In 2019 it went up to 21%.

It increased again in, I mean in 1920 it went up to 21%.

Last year it went up even more and according to the information Ms. Irvin gave at the school board meeting the other night,

We have 52 teachers, 35 resignations, and 17 retirees, which amounts to 34% of the staff that won't be returning next year.

And I would have to say that that equates to a crisis.

And the reasons for that,

Clearly, the last couple of years have been more trying than normal, but it's also a direct result of years of staff recommendations to keep school funding below what would be required to pay and retain the school teachers who have been forced to do more with less over this time.

The other thing I'd like to mention in theory is that the costs to the county and to the schools, because of the fiscal benefits that we've had, because we've practiced conservatism in terms of funding the schools,

The costs of that have kind of snowballed over the years to where I think that our schools and teachers are not just economically but also emotionally underfunded.

And there was a survey that was done

by the Nelson County Teacher's Association.

And they gave a rating of about just over five out of ten to how the teachers feel about their job in terms of support.

And that support was across the board.

The general statement wasn't just in terms of

Salovey was also had to do with school administration at the time but I said before that we do two things here we both fund the schools but we also set a tone for the schools and setting that tone I think is something that trickles down to the administration and then to the staff and then

The staff administration then trickles down to the schools and it has not been a real positive picture over the years and I've now noticed this since I've been, you know, paying attention to this since I've been here for about five years now doing this.

So I would just like to put something forth which is that investing in schools is really

It's really investing in economic development.

It's really an investment in the future of the county.

It invests in the staff, in the students, in the infrastructure, and the kind of investments that build community and build for the future.

And I think when we look at economic development, we can't separate the schools from that in terms of

competing for limited financial resources in terms of what economic development means.

When we passed the tax break for this coming year, and I actually made the motion of 6.5 for the year after arguing for full funding for the schools,

I'd like to note that if we had kept the tax rate at the rate that it was, we would have had the ability to both fully fund the schools and also make the investment to our debt service, which we wanted to do.

And we did not have the wherewithal to do that as a board.

That would have been one option that we could have looked at more clearly at that time if that was a priority.

But we have more information that's come to surface since then.

We know that I think Shannon said that there's like $65,000 or $70,000 or so that the schools are no longer going to be getting from the state.

And we still do want to keep our debt service where we want it.

But I would like to note two things.

One is that we do have almost a million dollars of revenue from the budget that's available to be allocated, as Candy notes here with the adjusted balance of the available agreement.

We also have the fund that I mentioned early on that currently holds $9 million in it, which we are saving for a rainy day.

And I really think that the timing is really now to consider taking a look at that because

We have a huge number of teachers that are leaving.

We have a limited pool of teachers to draw from to be able to fill the positions that the budget would hope to fill.

And this is a unique situation that it's not perhaps unique across the Commonwealth, but certainly in terms of as long as I can pay any attention, this is really unique.

And I think this is the rainy day that we're looking at.

We have an opportunity here to do something for the schools, set a really positive, make a positive action towards the schools.

helped them in their attempt to either retain or secure teachers for our children and staff.

And at the same time, since we're looking at transition, both in the county administrator position and school superintendent,

to really set a tone for the future to do something positive.

And so I would like to propose and would be willing to make a motion after the people have talked to allocate an additional million dollars to the schools.

And I would consider doing that either from the

The balance of recurring revenue or from the $9 million of our reserves.

And just one other thing that I would like to mention that would go with that.

At the end of the school budget year, revenues that aren't spent have traditionally gone towards have, you know,

We'll use those for capital improvements or come back to the county.

What is the likelihood that we could actually, that our school board could actually find, fill the positions that they need to have filled with the mass exodus that we are having with teachers?

What are the chances, and I think it's really slim of none,

But I think we should be able to do the very best we can to do that.

I think that it's very likely that many of those positions will not be able to be filled.

I'm not the person to make these decisions because that's what the school board does, but I'm just putting this out there.

If there, it turns out that there's a million dollars of salaries that were not expended over the year if we had allocated that extra million dollars, the school board could end up with some money left over if they've not been able to fill those positions.

We've done a really good job I think in addressing the capital needs of the schools and I'm grateful to everybody that's participated in doing that.

I think we're doing a good job in trying to bring our boards and our administration together and be able to work together towards getting these things done.

But I don't see any reason why if we were able to

Put an additional million dollars towards the schools that the schools could easily end up with a million dollars left at the end of their year, I think.

And I'm just, again, throwing this out.

And if that's the case, then that revenue that we would be dedicating today would not necessarily be a recurring revenue.

It would be one that would be able to be

And that's what I would probably end up proposing unless something better comes along.

Just quick housekeeping so the staff can keep track of where we are.

And as that motion, we're going to wait until the discussion is over.

So you're currently, your suggestion is a million dollars in addition to the 1.5.

So that would bring the total contribution to 2.5-ish million.

Yeah, it's flat number anyway.

I didn't address the step option, but let me just put one more piece of information out there.

My understanding is, if I've got my numbers right, that a 1% step salary increase is about $200,000 or so.

All right, so we got that straight there.

Who wishes to speak next?

You got a motion?

Everybody needs to, I think, discuss.

You know, I agree with the idea that money doesn't make good schools.

Teachers do.

Professional teachers do.

What it means to be a professional is that you act in the interest of your clients.

and your clients and your teachers are the children and the parents of those children.

If you want to have a really good school system, you have to have professional teachers.

You also need to treat them as professionals.

Administratively, you need to treat them as professionals.

The administrators need to understand that they are facilitators.

They don't teach the children directly.

If you have dedicated teachers and professional teachers, would you have enough in the county?

You will have an excellent school system and you will give your children a real education.

What a real education means is that the children think for themselves and can act in their own interests and can create wealth for themselves and act in the best interests of the community.

That's what we want, isn't it?

We want to have a school system which recognizes the value of our children and sees the potential that is in them.

There is a price you paid for that.

But you also must remember there's an enormous cost not to pay that price.

In the long run, we need to think in the long run.

We need teachers to love our children, to nurture our children, but we also need to love our children.

This is not a matter of money.

It's a matter of whether we respect what education, what real education will bring to our children.

All right, who else wishes to speak?

Are we just doing schools?

Thank you for that.

Are we just doing operational now?

This isn't capital.

34% of staff.

That is a crisis.

And I think there's a lot of factors that go into that.

We made a commitment years ago as a school board to adjust the salary scales to attract newer teachers and it was very heavy on the early end.

And that was intentional.

And it did and does kind of, you know, when you're an eight, nine-year teacher and you're making the same as a new teacher, that doesn't, you know, doesn't sit well.

And for whatever reason, it was a decision that we made as a board.

Shannon and I were on board at the time.

It worked.

You know, we were high in the pay of new teachers and it attracted a lot of people.

But one thing that I've noticed is for the team, and we keep saying teachers, and I hate that we do that because to me, I think our teachers, you know, there are some bumps that I think the school board could work out with the pay scale and kind of help the left lap some of that.

I've always liked a shorter rather than a 10-year, you know, three or four or something little scales, but we kind of keep in mind the support staff.

To me, that's the most

I think the most pressing need that we have is a division.

You know, I've always said the two most important people in the school building are the secretary and the janitor.

And if those two people are taken care of, they're going to take care of everybody else.

So I think we say teacher a lot and I hope we don't forget that there's a whole other section of bus drivers and support staff and cafeteria and all that that we need to be aware of.

But I know of three individuals in one school that have personally told me that they left.

One left the profession.

One left for lower pay and an assistant left.

Not because of money, but because of the environment.

And that's an issue that we have to address and we don't have.

It's not our job, but it has to be addressed.

The environment for our educators today is extremely difficult, and it's a nationwide crisis.

You see it everywhere.

You read articles all the time about teachers leaving, and why they're leaving, and the stresses of the job, and unintended consequences, and no child left behind, and all the things that are put on our educators.

Money's nice and money helps, but money doesn't solve the problem.

You know, we've got proof right here of just a couple of examples, but that's not going to solve everything.

And the day we start dipping into our savings account to pay ongoing recurring expenses, that's a problem.

And while one person may see it as we didn't have the wherewithal to keep taxes at a 25% increase, 40% for some people, I felt that I stand behind our decision to

Just the tax rate, and I wish we could have adjusted it more because people still have a 20% rate increase in what they paid out of pocket for their taxes, even though we lowered the tax rate.

So I will agree to disagree on that.

But, you know, you say you need professional teachers, and I think every teacher is a professional.

But,

That heart doesn't come from a paycheck.

That heart.

Teachers like you, Mr. Barton, your heart and your passion for that position didn't come just from a paycheck.

It came from the person that you are.

And we're very fortunate in Nelson County to have some incredible educators and their support staff.

I could not

vote to agree to dip it into our recurring reserve for our, I mean, in the recurring revenue as well.

That was one of the adjusted balance of available recurring revenue before it really came along.

Mr. Harvey My final comments on this topic is

Before we get to motions is you know I can already make we're going into a recession that's just a fact it's going to be you know we see it every day with interest rate changes we're seeing it with the impact on oh so many constituencies inflation participates and that inflation is not just the schools you know our police force share that

If you want to talk about a great issue and resignation and just not wanting to even be in the occupation, our police force.

They're going to be coming to us very soon asking for an increased pay because all the counties around us have increased theirs to close to $50,000 in starting pay.

Somewhere in that neighborhood between $45 and $50k.

That's substantial.

We're going to see the same impacts with our support staff.

We'll see the same impacts with so many other support staff across our county.

You know, I was very happy to get to the increase of $1.5 million given to the schools.

I don't think I can see that burn going to $2.5 million.

Hopefully that is something that's close to, I think it's almost 10, 20% increase.

from local contribution from $17 million to $19 million-ish, somewhere in that neighborhood.

That's very substantial.

There's not many departments that are getting that level of support.

I just think it's going to be setting us up for a very, in the future, where folks are going to be struggling, lots of folks are going to be struggling.

As Mr. Parr said, I wish we could have gone lower with real estate tax.

There are so many people in the Schuyler community

We're going to be struggling in the next six to eight months on how they're going to pay their taxes, and how they're going to pay for their cars, and how they're going to pay for so many other different items.

So I would not be supportive of going over the $1.5 million that we'll be giving our school system.

All right, with that being said, if we could kind of get a consensus from the board of where we're at and how much we're thinking.

Mr. Reed, you had originally said that you were going to propose a million dollars in addition to the 1.5, which is $2.5 million going to the school system.

Yes, 1.5 plus 1 million.

I would like to move that we allocate the money that our staff has already recommended

and that we allocate an additional $1 million to the schools.

I want to say a couple of things.

I agree with this part about that it's not just teachers.

Schools are made up of everybody, and certainly the janitors and cafeteria staff and everyone need to make a living too.

Doing nothing for them now isn't going to help them much down the line either.

Any further discussion?

Any other discussion?

So it's $2.5 million to the schools and operations.

Over the last year's budget?

Yes.

We already got a motion.

I recall that.

Mr. Barton?

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Mr. Parr?

No.

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

No.

All right, so we have that part of the budget completed with the school system.

I believe there was a general consensus to come from the recurring minus $400.

Yeah, so there's $0 in recurring now.

We should take it out of recurring and then show that we got zero dollars and then if we have any other items then that would be coming out of the non-recurring.

I don't think that would be a good practice.

That would be a bad practice if we went and chose to keep the recurring there and then non-recurring everything.

All right, there we go.

So, recurring.

It's all good.

All right, so we got that, these remaining items.

I need, do we have to have a motion as amended?

No, we just need to continue to adopt an appropriate question.

I want to make sure we have a vote on it.

It seems like it's an important thing to have a vote on.

I mean, okay.

Transfer of $600, no, we didn't do that.

So give me a motion to keep transfer to debt service reserve with $610,000.

Realize we can set a million-dollar debt capacity, 2324.

So we can get a motion from Ms. Barnett, we have support.

Okay, I just wanted to go a little more slowly.

It's right there.

Do we have a second?

Second from Mr. Barton.

Any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, we'll do a vote by acclamation.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any abstentions?

Any objections?

Hearing none, that's good.

Are you good now?

So she's going to draft a resolution at the conclusion of our evening meeting.

We will continue this meeting to appropriations and approve the budget.

We will pick a date at the end of our evening meeting.

Sound good?

Great.

Moving on to reports.

Okay, I'll just try to run through the report that was included in your packet fairly quickly.

In terms of the COVID-19 coronavirus, the Department of Health data for Nelson County at the June 10th, based upon a 13-week average, we had two new cases of the virus and a seven-day average of new daily cases of 2.3.

To date, the county has had 2,686 cases of the virus and 37 deaths.

and for the CDC, Nelson County is at a low risk status.

I personally kind of question some of these numbers because I think a lot of people are doing the at-home tests, finding out they're negative and those aren't getting reported to the health department.

That's just my own personal view of that.

In terms of the 2022 general real estate reassessment, the local board of equalization completed its work and I included an attached report

The summary of that work, the board received 25 appeals with six assessments being reduced for a total reduction of $223,700 in value and zero increases.

We can schedule the board of equalization to report to the board at an ensuing regular meeting if the chair or the board so desires.

I'd like to thank the DOE members and the Juliana Figueroa of county administration who scheduled and documented all of those meetings.

and did that within her regular workday.

The comprehensive plan, a joint board of supervisors and planning commission project kickoff meeting with the staff of the Berkeley group was held on May 31st.

Process is going to take approximately 20 months to complete with the final draft ready by late summer of 2023.

Community engagement was discussed with the project website of www.nelson2042.com being launched around June 16th.

A citizen survey being available for completion from July 1st to August 15th and public workshops to be held on July 13th, July 20th, and August 3rd.

Locations and times will be announced with sessions being held in the evening for approximately one and a half to two hours.

Citizens are encouraged to complete the survey once it's available and attend public workshops.

And we'd like to thank the planning and zoning staff for spearheading this project.

The Piney River Water and Sewer System, primarily the USUNCO pump station, has been in a lot of repair lately.

The six-inch force main was replaced, and the remaining work entails replacing both the pump discharge pipes and installation of a new VFD, which is the variable frequency drive which operates these pumps.

Parts that were received in this work was tend to the schedule for this week.

Saw a fall truss load this morning.

and he said that they were on site today, although I don't know the weather and how long they stayed out there working on the pump station.

These repairs should enable the pump station to function for at least five more years.

However, planning for its replacement is a priority.

We have had preliminary discussions with Commonwealth Engineering Services out of Ashland, Virginia.

They're gonna make a site visit, provide a quote for our new pump station for planning purposes.

and as noted, Paul Shustler has been super instrumental in getting all of this work completed amongst all of his other duties.

They prepared the termite damage in the courthouse down near the judge's office.

We did an unsuccessful invitation for bid process.

And so Steve, before he left, reached out to Jamerson Lewis, who's the general contractor that completed that basic courthouse project.

and they agreed to take on the project and provide pricing for the work somewhere around June 17th and they tried to fit it into their schedule.

The new office building on Cow Hill Drive, it'll house DSS, Building Inspections, Planning and Zoning eventually.

CMA Architecture, who was the architecture selected by the interview group,

has provided staff with an initial scope of work document in order to begin our contract negotiations for their architectural services.

And as of June 10th, they're working to craft overall agreement services with addendums to represent each phase of the work.

This generally is in three phases, which is phase one is discussion of the overall project scope and building site assessment.

Phase two is review and approval of a conceptual design and authorization for that work.

and for the building and site.

And phase three is the construction administration phase.

So once this contract is finalized, a project kickoff meeting will be scheduled to include staff from administration, buildings and grounds, CSS, building inspections, planning and zoning, and up to two board members if so desired.

Funds for the A&E services are budgeted in the FY23 budget and funding for the building construction is to be determined.

Typical options are Virginia Resources Authority or bank financing for that particular cost.

The Director of Finance and HR position has been advertised.

It's been on the county's website, our usual advertising channels, the Daily Progress, News in Advance, VML and MACO, and also the Virginia Government Finance Officers Association.

deadline for applications is July 1st or until build by a qualified applicant and our target start date is August 1st or as soon as possible.

We'll schedule interviews as immediately as possible after the closing date and let us think more as instrumental in getting that posted as soon as the ad was ready.

And I do believe maybe Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Reed have volunteered to be on that interview committee.

Very good.

Excellent.

There's no change in the status to the Renaissance Ridge housing development.

Let's see.

They have submitted a preliminary major site plan to planning and zoning.

It's incomplete and will not be reviewed until a final fully completed site plan is submitted, which could take several months.

That's where that stands.

We've already talked about the state budget really.

And also the county budget, so we'll skip over those.

The Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail County Representative and Renovation Expansion Project.

As far as our representation, on June 9th, the ACRJ Board of Directors approved the revised member agreement that was endorsed by the board on May 10th.

And this provides for an additional Nelson County representative for a total of three.

So this representative shall be either a currently serving Board of Supervisors member or a non-serving Nelson citizen.

And given there's no July job work authority meeting, staff suggest this appointment be considered in time for the August 11th meeting.

And currently I represent Nelson Board as does the Sheriff.

So we have an opportunity for a third member here.

In terms of the renovation and expansion, the jail board request for 25% reimbursement from the state for all of the reimbursable expenses was made to the board of local regional jails on May 18th, and they're expecting a decision made at their July 2022 meeting.

Immediate next steps include seeking approval to move forward with the project from members with presentations to each member jurisdiction

prior to the fall of 2022.

Thereafter, with approval to move forward from the jurisdictions, from December 22 to June 23, there will be project planning, design and construction schedules, and AE RFP issuance would occur in that timeframe.

And the current census report from the jail shows Nelson with 1,479 prisoner days, or 14.5% of the total

Prisoner Days for the jail for the month of April.

Any questions for Katie at this time?

Yeah, I have one more question.

You might get the previous

I could send it to you to let you know.

I could easily say that I had a ton of correspondence more than previously.

There was some.

I remember that.

Last time there was.

All right.

Thank you, Candy.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on to more reports.

Mr. Harvey.

Nothing.

Mr. Harvey.

Nothing.

I have a couple.

I met with Seitano de Campos Lopez, who's the director of climate policy at the Community Climate Collaborative.

We discussed, my question to them was how can

How can counties be involved in advocating for positive climate mitigation initiatives?

They gave me some really good suggestions, including transit and clean transportation and conversion of fuel oils and things like that, some fairly simple things, and some things that are not so simple.

It was good to meet with he and Susan Cruz who works also at Collaborative and they also suggested that TJPDC might be a really good partner to work through in terms of things that they're advocating for.

That was good.

The other report I have is that I attended the public hearing that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality held for application of biosolids on agricultural lands in Nelson County.

The reason I had to have a public hearing is because there were a certain number of new applications for biosolid applications, so they did a public hearing.

Found out a lot of information.

Some of the most interesting were that the biosolids that these applications would cover that would be applied on fields in Nelson County all come from Northern Virginia, Maryland, could even come from as far as New York.

The service authorities' biosolids actually are

are picked up by a firm in Wierskave and they go over to Shenandoah Valley to be applied on fields there.

Seems kind of like a strange juxtaposition of poop traveling on roads from long distances to be applied in different places instead of more locally, but that's just the way it is.

The health department normally does not get terribly involved, but people who have health problems can ask for, and adjoining landowners can ask for increases in buffers and things like that because there are some hazards that could be connected with this.

It's also interesting that they don't do any cumulative effects analysis.

A lot of these

A lot of these lands are concentrated in one area.

They don't do any additional analysis to look at the impacts of all of them.

They're all looked at on an individual basis, which I found to be possibly problematic, but those things have to get addressed in places other than at the county level.

But I did want to note that there would be a 30-day comment period in July for the final plan.

All right, Ms. Parr, EMS council met last month, and we're going to go back to monthly meetings starting June 21st.

One thing that was requested, Candy, is that Russ get back in the habit of attending those meetings.

And I know that's something you had said.

You're going to be at the June meeting, I believe.

Yes.

OK.

and let's see do you know where we are on the generator for um in the men's building apparently i do not i don't i haven't heard anything about the generator okay

My note says Lovingston needs their generator ASAP.

I'm assuming Station 2 or would that be Company 1?

All of them need to be done.

The biggest one is to stop.

It should be done.

I had no problem with water.

I think it's for the fire department, company one, right Tommy?

And then there is inspections of the departments coming up in October.

There wasn't anybody from Gladstone had the meeting to discuss how they're doing

I'm a little concerned about that inspection coming up.

Well, the problem is we've got

We in Nelson County end up building all the better problems as well.

Very, very close to the line of 51 counties.

So we end up, you know, at coverage area in those individuals.

It's very high to adult county people.

But, I mean, we just, we funded it.

All right, moving on.

TJPBC, we had our first in-person meeting.

It's very exciting and actually monumental because we haven't been in there for how many years, Christine?

Two?

Two whole years.

So we've been attending virtually.

I've heard and seen pictures, but I finally got to see them, which was really great.

And over that course, many adjustments at the PDC and having Christine take over was just wonderful.

So looking forward to more success in the next year as we close the gap in our employment needs.

So that's about all I have for that particular item.

Oh yes, one other piece, the short-term rental conversation

Originally, I was trying to meet with some preliminary stakeholders for short-term rentals and during the time period we were hired candy one of those evenings we had to meet with we had our special meeting and I had canceled that so hopefully in the next two or three weeks I'll get another date on the board so that I can meet with some short-term rental people and then have our

All right, moving on to appointments real quick.

Let's try to be a little go each one.

We don't need to go through.

Some of these are contested, not contested necessarily, but we have multiple applications.

The first one we have John, Diane McNaught.

She looks like she is asking to be reappointed.

Is there a motion to approve Diane McNaught?

So moved.

We have a motion for Mr. Reed.

Is there a second?

Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, we're just going to do a vote by acclamation.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right, moving on to the Nelson County Library Advisory Committee.

The North District does not have an applicant at this time, Mr. Harvey.

And it appears Ellen is not seeking to be reappointed.

Gloria Ashley would like to be reappointed.

Gloria is in my district, and as the Chair's asked, I saw him make a motion for the Chair to approve Gloria Ashley's

Do we have a motion?

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second from Mister Barton.

Any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, vote by acclamation for Gloria Ashley.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any objections, abstentions?

And that might be a good standard practice for this cabinet.

If someone seems to not be on there.

Regent Tank Community Services Board, Patricia Heggy, would like to be re-appointed.

Is there a motion to approve, Patricia?

So moved.

Motion from Mr. Reed, is there a second?

Second.

Second, Mr. Parr, any discussion?

Hearing no discussions, do vote by acclamation.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any objections?

Here's abstentions.

Hearing none, moving on to Nelson County Social Services Board, Edith Napier, West District.

Mr. Parr, this is in your district.

Remove.

We approve.

There is another applicant.

He's done a fantastic job.

Alright, that was West District.

We have a motion from Mr. Parr.

Is there a second?

Yes.

Second from Mr. Barton.

Any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, do we go back?

We'll make sure all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any objections or abstentions?

Hearing none, moving on to

Nelson County Social Services Board for Brad Johnson.

Since this is in my district, I do suggest that we appoint Mr. Johnson.

Can I get a motion for Mr. Parr?

Is there a second?

Second for Mr. Barton.

Any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, I will do a vote by acommission.

Any objections, abstentions?

Hearing none, moving on to Planning Commission.

Phillipa Pruell, North District.

Mr. Harvey, would you like to approve Phillipa for a reappointment

We have a motion to be having a second.

Second.

Second from Mr. Reed.

Is there any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, we'll do a vote by commission.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any objections, abstentions?

Second.

Second for Mr. Parr, any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, we'll do a vote by commission.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any objections, abstentions?

Hearing none, moving on to East District Planning Commission.

The chair wants to put Chuck Amante in the East District to continue to represent.

Can I get a motion from somebody to do that for me?

So move the motion for Mr. Parr.

Any discussion?

Or second?

I need a second.

I will second.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, we'll do a vote by acclamation.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

If we don't hear any, and there's no other applications, can we get a motion to appoint Robert X. Wayne, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Shimp back onto the Nelson County Service Authority?

We have a motion for Mr. Barton.

Do we have any other candidates for central district?

I know.

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing no discussion,

Make sure you vote no.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any objections, abstentions?

Hearing none, moving on.

Thank you.

Alright, let's get a motion to approve both of those folks for Board of Building Code Appeals.

Motion?

Second.

Discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Alright, moving on to Economic Development Authority.

All these folks are looking to be re-appointed.

I'd like to get a motion to approve these folks to get re-appointed.

Nate Hall, and Alfonso Taylor.

So moved.

Motion, do we have a second?

Yeah.

We have a second for Mr. Barton.

Any discussion?

Hearing no discussion, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Region 10-2000, that's a new one.

Region 2000, we need to keep both Mr. Carter and Ms. McGarry on there for certain circumstances.

This is the best move for us to do.

Can we get a motion to that effect?

We have a motion, Mr. Barton, any discussion?

Second.

Second.

I'm sorry, second.

Sorry, I've done this.

Second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All right, moving on to the TJPDC.

I would like to be reappointed, and I believe Mr. Reed would like to take this Dylan spot.

Dylan.

No, I don't think at this time.

Can we get a motion?

Mr. Parr, Mr. Barton.

So moved.

Mr. Parr is making a motion.

Mr. Barton.

Yes.

Second.

Great.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Great.

Moving on to the agriculture rule.

We don't have any applicants at this time, correct?

No applicants.

Is that the only vacancy we have on that?

All right.

Great.

Moving on to correspondence.

Nell, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Reed, I just wanted to make an announcement about the Juneteenth celebration at the Nelson Heritage Center coming up next weekend.

Try to be there.

Moving on to directives, Ms. Barton.

No, Ms. Harvey.

Nope.

Nope.

Alright, Mr. Parr.

Um just one question for Andy.

Do we have a where are we on the fire hydrant in Piney River?

Okay.

I just knew.

One price was thrown out considerably.

I have a relocation of, yes, moving that one that has been off and on for many times here recently that is repaired now.

I think the service authority would be the one to try to make sure.

But it's part of the Nelson County, it's not part of the service authority system.

But I think, I'm pretty sure, one of the things we need to find out is, are they charging hook-up fees included in that book?

All I know is the price was like $13,000 to relocate.

Anything else?

All right, moving on.

George R. Reed, I'd like to move the Nelson County Board of Supervisors convene in closed session to discuss the following as permitted by Virginia Code Sections 2.2-37, Lottery 7.

Now we will come back in session.

No, this is a closed session.

We're going to continue that after our meeting, our evening meeting.

We have to pick a date.

We haven't decided the dates, yes, correct?

No, we can't.

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Mr. Barton?

Mr. Barton?

Yep.

Mr. Reed?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Yes.

All right, folks.

This is public comments.

Is there anyone here to speak in public comments not in reference to any of the special use permits there will be public hearings with?

Okay, hearing none, any close public comments?

All right, who says a reminder to everybody, the special use permit factors are going on the screen for you.

All right, this is a request for a special use permit for a campground use on property zone day one agriculture.

This was heard by the main commission on April 27th.

Located on Crabtree Falls Highway in the West District, and the property is 34.65 acres, owned by James McCollough, J.E.M.

Retreat,

The property is currently vacant with the existing logging roads.

The applicant is proposing rustic camping with outdoor activities such as forest bathing, I think it's called forest therapy actually, fishing, yoga, and hiking.

Two platforms are proposed to allow tent camping at two sites along the existing logging trail.

These activities are not open to the general public, and the applicant also intends to apply for a building permit for this frame for a single-family job for personal use.

There is residential and agricultural nature in an area with large lot sizes.

Joes Creek borders the western boundary of the property and the south fork of the Tahoe River to the south.

Zoning infinity is A1 and C1, conservation.

The creek and river are both located within approximated flood zones where recreation activities are permitted and the property is approximately half a mile west of the Cratchit Falls trailhead.

The property is accessed by Grafton Falls Highway and a VDOT land use permit for a low-going commercial entrance is required.

With only two rustic sites, a health department campground permit is not required.

And the property is located in an area designated rural and farming on a future land use map, which would promote agricultural uses and compatible open space uses.

At their meeting on April 27th, the Planning Commission voted unanimously 6-0 to recommend approval

of the Special Use Permit with the condition that only two tent sites are permitted.

There's the property.

It's two up right there.