Feb 14, 2023 Regular Meeting

[00:00:03]

FEBRUARY 14TH, 2023.

[CALL TO ORDER]

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

OKAY, WE HAVE A CLOSED SESSION AT FIVE, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE CLOSED SESSION.

[CLOSED SESSION]

ONE SECTION 2.2-3711.8.1.

DISCUSSION OF CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ASSIGNMENTS, APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTIONS, PERFORMANCE, DEMOTION, SALARIES, DISCIPLINE, OR RESIGNATIONS OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICERS, APPOINTEES OR EMPLOYEES OF THE PUBLIC BODY.

I FURTHER MOVE THIS. SUCH DISCUSSION SHALL BE LIMITED TO A RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE SENIOR TASK FORCE AND TO SECTION 2.2-3711.8.8 FOR CONSULTING WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS, REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF LEGAL ADVICE BY SUCH COUNSEL AND SUCH DISCUSSION SHALL BE LIMITED TO A .) AN AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND B.) THE AMENDMENT TO THE L3 HARRIS CONTRACT.

THAT IS MY MOTION.

THANK YOU. SECOND? SECOND.

MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

WE'LL BE IN CLOSE SESSION.

I'M SORRY. MR. WHITTEN. YES, MR. CHAIR, MR. BROWN, [INAUDIBLE] OH, I'M SORRY.

YES, I AM HERE.

I AM CALLING IN FROM MY HOME.

I AM OUT. STILL RECOVERING FROM EYE SURGERY.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, AND MR. WHITTEN WILL BE IN OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS WELL.

WE'RE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

DO WE NEED.

IT'S [INAUDIBLE] CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.

WE'VE BEEN IN RECESS FROM THE CLOSED SESSION.

[WORK SESSION]

SO WE'LL GO INTO THE WORK SESSION.

[INAUDIBLE] GOOD EVENING, CHAIR HUNTER VICE CHAIR WEBB MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MR. STOKE MR. WHITTEN APPRECIATE YOU ALL HAVING ME HERE THIS EVENING.

A FEW MONTHS AGO, WE CAME TO YOU WITH A LOCATION FOR OUR CONVENIENCE SITE.

WE GAVE YOU THREE OPTIONS AT OUR [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY, AND Y'ALL GAVE US THE GREEN LIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONCEPTUAL DRAWING OF THE ONE SITE THAT WAS CHOSEN. TONIGHT, I HAVE STEPHANIE FROM GUERNSEYTINGLE HERE WITH US TO GIVE A SHORT PRESENTATION OF THE CONCEPTUAL DRAWING AND TO GET YOUR APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN GET THIS INTO THE DESIGN STAGE.

STEPHANIE. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

GOOD EVENING.

STEPHANIE WITH GUERNSEYTINGLE.

SO I'LL JUST DO A QUICK RUN THROUGH A LITTLE RECAP OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING MOVING FORWARD.

SO THE LAST TIME YOU ALL SAW US, WE PRESENTED THREE POTENTIAL SITE LOCATIONS ON THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY.

IF YOU'D GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, OR MAYBE I CAN ADVANCE THE NEXT SLIDE.

THERE WE GO. THANK YOU.

I GUESS I SHOULD BACK UP JUST A BIT.

SO THE INTENT FOR THE NEW CONVENIENT CENTER THAT IT WILL OFFER SIMILAR SERVICES TO THE UNION BRANCH SITE.

SO WE'VE DONE AN EVALUATION OF THAT SITE THAT'S DETERMINING THE SERVICES THAT WE'LL BE PROVIDING AT THE NEW CONVENIENCE CENTER SITE.

SO YOU'LL SEE THAT IN A LAYOUT IN JUST A MOMENT.

THE THREE PROPERTIES THAT WE LOOKED AT WERE A, B, AND C WITH THE OPTIONS ON THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY, WE SELECTED LOCATION C.

THERE WERE MANY BENEFITS TO THIS LOCATION.

YOU CAN SEE HERE. I WON'T READ THROUGH ALL OF THOSE.

OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH VDOT PRELIMINARILY DID NOT REQUIRE ANY TURN LANES TO WIDEN THE ROAD, ALTHOUGH QUAKER ROAD IS IS A NARROW ROAD. WE HAVE ALLOWED PROVISIONS.

I'LL SHOW YOU IN THE NEXT SLIDE QUEUING OFF THE ROAD, ESPECIALLY ON LARGER COLLECTION DAYS, THIS SITE WOULD REQUIRE

[00:05:09]

THERE'S NOT THREE PHASE SERVICE CURRENTLY ON EAST QUAKER ROAD, AND SO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR SITE SURVEY OF THE SELECTED SITE C.

WE'VE COMPLETED ALL OF OUR GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND HAVE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MOVE FORWARD.

WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WE'D LIKE TO GET APPROVAL ON TONIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.

YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PLAN THAT WE DO OFFER TWO WASTE COMPACTORS IN THE GREEN AREA TO THE TOP THREE SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS JUST BELOW THAT TO SCRAP METAL CONTAINERS DOWN BOTTOM, THERE'D BE A RETAINING WALL ALONG THE WHOLE BACKSIDE OF THIS DUE TO THE CHANGE IN GRADE, AND THEN WE HAVE A SMALLER COVERED AREA WHICH WOULD BE RECYCLE AND ELECTRONICS WASTE OVER THERE.

HAZARDOUS WASTE HERE.

THE APPROACH TO THE SITE OF EAST QUAKER IS ABOUT A 400 FOOT QUEUING LANE HERE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF VEHICLES TO STACK ALONG THAT IF THINGS ARE BACKING UP TO THE SCALE, HOUSE IS IN THIS LOCATION.

WE DO HAVE SOME STORMWATER THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MITIGATE ON THIS SITE.

WE'VE GOT UNTIL WE GET INTO FULL DESIGN, WE'VE GOT SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT POTENTIAL BMPS THAT WE'D NEED TO PROVIDE ON THE SITE.

THE ENTIRE SITE WOULD BE FENCED AND SECURED ACCESS GATE AT THE FRONT, AND WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED AN ACCESS GATE AT THE REAR.

WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE ACCESS TO A BACK AREA AND THEN THERE'S A LARGE YARD WASTE COLLECTION LOCATION AT THE FRONT. SO AGAIN, VEHICLES COME IN QUEUE AROUND WAY DEPOSIT DRIVE AND THEN GO BACK OUT , AND THAT IS THE SUMMARY.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I TAKE IT--I'M SORRY, MR. [INAUDIBLE].

GO AHEAD. I TAKE IT THE [INAUDIBLE] IS FOR THE COMPACTORS? YES, SIR, THAT'S RIGHT. THE THREE PHASE.

YEP. UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING, AND I MAY BE MISSING A LOT, BUT AS YOU PUT THESE DESIGNS OUT, HAVE YOU ALREADY CONTACTED A SECOND PARTY, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY, LIKE MERIDIAN WASTE, WHO WE CURRENTLY DO.

HAVE THEY HAD THEIR INPUT IN THIS AND WHAT COST ANALYSIS THAT IT'S GOING TO COST THE COUNTY TO HAVE ALL THESE TAKEN BACK TO WHEREVER IT IS THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THEIR WASTE OR THEY SHUTTLE IT TO LUNENBURG ON TRACTOR TRAILERS OR WILL IT GO TO THE SITE HERE OFF EAST WASHINGTON STREET WHERE IT'S IN THE TRANSFER STATION, AND WHAT THAT COST WOULD BE BEFORE WE EVEN GET TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS WITH THIS.

SO WE HAVE BEEN CONSULTING WITH MERIDIAN, BUT--WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH MERIDIAN ON THIS DESIGN AND ALL.

THEY'RE THE ONES THAT REQUESTED THE COMPACTOR SO THAT THEY CAN HAUL MORE TRASH IN LESS LOADS, BUT AS FAR AS A COST ANALYSIS FOR THE TRASH REMOVAL, NO, WE HAVEN'T.

FROM THE DISCUSSION I HAD WAS IT'S JUST ANOTHER SITE THAT WOULD JUST EXTEND THE CONTACT THAT WE ALREADY HAVE WITH THEM AND THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT.

WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE PRICING YET, AND I GUESS MISS DREWRY OR WHOMEVER THIS WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE PUT OUT TO BID.

NO, SIR. MR. CARMICHAEL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR EXISTING CONTRACT WITH MERIDIAN DOES ALLOW SITE EXPANSION, SO WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO REBID THAT, BUT JUST WAITING ON WHAT THEIR COST WOULD BE, UNLESS IT'S GOING TO FALL UNDER THE SAME CONTRACT PER TON.

CORRECT. I WOULD ASSUME.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

WE COULD IF WE WANTED TO.

YES, WE CAN PUT IT BACK [INAUDIBLE] CONTRACT.

WE CAN BID IT OR WE CAN EXTEND THE CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE TODAY WITH OR RENEGOTIATE THE ONE WE HAVE.

[INAUDIBLE] A CHANGE, AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT [INAUDIBLE] COMMENT IS EVERY NOW AND THEN IT'S NOT BAD TO PUT THINGS OUT FOR BID.

JUST SEE WHERE ALL THE [INAUDIBLE] IS AT.

YEAH, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT FINAL COST WERE BEFORE WE WENT TO THIS NEXT STEP OF APPROVING IT AND GETTING IT INTO OPERATION, AND THEN WE FOUND OUT THE PRICES HAD JUMPED, BUT IF THEY HAVE TO HONOR THE PRICE THAT WE HAVE WITH THEM TODAY, IF THAT'S PART OF THE CONTRACT THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDER, THEN I DON'T SEE NO HARM WITH THAT, BUT

[00:10:07]

I HAVE BEING PART OF THE CENTRAL VIRGINIA WASTE MANAGEMENT SITUATION, I HAVE TALKED TO PEOPLE IN THAT ORGANIZATION AS FAR AS THE DESIGN OF THE SITE AND COMPACTORS, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE WENT WITH COMPACTORS ALSO .

LIKE I SAID, MERIDIAN WOULD LIKE COMPACTORS, AND IF WE PUT COMPACTORS IN, IF WE PUT IT OUT TO BID, THAT'S GOING TO BE MORE COMPETITIVE.

IF WE DO DECIDE TO PUT IT OUT TO BID IN THE FUTURE, BECAUSE MOST OF YOUR PROVIDERS WANT TO PICK UP COMPACTOR TRASH, [INAUDIBLE] TRASH AND DUMPSTERS, THEY CAN JUST HAUL MORE LOADS,[INAUDIBLE] MORE TONS PER [INAUDIBLE] THAN THE OPEN TOP.

CORRECT.

OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE QUESTION KIND OF UNRELATED BUT RELATED.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS RIGHT THERE? THE SPEED LIMIT ON E QUAKER? I DO NOT, NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

LIKE I SAID, VDOT, WE SENT THIS TO VDOT FOR COMMENT AND THEY DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT CHANGING THE SPEED LIMIT OR SO.

I WOULD SAY IT'S PROBABLY 55 BECAUSE IT'S GOT A LINE DOWN IT.

RIGHT, YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT CAME TO MIND FROM AN EMAIL I GOT ON ANOTHER SUBJECT ON THAT ROAD, [INAUDIBLE]. ANY OTHER QUESTION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. [INAUDIBLE] THE NEXT STEP IS IF YOU ARE OKAY WITH THIS SITE PLAN THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN DRAWINGS SO THAT WE CAN PUT IT OUT TO BID AND HAVE THE PROJECT BUILT.

I'M OKAY, I'M GOOD WITH IT.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.

YOU DO A GOOD JOB, AND IT I LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKED.

YEAH. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. DID YOU WANT TO ASK? [INAUDIBLE] AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON? [INAUDIBLE] MR. BROWN. MR. BROWN, HAVE ANY COMMENTS? MR. BROWN, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? NO, I'M FINE WITH WHAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED SO FAR.

NO QUESTIONS.

NO QUESTIONS, AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE VDOT SPEED MAP IS SHOWING THE EAST QUAKER ROAD IN THAT LOCATION IS 40 MILES PER HOUR.

THAT'S SHOWN ON THE OTHER UNRELATED THINGS, SAID IT WAS 40.

SO THAT'S GREAT THAT IT'S A REDUCED SPEED IN THAT AREA.

SO THAT'S A GOOD THING.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE ANOTHER ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR THE UPDATE FOR THE COURTHOUSE RENOVATION PROJECT.

THE COURTHOUSE PROJECT WENT OUT TO BID, AND WE SELECTED A CONTRACTOR, AND WE'VE SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH THEM, BUT BEING WITH THE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUE, WE'RE KIND OF IN THE SAME SITUATION WE WERE WITH THE FLEET GARAGE.

THEY DON'T WANT A NOTICE TO PROCEED UNTIL THEY ARE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN GET THE SUPPLIES ON TIME SO THEY CAN FULFILL THE CONTRACT.

CURRENTLY, WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE RFI PROJECT PROCESS FOR THEM TO APPROVE EQUIPMENT TO BE APPROVED SO IT CAN BE ORDERED.

I KNOW THAT THE GENERATOR HAS BEEN ORDERED.

I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CONTRACTOR YESTERDAY, AND THEY SAY AT EARLIEST WE'RE LOOKING AT A JUNE START DATE. SO WE WOULD NOT PROCEED WITH THE NOTICE TO PROCEED UNTIL PROBABLY MAY FOR THEM TO START AT THE EARLIEST IN JUNE.

IT COULD BE AS LATE AS JULY, BUT WITH SUPPLY ISSUES, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT ON THAT.

THE COURTS HAVE BEEN AWARE.

WE MADE THEM AWARE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A DELAY FROM STARTING THE PROJECT.

HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF DONE THE SAME PROCESS WITH THE FLEET GARAGE AND A LOT OF THE EQUIPMENT WAS HERE WHEN THEY STARTED.

SO WE DIDN'T HAVE WE ONLY HAD ONE HICCUP OVER THERE THAT WAS A SWITCH THAT WAS DELAYED, BUT I THINK THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO WORK.

IT'S GOING TO HELP THE CONTRACTOR AND HELP US ESPECIALLY HAVING TO SHUT THE COURTS DOWN.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE IT NAILED DOWN THAT THEY HAVE ALL THE SUPPLIES.

THIS CONTRACTOR HAS DONE LOTS OF COURTHOUSE RENOVATIONS SO THEY KNOW WHAT'S INVOLVED AS FAR AS SHUTTING COURT ROOMS AND STUFF DOWN, AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE

[00:15:04]

CORRECT. [INAUDIBLE] THE JUDGE AND THE COURT AND THE [INAUDIBLE] ARE ALL UNHAPPY ABOUT IT.

WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE PRICE FOR THIS, CORRECT? YEAH. DO YOU FORESEE THAT PRICE CHANGING? NO, WE'RE UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE PRICE AND THE PRICE DOESN'T CHANGE.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST THEY STILL HAVE TO HONOR THAT.

THEY JUST HAVE TO SECURE THE MATERIALS, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A PRICE ISSUE AS FAR AS SECURING THE MATERIALS.

IT SEEMS IT'S JUST THE WAIT.

ESPECIALLY ANYTHING ELECTRONIC.

THERE'S A TREMENDOUS WEIGHT ON SOME OF THE ELECTRONIC STUFF.

LIGHT FIXTURES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

IT'S EVERYWHERE. SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES HITTING EVERYBODY.

YES. OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. BROWN, YOU HEAR THAT PRESENTATION? MR. BROWN, DID YOU HEAR MR. SIMMONS' UPDATE? YES, I DID. YES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? I'M GOOD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MUCH.

GOOD JOB. NOW WE HAVE THIS MS. WALTON. HOW ARE YOU, MS. WALTON? FINE, THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR.

MR. STOKE, MR. WHITTEN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

UNDER TAB FIVE IN YOUR PACKET THIS EVENING, THERE'S A PACKET OF MATERIAL THAT MR. WHITTEN AND I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WITH YOU ON THE UPCOMING REQUEST THAT WE'VE HAD TO VACATE A RECORDED PLAT, AND THIS IS AN UNUSUAL REQUEST FOR PRINCE GEORGE.

I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE IN MANY, MANY YEARS AND WE FELT LIKE IT WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY IN YOUR WORK SESSION TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH YOU, GO THROUGH THE STATE REGULATIONS AS WELL AS OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE, AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING THE PROCESS AND WHAT YOU'LL BE SEEING AT A FUTURE MEETING.

THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO HAVE A PLAT THAT WAS REVIEWED, APPROVED AND RECORDED IN THE COURT TO BE VACATED, AND IT WAS A CONSOLIDATION PLAT WHERE PARCELS WERE CONSOLIDATED TO MEET A MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT FOR POTENTIAL SOLAR FACILITY DEVELOPMENT SITE.

IN OUR ORDINANCE CONCERNING SOLAR FACILITIES, WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF 70 CONTIGUOUS ACREAGE FOR ANY PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD. SO THIS WAS A PLAT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT THAT WAS RECORDED THAT GOT THEM TO THE THRESHOLD FOR SOLAR FACILITY.

ALL THE RELATED PARCELS ARE STILL OWNED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER.

THE PROPOSED SOLAR FACILITY WAS FOUND NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR COMP PLAN.

SO THE REQUEST DID NOT MOVE FORWARD TO YOU FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE OF THAT DECISION.

THE PROPERTY OWNER NOW WISHES TO VACATE THE RECORDED PLAT AND RETURN THE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS TO THEIR PREVIOUS STATE, AND BOTH COUNTY CODE AND STATE LAW WILL HAVE PROVISIONS ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH THIS TYPE OF REQUEST, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SITUATIONS THAT COULD NECESSITATE VACATING A PLAT AND ONCE IT'S AN OFFICIAL RECORDED DOCUMENT IN THE CLERK OF THE COURT'S OFFICE, IT IS REGULATED ON HOW TO VACATE THAT AND GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LAYOUT.

SO THIS IS A GRAPHIC IMAGE OF THE CONSOLIDATION PLAT.

WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT PROPERTY LINES BETWEEN TWO LOTS OR TWO PARCELS ARE BASICALLY NEGATED, ERASED AND YOU END UP WITH A LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WE DO DO CONSOLIDATION PLATS QUITE OFTEN IN THE COUNTY.

NEIGHBORS ADJUST PROPERTY LINES AS WELL AS SOMEONE WHO OWNS TWO OR THREE PARCELS.

THEY COMBINE THEM ALL TOGETHER INTO ONE PARCEL.

THE COUNTY CODE SECTIONS RELATED TO VACATING PLAT ARE IN YOUR PACKET.

THE ACTUAL COUNTY CODES.

[00:20:03]

I JUST WANT TO SUMMARIZE FOR YOU HERE.

SECTION 70-802 IS A VACATION OF A PLAT BEFORE THE SALE OF ANY LOTS WITHIN THAT PLAT BY THE OWNERS, AND THIS ADDRESSES HOW AN OWNER WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COUNTY CONSENT TO A PLAT VACATION.

SECTION 70-804 IS A VACATION OF A PLAT BEFORE THE SALES OF ANY LOT VIA ORDINANCE OF VACATION, AND THIS IS TYPICALLY IF THE COUNTY WANTED TO VACATE A PLAT.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE COUNTY ORDINANCE DOES REQUIRE THAT YOU HAVE NOT SOLD PIECES OF THIS OF THESE PARCELS BEFORE YOU VACATE . THE PROPERTY OWNER AND STAFF, AND THE SUBMITTED REQUEST IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET FROM THE APPLICANT TO VACATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY CODE SECTION 70-802.

ALSO IN YOUR PACKET ARE THE FULL TEXT OF THE STATE LAW SECTION RELATED TO VACATING THE PLAT.

IN TITLE 15 THE VACATION OF A PLAT BEFORE SALE OF ANY LOT THEREIN.

YOU CAN DO IT AGAIN BY ORDINANCE, BUT THERE'S TWO OPTIONS THAT INCLUDE, AGAIN BY CONSENT OF THE GOVERNING BODY OR BY ORDINANCE OF THE GOVERNING BODY.

THE APPLICANT AND STAFF HAVE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT THE PLAT VACATION SHOULD GO IN ACCORDANCE WITH OPTION ONE ABOVE.

IF YOU READ THE FULL TEXT OF BOTH COUNTY CODE IN THE STATE ORDINANCE, IF YOU GO BY--I'M SORRY, STATE STATUTE--IF YOU GO BY THE ORDINANCE OF THE GOVERNING BODY, THAT IS A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, AND TYPICALLY WE CHARGE AN APPLICANT FOR [INAUDIBLE] COSTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT.

IT WOULD GO THROUGH PLANNING, COMMISSION AND THEN BOARD.

WE FELT LIKE BY CONSENT OF THE GOVERNING BODY WAS AN AVENUE THAT WE COULD PURSUE.

IT'S STILL, THOUGH, UNDER COUNTY CODE STARTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HEAR THE REQUEST, DETERMINE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU, AND THEN BRING IT FORWARD TO YOU AS AN ACTION ITEM, NOT AS A PUBLIC HEARING OR ORDINANCE.

SO THE PATH FORWARD AS THE APPLICANT DESIRES WOULD BE TO HAVE THE REQUESTS HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THEM DETERMINING THE RECOMMENDATION TO FORWARD TO YOU, THE BOARD WOULD THEN REVIEW AND CONSIDER THE REQUEST AT A FUTURE MEETING, AND IF APPROVED, THE CONSENT WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT.

MR. WHITTEN AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A PROCESS.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HAVE DONE BEFORE, BUT IT IS A PROCESS THAT IS AVAILABLE TO OUR CITIZENS AND PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YOU MIGHT NEED THAT WE CAN GET FOR YOU.

WE CAN DO THAT FOR YOU, TOO.

I AM HOPING TO HAVE THIS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR MARCH MEETING, WHICH WOULD THEN BRING IT TO YOU AT THE FIRST MEETING IN MAY. SOUNDS LIKE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO IT IS BY STATE STATUTE AND WITH CONSENT PART WOULD BE LESS COSTLY TO THE APPLICANT AND LESS CUMBERSOME FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND OUR BOARD. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ROUTE TO TAKE IN MY OPINION, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT PATH AS WELL, BUT ALSO WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

WE'VE TALKED WITH THE APPLICANT AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE REASON THE PLAT WAS EVEN FILED WITH THE COURT WAS TO GET THAT MINIMUM ACREAGE SIZE FOR A PROJECT THAT'S NOT MOVING FORWARD, AND THEIR DESIRE IS JUST TO HAVE THEIR PARCELS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION AND SIZES THAT THEY WERE BEFORE THEY WERE COMBINED.

THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK IT'S GOOD [INAUDIBLE].

WHEN THEY'RE TAXED ON THEIR LAND AT THE 73 ACRES AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE TAXED IF THIS IS APPROVED BACK TO THE FIVE LOTS.

IS THERE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE MONEY OF TAXES THAT WOULD BE FROM ONE TO THE OTHER?

[00:25:06]

I WOULD NOT. I DO NOT KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW THE PLUS OR MINUS.

I CAN SAY THAT THE CONSOLIDATION PLAT WAS VERY RECENT.

SO THE MAJORITY OF THE TAXES BEING PAID HAVE BEEN DONE ON THE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS.

IT'S ONLY BEEN RECENT THAT IT'S BEEN ONE LARGE PARCEL.

SO I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE A SURPRISE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SEE THE BILLS GO BACK TO WHATEVER THEY WERE.

ANY QUESTIONS? ANYTHING ELSE, MR. BROWN? ANY QUESTIONS? NO, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, SIR. IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S THE WAY TO GO, THEN, MISS WALTON.

TO CLOSE, THE REASON TO VACATE A PLAT FROM AN APPLICANT'S PERSPECTIVE, IS THAT THOSE LOTS COULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AT ANY TIME OR DURING THE HISTORY OF THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY CODE.

SO IN ORDER TO PUT IT BACK LIKE IT WAS BEFORE, THEY'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH A NEW SUBDIVISION PROCESS UNDER TODAY'S CURRENT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

SO VACATING A PLAT ALLOWS US TO GO BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS WITHOUT REVIEW OF OF CURRENT ORDINANCES.

IT MAKES GOOD SENSE AND IT WAS VERY RECENT.

SO IT REALLY IS NOT.

[INAUDIBLE] YES. YES, SIR.

YES, SIR. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

YES, MR. BROWN? I'M SORRY. I JUST THOUGHT OF SOMETHING BASED ON WHAT WAS JUST SAID.

SO, MISS WALTON, IF BEFORE THE PLAT WAS CHANGED, LET'S JUST SAY IF THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER ACREAGE AND FELL ON THE FAMILY TRACT, WHICH ALLOWS A LOT MORE THINGS TO BE DONE, AND THEN IT'S CHANGED AND THEN IT REVERTS BACK, DOES IT REVERT BACK TO BEING UNDER A FAMILY TRACT AGREEMENT OR WHEN IT REVERTS BACK, IT FALLS UNDER DIFFERENT REGULATIONS? WHEN YOU AND I'LL LET MR. WHITTEN JUMP IN AT ANY TIME, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN YOU VACATE THE PLAT THAT WAS RECORDED THAT CONSOLIDATED THOSE LOTS. IT'S LIKE THAT PHRASE FROM SERVPRO, "IT NEVER HAPPENED." SO THE CONSOLIDATION NEVER HAPPENED, AND IT GOES BACK TO THE WHEREVER IT WAS BEFORE THAT CONSOLIDATION WAS FILED AND MR. WHITTEN MIGHT HAVE A BETTER [INAUDIBLE].

IT WOULD BASICALLY BE LIKE THE CONSOLIDATION NEVER HAPPENED.

OKAY, NO, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

I'M FINE WITH THAT. I JUST WANTED TO ASK IN CASE WE EVER RUN INTO THAT SITUATION, WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON IT.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I ASK.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MS. WALTON. SO THAT'S ALL OF THE WORK SESSION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, GIVEN THE EARLY HOUR BEING STILL 6:25, MAKING A RECOMMENDATION UP TO THE BOARD IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO PULL THE DRUG COURT UPDATE, DENISE WAFF, FROM THE ORIGINAL AGENDA UP TO THE WORK SESSION AND HAVE HER PRESENT THE DRUG COURT UPDATE AT THIS TIME.

I'M FINE WITH THAT.

YEAH, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

ALL RIGHT, WE CAN DO THAT.

YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO WHEN WE GET TO THE APPROVAL AGENDA, WE JUST NEED A NOTE IN THE MINUTES THAT WE MOVED IT TO THE WORK SESSION.

OKAY, AND THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA ALMOST RETROACTIVELY, BUT WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE.

WE'VE MOVED ITEMS FROM REPORTS TO WORK SESSION.

OKAY, SO WE WILL DO THAT.

WE'LL MOVE FROM THE REPORT SESSION TO THE WORK SESSION.

IN THE PAST, LIKE SOMETIMES THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WILL GIVE HIS REPORT DURING WORK SESSION.

CORRECT. YOU JUST NEED TO NOTE IT IN THE MINUTES WHEN WE ACTUALLY HEARD IT, BASICALLY WE MOVED IT TO THE WORK SESSION.

I KNOW OUR CLERK WILL STILL NOTATE THAT.

MS. WAFF. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MR. STOKE, MR. WHITTEN.

DENISE WAFF, RIVERSIDE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY, AND I'M HERE TONIGHT TO GIVE YOU ALL AN UPDATE ON OUR DRUG COURT PROGRAM.

SO AS YOU ALL MAY RECALL, THE PRINCE GEORGE HOPEWELL SURRY DRUG COURT PROGRAM USES PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY AS THE FISCAL AGENT.

OUR AMENDED BUDGET FOR FY 23 IS $131,065.

THAT AMOUNT SUPPORTS ONE FULL TIME EMPLOYEE, AND THAT IS OUR DRUG COURT COORDINATOR.

[00:30:04]

WE HAVE OUR LARGEST SOURCE OF FUNDING IS OUR VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000.

FROM THAT $90,000 WE HAVE A FULL TIME COORDINATOR WHO IS LORI HENLEY.

LORI HENLEY WAS OUR PREVIOUS COORDINATOR, AND FROM THOSE FUNDS, $78,506 WENT TOWARDS HER SALARY AND BENEFITS.

THE REMAINING BALANCE OF $11,494 IS USED TOWARDS OUR MERAKEY, WHICH IS OUR CONTRACTED PROVIDER FOR COUNSELING SERVICES. OTHER FUNDS, $41,065 COME FROM CLIENT FEES, APPROXIMATELY 13,000 DONATIONS, $1,300 AND THEN LOCAL PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY SUPPORT AND THE AMOUNT OF $26,765.

WHAT THAT SUPPORTS IS THE REMAINING SALARY AND BENEFITS OF THE COORDINATOR, WHICH WAS THE AMOUNT OF $1728.

ALSO, ANY REMAINING COUNSELING SERVICES FOR AMERICAN $2,672.

ALSO BUDGETED IS $6,500 IN DRUG TESTING SUPPLIES, AS WELL AS OVERTIME FOR OUR DEPUTIES.

WE HAVE TWO DEPUTIES THAT GO OUT IN THE COMMUNITY TO DO CURFEW CHECKS AND HOME VISITS ON OUR DRUG COURT POPULATION AND THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF $21,165, AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL $9,000 THAT IS BUDGETED FOR TRAINING DUES AND SUPPLIES.

SO APPROXIMATELY A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, MERAKEY CAME ON AS OUR PARTNER FOR OUR DRUG COURT TREATMENT PROGRAM.

THEY USED A DISCRETIONARY SAW GRANT STATE OPIOID RESPONSE GRANT, WHICH WAS ADMINISTERED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE TO THE DRUG COURT.

THE AMOUNT OF THAT GRANT IS $163,860.29.

THAT GRANT RUNS FROM OCTOBER 1ST OF 2022 TO SEPTEMBER THE 30TH OF 2023.

MERAKEY APPLIED FOR THAT GRANT RECEIVED THAT GRANT WAS THE FISCAL AGENT OF THAT GRANT.

75% WENT TOWARDS FULL TIME THERAPISTS, 75% WENT TOWARDS A FULL TIME PEER SPECIALIST.

THE REMAINING AMOUNT WENT TO COVER ADMIN, TRAINING, TRAVEL, ETC..

SO THAT JUST GIVES YOU KIND OF A QUICK SNAPSHOT OF OUR DRUG COURT PROGRAM, HOW IT'S FUNDED AND HOW MERAKEY CAME TO BE OUR TREATMENT PARTNER WITH THE DRUG COURT PROGRAM.

OVER THE LAST THREE WEEKS, WE HAVE EXPERIENCED SEVERAL BIG CHANGES.

OUR DRUG COURT COORDINATOR RESIGNED EFFECTIVE JANUARY THE 20TH OF 2023.

SO AGAIN, LORI HENLEY WAS IN THAT POSITION.

SO SHE RESIGNED AND THE COUNTY IS CURRENTLY ACTIVELY RECRUITING FOR THAT POSITION, HOPING TO FILL THAT IN THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS OR A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

ABOUT THE SAME TIME, APPROXIMATELY THE SAME WEEK THAT WE FOUND OUT OUR COORDINATOR WAS RESIGNING HER POSITION.

WE ALSO LEARNED THAT CANDICE RONEY, WHO'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MERAKEY, WAS GOING TO BE VACATING HER POSITION AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE PETERSBURG OFFICE OF MERAKEY WAS GOING TO BE CLOSING.

THEY ANNOUNCED THEY'D BE CLOSING AT THE END OF FEBRUARY AND THE CONTRACT WITH THE DRUG COURT PROGRAM WOULD BE ENDING.

THEIR LAST DATE OF SERVICES FOR OUR DRUG COURT CLIENTS WAS FEBRUARY THE EIGHTH, WHICH WAS JUST LAST WEEK.

SO AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IT'S BEEN A FLURRY OF ACTIVITY OVER THE LAST THREE WEEKS.

LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND PLANNING AND TRYING TO PLAN HOW WE WERE GOING TO SUPPORT THE CLIENTS AND TRY TO AVOID ANY SORT OF DISRUPTION TO SERVICES.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CLIENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE COVERED BY MEDICAID TO MATCH THEM TO LOCAL TREATMENT PROVIDERS IN THE AREA, SPECIFICALLY PRIORITY GIVEN TO THOSE CLIENTS WHO WERE RECEIVING MEDICATION ASSISTED TREATMENT.

SO SUBOXONE OR METHADONE AND JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE ALL COVERED SO THAT THERE WASN'T ANY DISRUPTION IN SERVICE TO THE CLIENTS.

WE'VE HAD ONGOING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF TRANSFERRING THE SOR GRANT FROM MERAKEY TO PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.

WE'RE TOLD THAT IT WOULD TAKE 60 TO 90 DAYS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

IF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY WERE TO TAKE OVER AS THE FISCAL AGENT, THEN WE'D HAVE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD HIRE A CLINICIAN IN-HOUSE OR IF WE WOULD CONTRACT THOSE SERVICES OUT THROUGH A TREATMENT PROVIDER IN THE COMMUNITY SUCH AS MERAKEY.

WE'VE ALSO HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT USING UNUSED FUNDS FROM THAT VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT GRANT, AS WELL AS ANY UNUSED FUNDS IN THE DRUG COURT BUDGET TO PROVIDE NEEDED SERVICES IF NECESSARY.

THAT WOULD REQUIRE A BUDGET TRANSFER AMENDMENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT.

[00:35:04]

I AM HAPPY TO TELL YOU AT THE TIME THAT THIS POWERPOINT WAS PREPARED, WE WEREN'T REALLY SURE WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

THIS HAS JUST BEEN IT'S BEEN DAY TO DAY.

WE'VE BEEN MOVING AT SUCH A FAST PACE TRYING TO GET THIS COVERED, BUT HAPPY TO TELL YOU TONIGHT THAT BRIGHTVIEW ADDICTION CENTER HAS STEPPED IN.

AS YOU MAY RECALL, THEY'RE OUR NEWEST ADDICTION CENTER HERE IN THE COUNTY.

THEY'RE IN THE CROSSINGS SO VERY CLOSE TO OUR OFFICE.

THEY HAVE AGREED TO STEP IN.

THEY HAVE ALREADY WITHIN ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF TIME, THEY HAVE ALREADY MET WITH ALL OF OUR DRUG COURT CLIENTS, CONNECTED THEM TO INDIVIDUAL THERAPY, GROUP THERAPY, AND THOSE WHO HAVE NEEDED ANY SORT OF MEDICATION ASSISTED TREATMENT.

THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO STEP IN AND ASSIST WITH THAT AS WELL.

SO THEY ARE OUR SHORT TERM INTERIM FIX.

SO THIS IS AN UPDATE JUST TO PROVIDE YOU THAT, AND WE ARE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM REGARDING LONG TERM, AND THAT IS OUR UPDATE FOR THE DRUG COURT PROGRAM.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

SO MS. RONEY WAS A BUSINESS OF ONE.

WAS SHE THE ONLY PERSON THAT WAS IN MERAKEY? SHE WAS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OF THE PROGRAM.

SHE DID HAVE SEVERAL STAFF THAT WORKED UNDER HER.

SHE ANNOUNCED HER RESIGNATION, I BELIEVE, IN EARLY DECEMBER AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY NOT SURE RELATED OR UNRELATED MERAKEY, THE COMPANY DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CLOSE THAT PETERSBURG LOCATION.

SO SHE WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT WAS THEIR DECISION.

WHO WILL BE TAKING CARE OF PETERSBURG'S.

WELL, THERE ARE STILL OTHER TREATMENT PROVIDERS IN THE COMMUNITY, THE DISTRICT 19 OUR COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD.

THERE'S A FEW OTHERS IN THE PETERSBURG AREA, AND BRIGHTVIEW IS ALSO SERVICING.

THEY'RE NOT JUST SERVICING PRINCE GEORGE CLIENTS, THEY'RE SERVICING HOPEWELL, PRINCE GEORGE, ANYONE LOCALLY IN THE AREA THAT'S REQUESTING SERVICES.

SO THE DRUG COURT, THAT'S PRINCE GEORGE'S DRUG COURT OR THE CCJB DRUG COURT.

PRINCE GEORGE IS THE FISCAL AGENT, BUT IT'S THE PRINCE GEORGE HOPEWELL, SURRY DRUG COURT PROGRAM.

SO IT IS A PARTNERSHIP THAT CAME FROM THE CCJB, AND SO DO THEY FUND PART OF THE DRUG COURT OR THAT PART OF IT, HOPEWELL AND SURRY? THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THEY PROVIDE FUNDING TO OUR RCJ'S BUDGET.

OKAY, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO WE'RE ADVERTISING NOW OR SEEKING PEOPLE TO REPLACE FOR DRUG COURT COORDINATOR? THAT'S CORRECT. I KNOW BRIGHTVIEW HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST IN LONG TERM, BUT IT WILL JUST DEPEND ON IF THEY ARE ABLE TO CONTINUE WHAT THEY'RE DOING CURRENTLY, WHICH IS BILLING MEDICAID AND JUST OPERATING WITH THE STAFF THAT THEY HAVE.

IF THEY FIND THAT THE CAPACITY THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM BY THIS CASELOAD THAT THEY'VE NOW INHERITED, THEY MAY HAVE TO HIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF, AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT SURE IF THEY'RE GOING TO JUST CONTINUE TO BUILD MEDICAID AND BE ABLE TO HANDLE THAT ON THEIR OWN OR IF THEY'RE GOING TO GO AFTER SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING, PERHAPS THE SOR GRANT, AS MERAKEY DID.

OKAY, THANK YOU. YES, SIR.

THANK YOU ALL. HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, SO WE STILL GOT 25 MINUTES OF RECESS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO BE IN RECESS UNTIL 7 P.M..

[INVOCATION]

THE BOARD HAS BEEN IN RECESS FROM THEIR WORK SESSION.

FIRST THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS HAVE AN INVOCATION FROM MS. WAYMACK. OUR MOST GRACIOUS HEAVENLY FATHER, THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR BLESSINGS YOU HAVE GIVEN TO US.

IT'S BEEN A STRESSFUL WEEK, DEAR LORD, WITH AWFUL EARTHQUAKES, MANY DEATHS, AND NOT TO MENTION THE MANY FRIGHTENING UFOS FLYING OVER THE USA.

LORD, BE WITH US.

REMIND US TO FEAR NOT THAT YOU ARE IN COMMAND.

KEEP US IN PEACE DEAR LORD, IF IT BE YOUR WILL, WE PRAY.

BE WITH THOSE WHO ARE SUFFERING IN BODY AND SPIRIT.

COMFORT THOSE WHO'VE LOST LOVED ONES.

KEEP YOUR HAND ON THIS BOARD AND GUIDE US IN YOUR HOLY NAME.

[00:40:04]

AMEN. I ASK MR. WEBB TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE.

THANK YOU. TWO VERY IMPORTANT PARTS OF OUR MEETINGS.

NEXT WEEK WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

THIS IS THE TIME WHEN THE PUBLIC HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SPEAK TO THE BOARD ABOUT ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.

SO IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME FORWARD.

MRS. KNOTT, DO WE HAVE ANYONE SIGNED UP? NO, SIR, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE NOBODY STAND UP.

SO ANYONE THAT WANTS TO COME FORWARD, YOU HAVE 4 MINUTES.

WE NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD, COME FORWARD.

ONE MORE TIME. IF NO ONE'S COMING FORWARD TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION AND WE'RE OPEN FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE

[ADOPTION OF AGENDA]

THE DRUG COURT UPDATE FROM THE REPORT SECTION TO THE WORK SESSION AT 6:27 JUST TO GET THE AGENDA MOVING, WE ALSO ARE GOING TO BE CONTINUING A.7 AND A.9(B) TO OUR NEXT MEETING ON THE 28TH.

SO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SO MOVED, MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THOSE CHANGES.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

NEXT, WE HAVE THE ORDER OF CONSENSUS.

THERE IS NONE. THERE IS NO ORDER OF CONSENSUS.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO PRESENTATIONS.

[SUPERVISORS’ COMMENTS]

MR. CARMICHAEL, ANY COMMENTS TONIGHT, SIR? NONE TONIGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. OKAY, MS. WAYMACK? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE STILL HAVE VIRUSES CIRCULATING IN THE COMMUNITY.

NOROVIRUS HAS BEEN VERY PREVALENT, AND THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE CALL THE STOMACH FLU.

IT'S NOT RELATED TO THE FLU AT ALL BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT VIRUS, BUT THAT'S WHAT MOST PEOPLE CALL IT.

SO PLEASE WASH YOUR HANDS.

BE CAREFUL.

WEAR YOUR MASK IF YOU'RE IN CROWDED AREAS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. WAYMACK. MR. BROWN, ANY COMMENTS, SIR? YES, SIR, MR. CHAIRMAN.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO ALL OF MY BOARD MEMBERS, TO STAFF AND MOSTLY TO THE PUBLIC FOR NOT BEING THERE.

THE LAST MEETING, WHICH I WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY, AND THIS MEETING TONIGHT, I AM ACTUALLY HOME RECOVERING FROM AN EYE SURGERY THAT I HAD LAST WEDNESDAY, AND THINGS ARE GOING WELL.

VISION IS COMING BACK REAL NICE, BUT I JUST WANT TO PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE TO EACH AND EVERYONE AS NORMALLY MISSING BOARD MEETINGS IS NOT SOMETHING I LIKE TO DO. THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. MR. WEBB. NOTHING TONIGHT.

ALL RIGHT, AND I JUST WANT TO WISH EVERYONE A HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY AND HOPE EVERYTHING'S GOING WELL AND I HAVE TO REITERATE WHAT MS. WAYMACK SAID.

BE CAREFUL OUT THERE.

WEAR YOUR MASK, WASH YOUR HANDS, AND HAVE A HAPPY DAY, AND, MR.

[COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S COMMENTS]

THERE IS A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE FOURTH US CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT TO FILL CONGRESSMAN MCEACHIN SEAT THAT WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21ST.

POLLING LOCATIONS OPEN FROM 6 A.M.

TO 7 P.M..

THERE IS SPECIAL EARLY VOTING.

YOU CAN VOTE THIS WEEK DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS IN THE REGISTRAR'S OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.

THERE ARE ALSO SPECIAL EARLY HOURS THIS SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 18TH, FROM 9 A.M.

TO 5:00 PM.

THE FIRST DAY FOR TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AT MIDDLE ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21ST.

WATCH FOR INCREASED TRAFFIC ALONG MIDDLE ROAD AND THE FY 24 BUDGET WORK SESSIONS WITH THE BOARD WILL BEGIN ON FEBRUARY 22ND.

[00:45:03]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU, MR. STOKE.

[REPORTS]

WE HAVE MS. CRYSTAL SMITH FROM VDOT HERE TONIGHT.

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.

YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR MONTHLY UPDATE IN YOUR BOARD PACKAGE.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS I'D LIKE TO ADD AND HIGHLIGHT.

THE NO THROUGH TRUCK RESTRICTION FOR THE I BELIEVE IT WAS FIVE ROUTES THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR NOW IS BEING ADVERTISED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL RUN FOR 30 DAYS FROM MARCH THE FIRST TO APRIL THE FIRST.

THAT WILL BE ADVERTISED IN PAPERS AND THE SIGNS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED ON EACH OF THOSE ROUTES.

THEY'RE COVERED CURRENTLY AND WE'LL UNCOVER THOSE DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

WE HAVE COMPLETED AN ADDITIONAL LITTER PICKUP IN THE COUNTY THAT IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY DO WITH OUR MOTORCYCLES, BUT BECAUSE OF THE GROWING SEASON, WE DID SKIP ONE MOWING CYCLE.

SO WE DID A LITTER PICKUP ALONE ON THAT AND THAT'S COMPLETE.

OUR SURFACE SCHEDULES HAVE STARTED.

YOU SHOULD BE RECEIVING THE TWO WEEK LOOK AHEAD.

THAT INCLUDES OUR SLURRY, CAPE SEAL, LATEX AND PLANT MIX, AND DIANA HAS BEEN SENDING THOSE OUT.

SO IF YOU SEE ANYTHING OR HAVE ANY ISSUES, PLEASE LET ME KNOW SO I CAN GET THOSE ADDRESSED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

ALSO, I DID WANT TO MENTION THE BULL HILL ROUNDABOUT.

THE CONTRACTOR HAS INDICATED THAT HE WILL LIKELY NOT DO ANY HEAVY CONSTRUCTION UNTIL OCTOBER TIMEFRAME, AND JUST BEFORE THEY START THAT, WE PLAN TO SEND OUT LETTERS TO ALL THE ADJOINING CITIZENS TO GIVE THEM INFORMATION ON WHAT TO EXPECT AS THEY START CONSTRUCTION.

SO IF YOU GET QUESTIONS ON THAT, AGAIN, YOU CAN SHOOT THOSE OVER TO US AND WE CAN WORK WITH THE PUBLIC ON THAT.

BE LOOKING ALSO FOR PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISEMENT FOR A SECONDARY SIX YEAR PLAN.

WE'LL BE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ON THAT.

WE EXPECT TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING LIKELY AROUND APRIL.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TONIGHT.

ANY UPDATES ON OUR BENJAMIN HARRISON BRIDGE? NO CLOSURES AS OF NOW.

I BELIEVE THE LAST SET, THEY ACTUALLY FINISHED A LITTLE BIT EARLY.

THAT'S GOOD.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

ALL RIGHT, YOU TOO, DRIVE SAFE.

OKAY, MOVING ON.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY POSTPONED ITEMS FOR TONIGHT.

[ORDER OF BUSINESS (Part 1 of 2)]

THE DRAFT MINUTES FOR JANUARY 24TH ARE ON THERE ON THE DOCKET.

SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PASS THOSE.

SO MOVED. I'LL SECOND.

MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY COMMENTS.

CALL THE ROLE, MS. KNOTT.

NEXT, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION OF CONTRACT FOR A BUDGET TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATION OF AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION ROUTE TEN CORRIDOR.

MR. HALTOM. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MR. STOKE MR. WHITTEN.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE LATE DONALD MCEACHIN WAS SUCCESSFUL IN AWARDING THE COUNTY $3.2 MILLION TO ALLOW US TO EXTEND OUR ESSENTIAL WATER SYSTEM TO THE ROUTINE CORRIDOR TO SERVE THE COMMUNITIES OF EAGLE PRESERVE JORDAN ON THE JAMES, BEECHWOOD MANOR AND NOW CHAPEL CREEK.

WITH THAT, WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A COUNTY MATCH REQUIREMENT OF $800,000, WHICH IS 20% OF THE AWARD.

ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE ALSO THE COUNTY REQUIREMENT TO PAY.

WE ARE ALLOWED TO USE OTHER FUNDS OTHER THAN COUNTY SOURCES, APART FROM THE $800,000.

SO WE ARE LOOKING AT USING ARPA FUNDS TO FUND THE REST OF THAT, AND I'LL GET INTO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT, BUT ALLOWING US TO DO THIS WILL DECOMMISSION TWO EXISTING WELL FACILITIES THAT SERVE THOSE COMMUNITIES, AND AS I MENTIONED, WE WILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE REMAINING FUNDS.

WE ORIGINALLY ISSUED AN INVITATION BACK IN DECEMBER AND THE BIDS WERE DUE ON DECEMBER 22ND.

ONE BID CAME IN UNDER BUDGET, BUT IT WAS NON-RESPONSIVE SO ALL THE REST OF THEM CAME IN OVER THE AVAILABLE FUNDS THAT WE HAD.

SO WE DECIDED TO REJECT THE BIDS AND COME AND RE-ISSUE THE INVITATION FOR BID.

[00:50:02]

WE RECEIVED THREE BIDS AND THE APPARENT LOW BID WAS WALTER [INAUDIBLE] ENTERPRISES FOR $5,281,570.

THAT WILL DO THE EXTENSION OF THE WATER MAIN, AS WELL AS ALL THE SERVICES ALONG THE WAY TO FOUR EXISTING HOMES ALONG THAT ROUTE.

THE COUNTY'S ENGINEERING CONSULTANT WAS W.W.

ASSOCIATES. THEY PERFORM THE DESIGN SERVICES FOR THIS PROJECT.

THEY HAVE EVALUATED THE BID AND CHECKED THE REFERENCES OF WALTER [INAUDIBLE], AND THEY DO RECOMMEND THE AWARD TO THEM.

WE ALSO, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS AWARD OF THE PROJECT, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALSO REQUIRE AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS , AND THE ACTIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR IS THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT TO WALTER [INAUDIBLE] THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND APPROPRIATIONS.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED ADDITIONAL ARPA FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF 1.2 EXCUSE ME, $1,281,507 FROM THE ARPA CONTINGENCY TO THIS PROJECT, AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO NEED WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING AN AUTHORIZATION TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROPRIATE A $3.2 MILLION RECEIVED FROM THE LATE DONALD MCEACHIN FOR THE ANTICIPATED FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING TO APPLY TO THIS PROJECT AS WELL.

SAID A LOT THERE. ANY QUESTIONS? I'M GOOD. JUST ONE, IF I CAN ASK, AND MAYBE ATTORNEY MAY TELL ME I CAN'T.

THIS WAS A BID THAT WAS ANNOUNCED IN PUBLIC.

IT'S PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, RIGHT, OF THE BIDS? YES. WHAT WAS THE OTHER TWO? YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THE NAME [INAUDIBLE], BUT WHAT WAS THE PRICE OF THE OTHER TWO? THEY WERE THE FIRST TIME.

THE OTHER TWO WERE OVER $7 MILLION THE SECOND TIME.

I DON'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I BELIEVE THOSE ARE IN YOUR PACKET.

[INAUDIBLE] YEAH, AND I HAVE THAT HERE AS WELL.

ONE OF THEM WAS 6.5 MILLION AND THE OTHER ONE WAS 7.3 MILLION.

DOES THAT BRING CONCERN TO YOU? AS FAR AS THE COST OR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LOW BID AND THE--WELL, WE HAD ACTUALLY THOUGHT THIS WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE $4 MILLION FOR THE PROJECT.

OF COURSE, WE ESTIMATED THIS PROJECT OVER TWO YEARS AGO.

INFLATION HAS TAKEN ON A LARGE, BIG INCREASE ON THIS AND WE ACTUALLY WHEN WE RE-BUDGETED THIS, WE THOUGHT WE'RE GOING TO COME IN AROUND $6 MILLION.

SO THIS IS NOT FAR FROM THAT.

THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENCES IN BIDDERS WHO MAY HAVE SOME EXISTING MATERIAL ALREADY ON SITE THAT THEY CAN USE AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT AND WAIT FOR MATERIAL.

SOME PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT MEANS AND METHODS TO BE ABLE TO REDUCE THEIR COSTS.

SO IT'S NOT OUT OF THE ORDINARY TO HAVE A SOME THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL BUT IN THIS CASE, THE LOW BID OF 5.2 TO 6.5, 1.3 MILLION INCREASE.

WILL WE HAVE ANY CHANGE ORDERS? THE WAY THE CONTRACT IS WRITTEN, THIS IS A LUMP SUM COST SO THAT ALL THE COSTS WILL BE ON THEM.

SO WE DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE ANY UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING VERY OUT OF THE ORDINARY THAT'S UNEXPECTED.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A RESOLUTION.

[INAUDIBLE] MOTION? YES, SIR.

MR. CHAIR, HEARING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I MOVED TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HALTOM. NEXT, WE HAVE YOU AGAIN RESOLUTION SUPPORT REPLACEMENT OF THE WATERLINE AT BEECHWOOD MANOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE GRANT.

YES, SIR, AND THIS IS A PROJECT WHERE WE HAVE AN EXISTING WATER SYSTEM THAT'S APPROACHING 50 YEARS OLD.

THE PIPING THAT OUT THERE IS MADE OF WHAT'S CALLED TRANSITE PIPE, ALSO KNOWN AS ASBESTOS CEMENT.

I KNOW THAT WORD IS TABOO, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, ANYTIME ASBESTOS IS KEPT WET, IT'S NOT HAZARDOUS.

SO IN THIS CASE, IT'S IN A WATER MAIN, SO IT DOESN'T BECOME DRY AND BRITTLE AND THEREFORE BECOME A CONTAMINATION OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR AT FIRST FOR OUR CUSTOMERS WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE OF THAT.

BEING THAT IT'S 50 YEARS OLD, [INAUDIBLE] PIPES, LIFE EXPECTANCY IS ABOUT 50 YEARS OLD.

SO WE HIRED A CONSULTANT TO DO SOME TESTING FOR US.

WE PULLED SOME OF THE EXISTING PIPE OUT OF THE GROUND, SENT IT TO THEM, AND THEY DID SOME ANALYSIS ON THAT PIPE, AND THEY HAVE DETERMINED THERE'S A LIFE EXPECTANCY OF ANYWHERE

[00:55:04]

IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED, I'D BE HAPPY TO SEND THAT TO YOU FOR YOUR REVIEW, BUT IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS WE'RE USING THAT REPORT.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REQUESTING TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT TO REPLACE THIS WATER MAIN.

THERE'S ABOUT 2100 EXCUSE ME, 21,000 FEET OF FOUR INCH AND SIX INCH PIPE IN THIS WATER SYSTEM WITHIN BEECHWOOD MANOR AND WE'RE SUSPECTING THE COST TO BE ANYWHERE ABOUT FROM 7.5, AROUND $7.5 MILLION TO REPLACE ALL THAT PIPE.

SO WE'RE ASKING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND THEY'VE ASSISTED US WITH THIS APPLICATION AND ARE FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE APPLICATION.

DOES NOT MEAN WE WILL GET THE FULL AMOUNT OF MONEY, BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR 7.5 MILLION TO REPLACE ALL THIS PIPE TO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REPLACE WITH ALL PVC PIPE.

WELL, THEY'VE BEEN DEALING WITH BROWN WATER EVER SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD.

I MEAN, IT'S LONG OVERDUE. THERE'S A LOT OF HOMES DOWN IN THERE.

THERE IS, AND I WON'T SAY THAT THE BROWN WATER IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE TYPE OF MATERIAL OF THE PIPE.

WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.

WE ARE TAKING SOME ACTION, EVEN RIGHT NOW WE ARE CLEANING THE RESERVOIR ONCE AGAIN TO TRY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO TO PREVENT ANY BROWN WATER FROM GETTING INTO THE SYSTEM. JUST TO GIVE YOU UPDATE ON THAT, WE STARTED THAT ACTIVITY YESTERDAY.

FINISHED IT YESTERDAY AND STARTED REFILLING THAT RESERVOIR, AND WE EXPECT TO HAVE THAT BACK IN SERVICE ON THURSDAY AFTER WE TAKE THE CONSECUTIVE SAMPLES TO MAKE SURE IT'S SAFE TO DRINK AGAIN. THE NEW PIPE, WHAT MATERIAL IS THAT GOING TO BE? THAT WOULD BE ALL PVC PIPE.

OKAY? YES, SIR. SO WE ARE COMING TO THE BOARD TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION, TO RECEIVE APPLICATION TO SUBMIT FOR THE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND, WHICH IS ADMINISTERED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SHOULD WE RECEIVE FUNDING, WE OBVIOUSLY WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO THE BOARD FIRST TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT WE ACCEPT THAT AWARD.

IF WE DO NOT GET THE FULL FUNDING, THEN IT WOULD BE THE BOARD'S DISCRETION WHETHER OR NOT WE ACCEPT THE GRANT IN PART IF WE DON'T RECEIVE THAT WHOLE FUNDING OR IF WE WANT TO IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.

SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS THIS RESOLUTION WILL JUST TO APPLY FOR THE GRANT, CORRECT? SO WE HAVE A RESOLUTION.

WE DO, AND I MOVE TO ACCEPT.

GOT A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND TO PASS THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED.

'HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR.

NEXT, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION AWARD OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZE TO PURCHASE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER CONSOLE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT AND I HAVE. MR. BOSERMAN.

GOOD EVENING.

I WISH I WAS MR. BOSERMAN, BUT I'M SORRY YOU'RE STUCK WITH THE CHIEF.

CHIEF, WE'RE HONORED TO HAVE YOU, SIR.

WELL, THANK YOU, SIR, AND GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MR. STOKE AND MR. WHITTEN. THERE'S REALLY TWO ITEMS OR TOPICS I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU THIS EVENING.

THE FIRST ONE WILL REQUIRE POTENTIALLY BOARD ACTION AND THE SECOND ONE, BOARD DIRECTION.

SO WITH THAT, JUST TO PROVIDE SOME FRAMEWORK, BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2019, YOU, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, APPROVED AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO L3 HARRIS REPLACEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM IN NOVEMBER.

THIS PAST NOVEMBER, STAFF BRIEFED YOU THE BOARD ON REMAINING OR AVAILABLE FUNDS FROM THE PROJECT CONTINGENCY MONEY AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON THAT BALANCE.

RELATED TO THAT BALANCE STAFF HAS SOME REQUEST THAT'S INTERTWINED WITH THE OVERALL PROJECT.

WHAT I'M HERE PRIMARILY BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS TO REQUEST $92,115.90 FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CONSOLE.

THIS WOULD BE OUR SEVENTH CONSOLE WITHIN THE ECC ITSELF, AND RELATED EQUIPMENT, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT REPLACEMENT OF SIX WIRELESS HEADSETS TO BRING CURRENT, THE EXISTING SIX CONSOLES IN THE CENTER AND I CAN DIG A LITTLE DEEPER IF THE BOARD WISHES BUT THE TOTAL FOR THAT REQUEST AGAIN IS $92,115.90.

OKAY, AND THIS MONEY WOULD COME FROM WHERE? THE PROJECT CONTINGENCY.

WE HAVE SUFFICIENT, MS. DREWRY, TO? YES, SIR, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE AN ATTACHMENT A IN YOUR PACKET THAT PROVIDES THE CURRENT BALANCE OF CONTINGENCY, WHICH IS AN EXCESS OF

[01:00:09]

844,000. I APOLOGIZE AND I EMAILED OUT AND UPDATED ATTACHMENT A THIS MORNING AND YOU HAVE IT ATTACHED TO YOUR BLUE SHEETS AS WELL, AND IT DOES OUTLINE THAT AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THIS REQUEST.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED THAT ON RECORD, OKAY, SO ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF ? IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BOARD THERE IS A RESOLUTION ATTACHED.

I MOVE TO APPROVE.

SECOND. GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MR. BROWN, ARE YOU UP TO SPEED WITH US, SIR? OH, NO, I WAS JUST SAYING I SECOND, BUT YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE A SECOND.

OH, OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, AND SO IF YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

THANK YOU, CHIEF. THANK YOU, SIR.

DID YOU SAY YOU HAD SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO TALK TO US ABOUT? YES, SIR. JUST LOOKING FOR BOARD DIRECTION, BOARD CONSENSUS AND OR DIRECTION.

THESE ARE OTHER REQUESTS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING.

IT IS UNDER $50,000, BUT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE THE BOARD AWARE OF THESE.

THE FIRST ONE IS FOR A MIDDLE ROAD TOWER SITE, AN ISP CRADLEPOINT.

INTERNET CONNECTIVITY.

REDUNDANT CONNECTIVITY TO A CRITICAL TOWER SITE IN THE COUNTY.

REQUEST FOR THAT CRADLEPOINT IS $1,500.

WE ARE PRESENTING THAT TO THE BOARD.

IN DISPUTANTA, THE DISPUTANTA BAY, THE WORKSTATION BEHIND THE LIBRARY, WE HAVE A FEW REQUESTS FOR THAT.

ONE IS ACCESS TO THE COUNTY NETWORK THAT WILL GIVE US INTERNET ACCESS TO THE BAY ITSELF, AND THE COST FOR THAT IS $1,500.

MY UNDERSTANDING, AND NOT BEING A TECHNICAL PERSON IS IT'S POINT TO POINT CONNECTIVITY.

IT CONNECTS OVER TO THE FIRE STATION, BRINGS INTERNET CAPACITY TO THE BAY ITSELF.

THE SECOND IS A SECURITY CAMERA, AN EXTERIOR CAMERA TO THE BAY DOORS OF THAT FACILITY.

AS YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE A LOT OF CRITICAL COUNTY ASSETS IN THAT BAY, AND THE LAST REQUEST RELATED TO THE BAY IS SWIPE ENTRY CARDS, SWIPE ENTRY TO THE DOOR SYSTEM LIKE WE HAVE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY.

SO WE'LL KNOW WHO'S ENTERING AND EXITING THAT FACILITY.

THE TOTAL FOR THOSE UPGRADES TO THAT BAY IS $11,875.

SO, $1,500 FOR THE MIDDLE ROAD TOWER SITE ISP CRADLEPOINT $11,875 FOR THE UPGRADES, THE INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AND THE SECURITY UPGRADES FOR THE BAY BEHIND THE LIBRARY IN DISUTANTA, AND THE LAST ITEM IS ELECTRICAL UPGRADES TO THE ECC GENERATOR.

SO WE HAVE A WE'VE PURCHASED--MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE WILL BE HAVING A PORTABLE GENERATOR DELIVERED IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.

THAT GENERATOR WILL BE ABLE TO BE TRANSPORTED TO THE ECC TOWER SITES OR ANY OTHER COUNTY LOCATION FOR THAT MATTER, TO PROVIDE POWER TO CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THERE HAS TO BE ELECTRICAL UPGRADES TO THE ECC ITSELF.

SO WE CAN, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY OF TO PUT IT, PLUG IN THIS PORTABLE GENERATOR, AND THE COST FOR THAT IS $19,205, AND JUST AS A REMINDER IN THIS VERY EXPENSIVE COUNTYWIDE RADIO SYSTEM, THE ECC IS THE CRITICAL LOCATION.

IF THAT GOES DOWN, THE WHOLE SYSTEM GOES DOWN.

IS THAT IT? YES, SIR, THAT'S IT.

ISN'T THAT INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET? [INAUDIBLE].

THOSE ITEMS, WE WERE JUST IT'S BEEN VETTED THROUGH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.

WE WERE JUST LIKE, I DON'T BELIEVE IT REQUIRES A VOTE.

YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT JUST LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE OR A CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD [INAUDIBLE] MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE REQUESTS.

IT'S MORE INFORMATION FOR US AND IF WE'RE OKAY WITH IT, YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, SIR, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF ABOUT MOVING FORWARD OR ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY HE SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS REQUEST? I'M GOOD.

MR. BROWN, DO YOU FOLLOW, SIR? I'M GOOD. I'M GOOD, SIR.

THANK YOU, CHIEF. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOOD TO GO FORTH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHTY. NEXT, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATION OF ACCUMULATED SNAP INVESTMENT INTEREST FROM THE GENERAL FUND, BALANCE FOR THE SCHOOL BUSSES AND COUNTY VEHICLES.

[01:05:06]

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS, MR. STOKE AND MR. WHITTEN.

IN OUR FY 22 BUDGET, THE BUDGET YEAR THAT ACTUALLY ENDED THIS PAST JUNE, WE HAD BUDGETED $400,000 FOR PURCHASE OF COUNTY VEHICLES AND $412,000 BUDGETED FOR THE PURCHASE OF SCHOOL BUSSES.

THE INTENTION AT THE TIME OF BUDGET ADOPTION WAS TO INCLUDE THOSE VEHICLE PURCHASES AS ROLLING STOCK THROUGH A BORROWING AND ROLL THAT IN WITH OUR COURTHOUSE COURTROOM RENOVATION PROJECT.

CURRENT COUNTY ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDED CASH FUNDING OR AN APPROPRIATION FROM FUND BALANCE FOR THE COURTHOUSE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY A BORROWING WAS NOT PERFORMED FOR THE PURCHASE OF COUNTY VEHICLES OR SCHOOL BUSSES FOR THIS PAST YEAR.

SO WE NEED TO APPROPRIATE A FUNDING SOURCE IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETING A BORROWING.

SO AFTER REVIEWING A NUMBER OF SNAP INTEREST ACCOUNTS, A NUMBER OF BORROWINGS THAT INCLUDED COUNTY VEHICLE PURCHASES, I HAVE IDENTIFIED ACCUMULATED SNAP INTEREST THAT COULD COVER THE PURCHASE OF COUNTY VEHICLES FOR $400,000.

HOWEVER, THERE WAS NOT A PRIOR BORROWING WITH ACCUMULATED INTEREST THAT WOULD COVER THE PRICE OF THE PURCHASE OF THE BUSSES.

SO THE APPROPRIATION ACTION THAT I AM REQUESTING IS TWOFOLD.

IT IS A $400,000 TRANSFER FROM CIP FUND FUND BALANCE, ACCUMULATED SNAP INTEREST TO COVER COUNTY VEHICLE PURCHASES, AND THEN AN APPROPRIATION FROM OUR GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE TO COVER SCHOOL BUSSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $412,000.

WE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE.

YES, SIR. I MENTIONED IT AT A COUPLE OF QUARTERLY REPORTS.

YES, SIR. YES.

YEAH, [INAUDIBLE] THIS.

ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, THERE'S A RESOLUTION IN THE BOARD PACKET.

SO MOVED AND SECOND.

MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, A-6 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF PRINCE GEORGE AND 5 & DIME TRAIL.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN HUNTER.

VICE CHAIR, MR. WEBB. BOARD MEMBERS, AND MR. STOKE AND MR. WHITTEN.

THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME PRESENT TONIGHT ON THE TOURISM AGREEMENT.

TONIGHT, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE TOURISM AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDES LOCALITIES SUCH AS THE CITY OF HOPEWELL, JAMES CITY COUNTY, SURRY COUNTY AND CHARLES CITY COUNTY.

THE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN A COLLECTIVE EFFORT BETWEEN PARTICIPATING LOCALITIES THE HOPEWELL PRINCE GEORGE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE HOPEWELL DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP, AND COLLECTIVELY, WE WISH TO SET FORTH BASIC PARAMETERS OF THE 5 & DIME TRAIL.

THE 5 & DIME TRAIL IS AN EXCITING CIRCULAR TRAVEL EXPERIENCE, CONNECTING ROUTES FIVE AND TEN THROUGH THE FIVE PARTICIPATING LOCALITIES. THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY TO PARTNER WITH A WELL VISITED LOCALITIES SUCH AS JAMES CITY COUNTY TO ENTICE VISITORS TO EXPERIENCE SOME OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY TOURISM ASSETS.

THE TOURISM AGREEMENT SETS FORTH A FINANCIAL COMMITMENT OF $1,500 DOLLARS THAT WILL COME FROM THE TOURISM BUDGET AND FURTHER PROMOTE THE 5 & DIME TRAIL.

THE RESOLUTION AND TOURISM AGREEMENT ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE TONIGHT, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS AN APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO THE TOURISM AGREEMENT TO FURTHER OUR TOURISM EFFORTS IN THE COUNTY.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

ANY QUESTIONS? NO, AND THAT'S $1,500 PER YEAR? CORRECT.

WHAT'S THE NUMBER OF YEARS WE'VE SIGNED UP FOR THIS? FOR FIVE YEARS AND THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS.

YEAH, TWO OPTIONS FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS, BUT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, COMMIT TO TERMINATION AND THAT WAS A 60 DAY WRITTEN NOTICE TO GET OUT TO OPT OUT.

OKAY, THERE'S A RESOLUTION INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.

[01:10:02]

WE GET A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

NOW IT'S 7:30.

[PUBLIC HEARINGS]

P-1, THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COUNTY CODE OF PRINCE GEORGE BY AMENDING AND AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO GIVE A REFUND TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR UTILIZATION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY AFTER CONNECTION FEE IS PAID.

MR. HALTOM. OKAY, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARE, OUR CURRENT COUNTY CODE.

STATES THAT REFUNDS SHALL NOT BE MADE FOR ANY UNUTILIZED WATER OR WASTEWATER CAPACITY AFTER CONNECTION FEES HAVE BEEN CREDITED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ACCOUNT WHEN CONNECTING NEW METERS.

[INAUDIBLE].

OH, I'M SORRY. OK.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HERE WE GO.

WHAT I'M COMING AND ASKING FOR TODAY IS AN AMENDMENT TO THESE SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT WILL ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT PAID THOSE ORIGINAL CONNECTION FEES TO RECEIVE A REFUND OF THOSE UNUTILIZED WATER WASTEWATER CAPACITIES SHOULD THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUTHORIZE THE REFUND BY A RESOLUTION.

WHAT THE ISSUE IS, IS THE OUR INDUSTRIAL PARK HAS SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED FROM TIME TO TIME, AND AS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THEIR DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE SIZING A BUILDING WITHOUT A TENANT IN MIND; THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE WATER OR WASTEWATER DEMANDS MAY BE.

SO BEFORE THEY CAN START CONSTRUCTION, THEY HAVE TO COME AND PAY A CONNECTION FEE TO THE COUNTY BASED ON WHAT THEY PRESUME MAY ACTUALLY COME IN AS A TENANT.

SO WITH SOME OF THESE DEVELOPERS, THEY'LL PAY A LARGE SUM JUST TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY FOR WHATEVER TENANT THEY MAY HAVE.

WE HAVE ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE WE CAN GET TO, BUT I WANTED TO JUST CONTINUE TO MENTION IF THE FIRST INITIAL TENANT THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE UNDER CONTRACT COMES IN, LET'S SAY WITH A THREE INCH METER, THEY HAVE A LARGE WATER DEMAND, BUT THAT CONTRACT FOR SOME WHATEVER, FOR WHATEVER REASON IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE DEVELOPER'S ISSUE FOR WHY THEY WALKED AWAY.

THEY NOW HAVE A NEW TENANT COMING IN.

THE INITIAL TENANT NEVER TOOK SPACE, NEVER TOOK THE SPACE AND NEVER UTILIZE ANY OF THE WATER.

THE NEW TENANT COMES IN AND THEY HAVE TO DO AN UPDATE OF THE BUILDING AND THEY MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY LESS WATER OR WASTEWATER DEMAND.

SO WE COULD GO FROM A THREE INCH METER DOWN TO SAY A THREE FOURTHS INCH METER OR EVEN A 5H METER BASED ON THEIR NEW WATER DEMANDS.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

I'M JUST GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE.

SO IF YOU SEE WHAT A THREE INCH METER COSTS FOR CONNECTION FEES, SOMEBODY MAY PAY 160, 465,000 IN CONNECTION FEES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER. IF THEY WERE TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO A 3/4 INCH METER, IT GOES FROM THAT TO ONLY $9000, THE SIGNIFICANT DECREASE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE, WHEN IT'S NO FAULT, WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A NEW TENANT IN THE BUILDING.

THE INTENT HERE, THOUGH, IS THAT A REFUND WOULD ONLY BE ACCEPTED IF THE INITIAL TENANT NEVER TOOK THE SPACE.

IF THE INITIAL TENANT COMES IN AND UTILIZES A THREE INCH METER FOR WHATEVER WHATEVER TIME, THAT PROPERTY WOULD NO LONGER BE ELIGIBLE FOR A REFUND.

THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, SEEING AS THEY USE THAT CAPACITY THE SIZE IT FOR IT.

THEY GOT THE BENEFIT, BENEFICIAL USE OF THAT WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY.

AFTER THAT, THEY NO LONGER WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR A REFUND, AND AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THIS REALLY WOULD ONLY APPLY FOR INDUSTRIAL USERS.

ANY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THIS CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT REALLY APPLY TO THEM.

SO THIS IS REALLY FOR YOUR BIG INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS.

SO I'VE HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN BOTH SECTIONS, THIS IS THE WATER WHERE THE BOARD MAY, BY RESOLUTION, AUTHORIZE REFUNDS FOR UNUTILIZED AMOUNTS, BUT THE REFUNDS SHALL ONLY BE MADE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT PAY THE ORIGINAL CONNECTION FEE.

AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY INTENDED FOR INDUSTRIAL PARKS WHERE THAT TENANT WOULD NOT TAKE THE SPACE, BUT THE DEVELOPER PAY FOR A THREE INCH METER OR ANY SIZE METER, BUT NOW SINCE THAT TENANT LOST THAT CONTRACT OR ANYTHING ELSE HAPPENS AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T SELL THE PROPERTY AND THEY GET A NEW TENANT,

[01:15:04]

AGAIN, THERE'S THE HIGHLIGHTED I MEAN, THE BOLDED SECTION THERE IS WHAT'S CHANGED, AND THIS IS THE SAME WORDING FOR THE WASTEWATER SIDE, AND WE'RE JUST RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE AMENDMENT AND REENACT THE CODE AS AMENDED FOR SECTIONS 82-261 AND 82 -536. EXCUSE ME, THAT 82-53 SHOULD NOT BE IN THAT PRESENTATION THERE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

TO ALLOW THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO GIVE A REFUND TO THE OWNERS.

IT'S ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT WE MAKE THIS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON ADOPTION.

THIS PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN PROPERLY ADVERTISED, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR AFTER.

AS A BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER? IF NOT, WE'LL OPEN THE TO PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE THAT HAS COMMENTS THEY WANT TO MAKE FOR OR AGAINST THIS RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE CHANGE, COME FORWARD AND LET US HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

ANYONE WHO HAS COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND LET IT BE KNOWN.

ANYONE HAVE COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS PUBLIC HEARING? HEARING NONE, CLOSE IT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

WHEN YOU STATED, I MEAN, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO MOVE IN AND ACCESS THAT BUILDING, YOU DON'T GO STRICTLY OFF OF A SIGNED CONTRACT.

THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY TAKE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE OF THE SPACE AND USE THAT CAPACITY.

THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS CURRENTLY.

OKAY, OTHER QUESTIONS? USING LESS WATER AND SEWER.

WHO'S INCURRING THE COST OF SWAPPING METERS OUT? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO A 5H, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO NEED A THREE INCH ONE SITTING THERE.

ANY COST WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE DEVELOPER.

WE ACTUALLY WILL GO AND GET THAT METER AND PUT IT BACK IN STOCK.

IT'S OUR METER AND WE REPLACE IT WITH A SMALLER METER, BUT WE ACTUALLY JUST PULL THEM OUT OURSELVES AND MOVE IT.

IT'LL BE ON THEM TO DO ANY OTHER TYPE OF PLUMBING ON THEIR SIDE.

SO ANYTHING UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS WHERE THE METER BE SET WOULD BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANY OF THAT UNLESS THERE'S AN ABSOLUTE NEED AND IF THERE IS, THAT WOULD STILL BE ON THE CONTRACT OR THE DEVELOPER TO PAY THE COUNTY TO DO SO.

OKAY, OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PASS THE ORDINANCE.

SO MOVED, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. BROWN. THANK YOU, SIR.

MAY I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. MISS WAYMACK SECOND.

ANY QUESTIONS? CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU, MR. HALTOM. NEXT, MR. WHITTEN, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF COUNTY TO CLARIFY THAT ANY ORGANIZATION THAT CLAIMS EXEMPTION OF CLASSIFICATION FOR REAL ESTATE PARCELS SHALL MAKE A REQUEST FORM AND BOTH SUPPLIED.

MR. WHITTEN.

YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

THE NEXT THREE ORDINANCES WERE REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE.

THE FIRST ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 74-200 WOULD ALLOW ORGANIZATIONS TO CLAIM EXEMPTION BY CLASSIFICATION FOR A REAL ESTATE PARCEL PURSUANT TO THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION OR THE VIRGINIA CODE TO MAKE THE REQUEST ON FORM SUPPLIED AND REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY ASSESSOR.

IF APPROVED, THE EXEMPTION WOULD THEN TAKE EFFECT ON THE DATE OF APPLICATION.

THE ORDINANCE IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN PROPERLY ADVERTISED.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS? THERE'S NO QUESTIONS.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING TO THE PUBLIC.

ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF THE COUNTY COME FORWARD AND LET IT BE KNOWN.

ANYBODY WITH ANY COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.

ANYBODY HAVING COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF PRINCE GEORGE? HEARING NONE, I CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND TURN IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

[01:20:08]

NO. WELL THERE'S NO QUESTIONS.

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PASS THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED.

SO MOVED. HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND.

THANK YOU, MR. BROWN.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HERE AND THEN WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? MR. WEBB. YES.

MR. BROWN. YES, MR. CARMICHAEL? YES, MRS. WAYMACK. YES.

MR. HUNTER? YES.

NEXT, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE TO AMEND DAKOTA COUNTY PRINCE GEORGE TO AMEND AND ACT IN AUTHORIZING THE ABATEMENT OF TAX LEVIES ON BUILDINGS WHICH ARE RAZED, DESTROYED OR DAMAGED.

MR. WHITTEN. YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MR. STOKE. THE NEXT ORDINANCE WOULD ENACT SECTION 70 4-1 99 TO THE COUNTY CODE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE ABATEMENT OF TAX LEVIES ON BUILDINGS THAT ARE RAZED, DESTROYED OR DAMAGE BY FORTUITOUS HAPPENING BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE OWNER.

THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO DECREASE BY MORE THAN $500 FOR THIS TO TAKE EFFECT.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO RENDER THE BUILDING UNFIT FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY FOR 30 DAYS OR MORE WITHIN A FISCAL YEAR, AND THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR SUCH ABATEMENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DESTRUCTION.

THE TAX WOULD THEN BE PRORATED ACCORDING TO THE PORTION OF THE YEAR THAT THE BUILDING WAS FIT FOR USE.

THE ORDINANCE IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AND THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN PROPERLY ADVERTISED.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. WHITTEN? SORRY.

GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY.

HE MENTIONS MAYBE I'M MISSING 70 4-1 99, BUT IN THE IN OUR MATERIALS, IT'S SAYING 74 198.

IS THIS A NEW ONE? I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WRONG ITEM.

SO THIS WOULD BE UNDER TAB 20.

I BELIEVE YOU'RE LOOKING AT TAB 21.

I AM. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NOW, I ASK THAT QUESTION WHEN WE GET TO 21.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH. ALL RIGHT HERE, AND THEN THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC.

ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WANTED TO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE ORDINANCE ABATEMENT OF LEVIES ON BUILDINGS.

COME FORWARD AND MAKE IT KNOWN, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.

ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ABATEMENT OF LEVIES, ORDINANCE IN THE COUNTY.

ONCE AGAIN, ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ABATEMENT OF LEVIES ON BUILDINGS IN THE COUNTY, COME FORWARD AND BE HEARD . SEEING, NO. ONE, I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR AND TURN IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

SO I MOVED IN SECOND.

GOT A MOTION IN A SECOND TO PASS THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED.

ANY QUESTIONS HERE AND THEN WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. BROWN. YES.

MR. CARMICHAEL.

YES. MRS. WAYMACK? YES.

MR. HUNTER. YES.

MR. WEBB. YES.

NEXT, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY TO CHANGE THE DATES RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF NEW BUILDINGS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED. MR. WHITTEN. YES, MR. CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MR. STOKE. THIS IS A THIS RELATES TO 70 4-1 98.

WE'RE WORKING OUR WAY DOWN. WE'LL EVENTUALLY GET TO 70 4-1 END OF THE EVENING, BUT THIS STATES THAT BUILDINGS WOULD.

STATES BUILDING SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED OR FIT FOR USE OR OCCUPANCY PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1ST OF THE YEAR COMPLETION SHALL BE ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSOR.

SO BASICALLY WE'RE JUST PROPOSING CHANGING THE DATES BECAUSE THE DATES ARE ASSESSMENTS ARE BASED ON THE CALENDAR TAX YEAR AND THE PRE AND THE CURRENT ORDINANCE WHERE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY HAS ACTUALLY ADOPTED A FISCAL TAX YEAR A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.

SO THIS WAS JUST AN ITEM IN THE CODE WHERE THE DATES WEREN'T CHANGED WHEN WE SWITCHED TO A FISCAL YEAR AND THE ASSESSOR NOTICED THAT.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE MAKING THESE PROPOSED CHANGES.

SO VIRGINIA CODE SECTION 58.1, DASH 3010 PROVIDES THE DATES AND THE CODE RELATIVE TO TAXES SHOULD BE INTERPRETED ACCORDING TO THE FISCAL TAX SHARE AND THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 70 4-1 98 WOULD ADJUST THE DATES TO THE FISCAL TAX YEAR.

THE ORDINANCE IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AND THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN PROPERLY ADVERTISED.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. MR. WHITTEN.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. WHITTEN AT THIS TIME? OR MICHAEL? NOTHING.

NO, NO. I'M ON THE RIGHT PAGE.

I'M GOOD. I SEE.

ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'M OPEN TO PUBLIC HERE AND TO THE PUBLIC.

[01:25:05]

ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ASSESSMENT OF THE NEW BUILDINGS, THE DATES CHANGE.

ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ABOUT THE CHANGES OF THE DATES ON THE ASSESSMENT OF NEW BUILDINGS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED.

COME FORWARD SEEING NO ONE.

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION.

CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD APPROVED AN ORDINANCE CHANGING DATES RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF NEW BUILDINGS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. I HAVE A MOTION TO.

I HAVE A SECOND. HOLD A SECOND.

ALL RIGHT, MR. BROWN. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

ANY QUESTIONS HERE? AND NONE. WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? MR. CARMICHAEL? YES, MRS. WAYMACK? YES, MR. HUNTER? YES, MR. WEBB? YES, MR. BROWN. YES.

THANK YOU, MR. WHITTEN.

NEXT, I THINK MR. GRAVES IS GOING TO SPEAK TO US ABOUT A PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT A ZONING REQUEST OF MR. JEFF OAKLEY AND ROBERT FOREHAND, JUNIOR OF BUCKINGHAM PANTS, LLC, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 12.18 ACRES OF FROM MX ONE LIMITED TO DISTRICT DISTRICT TO M2 GENERAL DISTRICT TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING AND FUTURE INDUSTRIES.

MR. GRAVES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. HUNTER AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

GOOD EVENING, AND MR. STOKE AND MR. WHITTEN. GOOD EVENING AS WELL.

I'M FILLING IN FOR ANDRE GREEN, WHO WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THIS.

I'LL DO MY BEST TO GO THROUGH THIS AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

AS YOU HEARD, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 12.18 ACRES FROM ONE TO M TWO AND SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF HARVEST ROAD AND AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK, AND THE PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAPS TO 240 A00 69 A AND THEN THE SAME THING BFG K L AND SO IT'S SEVEN DIFFERENT TAX PARCELS.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES HERE.

HERE IS A LOCATION MAP.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT'S LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE COUNTY, AND YOU CAN SEE THE OUTLINE TAX PARCELS OUTLINE THERE IN RED.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL PARK, BUT IT IS MOST OF IT WE'RE CALLING, AND THEN THERE'S A THERE'S ESSENTIALLY ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL PARK ALONG ANGUILLA DRIVE JUST NEXT TO THIS ONE.

HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES PROPOSED FOR REZONING.

HERE IS ZONING MAP.

SO YOU CAN SEE AGAIN, IT'S STILL OUTLINE THERE AND THE TWO TO INDUSTRIAL PARKS ARE SIDE BY SIDE.

THE LIGHT GRAY COLOR IS FOR ONE, INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

THE DARKER GRAY IS FOR M TWO.

SO THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING IN THAT RED BOUNDARY FROM THE LIGHT GRAY TO THE DARK GRAY, WHICH ALLOWS SLIGHTLY MORE INTENSIVE INDUSTRIAL USES.

THIS MAP AGAIN, SHOWING THOSE PROPERTIES WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THE PURPLE COLOR REPRESENTS THAT THIS AREA IS PLANNED FOR INDUSTRIAL USES.

ALL RIGHT, THE BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST.

ESSENTIALLY, SINCE 1981, THERE HAVE BEEN INDUSTRIAL USES RELATED TO TRUCKING AND TRUCK REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ON THESE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, AND THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES IS ACTUALLY M1, BUT HOWEVER, THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THESE IS M2 , AND THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES WISH TO HAVE THE EXISTING TENANTS IN ANY FUTURE USERS ON THEIR PROPERTIES BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S ZONING REGULATIONS.

SO THEY'RE REQUESTING THIS REZONING TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.

THEY HAVE STATED THAT THERE ARE NO NEW BUSINESSES PLANNED TO BE LOCATING IN THERE AT THIS TIME.

SO THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE BUILDINGS AND HAVE BEEN THERE FOR SOME TIME.

SO THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE NO INCREASE IN THE TRAFFIC AND NO LAND DISTURBANCE AND NO INCREASE IN NOISE BECAUSE THERE'S NO CHANGE IN WHAT'S ALREADY GOING ON THERE. SO THEY SUBMITTED TO PROFFER STATEMENTS FOR TWO CONDITIONS AND THEY WERE SUBMITTED WITH THAT.

THEY SUBMITTED FOR THIS REQUEST.

YOU CAN SEE A COUPLE PICTURES HERE TO SHOW SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT LOOKS LIKE IN THE PARK.

[01:30:05]

AND THE OTHER IS A SIMILAR SHOWING, A PORTION OF THE SHOWING A PROPERTY ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD, AND YOU CAN SEE IN BOTH IMAGES THE TYPE OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN THERE.

THE PROPOSED COMMENTS FROM PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF.

THE REZONING AFFECTS LAND STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED OVER THE YEARS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES THAT ARE ACTUALLY PERMITTED BY WRITE IN TO ZONING DISTRICT. SO AGAIN, AT THIS TIME THERE ARE NO NEW DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO BRING THE EXISTING USES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING.

WHAT'S THE CORRECT ZONING DISTRICT? THE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE IT CALLS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES IN THIS AREA , AND OF COURSE, IF THERE ARE ANY NEW IF AND WHEN THERE ARE NEW TENANTS IN THE FUTURE, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.

IF THEY PROPOSE TO CHANGE THE LAYOUT OF THE PROPERTY, BUILD A NEW BUILDING, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, THEY WOULD BE REVIEWED FOR TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND ANY PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND LANDSCAPING AND ALL WHATEVER APPLIES AT THAT TIME, BUT THIS TIME THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO MATCH WHAT THEY'VE GOT GOING ON THE PROPERTY. THE MAIN OTHER DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY THAT HAD COMMENTS ON THIS WAS VDOT.

WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THE FOUR COMMENTS HERE.

FIRST POTENTIAL ISSUE THAT VDOT NOTICED WAS THAT THEY SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY REQUIRE TRIP GENERATION DATA AND IN TURN LANE ANALYSIS FOR AND THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR THAT BECAUSE IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THERE WAS AN UNDEVELOPED PARCEL THAT WAS PART OF THIS REQUEST AND I'LL SHOW YOU. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT IF YOU SEE THE RECTANGULAR PARCEL TOWARD PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE, IT'S COLORED ORANGE AND TAN THERE.

THAT'S THE PARCEL THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THIS REQUEST, AND SO DOES EVERYBODY SEE THAT? SEE? OKAY, SO.

VDOT WAS BASED ON THAT BEING INCLUDED, AND THEY WERE IMAGINING THAT LAND WOULD BE REZONED INDUSTRIAL FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER AND COULD BE THEN DEVELOPED.

SO THEY WERE SUGGESTING THAT THE COUNTY HAVE REQUIRE A TURN LANE ANALYSIS TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT TO THAT PROPERTY BEING ADDED INTO THIS PARK , BUT THE OWNERS REMOVED THAT REQUEST THAT PARCEL FROM THE REZONING APPLICATION.

SO IT'S NOT AN ISSUE ANYMORE.

THERE'S NO NEW ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL PARCEL AS PART OF THIS REZONING.

EVEN IF THEY PLAN TO DO THAT, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO DO THAT IMPACT STUDY, RIGHT? YES. YEAH, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO REZONE IT IN A SEPARATE CASE.

OKAY, SO THE SECOND ISSUE THAT VDOT BROUGHT UP WAS THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL ENTRANCE TO GET OFF OF PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE ONTO HARVEST ROAD, AND THEY SAID ESSENTIALLY THAT THERE SHOULD BE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO REQUIRING REPAIRS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT ENTRANCE IN ORDER TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT VDOT STANDARDS.

THE APPLICANT, IN RESPONSE TO THAT PROFFERED TO REPAVE THE FIRST 15 TO 20 FEET OF THAT ENTRANCE IN ORDER TO UPGRADE ITS CONDITION, AND THE THIRD THING THAT VDOT BROUGHT UP WAS THE LACK OF A ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AN ENTRANCE, A SHARED AGREEMENT FOR TWO TO ESTABLISH RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE ENTRANCE AND THE ROAD.

SINCE THIS IS A PRIVATE ROAD, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC ROAD INSIDE OF THAT PARK.

IT'S ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.

SO VDOT WAS RECOMMENDING THAT THERE BE AN AGREEMENT TO LAY OUT WHO'S RESPONSIBLE AND ON WHAT BASIS.

YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE WE TEND TO LEAVE THE SPECIFICS OF THAT UP TO THE PRIVATE OWNERS.

VDOT WAS JUST RECOMMENDING THAT THERE BE AN AGREEMENT.

THE APPLICANTS DID NOT PROFFER THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT.

LET'S KEEP IN MIND, THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT PARK THAT ARE NOT PART OF THIS RESERVING REQUEST.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE INVOLVED WITH SUCH AN AGREEMENT.

THE OWNERS DID PROFFER TO REPAVE THE ENTRANCE.

SO THEY HAVE OFFERED TO TAKE STEPS TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THAT, AND STAFF FINDS THIS TO BE ADEQUATE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS.

OF COURSE, WE WOULD STILL RECOMMEND THAT THE OWNERS VOLUNTARILY GO AND GET A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE ISSUE NUMBER FOUR THAT I BROUGHT UP WAS AGAIN, PERTAINING TO THAT PARCEL.

[01:35:02]

SO THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW THERE WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT PROPERTY.

WILL THEN THERE'D BE MORE TRAFFIC AND IT WOULD RESULT IN THAT DEFINITELY A NEED FOR A TURN LANE, BUT SINCE THE APPLICANTS REMOVED THAT PARCEL FROM THIS REQUEST, IT'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE.

SO THESE ARE THE TWO PROFFERED CONDITIONS FROM THE BASED ON THE TWO PROFFER STATEMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED.

THE FIRST CONDITION IS SPECIFICALLY LIMITING CERTAIN USES OR PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES.

SO OF COURSE WHEN YOU IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT, THERE'S A LIST OF USES THAT ARE PERMITTED.

SO THEY'VE PROPOSED TO TAKE THESE USES OFF OF THAT LIST FOR THE FUTURE OF THESE PROPERTIES.

YOU CAN SEE THEM THERE. BLACKSMITH SHOP, SAWMILLS AND PLANING MILLS, BRICK MANUFACTURE.

THESE ARE NOISY, ESSENTIALLY NOISY TYPE OF NOISIER, POTENTIALLY PRODUCING ODOR AS WELL AS CONSERVATION AREAS AND GAME PRESERVES AND AGRICULTURE. YOU KNOW, THE REMOVING THOSE THE INTENT OF THAT IS THAT TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK AS IT HAS BEEN AND AS ITS PLAN TO BE, AND THEN THE OTHER CONDITION WAS, IS AGAIN, THAT THEY WILL REPAVE THE FIRST 15 OR 20 FEET OF THAT ENTRANCE.

PLANNING COMMISSION HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 26.

THERE WERE NO COMMENTS, PUBLIC COMMENTS DURING THE MEETING.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY A 7 TO 0 VOTE, AND THEY SAID THAT THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING SURROUNDING LAND USES. AND I JUST DID WANT TO NOTE STAFF DID PROVIDE FOR THE BOARD TONIGHT A REVISED DRAFT ORDINANCE AS DIFFERENT.

WHAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PACKET.

WE ALSO ESSENTIALLY JUST PROVIDED A REVISED PACKET, AND I'M JUST GOING TO EXPLAIN BRIEFLY WHY THE PRIMARY CHANGE WAS THE REMOVAL OF A THIRD CONDITION THAT WAS IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND IT WAS CONDITION NUMBER THREE THAT.

SO THE STORY THERE IS THAT FOLLOWING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING, THE APPLICANT RAISED A CONCERN ABOUT THAT CONDITION, AND AFTER DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY STAFF, REMOVED IT BECAUSE IT REFLECTS THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN THE COUNTY CODE, AND SO THE APPLICANT, OF COURSE, SUPPORTS THAT CHANGE.

THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE THEY WERE ASKING FOR, AND SO STAFF MADE ADDITIONAL MINOR CHANGES TO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE IN THE FOUR AND THE BOARD PACKET FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES AND TO ADD A MISSING PAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL PROFFER LETTER JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU HAD EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO IF THE BOARD APPROVES THE REVISED ORDINANCE TONIGHT, IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION WAS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS.

SO THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT IF YOU APPROVE IT, AND IN CONCLUSION, STAFF IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GRAVES? JUST MAKE A STATEMENT.

THERE'S BEEN TRUCKS BACK THERE.

TRUCKING COMPANY HAS BEEN RUN BACK THERE 30 YEARS BECAUSE I USED TO DRIVE FOR HIS FATHER AND I DROVE FOR HIM.

SO THOSE TRUCKS HAVE BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.

I'M SURPRISED. I UNDERSTAND THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE COME UP A WHILE A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK.

IT WAS DISCUSSED AND IT NEVER GOT ANYWHERE.

SO IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

SO THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE.

CORRECT. FOR THE MOST PART, AND THEY'RE GOING TO FIX THE ROAD UP A LITTLE BIT, MAKE IT MAKE IT BETTER.

SO IT'S A GOOD SUMMARY.

OKAY, YOU KNOW THE QUESTION FOR MR. GRAVES, MR. BROWN, ANY QUESTIONS? NO, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL CLOSE WITH PRESENTATION AND OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC.

ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO MAKE COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONING COME FORWARD AND MAKE NOTE.

ANYONE WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REZONING OF THIS AREA ON BUCKINGHAM PALACE? LET IT BE KNOWN. ANY COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS PUBLIC HEARING COME FORWARD.

I SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD, SO I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN THE BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION.

HEARING NO OTHER COMMENTS, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'LL MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THIS CHANGE AND I'LL SECOND TO ACCEPT THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED.

ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

[01:40:05]

GRAVES. A PUBLIC HEARING, A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST OF DENNIS AND WENDY.

PLAYER. IS IT CORRECT TO PERMIT AN ANIMAL BOARDING PLACE IN A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE SECTION 90 DASH 103 23.

THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST TO ALLOW A DOG BREEDING BUSINESS TO OPERATE WITHIN THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 2.76 ACRES IN SIZE, LOCATED AT TEN 608 WALTON LAKE ROAD AND IS IDENTIFIED IN TAX MAP 440(0A)00-001-0. THE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP INDICATES THIS PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.

STAFF CONTACT CONTACT IS TIM GRAVES.

COMMENT SIR.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN.

ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE A LOCATION MAP SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY OUTLINE IN RED, AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE IN THE TOP RIGHT ITS LOCATION WITHIN THE COUNTY CLOSE TO INTERSTATE 95. IT'S LOCATED ON WALTON LAKE ROAD.

THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE SAME PROPERTY JUST SHOWING THE ZONING MAP.

THE WHOLE AREA IS ZONED RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL.

ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE AN AERIAL VIEW.

IT'S LOCATED ACROSS THE ROAD FROM I THINK THAT'S THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY CONVENIENCE CENTER OR FORMER LANDFILL PROPERTY, AND IT'S OUT OF VIEW TO THE EAST THERE.

THERE'S ALSO A POND ON THE WEST SIDE AND YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AND CAN USE THIS TO GIVE YOU A QUICK UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ON THE TOP PHOTO.

YOU CAN SEE SOME DOG KENNELS, AND THAT IS A PHOTO THEY TOOK OF THE KENNELS THAT THEY USED TO HOUSE THEIR, I BELIEVE, SIX DOGS THAT THEY ADULT LAB, LABRADOR RETRIEVER DOGS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE, AND THEY WANT TO USE THOSE DOGS TO.

AS FOR A BREEDING BUSINESS AND BREED PUPPIES FOR SALE TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTO ON THE BOTTOM LEFT, THAT'S THE AREA TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THEY WANT TO MOVE THOSE KENNELS AND THAT'S WHERE THEY WANT TO BREED THE DOGS. THE REASON THEY WANT TO MOVE THE KENNELS IN THE FIRST PLACE IS THEY'RE CLOSER TO THE POND IN THE REAR AND THEY WANT TO MOVE THEM AWAY AND.

THAT'S A BETTER SPOT FOR THEM THAT THEY'VE CHOSEN, AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO IN THE BOTTOM, RIGHT, THE IT'S FROM THE ROAD SHOWING THE DRIVEWAY INTO THEIR PROPERTY AND THE KENNELS RELOCATED WOULD ACTUALLY BE BEHIND THE TREE LINE THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE IMAGE.

THE SHED THAT YOU SEE ON THE TOP RIGHT IS AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT THEY WILL MOVE TO AS TO THAT AREA, AND THEY WOULD USE THAT AS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT THEY WOULD HELP THE PUPPIES OR BIRTH THE PUPPIES.

OKAY, SO SOME MORE DETAILS.

THEY WANT TO HAVE A FOCUS ON PROVIDING SERVICE DOGS FOR DISABLED VETERANS.

SO THEY THE APPLICANTS, DENNIS AND WENDY CLEAR WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT.

I'LL MENTION THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THIS UP TO SEVEN ADULT DOGS, WHICH IS PLANNED TO BE TO BREED ABLE MALES AND THREE OR FOUR BEATABLE FEMALES, AND THEY PLAN TO PRODUCE AN AVERAGE OF 4 TO 6 LITTERS PER YEAR, AND IMAGINE THAT THERE WOULD BE 5 TO 10 PUPPIES PER LITTER. SO THAT WOULD BE AN AVERAGE OF SEVEN PUPPIES PER LITTER.

SO THEY WOULD MAKE A LOT OF NUMBERS TO THROW AT YOU, BUT THEY WOULD MAKE PUPPIES AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION WHEN THEY ARE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 6 TO 12 WEEKS OLD, AND SO MOST OF THOSE WOULD ACTUALLY BE ADOPTED AROUND EIGHT WEEKS OLD, AND THEY PROPOSED TO HAVE A LIMIT OF 12 WEEKS OF AGE BEFORE THESE PUPPIES ARE ADOPTED.

SO THE NET IMPACT OF THIS HAPPENING ON THE PROPERTY IS AN ADDITION OF UP TO 20 PUPPIES AT A TIME, AND THEY HAVE SAID THAT YOU ALMOST WOULD NEVER HAVE 20 PUPPIES BECAUSE THEY'RE CONSTANTLY GETTING ADOPTED OUT, BUT AGAIN, THAT GIVES YOU THE NUMBERS. WE'LL COME BACK TO THOSE IN A BIT.

THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY, AS I MENTIONED, THEY WOULD RELOCATE THEIR EXISTING KENNELS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE FOR THE DOGS THAT THEY HAVE ON THE PROPERTY,

[01:45:03]

THEY WOULD INSTALL A FENCE AROUND ALL THE AREAS FOR KENNELS.

THEY WOULD INSTALL A FENCE BETWEEN THE KENNELS AND THE ROAD TO LIMIT SIGHT OF THIS FROM THE ROAD, AND AS AS WE SAW IN THE IMAGE, THERE'S ALREADY A TREE LINE. SO THEY WOULD ALSO INSTALL FRENCH DRAINS AND CONCRETE SLABS AND EFFORT TO KEEP ALL AREAS DRY, AND THEY WOULD POSSIBLY, IN THE FUTURE HAVE A SHED.

A NEW SHED LOCATED IN ALL BUILDINGS WOULD MEET WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A NEW SHED AS A RECEPTION AREA FOR CLIENTS TO COME IN AND MEET A PUPPY INDOORS, AND THEY WOULD ALL PARKING WOULD BE ONSITE IN THEIR DRIVEWAY OR IN THE FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY CLOSER TO THEIR HOUSE.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A SMALL SIGN FOR ADVERTISING THE BUSINESS'S BUSINESS SO THAT CUSTOMERS KNOW THAT THEY'VE ARRIVED AT THE RIGHT PLACE.

THE REQUEST.

SOME MORE DETAILS. OK.

THEY WOULD LIMIT THE CUSTOMER VISITS TO ONE FAMILY AT A TIME BY APPOINTMENT.

THIS WOULD BE MOSTLY ON THE WEEKENDS BETWEEN BUSINESS HOURS.

SO THAT AGAIN, THAT'S ONE PROBABLY ABOUT A ONE APPOINTMENT A WEEK.

IT WOULD PREVENT OR LIMIT BARKING.

ANY DOG THAT IS A NUISANCE WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BREEDING PROGRAM AND ADOPTED OUT.

MOST OF THESE THINGS THAT I'M SAYING, THERE'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS TO ENFORCE THESE THINGS AS WELL.

THERE'S NO CONDITIONS ABOUT BARK COLLARS, BUT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF PRACTICE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO LIMIT BARKING ON THE PROPERTY.

YEP. THEY HAVE VARIOUS MEANS TO DO THAT.

THEY WOULD TAKE STEPS TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE PESTS AND ODOR BY CLEANING AND DISPOSING OF WASTE REGULARLY USING CLEANING SOLUTION TO CLEAN THE KENNEL AREAS, AND THEY WOULD GROOM THE DOGS REGULARLY.

ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY, AND YOU CAN SEE SOME COLORS ON HERE.

THERE'S SOME X'S AROUND IN THE MIDDLE THAT'S SHOWING WHERE THEY'VE REMOVED EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THEY WANT TO OR THEY PLAN TO REMOVE THEM AND RELOCATE THEM TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, AND YOU'LL SEE ON THE NEXT SLIDE HOW THAT WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK IN RELATION TO THE SURROUNDING, TO THE NEIGHBORS, BUT THE DARK ORANGE RECTANGLE THERE TOWARD THE FRONT IS THE POTENTIAL FUTURE SHED FOR GREETING CLIENTS INDOORS.

THE TRIANGLE, IT SHOWS THE FENCED AREA THAT THEY PLAN TO ESTABLISH AND THE KENNELS WOULD BE INSIDE THAT FENCED AREA.

HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW WITH THE AERIAL TURNED ON, YOU CAN SEE THE PLACES THAT THEY PLAN TO PUT THESE KENNEL STRUCTURES WOULD BE NO CLOSER TO THE ROAD THAN THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. IN FACT, A LITTLE BIT BEHIND THAT, AND THAT WOULD MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

THEY WOULD NEED TO GET BUILDING PERMITS FOR ANY NEW STRUCTURES RELATED TO THE BUSINESS, BUT YEAH, YOU CAN GET A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE THE STRUCTURES WOULD GO WITH THIS AERIAL VIEW HERE.

PLANNINGS REVIEW COMMENTS WE PROVIDED FOR YOUR REFERENCE HERE, THE OFFICIAL CODE CODE LANGUAGE ANIMAL BOARDING PLACE, AND THAT IS A USE THAT'S PERMITTED BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION, OF COURSE, WHICH THEY'RE ASKING FOR, AND THE DEFINITION OF THAT DOES INCLUDE THE WORDS BREEDING OF DOGS, AMONG OTHER THINGS.

THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF SIMILAR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE PAST, INCLUDING 2009.

THERE WAS A REQUEST TO ALLOW BREEDING OF UP TO TWO LITTERS PER YEAR AT A RESIDENCE, AND IN 2019 THERE WAS A DOG BOARDING DOGGIE DAY CARE TYPE BUSINESS AT A HOUSE, AND MORE COMMENTS FROM PLANNING STAFF.

EXPECTED IMPACTS WOULD BE TRAFFIC FROM CUSTOMER VISITS, LIMITED TRAFFIC.

THEY ALREADY HAVE THE ADULT DOGS ON THE PROPERTY, SO THERE WOULD NOT REALLY BE A CHANGE THERE, BUT THERE COULD BE VISUAL OR NOISE IMPACT FROM THE PUPPIES ON THE PROPERTY AND POTENTIAL FOR ODORS FROM ADDITIONAL PUPPIES ON THE PROPERTY.

THE MITIGATION FOR THAT.

THERE ARE VARIOUS RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS TO ENFORCE THE PROMISES.

THE THINGS THAT THEY PLAN SAID THEY PLAN TO DO, SUCH AS CLEANING REGULARLY, USING CLEANING AGENT, GROOMING THE DOGS THERE CONDITIONS FOR THAT ALL SHEDS AGAIN NEED I'LL MENTION AGAIN THEY NEED TO MEET BUILDING, HAVE BUILDING, ZONING, BUILDING OR ZONING PERMITS AND MEET ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS JUST LIKE ANYBODY ELSE'S

[01:50:05]

REGARDING COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THIS APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE.

IT'S SEEMS TO BE A LOW IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES.

WHEN YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AND THE SCALE OF WHAT THEY'VE PROPOSED TO DO, THEY DISCUSS THEIR PLANS WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS AND INVITE THEM TO CONTACT THEM TO RESOLVE ANY ISSUES IF THEY ARISE.

THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS OFFICE SAID THAT ANY BUILDING USE FOR A RECEPTION AREA, THEY'D NEED TO PROVIDE A LAYOUT OF THAT TO THE BUILDING. BUILDING INSPECTOR BUILDING.

OFFICIAL, AND OF COURSE, ANY NEW STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO MEET BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS.

SO THEY'LL HAVE TO GET PERMITS AND THINGS FOR THAT HOW THEY WOULD BE ENSURED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

VDOT SAYS THE EXISTING ENTRANCES IS ADEQUATE FOR THIS.

THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ASKED FOR A LETTER TO CONFIRM THAT THEIR SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WELL SYSTEM HAD ADEQUATE CAPACITIES FOR THIS.

THE APPLICANTS PROVIDED ME TODAY WITH A COPY OF THAT LETTER AND THEY'LL GIVE THAT TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

THE ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICE REVIEWED THIS AND THEY SAID THE ONLY POTENTIAL ISSUE THEY SEE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR NOISE COMPLAINTS, AND THEY SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY CALLS FOR SERVICE OR PROBLEMS WITH THESE APPLICANTS THAT ALREADY HAVE SIX OR SEVEN OR BETWEEN FIVE AND SEVEN ADULT DOGS ON THE PROPERTY.

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CITED SEVERAL CODE SECTIONS AND OF COURSE, THEY WOULD.

THESE FOLKS WOULD BE HAVE TO MEET WHATEVER CODE REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO DOG BREEDING.

THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.

AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE THERE'S A LIST OF THOSE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ON PAGE TWO AND THREE OF YOUR OF THE TAB FOR THIS AND SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THOSE.

THERE'S A CONDITION SPECIFYING THAT THIS IS A BOARDING PLACE SPECIFICALLY FOR BREEDING.

IT'S NOT FOR ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT WE SAW IN A DEFINITION.

IT'S JUST FOR BREEDING.

IT WOULD BE. WE PUT THE NUMBERS THAT WE MENTIONED AND AS CONDITIONS, SO THERE WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN DOGS AND UP TO 20 PUPPIES.

THAT PUPPIES WOULD BE NO MORE THAN 12 WEEKS OF AGE.

THERE WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF SIX LITTERS PER YEAR.

EVERY PUPPY WOULD BE WHELPED INDOORS.

IT WOULD. THEY'LL NEED TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE RECORDS.

IF WE EVER NEED TO CHECK ANY OF THIS, THEY'LL BE ONSITE PARKING ONLY DOGS WILL BE KEPT LEASHED, FENCED OR INDOORS.

THEY'LL SCREEN VIEW OF THE KENNELS FROM THE ROAD.

THEY'LL CLEAN EVERYTHING REGULARLY.

THEY'LL HAVE ONE SMALL SIGN ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

THERE'LL BE NO EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN THE TWO OWNERS, AND THEY'LL ACCOMMODATE UNANNOUNCED ANIMAL SERVICES VISITS.

SO ALONG TO ALLEVIATE ANY POTENTIAL CONCERNS THAT WE COULD THINK OF FOR THIS.

PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 26.

THERE WAS A 7-0 VOTE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AND THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS.

DURING THAT HEARING, WE ALSO ADVERTISED FOR THIS HEARING.

OF COURSE, HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE COMMUNITY, ANY COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST.

WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING, AND THEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDED A BASIS FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT AND FUTURE SURROUNDING USES OF LAND USES.

SO THAT IS ALL THAT I HAD.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I CAN ANSWER THEM ALSO.

AGAIN, THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THEM.

HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. GRAVES. YES, I HAVE A QUESTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THERE ARE FOUR BREEDABLE FEMALES, THEY COME INTO ESTRUS ONCE A YEAR.

THOSE FEMALES COULD HAVE UP TO TEN PUPPIES EACH.

THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF 40 DOGS.

40 PUPPIES.

SO HOW DOES THAT LIMIT 20 PUPPIES? WELL, I CAN JUST SAY THERE'S A CONDITION PROPOSED THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE WHATEVER STEPS THEY NEED TO TO PREVENT THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE ANY? THAT DOESN'T EQUATE TO SIX LITTERS A YEAR EITHER.

SO I WOULD LIKE.

YOU KNOW, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT A PUPPY MILL.

SO IF THE OWNERS CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

HELLO. SORRY, I'M A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER.

THE ORIGINAL QUESTION ON THE.

MA'AM. WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE?

[01:55:01]

FINE. WENDY. 608 WALTON LAKE ROAD.

THANK YOU. THE QUESTION ON THE APPLICATION.

WAS. AT ANY GIVEN TIME, HOW MANY PUPPIES WOULD BE MAXIMALLY HAVE ON THE PROPERTY AT ONE TIME? SO IF I HAVE THREE OR FOUR FEMALES AND I BREED THEM ONCE EACH OF THEM ONCE A YEAR, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S MORE THAN 20 PUPPIES. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE QUESTION WAS AT ONE TIME, HOW MANY PUPPIES WOULD WE HAVE ON THE PROPERTY AT ONE TIME? AND THE MAX WOULD BE 20.

I DON'T PLAN ON HAVING SEVERAL LITTERS AT THE SAME TIME.

I WILL ALTERNATE MY DOGS.

IT'S BETTER FOR THEIR HEALTH.

ALSO, THEY ACTUALLY COME AND HEAT TWICE A YEAR.

SO, BUT I WILL ONLY.

BREED THEM ONCE A YEAR EACH.

THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T SELL YOUR PUPPIES? I'LL BE GIVING PUPPIES WAY, I GUESS.

I ALSO HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH SEVERAL.

ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO DISABLED VETERANS AND THEY TAKE DONATIONS FOR LABS AS WELL.

OKAY? THESE ARE ALL THESE PUREBRED LABS.

THANK YOU. YOU.

THE QUESTIONS. I'M.

OK. IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL CLOSE OR OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE PUBLIC AND ITS DRAFT ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN ANIMAL BOARDING PLACE.

SO ANYONE THAT HAS COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS ANIMAL BOARDING PLACE AND RESIDENTIAL AREA OF.

THEY ARE COMING FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

ANYBODY THAT HAS COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OF TO HAVE AN ANIMAL BOARDING PLACE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AT 10608 WALTON LAKE ROAD.

COME FORWARD.

ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, THAT IS TO HAVE A BOARDING OR BREEDING PLACE AT 10608 WALTON LAKE ROAD.

I SEE NO ONE SO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

MR. CHAIRMAN.

YES, SIR. MR. BROWN. ALL RIGHT, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO STATE I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE DID NOT COME OUT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING.

I'M NOT CLEAR AS TO WHY PEOPLE DID NOT COME OUT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARINGS.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT I RECEIVED NUMEROUS EMAILS PRIOR TO EVEN HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THIS TOPIC COMING BEFORE THE BOARD.

I CAN HONESTLY TELL YOU OUT OF BETWEEN THE FIVE AND TEN EMAILS THAT I GOT, NONE OF THEM WERE IN FAVOR OF US APPROVING THIS MATTER.

SO THAT AREA WHERE IT'S LOCATED IS DEFINITELY IN THE DISTRICT THAT MR. CARMICHAEL AND NOT SUPPORT OR OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE IN.

SO I'M JUST I'M JUST BRINGING THAT POINT FORWARD THAT, YOU KNOW, OUT OF EVERYBODY THAT REACHED OUT TO ME ON THIS, I DID NOT HAVE ONE THAT SPOKE IN FAVOR.

AGAIN, I CAN'T ANSWER FOR WHY PEOPLE DID NOT COME OUT AND VOICE THEIR OPINION, BUT AGAIN, THERE ARE CONSTITUENTS AND I DO NEED TO LISTEN.

SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT COMMENT FORWARD.

THANK YOU, MR. BROWN, AND YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, MR. BROWN. AS I HAVE AS WELL, AND I WAS SHOCKED AS WELL AS YOU LISTENING IN, THAT NO ONE SHOWED UP TO VOICE OPINIONS IN WHICH THEY GAVE US.

SO YOU ARE CORRECT 100%.

I GOT AN EMAIL AS WELL AND FORWARDED IT, IN FACT TO MISS WALTON.

AND MISS WALTON, I THINK HAS SPOKE TO THE PERSON.

[02:00:02]

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAKE IS WHERE THIS PERSON THAT I TALKED TO, THOUGH, AS I GOT THE EMAIL FROM WAS CONCERNED, WAS ABOUT THE DOGS BARKING ACROSS THE LAKE AND THE NOISE CARRYING.

YOU'RE CORRECT. I GOT THE SAME ONE AT THE SAME ONES.

YEAH. THEN I RECEIVED EMAILS OF THE SAME TYPE.

APPARENTLY THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF IT, AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I MEAN, HONESTLY, MY RECOMMENDATION OUT OF CONSIDERATION TO THE LANDOWNERS.

IF I'M PRESSED AT THIS POINT, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS TONIGHT, BUT I AM OPEN TO IF ALL OF US WOULD MAYBE FORWARD OUR EMAILS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND MAYBE ALLOW THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO GET WITH THE LANDOWNERS AND SEE IF THEY CAN COME TO SOME REASONABLE RESOLUTION. I THINK THAT'S AN ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE FOR TONIGHT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, SIR, I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD HAVE TO VOTE NOT IN FAVOR, MAINLY BECAUSE OF MY CONSTITUENTS.

I HEAR YOU AND I AS WELL, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TABLE WITHOUT HAVING ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING? THAT'S CORRECT. YOU CAN HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS THE SPECIALISTS GET SOME SPECIAL EXCEPTION WHICH CHANGE TO MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE.

BUT IT'S JUST TO POSTPONE TO HEAR BACK FROM THE CONSTITUENTS.

YOU COULD YOU WON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.

SO IS THERE A MOTION THEN TO CONTINUE IT TO ANOTHER DATE? AND HOW LONG OF A DATE DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE IT TO? WELL, I'M NOT SURE.

HAVE YOU ALREADY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING OR OPENED IT? YEAH, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

NO ONE CAME FORWARD.

SO, MR. BROWN, YOU INITIATED THE COMMENT.

DO YOU HAVE A DATE? YES, SIR, BUT.

YES. YEAH, GO AHEAD.

I WOULD RECOMMEND POSTPONEMENT AND BRING THIS TO ALLOW ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL THE PARTIES.

FOR US TO GET THOSE NAMES TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ALLOW TIME FOR THEM TO POTENTIALLY TALK.

I WOULD POSTPONE THIS UNTIL OUR MEETING, OUR FIRST MEETING, AND IN MARCH, AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT AS WELL.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF SO, THAT'S A DATE.

A MOTION IN A SECOND TO THE 14TH OF MARCH WOULD BE THE FIRST MEETING.

YEAH. AT LEAST WE AT LEAST WE'RE DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE THAT REACHED OUT TO US VIA EMAIL AND OR PHONE CALL, WHICH MOST OF MINE WERE, OR TEXTS THAT THEY HAVE ONE LAST CHANCE TO.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.

MR. WHITTEN [INAUDIBLE] OPPORTUNITY TO TALK.

HE'S RAISING HIS HAND NOW.

THERE'S NO DISCUSSION AS PART OF A MOTION TO POSTPONE UNLESS IT RELATES THE BOARD MEMBER.

IT'S NOT. THERE'S NO TIME FOR THE PUBLIC.

I DIDN'T THINK SO. I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE I WAS RIGHT BY NOT ALLOWING IT.

SO ANYHOW, WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE, AND A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY BOARD DISCUSSION? NO HEARING NONE CALL THE ROLL.

[INAUDIBLE].

SO THIS PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE POSTPONED FOR A MONTH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU. MRS. WALTON OR MR. GRAVES. I WILL FORWARD YOU THE EMAILS THAT I HAVE.

I WILL GET THOSE TO YOU BEFORE THE END OF THIS WEEK.

SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU, SIR.

OKAY, YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. GRAVES. ALL RIGHT, WE ELIMINATED A7, SO WE'RE GOING TO A8 RESOLUTION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND.

[ORDER OF BUSINESS (Part 2 of 2)]

MISS DREWRY.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS.

THIS ITEM RELATES TO TWO CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT ARE ONGOING.

THE FIRST PROJECT IS THE ROUTE 156 WATERLINE EXTENSION, WHICH IS COMPLETE WITH ONLY RETAINING JUDE.

THAT PROJECT HAS A REMAINING UNEXPENDED BALANCE OF $68,589.96.

THE 460 WATER LINE EXTENSION AND FOOD LION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT IS ONGOING, BUT STAFF MR.

[02:05:04]

SO STAFF IS SEEKING BUDGET AUTHORIZATION TO DO A BUDGET TRANSFER FROM THE ROUTE 156 WATERLINE PROJECT TO THE 460 FOOD LION PROJECT.

ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SNAP INTEREST EARNINGS FOR THE REMAINING BALANCE TO COVER THE EXPECTED SHORTFALL.

SO AGAIN, WE ARE ASKING FOR A TRANSFER FROM ONE PROJECT TO ANOTHER AND THE APPROPRIATION OF $56,969.

THERE IS A RESOLUTION IN YOUR PACKET AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE, AND QUESTIONS FOR MR. DREWRY. WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS, RIGHT? AND THEN I HAVE A MOTION TO PASS THE RESOLUTION.

SO MOVED. HAVE A SECOND? MOTION AND A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING? NONE. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, NEXT, AGAIN, WE HAVE ONLY A NINE.

IS THE RESOLUTION ONE.

APPOINT AN INTERIM RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S SAD TO, EVEN FOR ONE, HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS OPENING DUE TO THE FACT [INAUDIBLE] WAS A GREAT PERSON AND DID SO MUCH FOR THIS COUNTY, AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, VACANT SPOT UNTIL THE TERM COMES TO AN END HERE SOON, BUT IN THE MEANTIME TO FILL A VOID.

I RECOMMEND.

THAT WE APPOINT LARRY HAVE A SECOND? SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION HEARING NONE? WE WILL CALL ROLL PLEASE.

THAT CONCLUDES THE BUSINESS FOR TONIGHT.

WE'LL BE SURE, WILL.

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST.

22ND. I'M SORRY.

EXACTLY RIGHT. WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND AT 5 P.M.

IN THE RIGHT HERE FOR BUDGET.

BEGINNING ADJOURN UNTIL THAT DATE.

MR. CHAIRMAN. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

SECOND. THANK YOU.

SECOND, MR. BROWN.

THANK YOU, AND CALL THE ROLL.CALL]. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 829.

JULIE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.