Board of Supervisors Meeting   3/9/2021

When they're doing 45, and it'd be big trucks coming from Wintergreen or wherever to 29 or whatever trying to push me further to go faster, the only thing I see behind them is their hood in my rear view mirror.

That's how close they are to me.

I mean, yeah, 45 is a great thing to slow down the traffic.

It needs to be the whole thing to be honest with you, especially on these events that go on.

But if you have people tailgating you that close,

I get there needs to be people that sees all this and there's nobody over there patrolling, seizing all this traffic that's, you know, pushing people that's doing the speed limit.

And once you make it go faster.

I mean, 151 to me, because I'm retired now and I've seen more and more where we need more patrols to get speeders, put the tailgating or falling too close.

and also wanted to get all this congestion from the events that all these places, you know, have.

I mean, we got all these drinking establishments now.

I mean, if you go back in time, the only drinking establishment you had in the old townies was bars and saloons.

But now the names are changed, so they're getting away with doing everything they can to bring in that dollar and not worry about the safety of the locals here.

And we're getting all kinds of people coming through it that don't care.

They just don't care.

They want to go have their good time, drink, whatever.

They just don't care.

And that's all I got to say.

Thank you, Mr. Meyer.

Anyone else like to address the board?

OK, we will close public comments.

Just, I guess this is, I ask this question every year, the resolution C and the consent agenda, Wintergreen Performing Arts, we do this every year, right?

Have been for years.

I'm fine with making this motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented.

Mr. Barton?

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Next on our agenda is the VDOT report.

Next one, got it.

Good evening, everyone.

Robert couldn't be here today.

My name is Jesse Sayer.

If you guys don't know me, I'm a VDOT report.

I don't know when the last time anybody went across Prince Mountain and took a look at it, but if somebody could just do a check over Prince Mountain and thank Mr. Brown for the work he did in Piney River for us.

We appreciate it.

Mr. Rutherford?

Mr. Chairman, I have no comments as of the time.

OK. Mr. Harvey?

The comment is they did a real nice job coming through and packing those little holes.

I mean, those things were just right

in Little Lane, and until you got right up on top of them, you didn't realize there was that.

Oh, yeah.

They were pretty bad, too.

Thank you.

I believe that's it for me.

There's been a continuous problem of large trucks coming from Route 60 taking a shortcut.

and Kai River, up to 29.

And they can't go underneath the underpass.

Again, the other day, a woman named Joyce Moyer was right there.

And when the trucks come there, they try to use her driveway to turn around.

Sometimes they're successful.

Sometimes they knock things over and do things.

Now, we've talked about proper signage to make sure these trucks

Do you know what I'm talking about?

I actually had it reviewed by a traffic engineer about two years ago.

I got the low clearance signs on 29 and then route to 60 when you come off of 60 or 29.

If there's a sign that would be on the top of the hill, a second sign to, because once you get down there,

It's trouble.

And this storage lawyer over the years has had a lot of problems with it.

And everybody who lives in that area mentioned the problem.

And they're also worried because if the truck does get stuck in there, you know, emergency vehicles can't get through there either.

Now, you know, it's come up before and

The signs are there, but obviously not in a way that everybody sees those signs, those truckers do.

And a secondary sign, a bigger sign, something.

So when I get back from the traffic engine, does it look like mobile coming from the Gladstone region?

They normally don't do but once.

They eat only one truck a day.

So they're not local trucks.

They look like they're awake on the sea.

This is the way they, you know, take 10 minutes, 15 minutes, and they go down there.

Well, when they come home and they see it, what is it?

I mean, this is a recurring problem.

It didn't just start.

Right.

Mr. Sayer, it's interesting on Rocky Road in my area we have the same similar condition and of course Reed's Gap has always been a problem.

What kind of

I don't know if the trucking industry, if they have a certain GPS that

You know, I've talked to several people and the trucker's GPS will not, typically doesn't guide them to a restricted route.

But if you just buy that off the shelf or a cell phone, GPS, it could send you to the shortest distance.

And you know, we've had a lot of issues in Amherst County and Nelson County going into little small gravel roads and can't make the turns and get jammed on the same thing.

I don't know the exact outcome, but since Reed's Gap was a hot topic before the route was restricted for trucks, there was some outreach and I have to get with Paula Jones, our communication officer.

It seems like easy information to make available these areas being restricted.

Matt Quest does not listen to none of that.

If you drive a track and trail and you start getting on a dirt road, you ought to have enough damn sense to know.

Our first load of firemen, they came in, they come up

from 29 up the back way to Rocky Road and turn the truck over.

The very first load of fiber.

And once you hit the dirt road, I mean.

Mr. Sherrill, will you be here next month for the six-year plan?

Oh, there's probably Robert and I both.

Great.

OK, so look forward to seeing you then.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

New and unfinished business.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Refer to the handout in your packet.

I'll just run through this pretty quickly.

The county was allotted $2,968,120 in CARES Act funding.

Approximately $151,417 was allocated for general government compliance with public health measures.

$500,000 was allocated to the school divisions for distance learning.

$459,533 was allocated to EMS plus public safety compliance for public health measures and medical expenses.

$4,853,157 allocated for community relief initiatives slash economic support and broadband expansion.

That's leaving us with an unallocated contingency as of March 2nd of $4,013.

Along with this report, we do have a request

from the Emergency Services Council.

On behalf of the Piney River Volunteer Fire Department, they're requesting $5,850 for some repairs and operations to their HVAC system at the fire department.

They say their request for CARES Act funding is in order to add heat and air systems in the common areas of the fire department building.

They currently utilize a central propane system that combines members to gather in one room of the building.

The idea of adding this type of heating and air system would allow members to spread out in the building and also utilize the dehumidifier function of these units to help prevent cross contamination and spread of vapors and or fumes that members may be in contact with.

That is the information provided today.

So the request that we've received is

Slightly more than what we have available in CARES Act funding.

We have until I think it's December 31st of 2021.

Just they're looking to put three medi-split units in to provide heating and air in some areas that do not have it.

does not include the bay, it's all the areas except everything, all the kitchens and the other room.

Yeah.

It would fly rarely to the building.

Yeah.

I move we go ahead and approve it.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

I just have one point to discuss.

I'm wondering if we were to only allocate what's available under the Unallowed Contingency

I'll leave them over $1,000 short before we move forward on this.

I know there's no one really representing them here to answer questions.

Mr. Parr, I'm wondering if you... Mr. Parr's president, so... Oh, okay.

He should be able to answer any questions he has.

Okay.

Do you...

What would your opinion on that be?

What's your question?

The question is if we were to allocate the remainder of the contingency towards this but not additional funds to fulfill the entire request.

I think that will be suitable.

It's actually penny pension and it ain't worth it.

Yeah.

I'm not in favor of that.

I just wanted to see if we had any additional information on it.

So we do have a motion and a second.

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Yes.

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Correct.

Mr. Gladstone of the EMS Council does not approve it.

It was for some boards carrying patients, not backboards, but some kind of board thing, the EMS council vote.

I knew it was another one somewhere.

Thank you, Andy.

As the proposed resolution notes, county staff issued a request for proposals for engineering services on January 21st and responses from consultant firms were due on February 1st.

We received three responses to this RFP and the services are to assist the county in evaluating potential properties for business market development, which is one of the boards

Five Priorities from Your Gender in 29 Work Sessions.

We interviewed two firms and the selection committee interview team was Ms. McGarry, myself, Maureen Kelly, and Jeff Miller.

And our unanimous recommendation is to recommend the board retaining Timmons Group, which is a residence-based firm,

In conjunction with that, we also would recommend to the board, which is included in this resolution, retaining Richmond-based Davenport, which is a financial advisory company.

The board meeting with Mr. Kutz from Davenport has been before the board recently, and he'll be here tonight to discuss and present on refinancing a 2012 bond that would then

which you should seriously consider.

So we want to recommend that both Timmons be retained and Davenport.

The Davenport agreement would be pursuant to a cooperative procurement provision from Dennyway County and we'd be able to retain them predicated on the board's decisions to utilize that firm I think for five or seven years.

With Timmons, I think it's also the ability to extend there.

As I was responding to Mr. Reed earlier this morning, the way this would work is if the board authorized us to retain these two companies, then we would have a base agreement, which is basically we contracted them and everything after that would be governed by sub-agreements to this sort of master base agreement.

So anything that the county did undertook would be through the sub-agreement, which would have the scope of services,

Cost, et cetera, and that would more than likely come back to the board for approval unless the money's already budgeted.

And in this instance, using Timmons as an example, if we proceed during this fiscal year to use them to evaluate the properties for business market development, we would bring that sub-appreement back to the board for review and approval.

Similarly, with Davenport, we wouldn't utilize their services unless

The board authorizes some, say, with the recreation center complex, for example, a strategy on how to finance that, or a strategy on how to finance potential business park, potentially strategies to do both at one time.

So we would only utilize their services on and since it has been

And we sort of loaded up the deck, as Mr. Harvey pointed out, with information about tenants.

But we think they're a very outstanding firm to help with.

We're looking at a potential business partner in the county.

I think if the board hasn't studied information with tenants, you'll see that they are equally impressive.

They were presently, just one of the accountants from Louisa County and from my perspective, did a fabulous job of working with them

Then the county, we have a base agreement that we would use, and Mr. Payne has drafted, you know, just have fill in the blanks, let's say, and we would basically do this, and I try to explain that everything is subject to sub-agreements for this

Contract, and the balance of it is language from the code of Virginia.

So everything would be a subset to that basic agreement as we move forward in time.

So with tenants, for example, we get them under contract and then bring back a sub-agreement to the board to review the proof for them to get going.

Well is that Timmons that did that one?

We didn't potentially use Timmons for that.

Blair constructed that facility.

Timmons can actually work on this, but when we get to my report, I'll report another RFP that we've commissioned that's still pending.

I'd like to make a motion to approve Resolution No.

Second.

OK. A motion and a second.

Yeah, just one more question.

As Timmons works on engineering problems,

At this point, we could use them for other things that would be related to property development.

But initially, their focus would be on assessing properties.

We think focusing on Route 29 corridor or possible for assessment to see if we could

The property was suitable for possible acquisition and development as a business partner.

Absolutely.

And it would be per a sub-agreement.

Everything would be driven by

whatever the scope of work is and in agreement it pertains to that scope of work.

And not to go on and on, but let's say the board decided to give tenants, for example, a full scope of work to assess a property and bring it to closure.

We could do that way too.

I think the initial first step would be just to

Yeah, there's a process to it.

Any other questions?

Discussion?

Mr. Parr?

Yes.

Mr. Redinger?

Yes.

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Yes.

Sorry, I was whipped out of this report today and a little tied up on other things.

So I'll start with our statuses with the

COVID-19 Coronavirus.

I've included in the, as an attachment, the Department of Health's March 8th metric, which speaks to Nelson County and region.

We've actually picked up, since the previous metrics report, by about 30 cases, 36 cases, but as I've noted in my report, with the increased

One thing I'd just like to point out, and this is a conversation me and Ernie and the Water Authority have had in the vaccination issues that we're having with trying to get their staff on the 1B list.

After a little bit of research on my part of other surrounding water authorities, some have been successful as they started in January and have been continuously getting their staff vaccinated and others up in, I guess, Recordsville, Rapiden or whatever that particular group is.

They have been successful in getting their upper management vaccinated.

I know you said that strongly, and we appreciate it when we're trying to get it done.

Well, I think maybe the next point about this subject speaks somewhat to that.

Early this week, Amanda and I reached out to Dr. Bonds, the coordinator of the vaccine program for our health district,

This Thursday they're going to have a clinic here at the health department and we've been assigned 25 slots so we're working to get county employees and constitutional officers, Mr. Kinsey, board members, commission members, whoever we can get to agree to be vaccinated up to 25.

We'll start with that and then in two weeks on the 25th

The next clinic will have another 25 slots.

Hopefully by April, sometime in April, this week's vaccine is Moderna and that requires two shots.

We don't know about the vaccine on the 25th.

Optimistically, sometime in April, after the second round of shots have been administered, most of the county staff, constitutional officers,

That would be great.

And please communicate with Ms. Fitzgerald and see who may be of interest to get vaccinated.

There will still be initial shots if we ask about that.

So that's why you'll have to

in a delay before or an interim before you can be vaccinated if your vaccine is returned.

I think that's the same with Pfizer too.

And we're not sure about the Johnson, the availability of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine yet.

We've asked, but we don't know yet.

And then last on this subject, once, you know, some of our departments have allowed

We will begin to discontinue teleworking and as each office department and county have their employees vaccinated or even if they refuse to be vaccinated we will begin to discontinue teleworking and we need to work with the health department and possibly start to reopen our offices to the public if we can do so.

So we're moving towards

It's the new stimulus program that's been introduced to the Congress.

by President Biden.

So per the Vaco, or excuse me, NAGO briefing yesterday, and I've attached a couple summaries of that information to my report.

Nelson County is slated here, this is what NAGO is estimated, to receive $2,921,411 from this endless program.

The funds will be received directly

by the county, not through the state.

After passage, within 60 days, the first half of that funding will be sent to the county, and afterwards, the second half will be distributed no earlier than 12 months from the first payment.

So in the next approximately 14 months, the county should realize that that legislation is approved, just over $2.98.

Again, some of the uses of the funds pertain to combating the virus.

There's a little bit more flexibility, but we need to wait until the Federal Department of Treasury issues its guidance.

But when you have time to look at the attachments, one's just a real short briefing from day one.

Another is information from NAGA's website.

You can go to that website if you want to look at it.

You would just scroll down to, what's it called?

It's something related to Coronavirus recovery and relief plan.

Wow.

Sure.

So 2.9, that's roughly about what we, what did we get last time?

2.6, I believe.

So I think that's good news and we'll report back assuming the House of Representatives approves the bill today.

It went from the House to the Senate.

The Senate changed a minute or so and now it's back before the House and today's news said it's before the House today for final approval.

That happens, of course, against the President, but he's certainly in

once it's approved.

Next, we also issued on February 17th another request for proposals and this is much broader than the contract that would be made with Timmons Group.

This also speaks primarily to the board's

five capital improvement priorities for January 29, but it's broader in scope in that if the board wants to go beyond working on those five capital initiatives, you'd be able to use the selected firm for studies, reports, and then you wanted to do over the next five years is the contract would be

on the recreational project, potentially the ag facility project, the DSS Health Department initiative.

And then again, the contract would be very similar to what we would do with Tintin and Davenport.

Everything would be driven by sub-agreements that the board could see and approve before the work started.

So, proposals are due Friday at 1.

I anticipate we might get a lot of proposals because we've gotten calls from firms in Georgia.

So, it's getting some attention because it has a pretty broad scope of services.

You see we're attracted to architectural engineering firms, but it'll give the county a lot of

So, as I said, we will be getting those proposals Friday at 1.

We have to screen those proposals, sort of rank them initially, to then select firms to be interviewed, and once firms are interviewed, we'll rank

I know that Mr. Reed, you didn't like to be on that process, so we did have two board members on the interview team.

Y'all would like to do so.

So, any volunteers, we can just include you on that team.

We probably have more than a five-person panel, so that works for y'all.

I didn't hear what you said.

That's what I put you to.

You know, I'm wrestling.

OK. Well, you know, that needs to get you out.

You can share it.

We're joking.

Okay, so Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Barton.

So the proposed continued meeting on March 19th, it will be sort of a combination of in-person and virtual

We have reports from county staff and state staff on licensing of ABC-related businesses.

So if I may, what we will do is the board will be here.

The representatives from the state will be accessible through Zoom.

We'll have the board up on the screen and the reps from the state, probably a little bullet points above there.

It seemed to work this morning, so we may practice a couple more times, but that's the people from the state cannot be here, so that was the best thing we could do.

We also asked the Planning Commission to attend, so they will be attending by Zoom as well.

So if you have questions about that process, we may want the board, if you're open to this,

What about the agenda for that meeting?

Maureen's working on the agenda for the presentation part because what we're going to do is submit information on the representatives from the state, their backgrounds, and what they

You'll have input from both Maureen Kelly and Bishop on revisions and local ordinance about licensing these businesses.

Preferably the Q&A would probably be after each speaker.

That seemed to work this morning.

And secondly, as an additional part of that meeting, we'd like to introduce the draft budget for next year on the 19th, probably after the presentation.

And depending on what the board wants to do, we'd probably just give you a brief overview and give you the information about the budget and then ask you

We've been waiting for the state budget to be finished, which it is, and now we're still waiting to see final numbers, more like from the state compensation board, the Department of Education, etc., etc., but those things should be in place so we'll proceed anyway and backflip them once we have the information.

So, since you'll have us all together, I suspect it'd be a good time to introduce the budget, probably dive into it at a future meeting.

Right.

Any other?

Friday afternoon now.

Very briefly, the Tide River Water System, we did get the tank down, the elevated water tank, March 3rd through the 5th, so that project is completed other than the Lexington Office of the Health Department, which administers water projects and permits.

We'll be here Wednesday to do final inspection and certification of projects completion.

By the tunnel, we're still working on document closeout of fence three, but we're getting pretty close.

It's just the litany of things that have to be done.

And then along the entrance to the eastern portal, we're going to install fencing on the roadway in there, but just on the west side of the road to deter people from parking on private property and just, you know,

We're also now in process, we're waiting on the design documents.

We have the land for the additional parking?

Yes.

Well, it's not going to be enough, but it's a start.

Yeah, we may be able to expand a little bit as you proceed closer to the eastern portal itself, but that's going to require some additional work.

Yeah, once we hit the plains, we could share them with the board.

I don't have them yet, but I've seen a general layout in about 25 spaces.

It should be very helpful.

We're still getting tons of people visiting the town.

It's very popular right now.

The Piney River wastewater system is still in process with Patterson construction coming in early April.

We have to have one of the primary consultations.

It's on 56 refurbished and it's just under $40,000.

And lastly, general reassessment for 2023.

Monclerines are still working of course every day, but we still aren't in a position, or they aren't in a position to give us any insight into

I would think probably closer to late summer thereabouts.

We know Mr. Haynes is one of the principals very well.

He's just around the corner from our offices.

If we know something sooner, certainly we're going to report that.

Just a question again that the social service board needs to be near the courthouse.

Mr. Barton?

The report.

Mr. Rutherford?

Well, we did have the school board meeting.

Yes, we have a very healthy and couple school board meeting talking about capital improvements.

We've got a lot that we're digesting at this time.

Obviously, there's some major commitments that will be needed in the future.

And of course, as we've discussed with them potentially

Seeing with whatever project that we choose to undertake that there would be an opportunity to utilize debt service to take care of some of those projects.

For example, talking about the weather abatement of Tiger River or maybe it's the roof and the wall situation at the high school.

Those are the discussions that we had.

It was very good, very healthy.

Some of the pieces that we've talked about was how we can, you know,

After we resolve some of these bigger issues, having a more consistent pool of money to give for capital improvements, which we think is critical.

But obviously, you know, the one thing that is not of interest and we have heard this in this time is, you know, we have our we have our recurring funds and obviously that is a limited number.

We of course have a savings account, but we try to use that for emergencies, you know, as we have used this past year.

One other piece that we did discuss potentially was utilizing $80,000 of this past school budget year commitment that we had that was never allocated for capital improvements.

We did it roughly about $800,000 commitment, I think something of that nature, and currently we owe them actually $76,000.

I was corrected.

So I'd like to see us potentially give that to them for some capital improvements.

But essentially, as of right now, we kind of have a general idea of where we're looking and how we're going to be presenting.

Looking at our two budget sessions is going to be critical.

And once we do that, we're going to meet again and try to see where each budget, each of our groups are at.

But moving forward, it was a very healthy conversation and a lot of bridge building.

We think structuring this long term plan of potentially using

debt service to resolve the big ticket items is likely going to be the most equitable way to resolve.

Do you know if there's going to be any documentation of the meeting?

George started.

We're trying to get more formal.

So George is working on that, I believe.

He's essentially the chair, or at least assisting around the meeting.

So hopefully we'll get a little bit more formal.

We just wanted to get a little informal as we started and make sure we're not

you know being too rough about it and busting some ruts and here we are so we also did talk along the lines of the bus situation and this is worth mentioning the travel study that the prior board Ernie and Mr. Harvey and myself were on where we allocated twenty some thousand dollars for a potential bus study if I'm not mistaken never took place so that did come up again and I do believe that

They're interested in us in offering that again this year so that we can find more efficiencies in the transportation system and learn more about ourselves.

I know, again, that was something, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Reed or Mr. Harvey, but we've talked about that for a couple of years and we've allocated money and just, I guess, due to change in employment, employees who were watching that project fell through.

So, so did the project.

So, yes.

That's your update.

A lot of that is predicated on the fact that we'll get the ordinary budget under control.

Sure.

I mean, go in the world, we can keep going the route we're going with the operating budget and then continue to do this kind of stuff.

And Mr. Harvey, to your point, I know ongoing, that's absolutely a conversation we've had.

But we also, we took the capital list with the school board that's been presenting several items that have been on there forever.

And we looked at it as two different lists, one more of a maintenance, fixing some things that need to be fixed, and another as improvements that they want to add.

And so we kind of split it and looked at the improvements they want to add as something that we could budget for on an annual basis to get a plan, but some of the things that need

that maybe utilize a debt service, maybe step in, pick some of these big items that need to be fixed before the brick falls off the side of the building or repairing the roof and other things that need to be repaired.

That's great.

Puts those head and shoulders

ahead of where we've been in the past in terms of communication information and our budget this year.

So that's great.

Any other reports?

Yeah, that was my whole one.

That was a lot.

TJPDC, we're in the transition.

Sure you missed Chip.

Christine's done a great job so far.

They will be at our meeting tomorrow at the ACT facility and we also have that meeting tomorrow with staff at the Andrews Middle.

Do you have anything else from the Service Authority?

Most damages related to accounts receivable were remediated from CARES Act money.

A little bit of planning commission information.

It was in the reports that we received.

for an added banquet hall, Chapel Hollow Road, Flying Fox.

And that was deferred, and it's likely we're going to have that pulled and have another form of the same thing come back to the Planning Commission.

So we won't be looking, we being our board, we'll be looking at that here for a while if it comes back.

Just a couple things to highlight.

We've received a grant for $60,000 from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation for the public boat takeout in Rockfish River.

That's a big deal.

I know Claire's Parks and Rec is overjoyed about that and it's going forward.

Our GIS staff is working with Wintergreen on updating all the GIS parcel mapping for Wintergreen and Stony Creek.

They're trying to get a valuation of open space for carbon credits, and so it's given them an opportunity to focus on that area, so in my district, hopefully that's going to turn into something clearer that can be implemented across the county.

We just have the one open seat on the Region 10 Community Services Board, and we've advertised it on the website.

Okay.

and we do have another representative serving on that board, so we do have somebody.

Okay, here's we don't need the action on that tonight.

Any correspondence or directives from the rest of the board?

Okay.

Do we have any other business to bring up before we look towards our evening meeting?

OK.

I would welcome a motion to adjourn and continue to our evening session at 7 PM tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this meeting to 7 o'clock.

I'd like to call to order the evening session of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, March 9, 2021.

We would start with public comments.

These are comments on

Item is not under the public hearing tonight, so if anyone has any public comments they'd like to make, this is the opportunity to come forward and do so.

Since we don't have anyone giving public comments, we'll close that public comment session and move on to our public hearings.

Yeah, the VPSA refinancing.

Mr. Cooch is here from Davenport & Company.

Yeah, we're pleased to have Mr. Roland Cooch at Davenport & Company who's part of the county's financial advisor consultant.

Mr. Cooch is going to provide a summary of the proposed refinancing of the 2012 bond issuance, refunding the county debt at that time.

Roman's going to summarize both, to some extent, the option of refinancing this bond from 2012 through the Virginia Public School Authority, or just refinancing it with the current bondholder, Truism Bank.

After Mr. Coote's remarks and presentation, we would want the board to open the public hearing on consideration of financing the refinancing through the PPSA.

Thank you Steve and Grace I think we have it up here.

Well, thank you, Steve, and thanks, Grace, for the technical help there.

Mr. Reed, members of the board, it's a pleasure to be here in front of you tonight, again, to come back to this opportunity.

Since we originally talked about it at the planning session we're at, we've done a lot of work with county staff and bond counsel, as well as going through and applying to DPSA through the school board's actions and everything.

So what I'm going to talk to you tonight about is the opportunity

The choices we have to make, which are good, we've got flexibility here, but what I wanted to do also was talk about where the briefing stands on the BPSA side or the bank side, which really just finalized and why we're coming to this sort of, what we call lead hour in front of the public hearing with the bank proposal, is that was provided to us late last week, basically Thursday, as we was actually considering.

So with all that being said, and just to give you a little bit of background, and we talked about earlier kind of reminding folks who may have seen this in the audience, but what we've done is we've looked at the county's debt portfolio and identified with the 2012 lease revenue bonds, which were refunded at that time, have an opportunity to be really advanced in today's market.

They carry a rate of about 2.75%.

and that bond has a 1% prepayment penalty on it.

That's important to note because we've got two different products here that we're going to factor in.

Because the original purpose of the funding came in the 2012 bonds and it's school projects.

We do have the opportunity to go through the VSA, and thus we've geared everything up to kind of position yourself in this VPA in the spring.

So that was all the work when we went to the school board, we were coming back here with the public hearing to kind of set the stage for that.

Effectively, VPSA provides that opportunity and it pools

and Market Conditions on April 20th.

At that time, the interest rates would be locked in and the savings would be firm and set.

Additionally, as we were talking to BPSA and working through this plan of finance, we had to talk to BB&T and we reached out to BB&T because there's some nuances about prepaying that line that we're going to confirm.

Based on the discussion with BB&T, the prepayment, they came back and said, well, we want to offer you this opportunity to consider

which is the bank financing that we're going to talk about today as well, keeping going with BB&T.

So, on late last week Thursday, BB&T, now Truist Bank, did provide a proposal that is a firm proposal to refinance the line.

What they provided for was to reduce that interest rate from 275 to 143.

Also, what they'd also do is write in and prevent flexibility

to prepay this loan at any point in the future, in the next five to six years or so, any time without penalty.

So you're gonna take that penalty away in the future.

So if you decide to prepay it a couple years down the road, you can do that without penalty.

The principal amount, we're refinancing about five and a half million.

So that's about the same amount of debt outstanding.

And they've given us until April 23rd to close this transaction.

Effectively, in addition to that, what we do is we have worked with VDT to waive the requirement to prepay the 2012 bond on a payment date to require a penalty that's important there, we talked about, and what that does is on the next slide I'll show you how that factors into this area.

There's a lot of numbers on here on this page that are trying to summarize the relevant details in three columns.

The first column is the DPSA as of February 26, 2021.

That's current market environment.

So if you were looking at the quality of that schedule, is that if you look at the DPSA transaction, what we're seeing is on line three, the interest rate's 275 on the old bonds that we're enhancing.

Effectively, we're going down to line nine, which is the interest rate under DPSA.

That's a 0.82%.

Built into that BPSA transaction, though, is the penalty that we would have to pay to kind of refinance the deal.

We still have to pay B&T based on that because we're getting out of the current loan.

And if we're going to move the loan away from B&T through a current market, which we have the right to do, there's also, there's a prepaid penalty built into that.

When you run the analysis and when you look at all the analysis based on the current market,

What that provides is effectively about 26,000 year cash flow savings, totaling up to about $186,000 in aggregate.

So this transaction results in that kind of savings on a present value basis, it's over 3%.

It's got 3.4% present value savings.

The point I'd like to make is anything over 3%

Now, if you look at the middle column, we wanted to run a sensitivity analysis.

We said, okay, rates move between now and when VPSA establishes the sale date for bonds and actually sets the interest rates at market.

We waited until about April 20th.

If rates move up, 0.25% puts up 25 basis points.

What you see is the savings go from the first column to the middle column, and your savings go to about $138,000.

That's about 20,000 a year on average.

We're looking at about 2.5%, 2.6% close to 90% savings.

Still pretty decent, but not quite as good as today's margin.

Now the third option, the third column you see here is VDOT's response after receiving the proposal back is roughly looking at 2.75% again on the old lines.

We then moved to 1.43% but effectively what it said to kind of sweep the deal, they know the rate's not as good as the current market in terms of the public offering of bonds.

They said we'll waive that $100,000 prepayment penalty, 1% prepayment penalty.

See what if that could produce comparable savings to an EPSA trend back.

When we ran the numbers, if you look at the BD&T Tris column, you can see that we're right at about 26,500 or near 1,000 cash flow savings.

We're right at about 185,000, 186,000 total savings.

Based on looking at the EPSA column, crime market, which is the first column,

and the BB&T column there results in the third column.

We're going to make some key observations and points for the consideration that are leading to our recommendations tonight.

Effectively, one of the things I noted was that if the county moves forward with the VPSA option, the first bullet point I want to make is that I did mention those rates are not going to be locked in until April 20th.

At that time on April 20th, we have a guaranteed savings level, but that's the BPSA

Second point, if we refine the bond based on the VDNT proposal that we just received, the county could lock in savings now.

That rate has been held by VDNT through April 23rd.

So it gives us enough time to get the documents done, get the final approvals done, and they're being put in place.

We would know now if we decided to proceed forward with that

We didn't have any changes in markets.

We wouldn't be floating with anything like that.

What we think in our recommendation, and we've seen this as well with other clients, is that when we have this opportunity to take advantage of the market now,

Based on the market estimates we see today for EPSA, as well as the rate proposal provided by BP&T, we respectfully recommend moving forward with the BP&T approach and proposals.

The reasons are it allows you to lock in the savings, so we know what we've got.

We have no risk of fluctuation in our house.

We do remove the three panel penalty in the future.

They've waived it now, so we'll remove them again.

And we also have the building, again as we said, two or three years down the road, and we have just a little bit out there, maybe it would be advantageous just to pay off at that time.

So we can pay it off without any debt.

Last page, I just wanted to show you the relative steps in terms of time.

As Steve mentioned today, we've already set this up, because we didn't know two weeks ago we had this opportunity to be an EMT.

We established this timeline, which you see on the left-hand side of the page, which is effectively the public hearing is going to be a public option.

Assuming the option went forward, we'd have the VPSA board meeting the next day and everything would go down the path we're going to.

What we have on the right-hand side of the page is what we'll call a time frame of schedule that maps out to closing before April 23rd, the VDOT approach.

Tonight, we're again at the same point in time, we have a public hearing tonight, but we do have a preliminary resolution for your consideration, which would allow the staff to work with by-council, financial advisor, to proceed forward with the VDOT approach to lacking the savings.

What we do for the balance of March is we start working on the documents and the numbers and finalizing the transaction.

March 19th is a placeholder date.

We know that the board would adjourn to a work session that day.

That's the first opportunity the board can consider the final resolution of the documents for the transaction.

That could be approved at that night.

We would then proceed forward with a media board meeting,

And then lastly, the school board would have to take action to approve its documents with respect to good strength action as well.

The April 13th board meeting is a placeholder date to the extent the March 19th date doesn't occur or we have to shift a little bit later, we can do that.

And then lastly, on April 20th, we can close on the 11th.

And with that, I'm going to conclude my presentation.

I wanted to answer any questions.

Which one do you want us to do?

I would recommend that you do the meeting.

The meeting.

Great.

But I wanted to present to you why we recommend that and what it means if you didn't do that.

Great.

Yeah, I have no issues with that.

I think that's wonderful.

I wish I could get those interest rates in the presidential world 1.43%.

We're going to have a public hearing and then we'll wait until we're finished all the public hearings.

So I do have a question.

Sure.

The annual savings as listed for 2022-23

are each about $1,000 more than maybe $2,000 over those two years.

It drops then and then goes up again.

The savings in total over the duration of the refinance would be less under BPSA, but

The savings would be greater in the short term over say the first four years, five years.

It is the way that VPSA is structured and the type of bonds that VPSA does.

What we have with VPSA is what's called a public markets transaction where they pool a lot of different issuers.

Nelson County is one issuer, Henry County

What they do is they pool all this and the bonds are issued in what we call $5,000 foundations.

So that's why we would see the savings of the VDSA columns fluctuate within the $5,000 range.

They're structured in that realm to be as bad of a level as they can be.

With the bank, any sort of bank approach, in terms of the T's approach, we have to build

So often times on our bank approach it's rounded to the nearest thousand dollar or even maybe even smaller than that to really level out the savings.

Well, what happens with BPSA because of the way they sell their bonds for the pool of issuers?

It is a public markets transaction, so under the BPSA approach, that bond, standard bond provisions on a public deal, anything that matures within 10 years becomes a non-callable type bond.

So the theory there is, if you're refinancing down to like a .82% in that range, then the chances of refinancing within that next, we'll call, seven years is pretty slow.

So it becomes diseffectively not a callable bond from their perspective.

Now, we could say the same thing if we continue with that 143, it's probably going to be hard to beat at a future date.

So the chances of raising this are pretty low.

However, VBNT approach also provides you the ability to prepay at any time at all.

Any questions on here?

Okay.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

And I'm sure you'll get back from us presently about what it may take later tonight.

Thank you very much.

So I would like to open the public hearing on the

BPSA refinancing consideration, which I guess would also include the option on the BB&T possible refunding.

And so I'll open that public hearing.

Anyone here who would like to speak on this?

Okay, not having anyone, we'll close that public hearing.

And we'll move on to item B under our public hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Curtis, very much.

Good evening, everyone.

This is a request for a Class C communications tower with requested modifications on properties under the area of cultural.

The Planning Commission hearing was held on January 27th.

That is the board hearing.

The property is located at 499 Jonesboro Road in Roseland, which is the West election district.

The property is just over 171 acres and the lease area is a 60 by 60 square foot area.

The applicant is Jeff Holland,

Properties owned by Myra Grant McGarry, Robert Brown, Suzanne Brown, and then requested uses for a 150 foot steel multiple wireless tower with a 4 foot lightning rod.

The bloom test at the site was held on January 7th at 730 in the morning and photo simulations provided by the applicant are attached with their application.

The modifications requested are two-fold.

One is for height.

The ordinance requires maximum allowable height for a Class C tower at 130 feet, but ordinance allows the applicant to request a higher height than that.

The proposed tower is 150 height with a fourth of lightning rod.

The second modification they're requesting is for antennas.

The ordinance requires that each array contain no more than three antennas, and applicants are requesting a modification to allow six antennas per array.

Dr. Kim provided a project narrative which addresses ordinance requirements line by line, compatibility with the comprehensive plan, and outlines and justifications for the modifications that are requested.

The area is agricultural and residential in nature, and there are no-foot lanes located on the property, and the property currently contains a single-family dwelling and is avoided.

There is a proposed 20-foot-wide access and utilities that presents for a rent to the lease area where the tower will be located.

VDOT will require a low-volume thermal entrance.

Discussing antennas, again, the monocle will be designed to support three antenna arrays, Verizon will hold the top spot, and the other two would be for potential co-locators.

The modification requested would allow six antennas to array, but all other aspects of the arrays and antennas would be installed in accordance with ordinance requirements.

For metal monocles, the minimum distance from the base of the tower to the property line

shall be 110% of the tower height.

The proposed tower will meet this requirement.

Net modification is requested for that.

The applicant has proposed that the metal monocle antennas and other attached equipment will be painted a dark brown and the monocle will not be lighted.

In the comprehensive plan, the area is not identified on the future land use map other than the general rural and farming designation as in Joseph County.

The current comprehensive plan does not address communication towers or infrastructure.

The application does meet guidelines established in section 20-2 of the Zoning Ordinance, which outlines the purpose of the ordinance.

Since the board recommended approval of this request, staff is recommending that the tower be constructed according to the final group site plan and allow modification for the height requirement of 150 feet with four foot light in the wrong and allow modification for six antennas per array.

And the Planning Commission did recommend approval of this application.

Okay, thank you.

Does anyone have any questions for Ms. Bishop?

Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the board.

My name is Charlie Alvis.

I'm an attorney with Lloyd Smullen in Charlottesville.

I'm here tonight for Verizon wireless with me is Jeff Pollen, the DBCC Consultants.

He helped us with this site.

I just have a brief presentation that helped get you all oriented on where you are and also to show you all the photos and relations that we're taking during the bulletin test that Ms. Bishop mentioned.

This is an aerial view of the site.

You see it's

in a forested wooded area off Jonesboro Road there.

It is higher up in elevation than the road in between some of the more heavily traveled roads going south there.

The objectives with this site are covered in capacity to serve the neighboring communities, residences, farms, and the roadways.

It would provide a waste technology to this area

which desperately needs service as we heard from members of the public at the planning commission hearing.

This slide shows you where the star there shows you the location of the proposed site.

This, the red circle there is a five mile radius.

That is to show you where the nearest approved but not yet built tower would be.

That's the big red arrow there, this shady land site.

This is the nearest tower in the Verizon network at any rate in the area and really the towers could be closer together to provide maximum coverage.

This is probably not an ideal spacing but that's sort of as far apart as we want to see them and really they should be closer together.

So that's kind of just a very easy visual to see the need for a tower in this location and as you can see

the Shady Lane site is barely within that circle.

This slide just shows some statistics that kind of drive home I think of the point that we we all see especially during the pandemic which is that cell phones and wireless service are very important folks.

It's essential for work and school access to emergency services now including health care and telemedicine

Over 75% of 911 calls are made from wireless devices and this is a service that folks in the area really do need Likewise with data usage, it's not just about voice calls but relying on wireless internet and data on smart devices You can see this chart which just shows you the exponential growth of the need for data over the last several years

and again another slide on this you know the wireless data tracking is increasing over four times between 2014 and 2017 and you know it's just a continuing need for folks in the community.

Likewise during this pandemic you've seen the really shoot up March 2020 versus March 2019 was 70%

And again, just listing out some of the uses that are in need for wireless connectivity.

So more specifically to the site, this is a screenshot from the plans that are included in our application.

There's a 60 by 60 lease area, which is the dark square that you see there.

And within that area, we get 40 by 40 facility compound with a 12 foot wide

Gravel Road that would provide access to service vehicles and construction and the like.

The residence here, it's sort of on the top of the picture there, is already served by the driveway.

And so this would add for that and provide access to this area.

Here's a zoomed in snip of the lease area.

You can see that it's

You know, it's in a relatively clear area, although some of the trees nearby would have to be removed.

But generally speaking, it's sited in a way that would not disturb the force, the character of the area.

And again, this is a little bit more detail about what the site, what the facility compound will look like.

The monocle is there, sort of at the bottom of that.

rectangle on the circular item there.

And you can see at the top where the gravel access will allow the trucks to turn around when they come to service and check on the equipment.

This is an elevation of the monopole.

You can see the three arrays that are there at the top.

And so this is, you know, we have requested to go above the 130 feet.

And you can see one of the reasons for that is to allow for more carriers

to co-locate or emergency services to co-locate on this tower.

If it were lower, we wouldn't be able to provide adequate opportunities for these additional arrays.

So that's part of the reason for the hybrid pipe increase request.

On January 7th, we had a balloon test.

The balloon was raised to 154 feet right at the site there, the red star.

and we drove around on the roads and took photographs where the balloon was able to be seen or in certain cases where it wasn't able to be seen and prepared these photo simulations.

They'll go in order, you can see that it'll sort of be right at the south of the site and then to the east and then further to the east near the church and then the pictures will kind of go to the

to the west and the north, and the last one will be from the south.

So it's really only visible right underneath and right along that road, on Jonesboro Road, and then at the sort of wider distance along the Patrick Henry Highway there, you know, the church and cemetery.

So I'll just go through these in order.

This is a photo simulation of what the cycle looked like from

Jonesboro Road, as you can see the tower would be painted brown so it would blend in with the existing trees and landscape and of course this is taken in January when there's no leaves on the trees and so it would you know in most of the year when when the trees are weaved out this would be even less of a visual impact.

Here again three of the trees you know from this angle not peeking over blending in

This one is northeast of the site, curving along Jones River Road, where it's a little higher there.

You can see it over those trees.

And then here from the church, again, the top of the tower over the tree line, but it blends in with the brown mountain behind.

And so it's, again, it's very far away at that point.

So it's going to be a very individual impact on this view.

Here again, completely blending in with the background.

This is the vantage point where it was not visible east of the site and where it was not visible northeast of the site, not visible, and from the north and southeast.

So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all have.

Yeah, I was just looking at the service area in the Jonesboro.

I mean, that's a huge portion of the west that didn't need a lot of service there.

Yes, sir.

The engineers, when they took a look at this site, did look at other parts of this property for various reasons.

There was mainly one other spot, which is a higher hill to the south.

That was ultimately not selected.

This particular location was a better fit, all things considered.

One reason being that it was nearer to the road and nearer to the existing driveway.

There would be less of an impact to the build

What is the process by which Verizon chooses a potential site and then contacts the landowner?

Well, it's not really part of my job, but my understanding, and Mr. Holland can maybe fill in any specific details, is that it's simply a matter of figuring out where there are holes in the network

They had no coverage at all from the state shed all the way through Piney River going back over to the crossover Brents Mountain.

Okay.

If there's no more questions, thank you so much for the presentation.

Thank you.

Is the property owner here tonight?

Would you like to address the board on this?

You don't have to.

And we will start with public hearing on the communication tower 149.

Requesting approval to allow 154 to one full on property zone day one.

We'll open a public hearing.

The first person who has signed up is John Saunders.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, Board of Supervisors.

My name is John Saunders.

I live at 318 Silver Creek Road in Tyro, Virginia, which should be served by this tower.

I'm super excited about this.

This is a game changer for us.

As Tommy said, we don't have any service up at 56 in the Massies Mill to Tyro area.

It's going to help our business.

It's going to help the kids with

Right now they come down to our packing shed and steal the Wi-Fi.

It's going to help.

Emergency vehicles on 56.

Thank you.

That's the only person we had signed up.

Good evening.

I'm Chuck Bailey, and I'm glad to be here tonight.

Before I leave... Mr. Bailey, can I have your address, please?

Yes.

My address is, effectively, the address will be about 470 Jonesboro Road, which is immediately across the street from 499 Jonesboro Road.

But I'm currently a resident of Williamsburg, Virginia, and my wife reminded me as I left the house today that I should probably apologize for my COVID haircut, or lack of a COVID haircut, when I got up here today.

But I wanted to speak to you today concerning this tower.

I purchased this property across the road from where the proposed tower will go in 2020, and it really was sort of a spectacular opportunity.

And to give you a little bit of a background, I'm a geology professor at William & Mary, and I worked there for 25 years.

But I grew up in Alcon County, Virginia, and I've actually done geology sort of all over the world, but also here in Nelson.

I've worked from the Rockfish Gap,

We explored the geology of the tunnel with the Claudius Crozet Tunnel Foundation.

We've worked in Gladstone and I'm actually involved in a project right now with Polychlor.

We'd like to pour in more soapstone and make that a viable industry.

So I've always been really connected to Nelson.

My uncle Joe lived in Rockfish, goats and blueberries.

His son Walker still lives there up Rock Springs Road.

So I'm excited to be here, and I was caught way off guard by this particular proposal.

As I understand it, Nelson County contacted the adjacent landowners.

I never received any notification of that.

Again, I bought the property in the fall of 2020, and the County GIS is still not updated.

It doesn't appear that I'm at all a landowner here in Nelson County just yet.

And that's frustrating.

You know, three months has gone by, and what's curious is that in early January, Nelson County sent me a tax bill for

the application fee for land use.

So clearly somebody up here knew that I was the new property owner, but I was not afforded the opportunity before any of these things to actually put in a timely comment.

So I knew that as kind of negligence on the part of the county or whoever is managing their GIS data system.

So I would ask you if this was sort of a situation you were placed in, would you find it sort of fair or worthwhile?

So that really troubled me.

I feel like I was coming out this well after the fact.

So, but I want to thank you guys for taking the time.

Mr. Parr came out and looked at the property with me the other day and a number of you on the board have been very responsive.

So, that also makes me happy about the line that comes with Nelson.

The second part that I would add to this is this is going to have a negative impact on my property.

My plan for this tract of land is to grow an orchard.

Basically put trees back on the old whitehead orchard that was there.

and we're going to start small and hopefully grow big and eventually I'd like to sort of live on that land.

Now I reckon the apples are not really going to care about looking at the cell tower which will literally be about 350 feet away but the place that I had sited where I'd like to build a cabin is going to be the same elevation as the tower and about a hundred, I'm sorry, a thousand feet away in a direct line of sight between my proposed house and effectively the mountain.

So this has an impact on my viewshed, one,

But that's okay.

It's a big use of property.

I can move to other locations.

This is going to require that I actually construct a much larger driveway, a longer driveway, probably 900 more feet of driveway.

I've been meeting with contractors here in Nelson to think about getting some of the roads built already.

And adding 900 feet of driveway is likely to cost me between $35,000 and $50,000.

So right there, that is an impact, a significant impact to me and my family.

As the project goes on, I have to change the building location.

And again, this was sort of used to me.

So that is a big concern.

I think this has a very negative impact there.

But I want to back up in a second.

This part of the county needs a cell tower.

There is no doubt about it.

I have to climb to the top of that hill every time just to actually get line of sight from Wintergreen.

So I'm not at all opposed to a cell tower.

One of the things that I would put out there, and I did spend a fair bit of time looking through this,

The proposed tower is quite tall, but it's actually blocked by the hill that I know on the western side of.

Its line of sight is completely sort of limited.

You can't see it in Massies Mill, and I don't know the signal we'll get there.

It doesn't get down even with this very tall tower.

Do a lot of the nooks and crannies in Hat Creek.

No reason to tie River Valley just fine.

So my third point here, I'm not sure this is the best location for it.

I think a smaller tower higher up would be less intrusive and potentially give better coverage.

And I say this having 25 years plus of geospatial experience.

All right, I'm not coming at this as sort of an amateur and I hope you've taken time to look at some of the slides that I included in the documentation that I sent to you.

So I'm not opposed to the tower here.

I know we need it in this part of Nelson County and I would support one.

I'm just not supporting this one.

And I've thrown out a few compromises and I think maybe there could be room for compromise so the Brent family is able to

Basically, taking a revenue stream off of this, we could end up producing what I think could be a better tower that's less obtrusive and not do as much damage to what I intended to do there.

So those are the comments I wanted you to hear from me in person tonight.

But again, I drove up from Williamsburg this afternoon and as I was going around Richmond, the Rolling Stones came on the radio, you can't always get what you want.

And then as I left Charlottesville on 29, on another station,

Rolling Stones, You Can't Always Get What You Want came on.

And to me, that might be sort of an omen of how this is all going to go down.

But if you listen a little further into that, Sean, there's a line about sometimes you get what you need.

And what I need in this instance is I need more than just a we're sorry from Nelson County.

I feel like you guys were not able to, you know, sort of live up to the letter of law about notifying landowners and doing things like that.

But I also think if we continue with that,

It is something that the need for Nelson County is self coverage and I am for it.

I am just not for this one because I think we have the opportunity to put in something that would be better, more broadly serve the community.

And I hope that Nelson doesn't just sort of take Verizon at its word all the time in the sense that I think you're gonna be stuck with the power and it doesn't adequately fill all the pressing needs there.

Just quickly, Anne Marie Roberts, 32 Clarity Crabtree Falls Highway.

I think Mr. Alban and his Bishop have answered most of my questions.

I just was wondering about the future of opening it up to more towers.

They normally look at different locations.

I don't know of any sites that we've actually expanded.

The sites, most times, you know, they'll look for another location to kind of, you know, they want to stack them in

Okay.

Thank you all.

The volume test was very helpful to see that.

So I think those were, I think all my questions.

Oh, the class C. What is a class C?

What does that mean?

The surface size of the tower.

Okay.

It's just that you have to have another tower there.

It would be because of this whole processing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

Okay, we'll close the public hearing.

Our next item for public hearing is the rezoning.

I'm looking for a motion Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, as I've gotten to see this in the need of that Jonesboro area, I think it's very important to the area that we approve this.

With that being said, I move that we approve this Class C Tower Permit Number 149 as with the conditions provided to us by the Planning Commission.

Is that good enough for you, Dylan?

That is my motion.

Yeah.

I have something I need to say.

I'm going to vote for this.

And I agree.

We need the tower.

But I'm going to vote right now.

I'm a little frustrated with the way some information was presented on it and some information that I heard tonight.

I have learned to ask a lot more questions when these things come before us and you all can take that back to Verizon.

I'm not real pleased with some information

that was shared tonight.

The notices were given.

As the gentleman noted, the system hadn't caught up to the changing property ownership.

The way it works is the Commissioner's Office, Commissioner revenue is responsible, information flows to the Clerk's Office and the Commissioner's Office

They, the Commissioner's Office, updates that information to the county's profile system, which is the real estate system, and that is communicated to the county's GIS department.

Unfortunately, the Commissioner, not to criticize the Commissioner, but the lag and the transfer of that information has resulted in what the gentleman said.

I've already asked the Director of the department

I've asked the Director

More expeditiously with the commissioner's office and encouraging them to send the information on or getting the information concurrently from the clerk's office because they're issuing that information to the commissioner on a weekly basis.

So we should be able to pick that up quicker than we have.

Now, I had too that we did check, Dylan M. Bishop did check with the county attorney about the chairman's concern that they weren't notified and the input that the pain

I mean, if you're concerned, you could defer and start all over, which would go back to the planning commission.

And I mean, the bottom line is the community needs the service.

It's not because of the real estate.

It's because of the it's not because of the real estate, the real estate issue that I'm frustrated the most.

Call for a question.

We have a motion and a second.

I haven't had a question yet.

Okay, Mr. Harvey.

The question of the call for, I mean, it's... And I'll just add in... Yeah, we're still in discussion.

I haven't had a chance to...

I'll call for a question.

That's parliamentary procedure.

It does take precedent.

It does take precedent.

It was time for a vote.

Do I get a chance to address?

Yes, you do.

I want to thank Mr. Bailey for his presentation.

I was on the Planning Commission when this came forward.

I voted in favor of it for the reasons that Mr. Parr gave.

He's in favor of this.

I'm real sympathetic to it as well, to Mr. Bailey's issues and some that other folks have raised about this.

And that's

Again, something that we need to consider more strongly but I also believe that we were able to receive comments from Mr. Bailey.

They are poignant and important and should be considered because he had an opportunity to do that.

I think that we have, you know, heard what we would hear despite how it got to this point and

and I'm ready to move to the vote on this.

So we have a motion and a second.

No, because I didn't get my questions answered.

Yes.

Mr. Reed.

So motion passes.

So this is a request to rezone property located on Spruce Creek Lane from RTC residential plant community to A1 Agriculture.

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on February 24th and recommended unanimous approval of the application.

It's located on Spruce Creek Lane in the Central Election District, the property is owned by Heather and Esta.

The previous owner named Mr. Napier of this property bought and was needed the property in 1973.

However, the title is questionable because there was no deed of record conveying the property to his grantor.

One of the also claimed that its predecessor and title for him remained personal.

The dispute was resolved in 2019 and a civil action between Mr. Napier and Wintergreen and the court order provided in part that the previous owner is entitled to have the title perfected or vested in him by virtue of average possession.

says Wintergreen claimed the property of Russell was mapped as RPC when zoning was enacted in the 70s, even though Mr. Napier was in physical possession of the land under color of his title.

In light of the litigation, the Wintergreen property designation disclaims any authority regarding the parcel, simply because they have no authority, it doesn't matter if it came to the zoning.

So in order to regulate any development activity, it must be resumed to the district and have a set of standards that the county can regulate.

There are no development plans submitted as part of this request.

It's simply to rezone the property to an appropriate zoning district classification to allow with the court order.

The new owner has indicated that she proposes to build a family, a single family dwelling.

This one's pretty straightforward.

I don't have any questions from this Bishop.

I will open the public hearing on the rezoning 225 from residential and community day one.

No one speaking to that, I'll close the public hearing.

Any discussion or motions from the board?

If you'd like to.

Mr. Chairman,

I feel like I'm making no motions today.

I move that we approve this rezoning, rezoning number 225, RPC residential plant community to A1 agriculture as presented and approved with the conditions from the Planning Commission.

Second.

I motion and second.

Any discussion?

Mr. Parr?

Yes.

Dr. Redford?

Yes.

Yes.

In the finance, yeah.

Thank you.

These both, both these ordinances we spent a lot of time on with the Planning Commission.

I won't go over the memo again unless you'd like me to.

The Board did review this at their meeting in February.

Okay.

Any questions from anyone on the Board?

Okay.

Thank you, Ms. Bishop.

I'll open the public hearing on the ordinance 2021-01.

Anyone like to speak to this?

No one speaking in the public hearing.

I will close the comments.

Do you want to make a motion?

I might as well, I guess.

Mr. Chairman, I move we approve Ordinance 0.20.21-01 as presented and approved by the Planning Commission.

Is there a second one?

That's what I would say.

I see they're on there.

I don't see this number two.

It's the whole lot.

All right.

We're going to do the O-1, which is, I would imagine, the Article 11 nonconforming uses as presented.

Second.

I guess the next one is O-2.

We'll have a little discussion.

It's one ordinance with amendments.

Yes.

Mr. Harvey, did you want to speak to either one of these?

There's no further discussion?

Mr. Carr?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Mr. Reed?

I'd like to consider the Virginia Public School Authority BB&T proposals for possible refinancing of the school bonds.

We have a draft proposal.

A draft resolution.

It has a number, R 2021-14.

It's got a heading that was passed out to us from Mr. Carter.

Mr. Carter, do you want to speak to the resolution?

It's a preliminary first step to

2012-05, the county issued actually earlier than 2012 to assist with the construction of a new middle school and renovation of the Nelson County High School.

What Mr. Kutz didn't know and what we discussed is the reason

We're somewhat concerned about the BPSA process because the bond market has been, interest rates in the bond market have been increasing.

So you don't know if what was presented to the board initially will be maintained as remarks to working with BPSA.

Just about this a little bit more in savings is with the truest option.

So that's what we're recommending to the board.

That's what he's recommending, of course.

Because if the board looks at the bond market or whatever interest rates, there is inflationary concern in the marketplace and rates that ticked up a bit in the last few weeks.

They may have gone down a little bit in the last few days, but the concern is they're going to go up.

BB&T.

All right, I'd like to note that the resolution reads, now therefore be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Nelson County, Virginia, the county administrator, another county staff, a financial advisor, the county's bond counsel, Sand Anderson, PC, and the county attorney are authorized

to allow for to consider approval of the 2021 refinancing with the bank at a future meeting.

One of our public hearings.

Does anyone have any other business to bring to the board's attention today?

At one o'clock, yeah, we would need to ask the board to continue to the 19th at 1 p.m.

Okay.

And it would be, as I said, a joint meeting with the Planning Commission.

There may be separate agendas, but we'll work on that.

Does that start at one?

And that meeting will include the introduction of the budget for 2022.

It's Friday afternoon and you're pushing it low.

The only date we could get all the state people to agree to was the 19th.

And that's without anything actually coming here.

Well, it's really just to distribute the budget, give a quick summary, and then schedule work sessions.

Do we have a motion?

Mr. Chairman, I move we continue this meeting to, what time do you want us to do it?

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Mr. Parr?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Mr. Reed?

Yes.

So when I talk about that guy today, he told me that they looked at all three of those sites

My life was that the top of the mountain was a road construction issue.

That they were just too damn cheap to build the road to that other tower.

That it would have been the better site for the tower, but they didn't want to build the road.

And that's bullshit that he told me that today.

That's why I got so upset at browsers.