Board of Supervisors Meeting   6/8/2021

Oh, I'd like to call to order the June 8, 2021 regular meeting of the Nelson County Board of Supervisors.

Please stand for a moment of silence.

Mr. Rutherford, will you listen to the pledge?

My mic doesn't seem to be working.

I will try to speak up.

First order of business is public comments.

Your address.

My name is Tommy from here, 187 Jacks Hill Road, Roseland, Virginia.

I've got a matter concerning parking for the Blue Ridge Trail down there.

We need to expand that parking lot.

A lot of times it's full and there's no other place to go and I don't want people parking alongside the road.

I'd like to do another place.

Plus, if there's horse travelers there, it limits the space too.

I think the landowner could be talked in to maybe donating some of that.

I think it's James Fitzgerald.

If we could just get an acre there.

Also, there's a note spotted with the pathways from the trail in Cairo.

Many times on weekends it's cards parked up and down both sides of the roads.

Of course,

I don't know actually who owns that parking lot now, whether it's a foreign service or what, but I think these two things could, parks direct people could look into some of this.

I think it's something necessary.

I don't know if any of you all were up next year during the fall at Cramshoe Falls, overflowed on that.

cars parking up and down the road.

We don't have a parking ordinance in this county, so I think the sheriff is limited to what he can do, so maybe something we could look at that, because it's a safety factor when you have people on that narrow road parking up to them, maybe VDOT could do something too.

Another issue, before I left the board, I gave a couple of directives.

Wanted to get that old post office in Maxisville torn down, and the letters were sent, and nothing's been done, and that's been over a year.

It's not only not so, but it's a danger, excuse me.

They got a little fence around it, a tree went down there,

Small windstorm we had a couple weeks ago.

But, that's one.

No, Lance James owns it.

It has, and that's in danger of falling.

Well, I think the building inspector has written a letter or directive to tear the building down according to our ordinance.

But it's been going on for over a year since I brought, you know, I've been up there.

And there was another one up there at the tea room there that junk cars were supposed to be taken care of up there.

I brought the request to plan zoning down there.

And I don't, there's some been removed, but nothing's really been going on for, it's been over a year or so.

They were at the top of the up-to-date road for our list, and I'm not mistaken

They may have made it into the latter years of the six-year plan.

I don't have a plan with the plan.

Yeah.

Both projects.

It should be done this year.

Anyway, and I think 151,

over your way the last couple of years.

I think this one should be done.

Anyone else wish to speak?

Okay, we will close public comments.

That brings us to the consent agenda.

Before we look to adopt that, there's a few things I'd like, one thing I'd like clarification on, and I talked to Ms. McGarry about this, and this was the

the money for child services.

The paperwork provided with the package showed the initial allocation from the state at about $1,030,000.

And then our expected expenditures for the year to be about $1.7 million.

And these programmatic

Programmatic allocation differs from what's in the budget currently because based on historical expenditures, we budget 1.6 million roughly in the expenditure budget.

So really, we just need to amend our budget for the difference between the 1.7 billion in expected expenditures and the current amount is 1.6 million approximately.

So I've requested a budget amendment for $102,104

of which 30.33% is local funds.

These are mandatory expenses, some that we actually have authority over.

We voted on this a couple of years ago.

Thank you.

The other thing I would like to do is read the text of Resolution R 2021-36.

of Nelson County Board of Supervisors anniversary of the cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

Whereas on July 5, 2020, Dominion Resources announced the cancellation of the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

And whereas the Atlantic Coast Pipeline represented a risky and unnecessary threat to hundreds of Nelson County landowners, as well as many others in our region.

and whereas the pipeline would have cut across steep slopes and through river streams and wetlands and put numerous properties at risk of landslides and bodies of water at risk of increased sedimentation and harm to sensitive species.

And whereas the pipeline's route would have fragmented some of the most intact forested landscapes in the Southeast.

And whereas the pipeline would have bisected areas of historical and cultural significance in Wingina and in the Rockfish Valley.

And whereas the pipeline project exposed numerous flaws in the regulatory process governing the location and need for such projects.

And whereas the route of the pipeline raised issues of environmental justice in rural and minority communities, thereby increasing economic disparities and racial tensions.

and whereas the use of eminent domain by private profit making corporations threatened the sanctity and property rights and the safety and security of property owners and the effectiveness of local zoning and floodplain ordinances.

And whereas the continued reliance on fossil fuels puts the region, nation and world at risk of exacerbating climate change to the detriment of millions of people.

and whereas citizen groups in Nelson County and elsewhere organized to protect their fellow citizens from the harmful effects of the pipeline project by mounting political and legal challenges to the project over a six-year period.

And whereas our Nelson County government took an active role opposing the ACP in numerous comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Can we just do the whole consent?

Well, I mean, I think some of this is nothing but political talk.

And the facts of what did happen is OK.

But I've got problems with several of the ways

Whereas, you know, some of the property owners, I'm gonna say most of those property owners that were affected come out pretty good.

Some come out with hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And I don't know where you say that it went through the monarchies.

I don't think you can justify that saying.

I have no problem recognizing, but I don't think we need to go to this thing of, you know, about the fossil fuel.

I can comment on, you know, whenever you

as this would be differences.

But I think the key point is the people of Nelson County, for a variety of different reasons, not all the same reasons here, stood up to a corporation that was manipulating the system in order to assure a profit that they would have, which had to do with the capital investment that they made.

Well, there's never,

One of the bad things in our society today is the idea that there's one opinion and another opinion.

One thing or the other.

When something happens, there's always a multitude of reasons for it happening.

And this document recognizes there were multiple reasons why people stood up against it.

Well, true, you are out of order.

Just a few points I'd like to make and then Mr. Rutherford, you got something?

So, you know, I think

Probably this gets, I mean, I know for my stance, when we talk about the pipeline, it was a property rights issue and a serious property rights issue.

You know, I don't necessarily, you know, obviously we all know the critical place fossil fuels are in our industry, you know, but I'm also a guy who installed solar panels for a living.

You know, I think it is a little bit very political.

I think there is some celebration that, I mean, I'd be fine with us saying, hey,

Let us remember today is the anniversary of the cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and then let people remember for why for them.

Does that make sense?

I mean, if we were to list it and I could tell you, I know another dozen people who could add another 10, whereas, you know, we all know that.

So, you know, I don't know what that might mean, Mr. Chairman.

I mean, I think we could do something.

I think we could just say, hey, today's the day that we celebrate the ending of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

and then let everybody in the county, in their own head, put their where as.

In some, I mean, I'm not, I understand where you're coming from on it and I can agree with most of you.

Well, regardless, a month ago I said I'd be

And I was very careful when we're talking about specifics and what happened in the county.

All of those are points that were made to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and documents that the county sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

And so in the different processes that the county was involved in, both in comments

and in the lawsuit and in the amicus briefs that we filed, the only point in here that was not one that was county specific that we mentioned was the one that you mentioned about fossil fuels and climate change.

And the science on fossil fuel and climate change with all due respects is indisputable.

So none of the points on this are points that the county has not made on the record previously.

There's always less

and points that people become aware of within this whole thing.

And the debate that went on about this, people became more aware of certain situations because of it.

This resolution,

both celebrate the people of Nelson County and the government and the administration because these were positions that were taken by the county and as a result of the people of Nelson being involved in this.

Oh, sure.

I think we all, I'm sorry.

You know, I think it's, I believe that we should celebrate the cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and we need to recognize it.

I think it's

And that's where we are.

We're arguing over the bullet points underneath.

And, you know, shoot, I don't know what that means.

You know, for me, I do like, you know, I think the first one is very first whereas the you could be the second whereas, you know, the third whereas we went to Supreme Court over that pretty much.

Right, Ernie?

Steve Slopes and Through Rivers and Streams.

And the comments on Wingina and Rockfish Valley.

The county made comments saying that these

Cultural Districts were going to be bisected by the pipeline and opposed it for those reasons.

I understand a lot of the rules changed flood zones.

We went in and tried to redo our flood zone just to make sure that it would affect us.

The best one is at the very end.

The now therefore be it resolved in recognition of the success of these citizens led efforts, Nelson County Board of Supervisors resolves to publicly congratulate and thank those who put their interest of their fellow citizens at the forefront of their concerns in their successful campaign to defeat this misguided project and hereby establishes July 5th, 2021, the one year anniversary of the cancellation of the pipeline project as commemorative day to celebrate their accomplishment.

I'd like that.

I would like to include citizen groups in the county in terms of recognition, the last two on page one.

Because both of those aspects are worthy of celebration.

The details,

I think that's fine with those accounts.

So one and the last two.

So why don't you go ahead and make a motion.

I'm going to say, can I read exactly what I was doing and not have the whereases, please?

Mr. Chairman, I move that we pass an amended resolution to R 2021-36, Nelson County Board of Supervisors anniversary cancellation of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, whereas on July 5, 2020,

Rose, Atlantic Coast Pipeline, and whereas citizen groups in Nelson County and elsewhere organized to protect their fellow citizens from the harmful effects of the pipeline project by mounting political and legal challenges to the project over a six-year period, and whereas our Nelson County government took an active role opposing the ACP in numerous comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Now, therefore, be it resolved, in recognition of the success of these citizen-led efforts, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors resolves to publicly congratulate and thank those who put the interests of their fellow citizens at the forefront of their concerns in their successful campaign to defeat the misguided project and hereby establishes July 5, 2021, the one-year anniversary of the cancellation of the pipeline project, as a commemorative day to celebrate their accomplishment.

OK. We've got a motion and a second.

It's an amended version.

The only thing that I see that you would really object to is the thing about fossil fuels.

Is there anything else specifically?

I mean, I don't think we need to regurgitate the arguments of the pipeline.

Again, you could go across down 56 and find a hundred different arguments.

No, my question was which of the whereas is

I just read them all.

All the warehouses that made sense that were consistent and made this resolution make the commemorative day.

We don't have time for that.

It's not that I disagree with the other bullet points either.

I would like to say for the record, Mr. Barton, is that the whereas is in this resolution that are being omitted from the final resolution are well established.

They were all successful arguments that the pipeline canceled.

And anyone could go to the record and take a look at these and realize that none of these were effectively refuted in court at all.

Ernie worked really hard to the top.

So we have a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Mr. Rutter?

Yes.

Yes.

So we have the rest of the consent agenda.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Mr. Reed?

Yes.

Next we have the VDOT report.

Good afternoon.

First thing I'd like to do today is introduce my new assistant.

I have two assistant residency administrators now.

Mr. Daniel Vile, he will be working with us as the assistant residency engineer for Nelson County and our other counties.

Daniel is a licensed professional engineer and he has 18 years of experience with VDOT and he's sort of a roadway designer for his whole career and just a real joy and pleasure to introduce Daniel to the board and he'll be interacting and getting to know everybody and getting to work in all the different programs that we have here in our residence and at Nelson County.

Nice to meet you, sir.

Did you bring your stamp with you?

I have one.

I got some plans in the car.

Thank you, sir.

Welcome.

The first thing I have, I'd like to present to you, we have a, we've been reviewing our, some road acknowledges, some of their road acknowledges and we found one that has a discrepancy in it and we've been doing this statewide is to clean up our mileage records for the length of roads to make sure that accurate

And one came to surface was Castle Creek Laney over near Massies Mill off of Dickey Road.

And currently that road is 0.46 miles long.

In our records, it's 0.7 miles long.

We have researched that road and tried to find out where that other 0.24 miles is.

I haven't been able to find anything.

I've talked to a lot of people.

that I thought we'd know.

And to my knowledge, nobody remembers us maintaining that 24 hundredths of a mile.

And you know, there's no, there's no, the road is growing up, it's got trees on it.

And if it was in the system, it's been years ago, a long time ago.

So I want to present to the board, I've got a sketch here that will show

We're proposing to do a discontinuance of maintenance for that road.

And the reason for a discontinuance is in case we have missed something.

Well, for discontinuance, we discontinue it for maintenance, but the wider way remains intact.

That way if we all have an issue in the future, the right of way is still intact and it will be a matter of taking it back into the system.

So that is what I'm presenting up to you.

And when we do a discontinuance, we do have to post a willingness

for a public hearing.

And we will put this in the newspaper if the board has no objections.

Has anybody looked at some of the deeds up to that section that

We have researched the deeds and there is nothing that references it.

The only deed was for a parcel on the left, right at the end of the existing road.

So we plowed up there for, I think it was a six acre parcel that was surveyed recently, a recent survey had been applied and it shows the end of state maintenance right where it's at.

So, and there's nothing,

There's no reference of any prescriptive easement or anything up to there.

I feel confident.

We've done thorough research on it.

But just in case a property owner or someone wants to come forward in the future, this is a discontinuance of maintenance.

It's not an abandonment.

And that is intentional because

We could recover from that if someone did have some property up in there that needed access to that old, to the right way, it would still be there.

So we'll proceed with that unless you all direct me otherwise.

And at some point when we get to the willingness period, obviously we'll come back and ask for a resolution from the board for the discontinuance.

No, I don't.

I couldn't find anything on it.

It was almost like it was all installed in a parcel, in a large parcel.

None of the deeds that any of the properties up there put up there was that reference.

No, it's just, it's wooded, man.

Well, we had that one on Duncan Hollow Loop.

I think they actually opened that back up.

It was Hill Hollow.

Hill Hollow, yeah.

Discontinued, yeah.

Discontinuous is good.

That way, you know, one of the original right-of-way, wherever it was at, it's still in place.

It doesn't revert back to the Brock Hills.

It's still in place if it needs to become a public, maintained street again.

That's the key.

unless you all direct me otherwise.

I really don't have a whole lot to report.

I made notes here of Mr. Bruegher's comments and he's right.

151 over Brinton out is getting in horrible shape.

Unfortunately, our pay-through dollars that we are receiving through our maintenance fund are

because of the new grading systems and what qualifies for resurfacing.

But I will check on the pavement rating of whatever was paved about 10 years ago.

But as most of you know, we treat that section heavily with salt and chemicals, so it doesn't last as long as a typical pavement would because it's a lot of treatment.

to keep the ice off of it, but I would check on that section of pavement.

We are working up on 664, and when we had that issue with the trucks coming over back, I guess, last year, or this year, last year we did truck restrictions.

We are up there now doing some pavement widening up in that work curve,

Right before you get to the Appalachian Trail, we're working on the inside of the curve and the outside.

What is your intent?

No, not to make it truck passable, but to

But they're still unsure to make sure that what trucks do go on there don't cause a problem that they've caused in the past.

Because this is just our side.

We're not going to remedy that.

It just doesn't make sense.

And that's just like going up to Route 6 and widening all those turns that trucks can't make.

No it doesn't make it right but you know and what we see is the best interest of public safety if we can do some widening up there to make it where those trucks do not get hung up in that curve.

even though they're not supposed to be there it will it will create a safer condition it's just and kind of our our position is to make it yes it does make it will pass hope but it doesn't eliminate we're not going to go back and take the restriction off the red light is it the responsibility of the sheriff's department to enforce those restrictions state police state police

because of the, you know, what, you know, the problem is, is that it's still being used.

And that's the problem.

I mean, we knew when we did it, yes, it should take some trucks off that road and this helped.

I haven't gotten nearly as many reports.

I haven't talked to Mr.

Sheets lately to see how many are still getting, are still, he's seen going up there or how many they've had

I mean, I don't want to speculate on why.

I mean, we all know that between the sheriff's department and the state police, they can't set up their own kind of white tickets.

They could up on six.

They spend a lot of time up there and they've written a lot of tickets.

Not only that, but the trucks over 65B just coming down 151 that are not permitted.

And from what I understand from the first night around, they've been tested in those pretty heavily too.

That's thanks to the fire department, and now nobody's willing to help the fire department with their driveway.

But we're all working there.

We do have, we have started working on some rural rustics on paved roads.

I know we still got to finish high people in Shipman and we've got the work of it.

We're doing the next mile on Cedar Creek, and we've got about four of them we want to try to do this year.

We're still working on getting those done.

We should, I know we've done some going on four-lane already, kind of cutting some trouble spots, but we're definitely going to, next Monday, we'll hit all of the four lanes.

We'll start our four-lane going, but you can't,

Yeah, we talked about it before on Riding Mills Road, right outside of Wingtown, where you go down the Rucker Run, and that's a short, we've talked about it before, you said it's not eligible, but it's a 90, there are two curves there, the one closest to the top is almost a 90 degree turn, and you can't see

And this weekend, there was an accident, an unreported accident.

You can see the evidence that there had been an accident.

You know what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I know what you're talking about, the intersection of

And then you go down below that, down toward Rockwell Run, and there's a sharp curve there.

Very sharp.

And it's totally blind coming both ways.

And there's a cliff off on the left side.

So if a car did get forced off the edge, you know, there probably should be a barricade there.

But, you know, that's not the point.

We need a sign there.

We need a sign coming both ways.

That's a dangerous curve.

That was reported to the Sheriff's Office.

I got a call over to

But I think somebody called in about it, but they didn't know who was in it.

I don't know.

But anyway, last year there was a near fatal accident.

You know, it's been a continuous problem.

Right, but that's not there now.

I think you must have missed the statement, because it's clearly so much worse than a lot of the other places I see where there's a sign.

If you're not going to do anything, give me a call.

I would appreciate a call.

648 going on at 703, and that goes all the way to 56.

It is an unpaved road that has super high traffic.

It's used as a crossover for people from Shipman to head down towards Windgina as opposed to hitting on Deer Run and going to Cragetown Road at 56.

It's a crossover.

If we could do a count on that, I think we'll find out that it's pretty heavily traveled.

I would like to see potentially maybe that being paved over the next... Eagle Mountain Drive.

I brought it up last week.

The end of the six year plan, yeah.

Yeah, I was thinking that.

Is it?

Okay.

I hadn't seen it.

Yeah.

I'm good.

I did have one more thing to report on.

We've had two requests for interest in revenue sharing.

Jesse, we saw you last week.

We've been asked, they've expressed an interest to again apply for revenue sharing funds on their behalf, I guess.

And then we did do a cost estimate on that.

This car has that estimate.

It was .65 mile, and I think it was 110,000. Who gave that information?

And that's a great, that's a great road.

The footprint's there, it's around a certain fault within the scope of our state forces, you know, building construction and completing that road.

Jesse, if you were going to get our, you know, some sort of plan.

We haven't done any revenue sharing yet.

It's up to the county.

Typically, when a group of citizens, I'll tell you how it works in other counties.

I'll tell you, it doesn't work that way in Nelson County.

Now, typically, a county will make an application for revenue sharing funds on the behalf of a group or a home owner's association or a group of citizens.

and they, if it's revenue sharing can be up to 50% match from VDOT revenue sharing funds.

Usually the county, we're building a candidate, they ask me for an estimate or they have a group of citizens that ask them for revenue accounting determinants, ask them, ask those group of citizens, what is your commitment to this project?

And a lot of times I give them a preliminary estimate, but like the estimate I just sent to Mr. Carter on Mountain Ridge, it's a definite number.

And if it's 50-50, these residents need to commit, talk to each other, commit that if the county applies for this fund, if the county applies for these revenue sharing funds, you can furnish the match.

That's how it works.

That's exactly how it works.

And there are a lot of different ways that can happen.

I mean, we're working on one in Campbell County there.

There's a 178,000-mile project.

And the residents that live along that road, they came up with 50%.

They mortgaged.

They took out mortgages.

They did whatever.

But they came up with their 50%.

And after you go through the application process,

When the revenue sharing is announced, the results of the application period, if that project was funded, Steve would give a call from somebody at VDOT saying, Mr. Carter, your project was, I'll get a letter saying your project was selected.

And that's when Mr. Carter would go to the board.

If he would get a, they call it Appendix A, but it's really an invoice.

Is that the process that's going on up on Woods Ridge?

Yes.

Yeah, that would be the process, and I will point it out from Mr. Carter in my email, revenue sharing is a little different.

There are tier one revenue sharing projects and tier two revenue sharing projects.

Tier 1 revenue sharing projects will be revenue sharing applications that deal strictly with economic development, economic access, those type projects.

Some of these are streams and that people are seeking revenue sharing, they are Tier 2 projects.

And the way this funding goes, VDOT is going to fund all the Tier 1 projects first.

and whatever's left is what they fund tier two.

It might be 50% match but it could be a 54% match.

I mean VDOT might not have all the funding left in the revenue sharing balances.

It might not be enough money to cover 40% of the cost and your residents will have to come up with 60%.

So it's not a guaranteed 50% match for VDOT.

But the total beneficiary of that are the people that live on that road.

And that's why we don't do it because you go and put a subdivision in and the next thing you know, they want to

Well, normally if it's done right, the... Well, revenue sharing, you know, can't remember, you know, after the rural addition program quit being funded through secondary road construction.

A private road.

This is the only really help that they can get from VDOT, but it does have to be a county application on their behalf.

But that is Mountain Ridge Lane, Old Ridge Road.

That was also requested.

and I've been looking at that twice and I've had some of my staff do some research.

That project is a little bit different because basically that was a subdivision that was created and there never was a public runaway established.

There's no footprint.

There was no, like the red Jesse lives on.

Even though it wasn't built to state standards, it was great.

There's a great footprint there to where it's not a lot of work to do.

Old Mill Road is a totally different type of construction.

It's almost like new construction.

We will have to, as far as a revenue engineering project, we will have to set up a preliminary engineering phase, a run-away phase, and a construction phase.

I haven't done a detailed estimate because it's pretty involved.

It is a state road to a point, but this is where over the ridge takes off to the right before you get to the road that goes up to the line.

Right of way, a right of way would have to be established state.

I'm not saying it couldn't be less than 50 feet, but typically

It would be a 50-foot right-of-way that we would stake.

We could stake that right-of-way.

It would take a, the survey would have to be done to, to, to establish who, you know, the property owners don't have to donate the right-of-way.

Don't make it right-of-way.

But it would have to be a 50-foot right-of-way.

They'd have to come and get some property.

And I guess the property up for some right-of-way.

That's a full-blown survey.

Also, the utilities up through there.

I see a lot of utility relocation power poles.

Could be.

I guess what I'm trying to say gentlemen, I cannot get all that done in time to make it pre-application date and I'm not comfortable with trying to rush to it because if I rush to it, I want to give you a little accurate number, but just roughly, and this is something that you could take back to your profit owners, for that road,

I think you're talking two and a half million million dollars a mile, at least.

Two million dollars a mile?

Yeah.

Because I mean, there's no footprint there.

There's heavy clearing and grubbing.

I mean, I'm just doing planning right now at no cost.

Correct.

and I would have to bring in some help from this right here.

I would have to get our district L and D location and design section to help me do this because it's got, you know, it's a fully, it's a fully, it's a full construction project right away with utility relocations.

And I don't know what kind of message you're on.

You know, we had two residents approach at this request to the board.

I don't want to waste their time and I don't want to waste my time or the board's time if this is something that just two people asked for and nobody else out there has a buy-in to it.

It is 50 foot.

It looked like it was 50.

Ask him to give me a call.

Okay.

Okay.

New and unfinished business.

The consideration is the approval of a $40,000 loan through the county's emergency services planning fund to Montevallo Elementary Fire Department.

As the board is aware, the county is assisted with the purchase of their new fire tanker vehicle and this will be

and $500,000.

Does this need action?

Yes, Chairman, I move that we approve for these folks to acquire their equipment for that page for interest-free loan.

Got a motion and a second.

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Mr. Reed?

Yes.

Experience on the board, vital.

Update on the status of the Coronavirus in the county.

website, that's June 3rd.

Zero new cases of the virus were reported both over the past 90 days, which I wasn't sure that was correct, but that's what their site reported.

And then zero new cases of the virus over the recent seven-day average.

And continually to date throughout the period of the virus, there have been 895 reported cases of the virus

Mr. Carter, I've got a question.

We still have signage on the building here that masks are required and yet that's clearly not enforced.

I'm wondering what the protocol is.

What's the contradiction with the gun?

What we've asked the security people to do, because unless someone tells us that they've been vaccinated, if you've been vaccinated and you're fine,

At this point, we don't know when people come into the building unless we ask them if they have been vaccinated or not.

All county offices are reopened as of May 3rd, and telework is scheduled for County Staff 2 personnel, two different offices, but just two individuals was concluded as of May 31st.

If that's something contrary to what the Board understands, please let me know because

American Rescue Plan, the first one-half, $1,449,988.50 of the federal ARP funding, we've actually received that funding.

The next one-half, which will be a similar amount, will be received about one year later.

and the county's budget that becomes effective July 1st, FY 2021-22 includes that total amount of funding in almost $3 million.

So we're still trying to grasp.

We haven't really focused on this for the last week or so.

There's guidance out on the use of the funding, but

What I proposed here is maybe in July or August for that work session and discuss possible uses of this funding.

You bring that up at the next meeting when everybody's here.

And we have, I think, until 2023, is that right?

For the federal funds to be expended.

So there's really no rush.

but still the money that's here, the second half will be here probably within FY 2021-2022.

Capital property projects, we do have consensus to go in with the assessment of the properties in the 29th quarter, subject to discussion today and as I've noted here,

that were included in the FY22 budget with funding.

We're ready to go forward with those.

And if I may, the communications I've sent to the board, and we have engineering services, architectural services, and financial advisory services.

So it's really predicated on the board to say, go for these things or do we or do we not?

And the funding's there.

The Piney River wastewater system pattern construction is here this week.

We're thinking they're gonna finish the project this week to refurbish the Simcoe Pump Station.

It's the primary pump station, wastewater pumping station, Route 56 West.

How long has this been going on?

It's been going on for a while.

One of the delays has been there are two eight-inch check valves

to the critical installations.

We're taking two out and replacing them.

They sent the wrong ones, and the delivery time for the initial delivery was pretty lengthy, and then the delay was just about as long.

But I spoke to Mr. Baddison, or communicated with him last week, and he indicated they were here this week, which I received confirmation of today, or yesterday.

There were a couple of changes that we may approve, which are minor, but would enhance the operational building of the facility.

They should finish this week.

The checkpals are here now.

The general reassessment, we were hoping that Mr. Wampler would come and report to the board in July.

That's when I put in my report.

In speaking with him, he's indicated that probably September is a better time frame

In the past, when we had the draft of this ordinance, the board had a handily over varied time.

Two or three of the assessments served my time here passed on local ordinance that limits the time that the board of equalization will sit during the general reassessment.

as far as going to public hearing.

What we do is, as drafted, the board of equalization or applications would be due by not later than April 15th of any given year and then the board would have until I think June 1st to finish their work.

That would prevent the appeals, et cetera, from just going on throughout mankind.

The VDOT transportation and alternative grant projects, you know, we're working with planning district staff on those and federal track to be submitted by July 1st.

We still need input from the PDC staff on the local match for the Lovingston grant, which we'll probably hold the board on that one

Redistricting, this occurred, the thought occurred to me as writing the report.

We're not ready, we don't have sufficient information yet to, I guess, begin a redistricting process.

But in Susan Moore's sort of preliminary look at this, it may not

School shots.

I'm not sure.

We'll get more information before the report.

Questions?

I spoke to Ms. Bishop last week and again today about it.

She's working on a draft that will be presented.

It's a working project process with, I think we're trying to get it out by the first of July or so.

We're also confirmed with Dylan and she's working with Mr. Panecourt on several zoning amendments.

The ordinance is pretty open, flexible, and it's a question of could it be more limiting or not.

There's a proposed development

And seemingly per review of our discussion with Dylan, it's not really addressed, but it's not really prohibited either.

It's potentially a major investment in the county, but it would be 32 cabins of different sizes on a 360 acre property just for vacation routes.

That's a lot of acreage.

And it won't happen in school, Jule.

Well, that's the question.

Well, the thing we need to address is these vacation homes.

What's happened to it is it's taken the market away from the young people.

Well, I mean, that's a grand scale issue and talk about secondary homes versus vacation.

I mean, we talk about this in the Regional Housing Partnership all the time.

Nelson's a unique situation because we have a tourist driven economy.

This is not a true number, but one that we speculate is true.

It's about 50% of Airbnbs that are today, more often than not, those Airbnbs were just somebody's secondary home.

Otherwise, if it's not being utilized as this short-term stay, it wouldn't be a rental property.

A condo in Wintergreen, more often than not, is probably not going to be somebody's rental property.

You do run into a philosophical piece on this, you know, and how it works.

I'd be interested to know how much of the Airbnb revenue translates into lodging taxes versus, you know, Wintergreen plus the Village Inn.

Yeah, I understand.

Well, one thing I have asked you on the look at that for a discussion with you, and I don't know the board, you know, I'm not really,

That is an industry that has just gone through a bath.

I'm sorry?

I'm noting that you have the ability to do it.

I mean, it's under the impression that we're not getting

Yes, in the report, the lodging, and typically a meal succeeds the lodging.

This year's have been in reverse, but I think the May or April

What's that dollar number?

Yes, I'm sorry.

I looked at it last week.

people in the big cities wanting to get out and live somewhere besides the big cities for a while.

Is that combined?

I'm going to start out with the reports.

Recently, county staff and I and Mr. Parr had a meeting with Amherst County to discuss potentially the ag facility.

I know there's some questions and comments and trying to figure out how we move forward and we're thinking currently it's through a study of sorts for a particular piece.

I know we'll go into more details.

We're meeting with Amherst Moore to talk about the ag facility essentially and what process would probably be the most ideal for Nelson.

And I don't have any reports to put forth.

I passed out an updated list

I think we have kind of a long list this time.

Maybe we can do them one at a time and just check them off.

Let's do it by department.

Yeah, I've served with Dana for the last two years.

She's excellent.

She shows up.

She contributes.

Let's do it.

Mr.

Chair, would you like a motion for that?

Please.

Mr.

I'd like to make a motion.

I do not, but read her curriculum that she looks good.

It's in your district.

I'll do it for you.

Thank you.

OK. Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Mr. Reed?

Excuse me.

And for the Nelson County broadband authority,

Everybody on that authority, their term expires at the end of this month.

And I've reached out to everybody and heard back from Mr. Harvey about if they'd like to be reappointed.

So we can do all these as one?

I'll just read each name.

Mr. Chairman,

To the broadband authority.

Thank you.

Mr. Rutherford?

Yes.

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Reed?

Yes.

They've been under hot grass recently.

You've heard about that?

Yeah, about six months ago.

Yeah.

Dolores Green does not wish to be reappointed, so we do have to hold up that position open.

Library Advisory Committee, I sent a letter out to Jean Holliday.

Mr. Rutherford?

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Yes.

I say person applied to that from Mr. Burdick.

I was on the impression that he was going to apply.

The trains situation in Fauver is continuing.

Currently, the Congressman's office is going to the Office of Safety in regards to the railroad road.

OK, directives.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I've had some discussions with other Board of Supervisors in regards to the topic of a swimming pool.

Obviously, we know that's extremely popular amongst the public.

I want to make sure that we can echo, if not, if we need to correct or make it whatever the new motion be.

We're ready to proceed with the project.

Okay.

We have the contract, the call, I got it, sorry.

I want to make sure that we have this specific one in there in regards to a public swimming pool, you know, in between the areas of Lovingston and Tyre Creek, you know, making sure that that specifically we can get on that as well.

So if you're doing that in the near future.

So let me elaborate on that.

I'm probably not being specific enough in my reports.

So the assessment would then enable, and we can proceed now with the

are several concepts and cost estimates for each concept.

The question is where to put it.

That would be the first step of this property assessment is, is it feasible for development for multiple purposes?

I just want to make sure we have a specific scenario in regards to a public swimming pool.

This is a directive, that's what we're doing.

The half-blood 22 budget has, I think, $30,000 for this study.

We've done a study previously and it was updated around 2012.

So then they can research the current lands that we owned and any that may be available between.

Right.

Sure.

Good.

Does the

If I understand it directly and what it's about is separating this particular project from the other sort of development ideas that the need for a swimming recreation area is so incumbent that we should move forward on this.

before we shouldn't have to wait for the other stuff to occur.

This has been the priority of the board for 20 years, from what I understand, from talking to other board members, and we haven't done it.

I don't see why it needs to be attached to development as a whole.

I mean, directly,

Well, that's what we're doing now, but what I'm asking is, when we do this work, I'd like to see that there may be the ability to have the independence rule.

Public swimming pool area.

Is that something that we can do in addition to whatever's happening with that?

That's what I see in doing the project in several different options.

The board can decide which one they prefer and then how to pay for it.

That's the next step.

Right, we don't have to.

But before the other things happen, we can separate this from those other ideas of development and things that need to be done in the county.

I'm talking about a specific recreational facility.

No, I understand, but if I may, you were in the minority when that boat was taken.

No, it's always been that indoor water.

The study in 2012 by Moseley Architects in Richmond had an indoor and outdoor facility.

And I thought when you look at it that way,

and then no outdoor facility or no indoor facility can show you the options and what they may cost and you decide what to do.

What I'm suggesting we do is we see this as a priority.

Immediately we begin looking for land that's suitable, hopefully near the

Water, you know, Tesla Water and other fake parking and areas like that.

And direct the Department of Recreation to begin to look at kinds of places, swimming areas, which would be most appropriate for the people of Nelson County to use in the summer to be a place with all but our most important asset, which is community.

And we have

You know, I haven't talked to anybody in Nelson County that doesn't think that that is an important idea, that we should prioritize, we should do it.

The other things might happen and they might not happen, but this is a thing we should do.

And there's other ways that the press can help us.

If they could somehow put in their story that someone has the appropriate land,

for this project and they were willing to sell it to the county and they would sell it to the county.

This is something as a community we need to do.

That's totally the scope of what we've been talking for for several years now.

We were trying to make something at the high school where the kids could be involved in a

competition swimming.

I know.

I agree with you.

It's totally different.

But it has happened.

And although I can see certain good things about that, I think it's much more important to have a place in which almost every other community in America has.

Go to meet together this summer with their children, with their grandchildren, and have an activity.

And it doesn't have to cost $20 million.

We can do it for $2 million.

That's not true.

Because over there, they got the- Well, then they don't care about it.

And the idea that they wouldn't come down to participate, I think they would.

Why haven't we done that in the past?

$25 million.

What?

You're talking about this,

We'll do all that.

Let's bring in that scenario as well.

Why don't you get started this month?

I'm sorry.

Is that direct?

That's guidance you're looking for anyway.

All right.

Get started.

Great.

Get started and that adds in that scenario.

We'll get the proposal from the architects.

We have to do that.

I'm not talking about proposing.

If I may, if I may.

I have a question that's a little bit of a tangent before you.

Well, maybe one place.

Well, okay.

Because if the county currently has property that might suit that, that is already county property,

Then that's a separate possibility that's not going to be covered in this plan that could expediate this much quicker than having it be subjected to the

So is that what I was saying?

I'll elaborate on the sites, if I may.

So, the previous study looked at three different locations.

One was the location of the tennis courts, at the present location of the tennis courts at the high school.

That was for the building facility.

Secondly was the

And we also have the Lambaside food line.

And we want that in there as well.

We just have to ensure, which would be part of the study, looking at that site, that the underlying bedrock is not going to be a cost-prohibitive factor.

All those things, true.

Yet, there is in Nelson County a population that if they knew that the

The people of Gus County would like to put a swimming pool on and have land that might be appropriate to what we're doing, might be willing to sell to the people, sell to us.

You know, I know there's a piece of land next to the Thai River that is owned by a person who owns that land, but might be willing to sell it to the county as recreation.

That's why I think it's, if I can use

The Press, that you would get the impression coming from this meeting that we're really interested in this.

This is a priority.

This is something we want to do.

And, you know, we're looking for land.

Where to put it?

I kind of made that directive in making sure that we stand alone on another scenario.

Let's look at making sure we can do a public swimming pool.

And there's land in between here and over there.

And if you're going to get started this month, that'd be a great compliment.

Make sure that's its own thing.

Does that make sense?

Does that make sense, Mr. Chairman?

Right, and you did mention to include property to the county.

Yeah, property to the county.

Yeah, Lovingston.

Because I'm sure that, I mean, that's a great place.

So, if I may, what I envision this project, how can this be, or similar scenario for a multi-purpose recreation center right indoor with a pool?

Sure.

Multi-purpose recreation center with an indoor and outdoor pool,

and then maybe number three, Al Gore will only make the playing fields and playing fields for the other two as well.

Those particular details, Skip, can be changed as we go.

I mean, that's a minutia of a detail that can be eliminated.

It doesn't speed anything up any quicker than the results of the report, but it certainly makes clear what it is that we're looking for and our intention to do back on it.

Yeah, there you go.

Yeah.

We need a place to go to some sort of bathroom facilities, both at the wayside, the tunnel,

and the Blue Ridge Railway.

We need that.

I know, but we don't know what we have.

Do you agree with that?

Well, I mean, that's a capital project that we need to put in order with the rest of things.

We've been discussing that internally.

That's one of the concerns about this permanent facility is

No, it's not true, but it won't be as expensive as building the building and keeping up with it.

Well, there's already one there that Amherst put in.

On the Amherst side.

Well, that's what I own.

That's something we can bring up next time we're looking at capital funds.

Let's do it.

Okay.

Mr. Chairman,

I move that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors convene in closed session to discuss the following as permitted by Virginia Code Section 2.2, S. 3711, A.1, discussion of the assignment, appointment, or performance of specific employees of the public five.

Let's do that.

Yes.

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Yes.

Mr. Reed?

Yes.

So we got a bathroom.

Yes.

There's a motion.

Put that on the record.

Oh, fun.

Recess.

You made it right.

Oh, perfect.

Okay.

I need a second.

I second.

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Mr. Rutherford?

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Nelson County Board of Supervisors certify to the best of each member's knowledge that only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meetings requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and only such business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened were heard, discussed, or considered in the closed meeting by the Board of Supervisors.

Okay, do we have a second?

Mr. Harvey.

Yes.

Mr. Barton.

Yes.

Yes.

And the motion to certify.

We did that.

That was included in there?

Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this meeting at seven o'clock today.

Mr. Harvey?

Mr. Rutherford?

Mr. Reed?

Well, especially when you get back down toward 151, there's a couple lots there that, I mean, normally this zone doesn't go back up to 250 feet, but there's some places there that have it,

and there's nothing but agriculture.

You'll have a similar application at your July meeting if it goes through planning commission on Avon Road.

But it's worked for a long time.

If there's no more questions, Dylan,

Ms. Coleman, did you want to say anything to the board?

Sure.

I'm Laura Coleman.

I'm at 804 Afton Mountain Road.

And this all came about for me because my mother wants to come live on my property.

She's 83, ready to move.

So got into the zoning issue, and I was confused.

And so I started calling people, and got the solution, I hope, which is to rezone it all to A1.

So I think everything's in the application.

So we have a public hearing on this.

If anyone would like to speak at the public hearing, I'll open the public hearing on this.

Any comments, I'll close that.

Okay.

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Mr. Harmon?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

This property is not currently zoned.

It was previously owned by the railroad by CSX.

The Friends of Gladstone Depot, a non-profit entity, purchased the property from them and they plan to move the depot here.

They plan to restore it to be utilized as a community center and transportation unit here.

I actually believe this was handed down before the board shortly before I started and the Planning Commission did also talk about it in January of 2020 and we're in support of it.

So we recently brought this background to designate the property as B1 to support those uses, which would be by right there.

The property is a little over an acre.

Residential and agricultural in nature, there's R1, A1, and B1 zoning in the vicinity.

The property is located within the floodplain district, so they would have to meet those requirements.

Proposed to be accessed from Gladstone Road, the entrance will comply with VDOT standards.

As is typical, a parking will comply with county requirements.

Comments from the service authority indicate the existing water and sewer service laterals are available for future connections.

And similarly, there are no proffers.

Any questions for Ms. Bishop?

OK, thank you, Dawn.

Is that true?

No, we're just working with Massey Saunders on getting the VDOT requirements and get their approval.

So other than that, everything's kind of looking up.

Good, OK.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I will open the public hearing on the rezone number 297.

Can we get a second?

I'll second.

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes.

Yeah.

The specific objective of ordinance O21-04 is to include

lifetime licensing ability for canines.

The county attorney has provided input on that and the ordinance includes that provision.

At present, it still maintains an annual license and other provisions for kennels and subject to the

also approved the ordinance, moved from the current fees to the maximum fees if you so decided.

There was discussion about, Mr. Payne, the county attorney, his opinion was that the ordinance still needed to maintain the annual requirement or the annual licensing in addition to the lifetime fee.

There was some discussion about that.

The treasurer offered five examples from other localities

Thank you.

I move that we continue this until next month, July meeting.

Any discussion on the draft that we have here?

We have a motion and a second?

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Yes.

Right, this would add Article 7 to the Chapter 3 of the County Code, as Mr. Reed noted.

It provides specific provisions to the Department of Recreation and one of the primary considerations is the establishment of fees and other costs the Department would develop.

That would then be subject to approval by resolution on the Board.

and that means you could, but it's noted this provides the flexibility of revising fees based on resolution approved by the board.

So the original draft just had the department establishing the fees once the ordinance was adopted and I was certainly uncomfortable with that.

As I noted in May, the solid waste ordinance has a similar

by the board by resolution.

So that's for the specific intent.

And additionally, Ms. Richardson is working on the fee schedule and I've advised her that there's really no rush.

We need to make it as appropriate as possible.

Having no questions?

We've talked about this before, right?

We have.

I didn't see anybody objecting.

We, of course, need a motion one way or the other.

You need to open the public hearing.

Thank you.

That was me.

Thank you, Grace.

Since no one's present to speak for public hearing, I will close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion that we approve the amendments to the code.

OK. One more chance for discussion.

Mr. Harvey?

Yes.

Mr. Barton?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Carter.

Um, any other business we would like to take up this evening?