Summary of the Board Of Supervisors Meeting in November
NOVEMBER 14, 2024 NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
2:00 P.M.
Present: Supervisors Jesse Rutherford, David Parr, Ernie Reed, Dr. Jessica Ligon
Absent: Supervisor Tommy Harvey
I. Supervisor Parr called the meeting to order followed by a moment of silence and the pledge of Allegiance.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Valdrie Walker: Addressed the Board about her concerns regarding the proposed solar farm in the area of Gladstone and asked the board to proceed with caution regarding the request and be cognizant that the Board may inadvertently obligate itself to a course of action regarding the solar farms.
Stephen Bayne: Addressed the information included in Ms. McGarry’s presentation on the truck traffic on 151 and the likelihood that the county could prevail in getting the speed limit reduced. He said that that he believes that the time /distance differentials for truckers resulting from the proposed speed reduction was overstated and that the business /housing densities required could be met.
III. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Resolution – R2024-73 Minutes for Approval: The Board unanimously approved the minutes of said Board meetings that were conducted on April 18, 2024 and April 22, 2024 and approved and authorized such minutes for entry into the official record of the Board of Supervisors meetings.
B. Resolution – R2024-74 Budget Amendment: The Board unanimously approved the budget amendment set forth below:
IV. PRESENTATIONS
A.VDOT Report: Robert Brown could not be present. No report was given.
B. 2025 TJPDC Legislative Program – David Blount (R2024-75):
David Blount presented the report set forth herein regarding the proposed legislative priorities and proposals and listed the items below that his organization would oppose:
Public Education Funding
PRIORITY: The Planning District’s member localities urge the State to fully fund its share of the realistic costs of the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and reverse policy changes that previously reduced funding or shifted funding responsibility to localities.
The State will spend more than $18 billion dollars on direct aid to public education in the current biennium. Additional state funding for teacher salaries, at-risk students and childcare subsidies in the current biennium are appreciated. However, we continue to believe that the State should increase its commitment to K-12 education in a manner that reflects the true costs of K-12 education. The 2023 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) report on K-12 education funding confirmed this, finding that public education in Virginia is underfunded, while noting that local school divisions receive less K–12 funding per student than divisions in other states and several key funding benchmarks.
Local governments consistently go “above and beyond” their responsibilities by appropriating twice as much K-12 funding as required by the state. We believe localities need an adequately defined SOQ that more equitably shares the costs of public education between the state and local governments, in order to ensure the overall success of students across the Commonwealth.
Further, we urge state efforts to support 1) flexibility in the use of state funds provided for school employee compensation; 2) adequate pipeline programs for teachers, especially in critical shortage areas; and 3) funding and policies that assist localities in addressing challenges with hiring school bus drivers and mental health professionals.
Budgets and Funding
PRIORITY: The Planning District’s member localities urge the governor and legislature to enhance state aid to localities, to not impose unfunded mandates on or shift costs to localities, and to enhance local revenue options.
As the State fine-tunes revenue and spending priorities for the current biennium, we encourage support for K-12 education, health services, public safety, economic development and other public goals. Localities continue to be the state’s “go-to” service provider and we believe state investment in local service delivery must be enhanced. The State should not expect local governments to pay for new funding requirements or to expand existing ones on locally-delivered services, without a commensurate increase in state financial assistance.
We oppose unfunded state and federal mandates and the cost shifting that occurs when the State or the federal government fails to fund requirements or reduces or eliminates funding for programs. Doing so strains local ability to craft effective and efficient budgets to deliver required services or those demanded by residents. We support the legislature making additional revenue options available to localities in order to diversify the local revenue stream. Any tax reform efforts should examine the financing and delivery of state services at the local level and how revenue is generated relevant to our economic competitiveness. The State should not eliminate or restrict local revenue sources or confiscate or redirect local general fund dollars to the state treasury. This includes Communications Sales and Use Tax Trust Fund dollars, the local share of recordation taxes, and any state-mandated exemptions to local revenue sources, unless a viable revenue-replacement to local governments is established.
TOP LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
Land Use and Growth Management
PRIORITY: The Planning District’s member localities encourage the State to resist preempting or circumventing existing land use authorities, but rather support local authority to plan and regulate land use.
In the past, the General Assembly has enacted both mandated and optional land use provisions, some of which have been helpful, while others have prescribed one-size-fits-all rules that hamper different local approaches to land use planning. Accordingly, we support local control of decisions to plan and regulate land use and oppose legislation that weakens these key local responsibilities.
• We support the State providing additional tools to plan and manage growth, as current land use authority often is inadequate to allow local governments to provide for balanced growth in ways that protect and improve quality of life.
• We support local authority to address siting and other impacts associated with utility-scale installation of clean energy resources. We support state funding and technical assistance that address the planning, production, transmission, and deployment of new energy resources.
• We support broader impact fee authority for facilities other than roads, and changes to provisions of the current proffer law that limit the scope of impacts that may be addressed by proffers.
• We oppose legislation that would 1) restrict local oversight of the placement of various telecommunications infrastructure; 2) single out specific land uses for special treatment without regard to the impact of such uses in particular locations; and 3) exempt additional facilities serving as event spaces from building, fire code and other health and safety regulations.
• We believe accessory dwelling units should not be mandated, and that local governments should retain the authority to regulate them.
• We request 1) state funding and incentives for localities, at their option, to acquire, preserve and maintain open space, and 2) enhanced ability for localities to balance growth and development as it pertains to farm and forestland within their jurisdiction.
• We support greater flexibility for localities in the preservation and management of trees.
Broadband
The Planning District’s member localities urge and support state and federal efforts and financial incentives that assist localities and their communities in deploying universal, affordable access to broadband technology in unserved areas. While we appreciate federal and state actions that have substantially increased funding for the Virginia Telecommunication Initiative (VATI), we believe state and federal support for broadband expansion that utilizes both fiber and wireless technologies, public/private partnerships and regulated markets should include the following:
• Support for cooperative efforts among private broadband, internet and wireless companies, and electric cooperatives to ensure access to service at an affordable cost.
• Support for linking broadband efforts for education and public safety to private sector efforts to serve businesses and residences.
• Maintaining local land use, permitting, fee and other local authorities.
• The ability of localities to establish, operate and maintain sustainable broadband authorities to provide essential broadband to communities.
• Provisions and incentives that would provide a sales tax exemption for materials used to construct broadband infrastructure.
Children’s Services Act
The Planning District’s member localities urge the State to be partners in containing Children’s Services Act (CSA) costs and to better balance CSA responsibilities between the State and local governments. Accordingly, we take the following positions:
• We support local ability to use state funds to pay for mandated services provided directly by the locality, specifically for private day placements, where the same services could be offered in schools.
• We support the state maintaining cost shares on a sum sufficient basis by both the State and local governments; changing the funding mechanism to a per-pupil basis of state funding would shift the sum sufficient portion fully to localities, which we would oppose.
• We support enhanced state funding for local CSA administrative costs.
• We support a cap on local expenditures (with the State making up any gaps) in order to combat higher costs for serving mandated children.
• We support the State being proactive in making residential facilities, services and service providers available, especially in rural areas, and in supporting locality efforts to provide facilities and services on a regional level.
• We oppose state efforts to increase local match levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to control how localities run their programs.
LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
Economic and Workforce Development
The Planning District’s member localities recognize economic development and workforce training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. Policies and additional state funding that closely link the goals of economic and workforce development and the state’s efforts to streamline and integrate workforce activities and revenue sources are crucial. Accordingly, we support the following:
• Enhanced coordination with the K-12 education community to equip the workforce with in- demand skill sets, so as to align workforce supply with anticipated employer demands.
• Continuing emphasis on regional cooperation in economic, workforce and tourism development.
• Continuation of the GO Virginia initiative to grow and diversify the private sector in each region.
• State job investment and small business grants being targeted to businesses that pay higher wages.
• State support for the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program and for an economic development project adjacent to the existing Rivanna Station.
• Increased state funding for regional planning district commissions.
Education
The Planning District’s member localities believe that, in addition to funding the Standards of Quality (as previously noted), the State should be a reliable funding partner with localities by recognizing other resources necessary for a high-quality public education system. Accordingly, we take the following positions:
• Concerning school facilities:
>We support allowing all localities the option of levying a one-cent sales tax to be used for construction or renovation of school facilities.
>The State should discontinue seizing dollars from the Literary Fund to help pay for teacher retirement.
>We appreciate and support the school construction assistance programs enacted in 2022 and request that they be consistently funded.
• We support 1) amending the LCI formula to recognize the land use taxation value, rather than the true value, of real property; and 2) preserving current Code provisions stipulating that local school funds unexpended at the end of the year be retained by the local governing body.
• We believe that unfunded liability associated with the teacher retirement plan should be a shared responsibility of state and local government.
Environmental and Water Quality
The Planning District’s member localities believe that environmental and water quality should be funded and promoted through a comprehensive approach, and address air and water quality, solid waste management, land conservation, climate change and land use policies. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the inter-jurisdictional nature of environmental resources, and adequate state funding to support local and regional efforts. Accordingly, we take the following positions:
• We oppose legislation mandating expansion of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act’s coverage area. Instead, we urge the State to provide legal, financial and technical support to localities that wish to improve water quality and use other strategies that address point and non-point source pollution. This includes support for cyanobacteria monitoring, mitigation and remediation efforts at Lake Anna. We also support aggressive state investment in meeting required milestones for reducing Chesapeake Bay pollution to acceptable levels.
• We support state investment targeted to permitted dischargers to upgrade treatment plants, to aid farmers with best management practices, and to retrofit developed areas.
• We support continued investment in the Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF) to assist localities with much-needed stormwater projects and in response to any new regulatory requirements. Any such requirements should be balanced, flexible and not require waiver of stormwater charges.
• We support the option for localities, as a part of their zoning ordinances, to designate and/or reasonably restrict the land application of biosolids to specific areas within the locality.
• We support legislative and regulatory action to ensure effective operation and maintenance of alternative on-site sewage systems and to increase options for localities to secure owner abatement or correction of system deficiencies.
• We support dam safety regulations that do not impose unreasonable costs on dam owners whose structures meet current safety standards.
• The State should be a partner with localities in water supply development and should work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues, to include providing funding for development and implementation of state-required regional plans and investing in regional projects.
General Government
The Planning District’s member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the freedom, flexibility and tools to fulfill their responsibilities. Accordingly, we take the following positions:
• State policies should protect local governments’ current ability to regulate businesses, to include collection and auditing of taxes, licensing and regulation (whether they are traditional, electronic, internet-based, virtual or otherwise), while encouraging a level playing field for competing services in the marketplace.
• We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures; local government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees; matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance; and procedures for adopting ordinances.
• The state should maintain the principles of sovereign immunity for local governments and their employees, to include regional jail officers.
• Localities should have maximum flexibility in providing compensation increases for state supported local employees (including school personnel), as local governments provide significant local dollars and additional personnel beyond those funded by the State. We also support the use of a notarized waiver to allow volunteer workers to state they are willing to provide volunteer services and waive any associated compensation.
• We urge state funding to address shortfalls in elections administration dollars, as administration has become more complex and federal and state financial support for elections continues to lag behind the need. We request adequate funding for costs associated with voting equipment, registrar offices, early voting requirements and election security standards.
• We urge state funding necessary for agencies to carry out tasks such as processing applications, reviewing permits and other critical administrative functions.
• We support expanding the allowable use of electronic meetings for all local public bodies, with flexibility for them to determine public comment, participation and other procedures. Also, any changes to FOIA should preserve 1) a local governing body’s ability to meet in closed session; 2) the list of records currently exempt from disclosure; and 3) provisions concerning the creation of customized records.
• We support the use of alternatives to newspapers for publishing various legal advertisements and public notices.
• We support federal and state funding for localities to acquire and maintain advanced cybersecurity to protect critical systems and sensitive data.
• We support enhanced state funding for local and regional libraries.
• We support expanding local authority to regulate smoking in public places.
• The State should not inhibit the ability of localities to determine how best to use artificial intelligence (AI) or require any related reporting requirements that are unreasonable.
Health and Human Services
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that special attention must be given to helping disabled people, poor people, and young and elderly people achieve their full potential.
Transparent state policies and funding for at-risk individuals and families to access appropriate services are critical. Accordingly, we take the following positions:
• We support full state funding for any local costs associated with Medicaid expansion, including local eligibility workers and case managers, but oppose any shifting of Medicaid matching requirements from the State to localities.
• The State should provide sufficient funding to allow Community Services Boards to meet the challenges of providing a community-based system of care for people with behavioral health and developmental disability service needs that helps divert people from needing state hospital care, as well as having services such as outpatient and permanent supportive housing available. We also support improvements in state hospital capacity to accept individuals under a TDO.
• We support the provision of sufficient state funding to match federal dollars for the administration of mandated services within the Department of Social Services, and to meet the staffing standards for local departments to provide services as stipulated in state law.
• We support continued operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention programs, including the Virginia Preschool Initiative and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (infants and toddlers).
Housing
The Planning District’s member localities believe every citizen should have an opportunity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The State, regions and localities should work to promote affordable and mixed-use housing, and to expand and preserve the supply and improve the quality of housing that is affordable for the elderly, disabled, and low- and moderate-income households. Accordingly, we take the following positions:
• We support 1) local authority to promote and flexibility in the operation of housing affordability programs and establishment of affordable dwelling unit ordinances; 2) increased federal and state funding, as well as appropriate authority and incentives, to assist localities in fostering housing that is affordable; 3) grants and loans to low- or moderate-income persons to aid in purchasing dwellings; 4) funding for rental assistance to low-income families with school-aged children; and 5) policies and direct state investments to prevent homelessness and to assist the chronic homeless.
• We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures.
Public Safety
The Planning District’s member localities encourage state financial support, cooperation and assistance for law enforcement, emergency medical care, criminal justice activities and fire services responsibilities carried out locally. Accordingly, we take the following positions:
• The Compensation Board should fully fund local positions that fall under its purview, to include supporting realistic levels of staffing to enable constitutional offices to meet their responsibilities and limit the need for localities to provide additional locally funded positions. The Compensation Board should not increase the local share of funding for Constitutional offices or divert money away from them, and localities should be afforded flexibility in the state use of state funds for compensation for these offices.
• We encourage state support and incentives for paid and volunteer fire/EMS/first responders and related equipment needs, given the ever-increasing importance they play in local communities.
We oppose regulatory action that hinders the provision of emergency services by increasing costs of operations or deterring recruitment and retention of emergency services employees.
• We support state efforts to assist localities in recruiting and retaining law enforcement personnel.
• We support changes to the Line of Duty Act (LODA) to afford officers employed by private police departments the benefits available under LODA.
• We urge state funding of the HB 599 law enforcement program in accordance with Code of Virginia provisions.
• We support adequate and necessary funding for mental health and substance abuse services a juvenile and adult detention facilities and jails.
• We encourage needed funding for successful implementation of policies and programs that 1) supplement law enforcement responses to help individuals in crisis to get evaluation services and treatment; 2) provide alternative transportation options for such individuals; and 3) reduce the amount of time police officers must spend handling mental health detention orders.
• In an effort to fairly share future cost increases, we support indexing jail per diem costs as a fixed percentage of the actual, statewide daily expense average, as set forth in the annual Jail Cost Report.
• We support the ability of local governments to 1) adopt policies regarding law enforcement body worn cameras that account for local needs and fiscal realities, and 2) utilize photo speed camera devices to address safety concerns, including on locally designated highway segments.
Transportation
The Planning District’s member localities recognize that revenues for expanding and maintaining all modes of infrastructure are critical for meeting Virginia’s well-documented transportation challenges; for attracting and retaining businesses, residents and tourism; and for keeping pace with growing public needs and expectations. We encourage the State to prioritize funding for local and regional transportation needs. Accordingly, we take the following positions:
• As the State continues to adjust the “Smart Scale” prioritization and the funds distribution process, there should be state adequate funding and local authority to generate transportation dollars for important local and regional projects across modes.
• We support additional authority to establish mechanisms for funding transit and non-transit projects in our region.
• We support the Virginia Department of Transportation utilizing Metropolitan Planning Organizations and regional rural transportation staff to conduct local transportation studies.
• We oppose attempts to transfer responsibility to counties for construction, maintenance or operation of current or new secondary roads.
• We support ongoing state and local efforts to coordinate land use and transportation planning and urge state and local officials to be mindful of various local and regional plans when conducting corridor or transportation planning within a locality or region.”
In response to Mr. Blount’s report the Board unanimously adopted the following: “RESOLUTION R2024-75 NELSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL OF THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING DISTRICT 2025 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
“WHEREAS, the draft Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program for 2025 lists three top legislative priorities; and
WHEREAS, the program includes a priority addressing public education funding; a constant position on budget/funding issues that supports state aid to localities and opposes mandates and cost shifting to localities; and support for local authorities to plan and regulate land use and growth management; and
WHEREAS, the Legislative Program also contains additional positions that focus on the most critical recommendations and positions in other areas of current interest and concern to localities in the region;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, that the 2025 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program be and hereby is approved by said governing body, with the legislative program to serve as the basis of legislative priorities and positions of the member localities of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District for the 2025 session of the Virginia General Assembly, as presented on November 14, 2024, as well as incorporation of recommendations put forth by the Board, as applicable.”
C. Storm Ready Certification - National Weather Service: Mr. John Atkins introduced Mr. Chris Strong, who is the “warning coordination meteorologist” with the National Weather Service, working with Nelson County. Mr. Strong reported on the county’s ability to report on ability to warn the county, county residents and emergency services in a timely way so that the county and citizens are able to be prepared. It also includes training citizens spotters to report their observations of weather as its happening. Nelson County has been awarded a certificate for being “Storm Ready” County as well as street signs that announce the status.
D. Nelson Heritage Center VDH Renovation – Johnette Burdette: postponed to next meeting
V. NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Local Health Dept. Report and FY24 Carry Over Funds Request – Ryan McKay, VDH: The Health Department reported that staff have served 255,000 people, with the goals of trying to prevent disease and keeping people healthy. Ryan McKay gave a summary of the services provided by the Nelson County Health Department which is now located in the Nelson County Heritage Center (See below) and requested that the Board of Supervisors permit them to carry over their unused funds form 2023-2024 for the reasons set forth herein:
B. Montebello Volunteer Fire Department’s Interest Free Loan Request (R2024-76):
The Board received the following application for the loan that explained why the money was needed:
‘Nelson County Emergency Loan Fund
Agency Name Montebello Volunteer Fire Dept., Inc.
Agency Address PO Box 96, Montebello, VA 24464
Contact Person Lois Welker-Arnold
Title Treasurer
Item Requested Five SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) and 15 cylinders for firefighting operations
Loan Amount $55,000.00
Anticipated Term 8 years
Down Payment Amount? $1,099.20
Replacement Item? YES
If YES, Describe The Condition Of The Item Being Replaced.
The current SCBA cylinders are no longer usable due to age, +15 yrs, and the Harnesses/Regulators/Facepieces no longer meet current NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) Standards and are not compatible with the units currently used by other Fire Departments in the County.
****
Describe Briefly The Scope Of Your Project:
The upgrading to current NFPA standards of 5 SCBA units and 15 cylinders.
Do You Intend to Make This Resource Available County-Wide? YES
****
How Will You Support Your Payment?
Department/Investments
Funds donated “
The Board unanimously voted to approve the “interest free loan request for Montebello Volunteer Fire Department in the amount of $55,000 to help purchase five (5) Self Contained Breathing Apparatus’ (SCBA) and 15 cylinders for firefighting operations.”
C. Local Authority to Reduce 25 MPH Speed Limits in Business or Resident Districts:
The Board of Supervisors was in consensus to have staff bring back a resolution for consideration (at the December meeting) that would authorize a public hearing (to be held at the January meeting) on an Ordinance that authorizes the County Administrator to carry out the provisions of 46.2-1300 as delineated below:
Reduce the speed limit to either 15 MPH or 20 MPH on any highway within its boundaries that is located within a business district or residence district where the posted speed limit is 25 MPH, and
Restore a speed limit that has been reduced pursuant to this subdivision to the speed limit that had been previously posted at that location, and
Provided that such reduced or restored speed limit is indicated by lawfully placed signs, and
Written notice of the speed limit change must be provided to the Commissioner of Highways at least 30 days prior to changing the speed limit, and
o The County Administrator shall receive the consent of the Board of Supervisors by resolution following a public hearing, prior to any reduction or restoration of speed limits on a specific highway.”
D. Route 151 Through Truck Restriction: County Administrator, Candace McGarry put together a comprehensive analysis of Code Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia to determine if a path forward exists to restricting trucks on Route 151. This is a summary of her presentation:
Code Section 46.2-809 provides
“The Commonwealth Transportation Board, or its designee, in response to a formal request by a local governing body, after such body has held public hearings, may, after due notice and a proper hearing, prohibit or restrict the use by through traffic of any part of a primary or secondary highway if a reasonable alternate route is provided. The Board, or its designee, shall act upon any such formal request within nine months of its receipt, unless good cause is shown. Such restriction may apply to any truck or truck and trailer or semitrailer combination, except a pickup or panel truck, as may be necessary to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of any city charter provision or city ordinance heretofore adopted.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board delegates the authority to restrict through truck traffic on secondary highways to the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Such restrictions can apply to any truck, truck and trailer or semitrailer combination, or any combination of those classifications. Consideration of all such restrictions by the Commissioner is subject to guidelines as adopted by the Board. The Commonwealth Transportation Board retains the authority to restrict through truck traffic on primary highways.”
In response to Code Section Code Section 46.2-809, VDOT adopted the following Guideline in Requestion a Through Truck Restriction:
“The local governing body must hold a public hearing and make a formal request of the Department. The following must be adhered to:
A. The public notices for the hearing must include a description of the proposed through truck restriction and the alternate route with the same termini. A copy of the notices must be provided.
B. A public hearing must be held by the local governing body and a transcript of the hearing must be provided with the resolution.
C. The resolution must describe the proposed through truck restriction and a description of the alternate, including termini.
D. The governing body must include in the resolution that it will use its good offices for enforcement of the proposed restriction by the appropriate local law enforcement agency.
Failure to comply with (A), (B), (C) and (D) will result in the request being returned. The Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Commissioner shall act upon any such formal request within nine months of its receipt, unless good cause is shown.”
“The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will consider the following criteria 1 through 4 in reviewing a requested through truck restriction. The proposed restriction must meet both the first and second criteria in order to be approved. In addition to meeting the first two criteria, the proposed restriction must meet either the third or the fourth criteria in order to be approved.
1. Reasonable alternate routing is provided. The alternate route will be evaluated for traffic and safety related impacts. To be considered "reasonable", the alternate route(s) must be engineered to a standard sufficient for truck travel and must be judged at least as appropriate for truck traffic as the requested truck restriction route. If an alternate route must be upgraded, the improvement shall be completed before the truck restriction can be implemented. The termini of the proposed restriction must be identical to the alternate routing to allow a time and distance comparison to be conducted between the two routings. Also, the alternate routing must not create an undue hardship for trucks in reaching their destination.
2. The character and/or frequency of the truck traffic on the route proposed for restriction is not compatible with the affected area. Evaluation will include safety issues, accident history, engineering of the roadway, vehicle composition, and other traffic engineering related issues.
In addition, criteria 3 and or 4 must be met to qualify for the proposed restriction:
3. The proposed restricted roadway is residential in nature. Typically, the roadway will be judged to be residential if there are at least 12 dwellings combined on both sides within 150' of the existing or proposed roadway center line per 1,000 feet of roadway.
4. The proposed restricted roadway must be functionally classified as either a Local or Collector.”
Ms. McGarry’s office summarized the data which might support the necessary findings and concluded as follows.:
“ BOTH criteria 1 & 2 must be met. The probability of meeting BOTH criteria 1 & 2 is fairly low due to the potential for not meeting criteria 1. The alternate routes are not likely to be considered “reasonable” due to the possible “undue hardship” that they may pose for trucks in reaching their destination. There is a good probability of meeting criteria 2 for both proposed restricted routes once further evaluated by VDOT traffic engineering.
EITHER criteria 3 or 4 must be met. Criteria 3 CANNOT be met. Analysis using GIS shows that the proposed restricted routes are not “residential in nature” because they do not have at least 12 dwellings combined on both sides within 150 ft. of their centerlines per 1,000 ft. of roadway.
Criteria 4 CANNOT be met due to both of the proposed restricted routes being functionally classified as Minor Arterial and not as Local or Collector.
With the inability to meet criteria 3 or 4 for both proposed through truck restrictions, staff does not recommend moving forward with the process to request a through truck restriction on Route 151 or Route 151 and Route 6, River Road.”
The staff considered other measures that may reduce through truck traffic and the conclusions were summarized as follows:
“The following measures are being sought to change the road geometry of Route 151, which will make it less conducive to through truck traffic:
A reduction in speed limit from 55 MPH to 50 MPH has been requested by staff, on behalf of the Board, for Route 151 North of Bland Wade Lane to the County line
A roundabout at the intersection of Route 151 and Route 6, River Road, has been funded by the CTB and is in the engineering phase of construction
The proposed roundabout at the intersection of Tanbark Drive and Route 151 in Afton is a pending final application for CTB Smart Scale funding.
The County Administrator’s staff put together a very comprehensive analysis in their report and in this author’s opinion, left no stone unturned. The County Administrator and her staff should be applauded for their efforts. The full report is available by sending a request to info@bluenelson.org.
VI. REPORTS, APPOINTMENTS, DIRECTIVES AND CORRESPONDENCE
A. Reports
1.County Administrator’s Report for November 14, 2024 Board Meeting
A. VDOT:
1. Staff has made a request to VDOT on behalf of the Board to reduce the speed limit zones on Route 151 from 55 mph to 50 mph. (Bland Wade Lane, North to the County line in Afton)
2. Flashing pedestrian crossing signs have been installed at the intersection of Route 29 and Route 1001 in Lovingston to enhance pedestrian safety crossing.
B. DSS Building: The design committee and PMA are having design meetings in November in order to position PMA to report back to the Board at the December 10th BOS meeting. Staff and the County Attorney are working with the property owner towards closing on the purchase of the property.
C. Region 2000 Solid Waste Authority: At the October 23rd Authority meeting, Members voted unanimously to proceed in submitting a Rezoning and Special Use Permit request, for the proposed landfill expansion, to the Campbell County Planning Commission. This request is expected to be considered by the Planning Commission on December 2, 2024 and then by the Board of Supervisors on January 7, 2025. A closed session is scheduled later in the meeting to discuss Region 2000 litigation.
D. ACRJ Opioid Use Disorder Program (OUD): Member jurisdiction executives met with ACRJ staff to discuss a pilot initiative to move from providing multi-dose oral medication to inmates with OUD to providing them with a monthly injectable medication, starting January 1, 2025. This method is more beneficial for both ACRJ staff and the inmate; but is substantially more costly per year. ACRJ is looking to fund this pilot program with a combination of pro-rata shares of opioid abatement authority (OAA) funds from each locality. Nelson’s pro-rata share (15.9%) would be $21,045 out of the total anticipated cost of $132,361; as of FY25, the County’s available balance of these funds is $34,844. ACRJ staff was unable to apply for a DCJS grant for this purpose; therefore, the Board’s consensus for staff to apply for the use of our OAA individual distribution funds in the amount of $21,045 is requested. (see attached pilot program summary).
E. County Facility Maintenance – Special thanks to Jeff and Billy:
1. Scheduled/Budgeted Projects:
a. Animal Shelter Roof: Roof replacement began on Monday, October 7, 2024, is in process and is expected to be completed by the end of the week. Completed.
b. Transfer Station Tipping Floor: AE investigation, development of bid specifications and bid
package is in process for replacement of the 2006 tipping floor, the addition of a concrete approach apron at the entrance, and repair of existing damage to the metal building wall paneling. Bidding is planned for January 2025 with award of a contract in February, and construction starting in early March to allow for optimal concrete curing. Ongoing – bid specifications under development.
c. Carpet Cleaning: Quotes for routine carpet cleaning in the ECC, Courthouse, and DSS are being obtained. Completed; including Registrar’s Office and Library.
d. Signage Maintenance: Signage at the Courthouse Complex, Registrar’s Office, and McGinnis
building will be refreshed in the coming month. Completed.
e. Courthouse complex step repair (Court Street entrance): Completed.
2. Unbudgeted Facility Needs:
a. Commonwealth Attorney Office Door: To address immediate ADA accessibility and security concerns, quotes are being sought to establish a new ADA accessible entry door to the Commonwealth Attorney’s office that also provides for visibility of those entering. The new main doorway would be within the brick archway and would be metal and glass and the current solid entry door would be removed. The preference is to tie-in this doorway with the current badged and monitored door security system. Pricing is being vetted by staff – current quotes are $10,000 for the door and installation including necessary wiring and approximately $20,000 for Johnson Controls to establish the tie-in to the current badging security and monitoring system. Coordination with the Commonwealth’s Attorney and staff is ongoing to find an acceptable security solution.
b. Animal Shelter Ceiling Repair: Ceiling panels at the animal shelter are in need of replacement due to exposure to moisture from the leaky roof. Staff will look at getting quotes for this repair in the near future. No Change.
c. Animal Shelter Drain and Kennel repair: The drain that carries away animal waste from the kennels in the shelter is clogged/collapsed and in need of repair; in order to access the drain and do the work, the kennels need to be removed. My understanding is that these kennels are original to the shelter which is at least 24 years old and they are recommended to be replaced. This provides the opportunity to reconfigure the kennel arrangement to better suit the needs of the department; which Kevin is working on. The kennel floor will need to be re-epoxied as part of this process. Kevin and Jeff are working on this and are in the process of obtaining quotes for this work. No update from staff.
F. Larkin Water Capacity Follow Up Proposal (CHA): NO UPDATE. Mr. Steele and I have been playing phone tag on some questions he has, so an update is not available at this time. Staff has recently inquired with Stevie Steele of CHA regarding the Board’s consensus to get a follow up proposal and pricing for some next steps in evaluating water supply at the former Larkin property. Mr. Steele is working on that proposal for the Board’s consideration which includes flow calculations from Dillard Creek, and a resistivity analysis plan inclusive of drawdown testing for potential wells; and water quality testing.
G. Renaissance Ridge Development: approval of the RR plan was deferred until FEMA completed their review process for a Letter of Map Amendment/Revision (LOMA/LOMR), which proposed to correct and relocate the flood map boundaries. FEMA has been in the process of updating Nelson County flood maps on their own, which are slated to be adopted in February 2025 and effective August 2025 (the current maps were made effective in 2010). FEMA recently notified the applicant that the LOMA/LOMR process is no longer necessary or required, because the boundary of the flood zone is changing to the point that the proposed development will no longer be in a regulatory flood zone. The RR plan is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission at their November 20, 2024 meeting, where the review criteria is the plan's general consistency with the Wintergreen Master Plan. Ms. Bishop, as the County's Certified Floodplain Manager, is responsible to ensure that no development occurs in this area until the maps removing this area are formally effective in August 2025.
H. Emergency Medical Services:
1. Gladstone Volunteer Fire and Rescue Service has relicensed as a Basic Life Support (BLS) agency as of October 30, 2024. An MOU to this effect was executed by Dr. Just, the Operational Medical Director, John Adkins, Director of Emergency Services, and David Lyon, GVFRS Captain. Responses requiring ALS care will be handled by other Nelson EMS ALS agencies, mutual aid EMS partners, and neighboring ground and Air Evac agencies.
2. New EMS pharmaceutical regulations related to the elimination of the current drug box exchange program with hospitals, which were slated to go into effect November 27, 2024, have been delayed and an extension granted through April 15, 2025. Congratulations and a huge thanks Mike Riddle and Deborah Flint of Wintergreen Fire and Rescue Service, who ensured that we met the original deadline. (See Below)*
* EMS Drug Kit Transition Plan Update October 31, 2024
Virginia’s hospitals and health systems and health system pharmacists have historically provided various forms of community support to emergency medical service (EMS) agencies to ensure that they have access to a supply of medications needed to treat patients in a prehospital environment. As was previously communicated on April 16, 2024, there are multiple recent and pending regulatory changes underway by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that will require discontinuation of these practices. To ensure a safe transition to the new regulatory environment, the Virginia Society of Health-System Pharmacists (VSHP) and Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association (VHHA) have been participating in the Virginia Regional EMS
Medication Kit Transition Workgroup.
At the time the April 16, 2024 statement was released, the consensus of the Workgroup was that the pending DEA and FDA regulations would require the discontinuation of hospital and health system provided pre-filled drug kit exchanges and single drug replenishment as of November 27, 2024.
Due to multiple reported delays in obtaining Controlled Substances Registration, DEA License Registration, and required budget approvals or acquisition of funds through sources such as the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund, EMS agencies and Regional EMS Councils have highlighted concerns for the ability to meet the current November 27, 2024, timeline for EMS medication kit ownership transition.
In response to these concerns, VSHP, in collaboration with VHHA, is recommending an extension for the transition timeline to no later than April 15, 2025, with the following considerations:
Transition Date:
1. If the DEA publishes the final rule for Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act (PPAEMA) with an enforcement date prior to April 15, 2025, the transition date will be the earlier of the two dates.
2. For agencies that are ready to transition, it is encouraged that they work with their Regional EMS Council and local hospitals to transition earlier than April 15, 2025. This may allow agencies to have a “soft” launch to ensure that all processes work as designed prior to the full transition.
3. For agencies that are challenged with meeting the April 15, 2025 transition date, work with Regional EMS Council leadership to address any obstacles and determine solutions.
Readiness Updates and Ongoing Actions to Take:
1. Progress Reports: EMS Agencies and Regional EMS Councils provide a monthly update on status for each agency CSR, DEA, and transition readiness to hospital leadership for hospitals to understand progress toward transition readiness and implementation.
2. CSR is Established: EMS Agencies should continue to work towards readiness. For those that have received their CSR and are awaiting DEA, it is recommended to move forward with establishing Group Purchasing Organization (GPO) and Wholesaler accounts to the extent possible to reduce the overall timeline for implementation.
3. DEA License Registration is Established: While the DEA Controlled Substances Ordering System (CSOS) is the preferred method of ordering CII medications, it is not required for transition. Agencies should request DEA222 forms when obtaining their DEA License Registration as a bridge. This extension is made possible by (1) FDA issuance of an exemption from the enhanced drug distribution security requirements of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) for eligible trading partners to November 27, 2025i
(2) assurances from DEA officials that the PPAEMA final rule would not likely be promulgated until 2025. At the same time, this extension acknowledges that there are many regions that are already moving forward with full transition by the previous November 27, 2024, deadline and is not intended to disrupt those efforts.
Virginia’s hospitals and health systems and health systems pharmacists continue to recognize that this change is requiring some EMS agencies to develop new systems and supply chains and incur new costs as part of their operations. As we have stated previously, we are committed as your community partners to provide assistance at a local or regional level that may be available to ease the transition to a compliant model for all EMS agencies across the state.
I. FY25 Q1 Revenue: The collection of local revenue for the first quarter of the fiscal year is very slightly higher than compared to the first quarter of FY24 (+ .31%). Notable positive contributing revenue collections: RE Taxes, Local Sales Tax, TOT Taxes, Building Permits, and Fines and Forfeitures. Notable negative offsetting revenue collections: Meals Tax, Transfer Station Tipping Fees, VPSA Refinancing Rebate (FY24 was the last year), and EMS Revenue Recovery. EMS Revenue Recovery revenue is temporarily significantly down due to a statewide issue with the importing of electronic patient care records, for billing purposes, from the State contracted entity that facilitates this transfer of data (ESO). This revenue is expected to greatly improve once this is fixed and the back billing and normal billing of transport services resumes. (See attached FY25 budget reports)
J. Meals and Lodging Tax Collection & Lodging Entity: See Attached Charts
K. Staff Reports: Department and office reports for October/November have been provided.
2. Board Reports: Supervisor Reed reported that the Drug Court had held its first graduation and expressed thanks to all that had helped in that endeavor. He attended the Virginia Association of Counties retreat and solar energy and data centers were the hot topic. The state needs to define what constitutes a data center. He further reported that the Lovingston Exxon Mobile has obtained a $600,000 grant to install Electric Vehicle charging stations.
Supervisors Rutherford and Ligon met with the school board and talked about work force issues, the state algorithm for funding the schools, and the behavioral problems students are exhibiting at school.
At the TJPDC meeting data centers were the hot topic as well and the module nuclear power plants proposed for Louisa County.
B. Appointments: No action was taken on the vacancies listed below and the Board is contacting Mary Cunningham to see if she wants to continue in her current position.
C. Correspondence: none
D. Directives: Supervisor Rutherford asked the staff to investigate whether large families larger than average loads of trash were being turned away at the Farber Dump site.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS (AS PRESENTED): The issue of the deterioration of the condition of the caboose at the Piney River Trail Head due to weather was addressed and the Board unanimously authorized the expending of up to $15,000 to move it and to construct a cover to protect it.
VII. CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO §2.2-3711 (A)(7) Region 2000 Landfill Litigation & §2.2-3711 (A)(8), §15.2-2316.8 Savion Solar Siting Agreement
The Board in Closed Session adopted the following: RR2024-77 and RR2024-78
EVENING SESSION AT 7PM
Present: Supervisors Jesse Rutherford, David Parr, Ernie Reed, Dr. Jessica Ligon
Absent: Supervisor Tommy Harvey
I. The meeting was called to order,
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Special Use Permit #24-0239 – Dwelling Units in B-1 Business
Consideration of a Special Use Permit application requesting County approval to utilize an existing building for mixed commercial and residential use on property zoned B-1 Business. The subject property is located at Tax Map Parcel #58B-3-2 at 622 Front Street. The subject property is owned by Alexandra and Jesse Lopez Low. The owners represented that:
At their meeting on October 23, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SUP #240239 for dwelling units in B-1 Business at 622 Front Street to the Board of Supervisors, with the following condition:
1. The dwelling units shall not be utilized as short term rentals.
No one spoke at the Public Comment Section for or against proposed Special Use Permit #24-0239. The Board voted unanimously to approve the Special Use Permit #24-0239.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS (AS PRESENTED): None
V. ADJOURNMENT: the meeting was adjourned.