Jul 11, 2023 Regular Meeting

[00:00:03]

RIGHT NOW, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THAT.

MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE ONLY MATTERS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION MEETING WERE HEARD, DISCUSSED AND OR CONSIDERED.

I'LL SECOND. SECOND WOULD CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

MR. CARMICHAEL IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.

[CALL TO ORDER]

[WORK SESSION]

WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A QUICK UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE AS A COUNTY AND OUR DEPARTMENT.

AND SO LET'S HAVE MY PRESENTATION LOAD.

AND WE CAN GET STARTED.

SO TONIGHT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF OUR COUNTY STRATEGIC GOAL.

THE RESEARCH THAT OUR DEPARTMENT HAS CONDUCTED SO FAR, POTENTIAL FUNDING THAT WE CAN APPLY FOR THIS PROJECT AND NEXT STEPS. AND WE'LL END WITH QUESTIONS.

WE DO HAVE HERE TONIGHT MR. [INAUDIBLE], WHO IS A CEO OF PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC CO-OP, AND JUSTIN HARVILLE, PROJECT MANAGER FOR RURAL BAND.

FOR ANY QUESTIONS AT THE END.

SO WE ALL KNOW AS A COUNTY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BROADBAND EXPANSION, YOU KNOW, WITH EDUCATIONAL, ECONOMICAL AND SOCIAL ADVANCEMENTS FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.

SO AND THAT'S WHY THE BOARD IN SEPTEMBER OF 2022 PASSED OUR COUNTY STRATEGIC GOAL FOR BROADBAND EXPANSION WITHIN OUR COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN, AND IT IDENTIFIED CERTAIN ACTION ITEMS FOR OUR COUNTY TO ADDRESS WHO HAS ACCESS.

WHO ARE THE KEY PLAYERS AND WHAT IS CONSIDERED HIGH SPEED INTERNET.

AND WE'LL GO OVER THAT TONIGHT.

SO THE GOAL IS TO ASSIST IN EXPANDING BROADBAND INTERNET TO ALL OF OUR CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES WITHIN THE COUNTY.

AND THE LAST UPDATE THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU WAS THROUGH OUR STRATEGIC PLAN QUARTERLY UPDATE ON APRIL 25TH.

SO TO GO OVER SOME PREVIOUS PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, AS YOU MAY RECALL, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY WAS ONE OF THE FIRST IN THE COMMONWEALTH TO PARTNER WITH A LOCAL COOPERATIVE IN FILLING IN THESE AREAS THAT DID NOT HAVE ANY BROADBAND.

IN 2017, OUR FIRST PHASE FOR FIBER TO THE HOME PROJECT CONNECTED 500 HOMES, AND IN 2020 WE HAD A SECOND PHASE OF 500 HOMES CONNECTED.

AND IN 2022, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS USDA BROADBAND MAP, RURAL BAND ACTUALLY RECEIVED CONNECT AMERICA FUNDING AND RURAL DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY FUNDING TO ALMOST COVER THEIR WHOLE ENTIRE ELECTRICAL NETWORK THROUGH BROADBAND ACCESSIBILITY FOR CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES.

ON THIS MAP.

IT PORTRAYS THE CURRENT RULE BAN COVERAGE MAP FOR 2023.

LIKE I SAID, THIS ACTUALLY COVERS MOST OF THE PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE NETWORK THROUGHOUT OUR COUNTY, AND WE

[00:05:04]

SO WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF RURAL BAND, THE COUNTY PARTNERED IN IDENTIFYING SIX PROJECT AREAS.

THESE ARE CENSUS BLOCKS THAT WE HAVE DETERMINED AROUND 22,650 UNITS ARE AVAILABLE FOR EXPANSION.

AND THIS IS OUT OF THE 13,500 UNITS THAT BASICALLY EQUALS TO AROUND 20% OF OUR COUNTY BEING EITHER UNDERSERVED OR UNSERVED.

THE PROGRAM THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED TO APPLY TO RECEIVE FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT IS THE VATI PROGRAM THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S THE VIRGINIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVE.

IT OFFERS A GRANT FOR LOCALITIES WHO PARTNER WITH INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS TO BUILD OUT UTILIZING CAPITALIZE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE TO CREATE COMPETITIVE COMMUNITIES.

FOR FY 24, THE STATE HAS ALLOCATED $49 MILLION FOR THIS PROGRAM.

NEW FY 24 REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN RELEASED YET FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

BUT WHAT WE'VE RESEARCHED PREVIOUSLY IN FY 23, THERE WAS A 10% MATCH THAT WAS REQUIRED FROM THE TOTAL PROJECT FROM THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER AND 10% MATCH FROM THE COUNTY.

VATI TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MAPPING FOR BROADBAND, WHICH WE'LL GO OVER LATER, AND BODY DEFINES BROADBAND AS 100MBPS DOWNLOAD AND 20 MEGABITS UPLOAD.

AND FOR WIRELINE PROJECTS, A PROPOSED PROJECT AREA IS CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE IF 20% OR FEWER OF THOSE UNITS ARE UNSERVED.

SO THIS IS A CURRENT VATI MAP FOR OUR LOCALITY, WHICH CLAIMS THAT PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY IS 97% COVERED FOR BROADBAND INTERNET.

AND WE KNOW AS A LOCALITY THAT THIS CAN'T BE TRUE DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE RECEIVED MANY CITIZEN COMPLAINTS CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE UNSERVED OR UNDERSERVED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY AND THROUGH THE THE NEW FCC MAPPING, WHICH REALLY GETS INTO A GRANULAR STUDY OF EACH HOUSEHOLD UNIT THROUGHOUT AMERICA.

AND OUR HOPE IS THAT VATI UPDATES THEIR MAPS FOR THE NEW FY 2024 PROGRAM TO GET A BETTER SENSE OF WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING.

SO THIS IS A SNAPSHOT OF THE NEW FCC MAP.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT GETS VERY GRANULAR TO EACH INDIVIDUAL HOME AND UNIT.

THE HOMES IN RED ARE UNDERSERVED AND IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR FUNDING.

MANY HOUSES ARE LIKE THIS THROUGHOUT PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.

AND IF WE ATTEMPT TO APPLY FOR AREAS OR UNITS LIKE THIS THROUGH THE VATI PROGRAM, THERE COULD BE A POSSIBILITY THAT A LOCAL INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER LIKE VIASAT OR COMCAST CAN CHALLENGE THIS. AND THERE IS A CHALLENGE KIND OF SEGMENT IN THE VATI APPLICATION PROCESS THAT THOSE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS CAN CHALLENGE TO SAY THIS IS IN OUR AREA AND WE COULD LOSE THE FUNDING FOR THOSE AREAS, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE NOW PARTNERED WITH RURAL BAND AND THEIR BROADBAND CONSULTANT AND TO IDENTIFY CURRENT

[00:10:06]

AND WE HAVE ENCOURAGED CITIZENS IF THEY DO NOT HAVE BROADBAND INTERNET TO GO ON TO THE FCC WEBSITE. THERE'S AN ACTUAL TUTORIAL TO SHOW THEM HOW TO CHALLENGE THEIR FINDINGS THROUGH THE FCC ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE BROADBAND INTERNET AND AVAILABLE FOR FUNDING.

AND THERE'S A WHOLE VIDEO THAT EXPLAINS HOW TO DO THIS ONLINE.

SO CURRENTLY PROJECT COSTS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE TO BE DETERMINED.

THERE'S A 10% MATCH THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY IN WHICH OUR DEPARTMENT WOULD CONSIDER USING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE, FOR WE HAVE APPROACHED THE CAMERON FOUNDATION AND POTENTIALLY THEM HELPING WITH OUR 10% MATCH AND THEY HAVE PRESENTED THIS TO THEIR BOARD IN HELPING WITH 5% OF THAT MATCH.

AND AGAIN, VATI REQUIRES A 10% MATCH FROM THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER WHO IS RURAL BEN CURRENTLY.

OOPS. SO NEXT STEPS ARE TO DETERMINE VATI ELIGIBLE AREAS AND PROJECT COSTS. ONCE THE NEW FY 24 REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN RELEASED AND ONCE THEY ARE RELEASED, WE'RE HOPING THAT THAT WILL BE BY AUGUST 8TH, IN WHICH WE WOULD ASK FOR APPROVAL TO APPLY FOR THE GRANT AND PROGRAM.

THE VATI APPLICATION IS TYPICALLY DUE IN THE END OF AUGUST OF EACH YEAR AND AWARD ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE MADE IN DECEMBER.

IF FUNDED, A BROADBAND AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN COUNTY RURAL BAND AND OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.

IF WE DO NOT RECEIVE FUNDING, WE WILL ENCOURAGE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS TO APPLY FOR THE BROADBAND EQUITY AND ACCESS AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, WHICH IS NEW TO STEMMING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT ACT, ALLOCATING AROUND 1.4 BILLION TO THE STATE FOR BROADBAND EXPANSION.

AND THIS WILL BE THROUGH VATI AS WELL.

BUT THE CAVEAT IS THAT THE BEAD PROGRAM WILL FALL STRICTLY.

THE FCC MAPPING AND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE TO APPLY FOR THIS PROGRAM.

SO WITH THAT, THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF MY PRESENTATION AND I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

AND WE DO HAVE THE PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE REPRESENTATIVES AND RURAL BAND HERE.

SO EVEN THOUGH PRINCE GEORGE ELECTRIC MAY BE WILLING TO RUN FIBER OR WHATEVER TO RESIDENTS, THEY MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM DOING THAT BECAUSE THE FCC RULES.

YEAH. AND I'LL HAVE MR. [INAUDIBLE] WHO'S A CEO, FURTHER EXPLAIN THAT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE RAN INTO SITUATIONS LIKE THAT ELSEWHERE AND HE CAN FURTHER EXPLAIN THAT KIND OF CHALLENGE PROCESS AND HOW WHAT THEY'VE EXPERIENCED.

MR. HUNTER, NICE TO MEET YOU.

AND JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF OUR EXPERIENCES WITH REGARDS TO THE BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT IN MORE THAN SIX COUNTIES NOW. AND IN A TYPICAL PROCESS, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE FUND AND GRANT OPTIONS COMPARED TO HOW THEY EVALUATE THE GRANT AND FUNDING OPTIONS IS A LITTLE MURKY AS THE PROCESS GETS FURTHER AND FURTHER ALONG.

BASED ON YOUR PRESENTATION, WHAT WE SAW THERE ARE COMCAST CUSTOMERS IN THE AREA, THERE ARE VIASAT CUSTOMERS IN THE AREA, BUT REALLY IN ACTUALITY THEY DON'T GET INTERNET.

WHY? BECAUSE THESE BIG ORGANIZATIONS LIKE COMCAST AND VIASAT, IF THERE IS A STREET WHERE MY HOME IS A QUARTER MILE AWAY

[00:15:03]

BUT WHEN A CITIZEN CALLS AND SAYS THAT, HEY, I AM CLOSE BY TO THIS SERVICE AREA, ACCORDING TO THE MAP, CAN YOU PLEASE SERVE US? THE ANSWER TYPICALLY COMES BACK AS, YEAH, SURE.

BUT YOU NEED TO PAY $15,000, $20,000 FOR US TO GET YOU THE SERVICE.

SO THAT IS WHERE THE WATER BECOMES MURKY.

AND LIKE [INAUDIBLE] WAS EXPLAINING, THE CHALLENGE PROCESS THAT WE THINK OF COULD BE AN IMPEDIMENT TO MAKE THE ENTIRE COUNTY GET INTO THAT TRUE AVAILABILITY OF THAT HIGH SPEED BROADBAND INTERNET FOR EVERY CITIZEN RELIES UPON, RELIES UPON AS WINNING AS MEANS COUNTY WINNING THE VATI GRANT.

AT THE SAME TIME, COMCAST NOT CHALLENGING, CHALLENGING US FOR THAT BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE TYPICAL PROCESS, ESPECIALLY WE EXPERIENCED THIS IN DINWOODY AREA, SOME OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY THAT WE SERVE IS THAT WE GO AND TRY TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE COMMUNITIES AROUND AND THE COUNTIES AROUND OUR VICINITY, OUR SERVICE CAPABILITIES.

AND THERE ARE THESE BIG ORGANIZATIONS WHO GOT A HEAVY LEGAL HAND.

A COMCAST CAN COME AND WORK WITH THEIR ATTORNEY FOR A PIECE OF PAPER AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS COMES TO A STOP.

NOT THAT THEY WANT TO SERVE.

THEY SAY THAT THEY HAVE THE SERVICE, BUT THEY NEVER SERVE BECAUSE EVEN IN MY OWN BOARD, I HAVE A BOARD MEMBER WHO IS ON MY CAR DRIVE RIGHT IN PRINCE GEORGE BRIAN COWIE, AND HE'S RIGHT ON THE ROAD RIGHT THERE WHERE HE CAN GET THE COMCAST SERVICE.

SO FROM A FEDERAL MAP PERSPECTIVE, DOES HE HAVE COMCAST SERVICE? THE ANSWER IS YES.

BUT IF YOU WANT THAT SERVICE AND YOU GO TO COMCAST, THEY WILL CHARGE YOU 15, 20, $30,000.

WHICH CITIZEN WOULD ACTUALLY GO TO THAT INTENSIVE EFFORT TO PAY THAT MUCH MONEY FOR INTERNET? AND THAT IS WHERE THE STOPPING POINT IS.

AND WE CONSIDER OURSELVES AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND TRY TO TRY TO REALLY SERVE THE COMMUNITY THE RIGHT WAY.

AND JEFF AND THE TEAM THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING SINCE 2017 HAS BEEN A GREAT HELP FOR THE RURAL BAND TO GET ESTABLISHED UNDER THE CO-OP UMBRELLA AND SERVE THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

SO SO BASICALLY WHAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF IS THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SOME DISCOVERY AND ANALYSIS ON EXACTLY WHICH ONE IS CONSIDERED A SERVED CUSTOMER OR NOT.

AT THE SAME TIME, IN THE BACK OF OUR MIND, ANY OF THESE COMPANIES CAN COME BACK AND SAY, NO, YOU CANNOT SERVE THAT BECAUSE WE CAN SERVE, BUT THEY WILL NEVER SERVE. AND WHEN IT GOES TO A LEGAL CHALLENGE, WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS, COUNTY WINS THE VATI FUNDING, BUT THREE MONTHS LATER, RATHER THAN THAT FUNDING BEING ALLOCATED TO RURAL BAND, THAT GETS INTO A LEGAL LITIGATION WHERE COMCAST MAY TAKE THE MONEY JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY ARE SO. YEAH, WELL, I THINK THAT SOUNDS SOMEWHAT COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO GET THE BOTTOM LINE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE RURAL BAND TO THE CITIZEN.

AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I JUST THINK IT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BECAUSE OF SOME FEDERAL LINE DRAWN IN ON A MAP.

AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE BRIAN LIVES.

YEAH. I MEAN, HE IS THE BEST EXAMPLE WHERE HE KEEPS ON ASKING US IN THE BOARD MEETINGS SAYING, HEY, WHEN AM I GOING TO GET RURAL BAND? AND WE'RE TRYING TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND IT.

SURE. AND THAT'S A RISK THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF.

DOESN'T MEAN THAT COMCAST IS GOING TO CHALLENGE.

AND AT THE SAME TIME, IF CITIZENRY CAN GO BACK INTO THE FEDERAL MAPS TO REFINE THEM, SAYING THAT, NO, WE DON'T HAVE THE SERVICE, THEN RATHER THAN AT A COUNTY LEVEL OR AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER LEVEL, THAT FEEDBACK IS GIVEN BY THE COMMON CITIZEN INTO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM AND THEY MAY THEY MAY VISUALIZE IT DIFFERENTLY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE AWARE OF.

BUT I WOULD STILL RECOMMEND THAT GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF FUNDING IS A GOOD THING TO DO.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF THERE ARE DEADLINES OR SOMETHING, IF THERE ARE ANY DELAYS, THEN WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE RISK INVOLVED.

WE'LL KEEP WORKING FROM OUR END.

WE APPRECIATE THAT AND WE APPRECIATE THE COUNTY FOR EVERYTHING THAT IT DID TILL NOW.

AND WE ARE CONTINUIMG TO WORK FOR THE COMMUNITY FROM OUR END.

THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU'VE DONE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYBODY ELSE? IT SURE DOESN'T SEEM YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

WELL, THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

THAT'S WHAT SCREWED UP THIS COUNTRY.

ANYWAY, THAT'S MY LITTLE COMMENT.

[00:20:02]

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING. CHAIRMAN HUNTER.

GOOD EVENING, SIR. VICE CHAIR WEBB.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MR. STOKES. MR. ERARD, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING AND GO THROUGH THIS PROGRAM.

IT IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A LONG WINDED ONE, SO I APOLOGIZE UP FRONT.

I PUT PACKETS IN FRONT OF YOU EARLIER.

THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION I'M NOT GOING TO TOUCH ON EVERYTHING.

I REALLY PROVIDED THOSE FOR YOUR INFORMATION TO REVIEW AFTER THIS PRESENTATION AS WELL.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU CAN SEND TO ME AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN ADDRESS THESE AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING AS WELL.

BUT I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DIVE IN, LET YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE COVERING THIS IS A QUICK AGENDA.

I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE STATE CODE OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, WHICH REQUIRES THE SMP.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS REPORT THAT WAS DONE BY IT WAS DIRECTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO HAVE THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE SECRETARY OF NATURAL RESOURCES LOOK INTO ORPHANED OUTFALLS, HOW THEY GOT TO WHERE THEY ARE AND LOOK AT OPTIONS ON HOW TO FUND THOSE IN THE FUTURE, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

SO I'M GOING TO JUST TOUCH ON THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THAT REPORT, THEN GO INTO HOW WE FUND OUR CURRENT COUNTY STORM WATER PROGRAM.

THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME RECOMMENDED CRITERIA FOR FUTURE PROJECTS THAT WE ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT FOR FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO GET ANY TYPE OF RELIEF FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL OR DRAINAGE PROJECTS.

AND THEN FINALLY, I'LL GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE CURRENT PROJECTS THAT THE COUNTY IS WORKING ON.

SO FIRST OFF, THERE'S A LOT OF DEFINITIONS THAT'S GOING TO COME THROUGH THESE STATE CODE I WANTED YOU TO BE SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR WITH.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ THIS ENTIRE THING, BUT THAT FIRST ONE THERE IS THE SCOPE.

WE ARE ALREADY A VIRGINIA EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM AUTHORITY THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THE STATE MANY YEARS AGO.

SO WE ALREADY HAVE THAT PROGRAM IN PLACE AND THAT IS OPERATED THROUGH OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

AND THEY REVIEW ALL OF THE PLANS THAT COME IN FOR EROSION CONTROL TO MAKE SURE THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THAT LAW.

THE NEXT ONE THERE IS THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2014.

DEC REQUIRED CERTAIN.

AND I WANT TO GET INTO THE STATE CODE HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.

BUT THIS IS WHERE THE ONES THAT REALLY IS ADDRESSING THE MANAGEMENT OF WATER QUALITY AND WATER QUANTITY IN THE RUNOFF, NOT NECESSARILY EROSION CONTROL, BUT THE WATER QUALITY AND THE QUANTITY.

SO THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF AND HOW MUCH SEDIMENT OR POLLUTANTS ARE RUNNING OFF WITH IT.

THE LAST ONE THERE, THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

THAT IS SIMPLY THE STATE'S ATTEMPT TO COMBINE THE PROGRAMS INTO ONE.

SO THEY'RE TAKING THE EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM AND JUST SIMPLY COMBINE IT WITH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

AND FINALLY, THESE TWO NOTES HERE AT THE BOTTOM, EACH OF THESE PROGRAMS HAS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT WE MUST FOLLOW IF WE DO ADOPT THOSE PROGRAMS. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO, BUT I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THERE.

THOSE THAT ARE UNDERLINED ARE REQUIRED FOR FOR EACH LOCALITY IF THEY ADOPT A PROGRAM.

AND THEN FINALLY, THOSE PROGRAMS DO PRIMARILY ADDRESS PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE PROTECTION OF LOCAL WATERWAYS AS WELL AS THE WATERS OF THE US.

ANOTHER DEFINITION I WANT TO THROW OUT THERE IS WHAT IS A MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, AN MS 4.

YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THROUGHOUT THE STATE CODE AS IT KIND OF HINGES A LOT ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADOPT A PROGRAM OR NOT.

SO THE MBS FOUR IS JUST A SYSTEM OF STRUCTURES AND PIPES, DITCHES THAT MIGHT BE COLLECTING THE STORMWATER AND SENDING IT TO OUR LOCAL RIVERS, AND THAT EVENTUALLY GOES OUT TO THE WATERS OF THE US.

I'LL HAVE AN EXAMPLE HERE IN A LITTLE WHILE, BUT AS FAR AS WHERE ALL THAT WATER GOES, BUT LET'S JUST TAKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE CHESAPEAKE BAY IS A WATER OF THE US.

WE HAVE THE JAMES RIVER THAT DRAINS DOWN INTO THE AS WELL INTO THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND LOCAL STREAMS AND WATERWAYS THAT DRAIN INTO THE JAMES.

SO THAT'S THE WHOLE COLLECTION THAT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO A SIMPLE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A DROP INLET THAT GOES THROUGH A PIPE AND EVENTUALLY INTO A LOCAL STREAM.

THAT COULD BE ALL CONSIDERED AN MS 4.

MOST MS 4S ARE IN ARE REQUIRED.

BACK IN 1990, THERE WAS AN EXCUSE ME, THERE WAS A LAW THAT REQUIRED PERMITTING FOR ANY TYPE OF DISCHARGES INTO FEDERAL WATERS.

WE ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN MS 4, SO THOSE WE ARE AS WE GO THROUGH THE STATE CODE, YOU'LL REALIZE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THESE REQUIREMENTS SIMPLY BECAUSE WE

[00:25:02]

FOUR. SO THIS IS THE STATE CODE.

THIS WAS THE ONE THAT WAS ACTUALLY IN EFFECT BACK IN 2014.

AS I WAS REVIEWING ALL OF THIS, I WAS REALIZING THERE WERE SOME CHANGES GOING ON.

AND EVEN JUST AS THIS PAST MONDAY, YESTERDAY, I REALIZED THEY JUST UPDATED THESE THE STATE CODE.

WE'RE GETTING READY TO GO THROUGH SOME CHANGES AND I'M GOING TO HIGHLIGHT THAT HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.

BUT NOW THIS THIS STATE CODE HAS COMPLETELY CHANGED.

AND AS I MENTIONED, THEY'RE TRYING TO COMBINE THE EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM WITH THE SMP PROGRAM.

THAT'S WHAT THE CHANGES WE'RE GOING TO SEE HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.

BUT BACK IN 2014, WHEN THIS FIRST TOOK EFFECT, THIS WAS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. ANY LOCALITY THAT OPERATES A REGULATED MS4 OR DECIDED TO ADOPT OR VOLUNTARILY ADOPT A SMP PROGRAM WOULD BE, EXCUSE ME, ANY ANY LOCALITY THAT DECIDED TO NOTIFY DEQ THAT THEY WANTED TO ADOPT A SMP PROGRAM WAS REQUIRED TO TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. WE DO NOT REGULATE AN MS4, NOR DID WE NOTIFY DEQ THAT WE WANTED TO BECOME A SMP AUTHORITY.

SO BASED ON THOSE, RIGHT NOW, WE STILL HAVE DEQ MANAGING THE COUNTY'S SMP REQUIREMENTS AND CHAPTER 38 OF THE LOCAL COUNTY ORDINANCE ALREADY ADDRESSES THE LAW REQUIREMENTS.

SO IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO NOTIFY DEQ THAT WE WANT TO BECOME A SMP, WE STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THOSE REQUIREMENTS AS A VESCP, THE VIRGINIA EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM.

AND SO WE ARE ALREADY MAINTAINING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

NOTHING HAD TO BE DONE IN 2014.

SO WE ARE, UNLESS WE NOTIFY DEQ, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE NEVER DID MY HISTORY.

LOOKING BACK IN TWO MINUTES, I COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING THAT WE ELECTED TO BECOME A SMP.

SOME UPDATES.

SO THIS IS THE RECENT UPDATES.

THIS WILL TAKE EFFECT JULY 1ST OF NEXT YEAR.

THIS IS THE EXACT SAME CODE.

AS I MENTIONED, THEY'RE TRYING TO REPLACE THE VSMP AND COMBINE IT WITH THE VESCP.

SO NOW IT'S GOING TO BECOME THE VESMP, VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT, VIRGINIA EROSION AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

SO AGAIN, ANY LOCALITY THAT OPERATES IN MS4 OR ADMINISTERED A VSMP PRIOR TO JULY OF 2017 IS REQUIRED TO ADOPT A VSMP.

I'M JUST GOING TO UNDERLINE THOSE THERE.

AGAIN, WE DON'T REGULATE MS4 AND NOR DO WE ADMINISTER VSMP, SO THIS DOES NO LONGER APPLY TO US.

STILL DOES NOT EVEN THOSE THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE TO US.

THERE IS NOW NEW LANGUAGE IN THIS STATE CODE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT.

THAT'S WHY I SEE HERE.

SO THEY'RE AT THE C PARAGRAPH B.

ANY LOCALITY THAT DOES NOT OPERATE MS4 MUST CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS, AND THIS WOULD.

THE FIRST OPTION IS SIMPLY VOLUNTARILY ADOPTING THE VESMP AND FOLLOWING THE STATE REQUIREMENTS SO WE COULD VOLUNTARILY DO THAT.

THE SECOND OPTION THERE IS, AND WHICH IS WHY I BELIEVE DEQ IS, IS TRYING TO.

I SAY PUSH BUT RECOMMEND TO MOST LOCALITIES.

THEY WANT TO PERFORM NO MORE THAN THE PLAN REVIEWS AND PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THOSE PLAN REVIEWS FOR THE LOCALITIES.

THAT IS AN OPTION.

YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO ADOPT THE VSMP, BUT THEY WOULD ASSIST IN PROVIDING THOSE PLAN REVIEWS.

AND THE THIRD OPTION WOULD BE TO ADMINISTER ONLY THE VSMP AS WE DO TODAY.

SO THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION AT SOME POINT BEFORE JULY OF 2024 AS TO WHAT OPTION WE WANT TO SEND TO NOTIFY DEQ.

AGAIN, I DIDN'T KNOW THIS WAS COMING UP UNTIL EARLY THIS WEEK, SO THIS WAS RELATIVELY NEW.

SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO NOTIFY DEQ OF IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE REAL QUICK, WE ARE NOT WE ARE WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADOPT THE SNP NOR THE SNP, BUT WE DO HAVE TO NOTIFY DEQ BY JULY 1ST AND WE ARE ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE AS OF VIRGINIA EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL PROGRAM THROUGH CHAPTER 38 OF THE COUNTY ORDINANCE.

AND SO HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR COUNTY STORMWATER PROGRAM? WELL, WE DID ADOPT A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE BACK IN 2014 AND THAT WAS PRIMARILY CURRENTLY PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON STORMWATER PROJECTS.

WE'VE IDENTIFIED EASEMENTS OR DRAINAGE WAYS THAT ARE IN NEED OF REPAIR, EITHER BECAUSE OF SIGNIFICANT EROSION OR BECAUSE OF FLOODING THAT'S OCCURRING.

[00:30:04]

AND ALONG WITH THOSE EASEMENTS THAT WERE THERE MAY BE SOME EASEMENTS THAT DON'T HAVE AN ASSIGNED MAINTAINING ENTITY, MEANING THERE MAY BE A PLAT THAT SHOWS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT EASEMENT.

SO THEREFORE, NOBODY KNOWS WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES WITHIN THAT EASEMENT.

SO THAT IS WHY WE'VE GOT THIS PROGRAM IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.

WE ARE ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES WITH THE WITH THE FEE.

SOME OTHER REPORTS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE EVALUATION OF OUTFALLS THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DIRECTED, THE TRANSPORTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES SECRETARY.

I WANTED TO GO THROUGH THOSE HIGHLIGHTS REAL QUICK BECAUSE IT DOES IMPACT SOME OF THE DECISION MAKING THAT WE MAY WANT TO MAKE OR.

WELL, IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THAT REPORT, IT TALKS I'M JUST GOING TO READ THIS ONE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

UNMAINTAINED OUTFALLS OCCURRING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE COMMONWEALTH'S COUNTIES HAVE BEEN A GROWING CONCERN, SPECIFICALLY AS A SOURCE OF RECURRENT FLOODING AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS. CONSEQUENTIALLY, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DIRECTED THE THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES TO EVALUATE THE SCOPE OF CERTAIN DRAINAGE OUTFALLS ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH AND RECOMMEND COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS BY MEANS AND MEANS BY WHICH TO FUND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH OUTFALLS.

SO THEY LABEL THIS THE STUDY FURTHER ALONG.

IN THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, IT SAYS, ALTHOUGH THE STUDY DIRECTS AN EVALUATION OF THE SCOPE OF OUTFALLS WITH NO ASSIGNED MAINTENANCE MAINTAINING ENTITY, THE LAW PRESCRIBES THAT THE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE IS THE OWNER OF THE LAND OR HOLDER OF DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT THE SITE OF THE OUTFALL.

THUS, IN THE STRICT LEGAL SENSE, THERE IS NO OUTFALLS WITHOUT WITHOUT AN ASSIGNED MAINTAIN AN ENTITY.

THERE ARE RATHER OUTFALLS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSIGNED ENTITIES.

THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS STILL THIS REPORT WILL GO THROUGH SOME MORE.

I GOT SOME OTHER HIGHLIGHTS I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION, AS I MENTIONED ALREADY, IF THERE'S AN EASEMENT ON A PLAT THAT SHOWS NOBODY TO MAINTAIN, NOBODY TOUCHES IT, THEY ASSUME THAT SOMEBODY ELSE'S RESPONSIBILITY SO THAT A PROBLEM COULD START OCCURRING AND NOBODY DOES ANYTHING BECAUSE, WELL, IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM TO ADDRESS. SO EVENTUALLY THAT PROBLEM GROWS BIGGER AND BIGGER AND MAY TAKE DOWN SOMEBODY'S FENCE AND MAY START TO IMPACT SOMEBODY'S SHED ON THEIR PROPERTY.

AND GUESS WHAT? SOMEBODY'S GOING TO MAKE A PHONE CALL, SAY, HEY, SOMEBODY COME OUT HERE AND MAINTAIN IT.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING TODAY HERE IN PRINCE GEORGE AND NOT HAVING AN IDEA OF WHO'S RESPONSIBLE.

AND THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW WHO'S RESPONSIBLE EITHER, AS THE REASON WHY WE END UP HAVING TO ADDRESS THESE THINGS, NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT'S AT A STATE OF CRITICALITY. CRITICALITY.

CRITICALITY. IT'S CRITICAL AT THAT POINT.

OKAY. IT ENDS UP COSTING US TREMENDOUSLY MORE IF IT WAS ADDRESSED EARLY ON AND WHEN THE PROBLEM WAS FIRST NOTICED, IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE COST US PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE DOLLAR.

SO THE IDEA IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF COMMUNICATION WITH OUR WITH OUR PUBLIC TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF MAINTAINING THESE EASEMENTS OR DRAINAGE WAYS BEING THAT THE LAW PRESCRIBES THAT IT IS THE LANDOWNERS RESPONSIBILITY ULTIMATELY IF THERE IS NO OTHER ASSIGNED ENTITY TO MAINTAIN IT. AND AGAIN, THIS IS THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE BODY OF THEIR REPORT AGAIN HIGHLIGHTING AND THEY MENTIONED A COUPLE OF CASES WHERE THEY HIGHLIGHT THE COMMON LAW RULE PERTAINING TO STORM WATER THAT IS IS COMMONLY DEFENDED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNER AND THE OWNERS OF THE LAND UPON WHICH THE OUTFALL IS LOCATED BEARS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR THE OUTFALL, INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE.

SO I PUT THIS IN HERE ALL FOR YOUR READING FOR LATER, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU SEE, BASED ON THE SECRETARY'S REVIEW OF THE LAW, THIS IS WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH.

WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY NEED TO DO SOME OF OUR OWN STUDIES AS WELL TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS IN AGREEMENT WITH WITH THE COUNTY LAW.

BUT FROM A STATE STANDPOINT, THIS IS WHERE THEY THEY'VE LANDED.

SO AGAIN.

SAME SUMMARY AS BEFORE.

AND THEN NOW JUST ADDING THE LAW PRESCRIBES THAT THE ASSIGNMENT OF MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY RESTS WITH EACH LANDOWNER IF THERE IS NO OTHER ENTITY DEFINED.

SO SHOULD WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE.

SOUNDS LIKE EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE SO FAR.

[00:35:02]

WE DO HAVE CURRENT PROJECTS, BUT IF WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE AN VSMP WHICH HAS SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS WHICH THE FEE CAN BE USED FOR, AND CHAPTER 38 ALREADY COVERS EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LAW AND THE LAW PRESCRIBES THAT THE LANDOWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE EASEMENTS.

DO WE NEED THE UTILITY FEE? AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A DECISION WE CAN MAKE AT ANOTHER TIME.

BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT FOR FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

SO I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO TALK ABOUT THE FEE.

HOW DO WE GET TO THE FEE? IN 2014, THIS IS THE THE REGULATION OF STORM WATER CODE THAT WAS USED TO SHOW THAT WE HAD THE ABILITY TO ESTABLISH THE STORM WATER UTILITY FEE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU COULD FUND THE PROGRAM THROUGH THIS FUND, THE VIRGINIA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, THROUGH TAXES OR THE FEE.

OF COURSE TAXES GENERATE REVENUES AND THOSE REVENUES CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER YOU SEE FIT.

THERE'S NO ASSIGNMENT OF THOSE TAXES TO A SPECIFIC PROGRAM.

HOWEVER, FEES CAN BE USED, MUST BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE, AND YOU CAN'T CHARGE A FEE FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURES OF THAT PURPOSE.

JUST LIKE A WATER AND SEWER UTILITY, WE HAVE RATES THAT THAT ARE SET SPECIFICALLY TO MEET OUR EXPENDITURES.

SAME THING WITH THE STORM WATER UTILITY FEE.

AND ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR A UTILITY FEE IS IT DOES ALLOW YOU THE ABILITY TO GO BEYOND THE TAX EXEMPT.

THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE TAX EXEMPT.

I'M WANT TO THROW OUT CHURCHES.

THEY HAVE VERY LARGE IMPERVIOUS AREAS, A LOT OF ASPHALT THAT CONTRIBUTE TO STORM WATER RUNOFF AND THEREFORE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO TO CHARGE THEM THE FEE WHERE YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CHARGE THEM A TAX.

SO I THREW UP HERE WHAT OUR CURRENT FEE RATES ARE.

STORM WATER UTILITY FEES ARE FOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND FOR COMMERCIAL.

AND THEN WHAT OUR REVENUES ARE CURRENTLY, WE DID DO A CAPITAL BORROWING IN 2019 OF 2.1 MILLION.

THE FIVE YEAR REPAYMENT TERM TO ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME OF THESE BIGGER PROJECTS.

AND THEN THAT FEE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE IT'S BEEN ADOPTED.

FUTURE RATES WILL DEPEND HEAVILY ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR STORM WATER PROGRAM.

AND I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THAT HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.

AND AGAIN, AGAIN, JUST A QUICK SUMMARY, BUT I WANT TO GO THROUGH A QUICK EXAMPLE HOW OUR FEES COULD COULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE IN THE FUTURE.

AND I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THIS. WELL, THIS IS THE CEDARWOOD SUBDIVISION.

YOU CAN SEE ROCKWOOD COURT AND CEDAR RUN ROAD AT THE TOP IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER.

YOU SEE THE PHOTO WITH THE RED LINE.

AND THAT RED LINE IS MEANT TO DEMONSTRATE THE STORM DRAINAGE LINE WHERE IT COMES DOWN IN BETWEEN ROCKWOOD COURT AND HEATHWOOD AND THEN FOLLOWS ALONG THE BACK OF THE SUBDIVISION BEFORE IT DUMPS OUT INTO THE WETLANDS AREA THAT LEADS INTO THE SMALL POND AND THAT POND EVENTUALLY OUTFALLS INTO THE SECOND SWAMP AND THEN EVENTUALLY THE SECOND SWAMP OUTFALLS INTO THE BLACKWATER SWAMP, BLACKWATER INTO THE TWAN RIVER BASIN AND ON INTO THE ALBEMARLE SOUND.

SO YOU CAN SEE IT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE US WATER WATERS OF THE US.

SO THIS BECOMES AN ISSUE FOR, AS WE MOVE FORWARD RIGHT NOW.

WELL, LET ME BACK UP.

THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED AND RECORDED, I BELIEVE, IN 1988.

BACK IN 1988, THERE WAS A, WELL, IT WAS VERY COMMON TO HAVE WHAT YOU CAN SEE ON HERE IS THESE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS.

IT'S JUST IDENTIFIED AS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT.

IT DOESN'T SAY WHO IT BELONGS TO.

BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MAJORITY OF THIS STORM PIPE WHERE ORIGINATES FROM IS COMING FROM THE ROADS WHERE THE DROP INLETS ARE.

AND IT FOLLOWS ALONG THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

BACK IN 1992, 93, WHEN I FIRST STARTED DOING DESIGNS OF SUBDIVISIONS, THIS IS HOW I DID THE PLATS AS WELL.

WHEN I WAS ON THE PRIVATE SIDE, IT WAS VERY COMMON FOR THESE TO BE ACCEPTED BY VDOT AS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THESE STRUCTURES BECAUSE BACK IN THAT TIME PERIOD, ANY TIME YOU TOOK WATER OFF THE ROAD, IT HAD TO GO TO AN ADEQUATE OUTFALL.

YOU JUST COULDN'T DUMP IT OUT ANYWHERE.

SO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY ENDED AT A ADEQUATE OUTFALL.

SO AT THAT TIME IT WAS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THAT PIPE SYSTEM ALL THE WAY TO WHERE OUTFALL TO THE POND.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME BECAUSE THIS PLAT DID NOT IDENTIFY VDOT AS THE ACTUAL MAINTAINING ENTITY, IT IS NO LONGER VDOT RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN IT.

SO THEREFORE WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE EASEMENTS SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD.

IT IS NOW CONSIDERED WHAT IS AN ORPHANED OUTFALL AS THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AS COINED IT.

[00:40:08]

SO HERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT COMES RIGHT DOWN THE BACKS OF EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY.

IT JUST IDENTIFIES IT AS A 25 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT.

AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE UP HERE WHERE THE STORM DRAIN ACTUALLY COMES OUTSIDE THE RIGHT OF WAY, JUST BY A LITTLE BIT.

WE ACTUALLY HAD AN ISSUE LIKE THIS AND BLAND, BLAND RIDGE SUBDIVISION WHERE THE PIPE CAME FROM A STORM DRAIN LEFT THE RIGHT OF WAY AND CAME BACK TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND VDOT, THERE WERE SEVERAL SINKHOLES INVOLVED WITH THAT STORM DRAIN.

VDOT DID NOT CLAIM ANY RESPONSIBILITY OF IT BECAUSE IT LEFT THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE COUNTY TOOK CARE OF THE SINKHOLES.

SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THIS MAY MAY EVENTUALLY GO.

WE NEVER KNOW WHEN SINKHOLES ARE GOING TO APPEAR, BUT THESE ARE NOW CONSIDERED EASEMENTS WITH NO ASSIGNED MAINTAINING ENTITY.

AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THERE'S SOME RED CIRCLES THAT POP UP THERE.

NEXT TO THAT, THERE ARE SOME STRUCTURES THAT GATHER STORMWATER FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY.

AND TYPICALLY WHEN YOU SEE STRUCTURES IN THE BACK OF NEIGHBORHOODS OR IN BACK BACKYARDS OF NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU CAN'T SEE HOW IT'S BEING MAINTAINED.

YOU CAN'T TELL IF LEAVES ARE PILING UP ON THAT STORM DRAIN AND THE LEAVES PILE UP.

FLOODING OCCURS AND SOMETIMES EROSION AROUND THAT STORM BASIN WILL OCCUR.

THEY'LL JUST START FLOWING AROUND BECAUSE WATER IS COMING IN FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

IT'LL START ERODING ALL AROUND THAT STORM DRAIN.

IN FACT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING AT ONE OF THOSE STRUCTURES RIGHT NOW AND WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR IT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BEING QUESTIONED ON NOW.

IF THAT FAILS AND SEDIMENT EVENTUALLY GETS OUT INTO THE POND, AS YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OR INTO THE WETLANDS AREA, OR WE REQUIRE TO REMOVE THE SEDIMENT FROM THE WETLANDS.

ARE WE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE SEDIMENT FROM THE POND IF IT LOSES ITS STORAGE? THERE ARE PIERS ON THESE PONDS AS WELL.

SO YOU CAN SEE HOW THE COST COULD SNOWBALL VERY QUICKLY.

AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF CRITERIA TO IDENTIFY WHICH PROJECTS THE COUNTY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THOSE, AT LEAST OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR.

SO OTHERS KNOW IF IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY OR NOT, SO THEY CAN START MAINTAINING IT NOW BEFORE IT GROWS INTO SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD.

SO THEREFORE, I CAME UP WITH THIS THESE FOUR BULLET POINTS FOR THE COUNTY'S CRITERIA TO RECEIVE FUNDING FOR PROJECTS.

THOSE IN THAT BOX ARE THE ACTUAL CRITERIA.

IT MUST MEET ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA.

IT MUST CORRECT A PROBLEM THAT WOULD OTHERWISE JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

IF ALL IT IS A SINKHOLE IN YOUR YARD AND YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN BE HARMED BY IT, THAT IS NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT HAS AN ISSUE THAT YOU MUST MAINTAIN. IT MUST.

OR IT COULD CAUSE SOME TYPE OF DEGRADATION OF LOCAL STREAMS AND RIVERS THAT MIGHT ULTIMATELY GET TO THE WATERS OF US EROSION.

THE SEDIMENTS ALONE CAN IMPACT WATERWAYS AND EVENTUALLY IMPACT THE ABILITY FOR FOR BOATS TO TO USE THE STREAMS AND RIVERS AGAIN, MUST HAVE AN EXISTING PUBLIC EASEMENT IN PLACE OR AN EASEMENT DETERMINED TO HAVE NO ASSIGNED ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE.

SO IF IT DOES HAVE A PRIVATE EASEMENT AND IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SOMEBODY ELSE, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING IT.

IT'S ALREADY GOT AN ASSIGNED ENTITY.

SOMEBODY ELSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

THE SOURCE OF DRAINAGE ORIGINATES SOLELY FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OR EASEMENTS.

SO THE EXAMPLE I JUST GAVE YOU WHERE THERE ARE SOME PRIVATE DRAINAGE IN THE BACKYARDS GOING INTO A DRAINAGE INLET, WE WOULD NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.

IF SOMEBODY HAS DRAINAGE GOING INTO THEIR BACKYARD AND THEY DON'T PROPERLY MAINTAIN THEIR OWN SWALES AND DITCHES AND IT CAUSES OR THEY DON'T RAKE THE LEAVES AND IT CAUSES FLOODING, THEN THAT SHOULD NOT BE A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COUNTY TO MAKE UP FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S NEGLIGENCE.

AND THESE ARE MY OPINIONS, BY THE WAY.

THIS IS JUST MY RECOMMENDATIONS.

AGAIN, SHOULD AN EASEMENT NOT BE IN PLACE OR LACK AN ASSIGNED ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE? I'M SUGGESTING THAT WHOEVER, WHOEVER'S THE PROPERTY OWNER IS AGREED TO TAKE OVER THE AS THE ASSIGNED MAINTENANCE ENTITY, MEANING THEY WOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL FUTURE MAINTENANCE WITHIN THAT EASEMENT.

IF WE WERE TO TO USE COUNTY FUNDS FOR THAT PROJECT, WE NEED TO AT LEAST FIGURE OUT HOW TO ELIMINATE ANY FUTURE COSTS FOR THAT EASEMENT.

[00:45:02]

YOU KNOW, IF IT ONLY BENEFITS THAT ONE PROPERTY, IT'S REALLY NOT A COUNTY ISSUE.

THE CONDITION OF THE EASEMENT, THE STRUCTURE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY IS DUE TO THEIR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN IT.

IT SHOULD NOT BE THE COUNTY'S ISSUE.

AND AGAIN, IF THERE'S NO EASEMENT IN PLACE, THEN THEREBY IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LAND OWNER.

MEANING IF THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO EASEMENT DEFINED WHATSOEVER, IT SHOULD BE THE LANDOWNER.

IF IT'S NOT ON THEIR PLAT THAT THERE'S AN EASEMENT.

AND THEY SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN THAT THIS IS THEIR PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN.

SO SOME CONSIDERATIONS.

THIS RECOMMENDED CRITERIA WILL LIMIT THE QUANTITY OF PROJECTS UTILIZING THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE.

IT WILL ALLOW THAT RATE TO REMAIN STEADY AND BE AVAILABLE FOR VERY CRITICAL PROJECTS.

IT IS ALSO DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE NEED OF A FUTURE PUBLIC WORKS.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE MAINTAINING THESE IN PERPETUITY JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS LACKING THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN PROPERTIES.

AND ALTHOUGH THE STATE CODE DOES PERMIT THE USE OF THE FEE FOR PROJECTS, PROJECTS ARE NOT A REQUIREMENT OF ANY DEQ PROGRAM.

I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE FEW NOTES UNDERNEATH THE DEFINITIONS, THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND I HIGHLIGHT THOSE AGAIN RIGHT HERE IN QUOTATIONS.

IF WE DO, IF THE COUNTY EVER CHOOSES TO DO THE VSMP PROGRAM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE EVER WOULD CHOOSE IT, BUT IN FUTURE YEARS, I CAN CERTAINLY SEE DEQ REQUIRING US TO DO IT.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT FEE AT THAT TIME TO HIRE THE RIGHT PERSONNEL TO BE ABLE TO DO THE PLAN REVIEWS, TO DO INSPECTIONS, TO PERFORM THE THE PERMITTING ACTIVITIES AND AND AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.

SO THAT FEE IS GOING TO BE NEEDED AT THAT POINT, TOO.

SO IF WE STILL WANT SOME TYPE OF ASSISTANCE FOR FOR PROPERTY OWNERS, WE COULD COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF PROGRAM WHERE THE COUNTY COULD OFFER ASSISTANCE WITH GRANTS. WE ARE USING GRANTS RIGHT NOW WITH SOME OF THE PROJECTS WE'RE PERFORMING AND WE COULD ASSIST THEM WITH APPLYING FOR THOSE GRANTS, BUT YET THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME AS WELL TO BE ABLE FOR THE COUNTY TO TO USE THE UTILITY FEE FOR FOR THAT PURPOSE.

SO KNOWING THAT WE HAVE AN OPTION OR A CHOICE IN THE NEXT YEAR, WE COULD CONTINUE.

THESE ARE SOME OPTIONS JUST TO DEAL WITH OUR CURRENT ISSUE, BUT WE ALREADY KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR WHETHER OR NOT TO BECOME A VESMP OR NOT. IF WE DO, THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT FEE IS GOING TO BE NEEDED.

IF NOT, THEN WE CAN CONTINUE AS WE HAVE BEEN AND IF WE CONTINUE AS WE HAVE BEEN, WE CAN ALLOW THE FEE TO BE USED JUST LIKE IT IS NOW.

WE CREATE THE LIST AND AS THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, WE'LL FINISH PROJECTS AND USE THAT FEE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THAT MAY OR MAY NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN THE FUTURE.

WHEN I SAY FUTURE, IT COULD BE SEVERAL YEARS OR ALL DEPENDS ON THE QUANTITY OF PROJECTS WE END UP IMPLEMENTING.

ANOTHER OPTION IS WE WE ADOPT THE CRITERIA THAT I JUST WENT THROUGH OR SOME FORM OF THAT.

AFTER YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS TO DECIDE IF THAT CRITERIA IS SUITABLE AND IT COULD INCLUDE A PROGRAM TO ASSIST LANDOWNERS TO BE ABLE TO FIX THEIR PROJECTS WITH NOT JUST OUR FUNDS, BUT POSSIBLY GRANT FUNDS AND THEIR FUNDS.

OR WE CAN CHOOSE TO DISCONTINUE THE PROGRAM ALTOGETHER AND ELIMINATE THE STORM WATER FEE AND ONLY IMPLEMENT IT BACK AGAIN.

WHEN THE TIME COMES THAT WE DECIDE TO THE BOARD ELECTS TO OR THE OR FORCES US TO TO BECOME A VSMP AUTHORITY.

IF WE DO DECIDE TO ELIMINATE IT.

WE DO HAVE THOSE CURRENT PROJECTS IN PLACE AND WE DO HAVE THAT THAT CURRENT BORROWING IN PLACE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THOSE TERMS OF THAT BORROWING.

SO WE WOULD NEED TO CONTINUE TO COLLECT THAT FEE UNTIL WE CAN PAY OFF THAT BORROWING.

ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS A LOT. I GOT SOME STORM WATER UPDATES.

PROJECT UPDATES IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THOSE REAL QUICK, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THIS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THAT.

WHY ARE WE REQUIRED TO DO SOMETHING? A LAW. SO.

IF YOU'RE ASKING ME. WELL, I WAS ASKING.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WOULD PUT IT BASICALLY BECAUSE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT THEN REQUIRE THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AND THEN THE STATE IMPLEMENTS THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR US.

[00:50:01]

THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROVIDED PRESENTED TO US.

YEP. THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT.

THAT'S. THAT'S THE ONE THAT.

THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACT CLOSELY FOLLOWS.

ALL OF THIS THAT I PRESENTED IS BASED ON THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACT AND IT CLOSELY FOLLOWS THE CLEAN, THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER CLEAN WATER ACT.

SO BASED ON THE MINUTES I READ BACK FROM WHEN WE IMPLEMENTED THE FEE, THERE WAS NO IT MAY HAVE BEEN A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE STATE CODE AT THAT TIME, OR THE CODE MAY HAVE CHANGED TO WHERE I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GO BACK THAT FAR AND SEE THOSE REQUIREMENTS BACK THEN.

BUT BASED ON WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO ME NOW, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TODAY FOR US TO HAVE A VSMP OR I GUESS THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS IT WAS PRESENTED TO US A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

WE HAD IT WAS KIND OF LIKE AND/OR, BUT YOU NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING.

BECAUSE I WAS ON THE BOARD THEN.

WE'VE GOT OUTFALL DITCHES THAT WE'VE HAD TO ADDRESS BECAUSE OF HIGH EROSION WATER BACKING UP.

SO YOU'VE ALREADY GOT PROJECTS OUT HERE.

SO AT SOME POINT IN TIME, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PUT CONCRETE IN IT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE REFURBISHED OR MAINTAINED TO SAY THE LEAST, SINCE VDOT WALKED AWAY FROM IT.

THAT'S HOW THIS THING ALL STARTED.

THE CONCEPT OF.

OKAY. SAY YOU GOT AN OUTFALL DITCH AND WE'RE NEIGHBORS.

OKAY, WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN IT? SAY, I DON'T WANT TO.

YOU HAVE TO. IT'S KIND OF LIKE AN HOA AGREEMENT TO GOES SOUTH.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, YOU'VE ALSO GOT THE OTHER CITIZENS THAT ARE BEING IMPACTED IF THE WATER IS BACKING UP ON THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE IT CAN'T EVACUATE WHERE IT'S AT TO GET TO THE OUTFALL DITCH.

I DON'T SEE IT AS BEING A WIN WIN ANYWAY ANYWAY.

CHOOSE TO TRY TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD.

YEAH. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR IT, BUT I DON'T.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN JUST CHOOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING.

NOT WITH ALL THE LOW LYING AREAS WE'VE GOT.

WE'VE GOT SOME AREAS, OUTFALLS WE'VE HAD TO GO BACK AND REPAIR.

AND WE'VE HAD THESE TORRENTIAL RAINS COME THROUGH HERE THAT HAVE ACTUALLY MOVED A LOT OF THE RIVER.

OLD STAGE ROAD OF HERITAGE.

ONE OF THEM, I THINK IT ACTUALLY PUSHED OUT ALL THE STONES 10 TO 12 INCH STONES OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.

SO THE HYDRAULICS, THE WATER, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING SOMEWHERE.

AND THAT'S THERE'S NO DOUBT THERE'S GOING TO BE COMPLICATIONS.

AND HOWEVER WE MOVE FORWARD AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE ELIMINATE THE FEE.

I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE OPTION IF YOU WANTED TO.

BUT IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO ELIMINATE IT, ALL OF THOSE WOULD BECOME CIVIL SUITS AND THEY WOULD BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO HANDLE THEMSELVES.

IT WOULDN'T BE THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY PER PER THE LAW.

WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADDRESS IT.

I GUESS IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT'S MORALLY RIGHT.

WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING. EXACTLY.

YEAH. AND THAT'S THAT'S THE DECISION.

WE'RE THE ONES HOLDING ALL THE INFORMATION.

THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ALL THE HISTORY AND THE INFORMATION TO KNOW THAT.

THE OTHER PART OF IT IS, IS THAT IN THE NEXT 10 TO 20 YEARS, THERE WILL BE ENHANCED STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TOO MUCH OF A.

CATCH UP THAT WE NEED TO DO AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

SO WE WANT TO KIND OF.

THAT COULD BE COSTLY. YEAH.

YEAH, IT COULD BE PAY ME NOW OR PAY ME LATER.

YEAH. AND LATER MIGHT BE A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN NOW.

I GUESS THE OTHER THE OTHER THING WITH THAT, FRANK, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT.

THEY'RE ALREADY HEADING DOWN THIS ROAD.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO NEW PROJECTS, ROAD CONSTRUCTION.

BACK IN THE DAY WHEN THIS FIRST CAME UP, IT WAS THEY, I THINK, AND ANOTHER LOCALITY REQUESTED HELP OR TRIED TO MAYBE JOIN ONE OF THESE OTHER ONES.

AND I COULD BE WRONG WHETHER THEY JOINED OR NOT.

AND THEIR PROJECT GREW BY $10.2 MILLION JUST BECAUSE THEY ASKED FOR THE INPUT ONCE THE PLANS WERE REVIEWED ON WHAT DEQ REQUIRED VERSUS WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT IN.

AND THAT FELL BACK ON THE LOCALITY.

THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A HICCUP.

YEAH, LET'S SAY THE LEAST, ANYWAY.

OKAY. WELL, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT, I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD VERY BRIEFLY.

VERY QUICKLY ON THE PROJECTS MAY BE HARD TO SEE ON THE SCREEN, BUT THERE'S SOME RED LINES THAT IDENTIFY EACH PROJECT WITH THE TITLES THERE JUST SO YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION OF EACH.

AND THIS CHART JUST I KNOW IT'S HARD TO READ DESCRIBES THE CURRENT PROGRESS OF WHERE WE'RE AT.

UNFORTUNATELY, ALMOST ALL OF THESE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN SITTING FOR FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

SO I'VE REACHED OUT TO OUR CONSULTANT WHO'S BEEN HANDLING ALL OF THESE PROJECTS AND PUT THEM ALL ON A TIMELINE THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE.

BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY, FOR NOW, WE ARE KICKING THIS OFF AGAIN TO GET THESE PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD.

[00:55:03]

A HUGE STORM, 100 YEAR STORM CAME BY AND AND DAMAGED BOTH PROJECTS AND THEY HAVE TO BE REDONE.

AND IN ORDER FOR DEQ TO REIMBURSE US.

THAT'S ALL NEW NEW CONSTRUCTION, ISN'T IT? UH, WORK WE'D ALREADY DONE.

OKAY? WHEN WE GOT THAT MAJOR FLOODING AND IT TURNED AROUND, DESTROYED IT, THEY HAD TO GO BACK IN AND REDO THEM OVER 70% OF IT.

SO THAT THAT IS THE THE TWO PROJECTS THAT WE'RE HOPING TO GET DONE THE SOONEST.

A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS HAVE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE OF THE NORTHERN LONG EARED BAT.

WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANY WORK EXCEPT DURING THE WINTERTIME CONSTRUCTION WORK EXCEPT DURING THE WINTERTIME.

SO WE'RE HOPING THIS WINTER WE'LL BE ABLE TO FINISH THOSE TWO PROJECTS UP.

THE BURCHETT ESTATES REACHED ONE IS ACTUALLY COMPLETE.

WE'RE JUST DOING MONITORING AT THERE AT THIS POINT.

WE'RE WORKING WITH SIMMONS TO DO THE FINAL TWO YEARS OF MONITORING, WHICH REQUIRES ABOUT A WEEK OF FIELD WORK AND THEN SOME REPORTING AND THAT WILL WRAP THOSE THAT PROJECT UP AND BIRCH ESTATES REACH ONE.

PHASE TWO IS JUST A CONTINUATION OF THAT SAME STREAM WHERE WE WOULD TAKE IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WE'LL JUST TAKE IT FURTHER DOWN THE STREAM SO THAT THAT WORK. IT USED TO BE ALL ONE BIG PROJECT, BUT FUNDING WISE IT HAD TO BE BROKEN UP INTO TWO.

SO NOW WE'VE GOT TWO PROJECTS AND WE'RE HOPING TO GET THAT MOVED FORWARD PRETTY QUICKLY.

AND SINCE IT'S BEEN SO LONG, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS DONE IN 2020.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL SURVEY WORK OUT THERE TO SEE THE NEW CONDITION OF THAT WORK SO WE KNOW HOW MUCH CUT AND FILL IS GOING TO BE NEEDED OUT THERE.

SO WE'RE WAITING ON PROPOSALS.

WE EXPECT TO GET PROPOSALS FOR EVERYTHING BY MID-AUGUST FROM TIMMONS AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO TO AWARD THOSE TO THEM AND THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AS SOON AS WE GET ALL THE DESIGN DONE.

ALL RIGHT, I'M GONNA LEAVE YOU WITH THIS BECAUSE I'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION AT LEAST 100 TIMES IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS.

WHY IN THE WORLD WE DON'T GO THE EXTRA MILE AND PUT CONCRETE IN CONCRETE CULVERTS VERSUS TURN AROUND, PUT IN RIPRAP AND ALL IN WHICH IS SUBJECT TO MOVE.

PLUS, OVER THE YEARS YOU'RE SUBJECT TO GET GROWTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE COMING THROUGH WHICH IMPEDES IT TO FLOW.

IT BEHOOVES ME BECAUSE LONG TERM IT'D BE LESS MAINTENANCE THAN IT WOULD BE TRYING TO GO BACK AND MAINTAIN A DITCH THAT'S LINED WITH RIPRAP AND LINING CONCRETE SPEEDS UP.

RUNOFF. RIPRAP SLOWS IT DOWN.

GRASS SLOWS IT DOWN.

AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY WANT IT TO SLOW IT DOWN TO PREVENT EROSION.

CONCRETE. NOW, UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU'RE ARMORING WITH WITH WITH CONCRETE, YOU WON'T HAVE THE EROSION.

THERE'S WAYS TO SLOW IT DOWN.

YEAH. AND YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IN SOME SOME LEVEL SPREADERS ALONG THE WAY OR TO SLOW IT DOWN NOW DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU PUT IT.

IF YOU PUT IT IN A HEAVILY FORESTED AREA, THAT CONCRETE WON'T LAST, BUT MAYBE FIVE, TEN YEARS.

ROOT SYSTEMS AND EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD JUST EVENTUALLY CRACK IT UP OR AND LET IT MAKE IT FAIL.

GRASS IS ALWAYS THE EASIEST TO DO.

IT'S THE CHEAPEST TO DO. AND YOU WANT IT TO GO BACK.

I SAY WE WANT IT.

DEQ WANTS IT TO GO BACK TO ITS NATURAL STATE WHERE IT'S MORE ABSORBS MORE OF THE POLLUTANTS THAN THAN IT BEING CONCRETE. THAT'S MY VAST KNOWLEDGE OF IT.

BUT THE MORE YOU EXPAND AND MORE CONSTRUCTION YOU GOT, THE MORE ROOFS AND RUN OFF ASPHALT, PARKING LOTS, EVERYTHING ELSE, THAT KIND OF.

NEGATES THAT, I THINK, FOR WHAT THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS.

I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME OPPORTUNITIES OR SOME PROJECTS WHERE THAT WOULD BE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY THAN PUTTING IN SOMETHING THAT COULD ERODE AWAY YET AGAIN.

OKAY. THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

OTHER COMMENTS. MR. BROWN, DID YOU HEAR IT ALL? YES, SIR, I SURE DID.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. OKAY, SO THAT'S ALL THE WORK SESSION.

AND WE HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE AND A HALF.

[01:00:03]

YEAH. YEAH. OKAY.

OH, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU. OH, THAT ONE IS STILL ON.

WE'RE GOOD. JUST SET OFF.

OH, YOU GOT IT.

I'M DOING. I'M DOING SOME RESEARCH ON THE SPILLWAYS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY USE OUT WEST.

OKAY. I'M A WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE WORK SESSION AND OPEN THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING AND WE'LL ASK MS. WAYMACK IF SHE WOULD LEAD THE BOARD IN THEIR INVOCATION.

[INVOCATION]

LORD, WE ASK THAT YOU BE WITH THOSE WHO HAVE LOST LOVED ONES, ESPECIALLY THE BROWN FAMILY, WHO HAVE LOST THEIR BELOVED FATHER, FLOYD BROWN SENIOR, AND THEIR BELOVED UNCLE.

COMFORT THEM AND GIVE THEM PEACE.

BE WITH THOSE WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM FLOODS AND WEATHER RELATED DISASTERS.

GUIDE OUR NATIONAL LEADERS, AS THEY MANEUVER THE SHIP OF STATE THROUGH TURBULENT WATERS.

ALL THIS WE ASK IN YOUR HOLY NAME.

AMEN. AMEN.

THANK YOU. BLACK. MR. WEBB, PLEASE, THE PLEDGE TO THE FLAG, PLEASE.

PUBLIC COMMENTS.

THIS IS THE TIME.

[PUBLIC COMMENTS]

YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

YOU CAN COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.

MRS. KNOTT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT SIGNED UP? NO, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE NO ONE SIGNED UP.

AND AS SOON AS THESE FOLKS GET SETTLED DOWN, WE'RE.

I INVITE FOLKS TO COME FORWARD.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS THE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

SO THE GENERAL PUBLIC HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.

LET THEM COME FORWARD AND BE HEARD.

A LITTLE MOVEMENT, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYBODY COMING FORWARD.

I'LL ASK ONE MORE TIME.

ANYBODY WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THE BOARD.

THEY CAN COME FORWARD NOW AND HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD.

SEEING NO ONE COMING FORWARD.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

NOW HAVE THE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA.

[ADOPTION OF AGENDA]

YEAH. IT'LL BE AMENDED TO A DATE.

I NEED TO SEE WHAT IT IS.

APPOINTMENT OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.

I MOVE. MR. CHAIRMAN. I MOVE TO APPOINT.

I'D MOVE TO ADD A EIGHT TO THE OKAY AND TO ADOPT IT WITH ADD A8. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AGENDA WITH THE ADDITION OF A EIGHT.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

HAVE A SECOND. ANY COMMENTS? HERE? NONE. CALL THE ROLL.

MRS. WAYMACK.

YES, MR. HUNTER? YES. MR. WEBB? YES.

MR. BROWN.

YES. AND MR. CARMICHAEL IS ABSENT THIS EVENING.

NEXT IS THE ORDER OF CONSENSUS.

[ORDER OF CONSENSUS]

SO MOVED. SO MOVED, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE ACCEPT THE ORDER OF CONSENSUS.

THANK YOU. HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. CALL THE ROLL.

[01:05:08]

AND AT THIS TIME WE'LL MAKE THOSE PRESENTATIONS.

MR. WAYMACK, IF YOU WANT TO DO THE FIRST ONE, IS FOR MISS TAMMY PEARMAN.

[PRESENTATIONS]

SHE'S COMING.

YOU COULD HOLD A BABY UP HERE.

. AND ANYBODY ELSE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT YOU WANT TO COME UP.

I BROUGHT MY WHOLE MY WHOLE GROUP.

YOU GOT A GROUP TO THANK GOODNESS.

BE LIKE. I KNOW, I KNOW.

YOU CAN BRING THE WHOLE DEPARTMENT UP.

OKAY. THIS IS A COMMENDATION FOR TAMMY PYRAMID.

REGARDING THEIR SERVICE TO PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, WHEREAS TAMMY KARAMAN WAS ORIGINALLY HIRED ON JANUARY 20TH.

2005. AS A PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR.

THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

AND. WHEREAS, TAMMY PEARMAN BECAME A FULL TIME EMPLOYEE ON JULY THE 1ST.

2005 AND WAS RECLASSIFIED.

OFFICE MANAGER IN THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

[01:10:06]

MIC].

[SUPERVISORS’ COMMENTS]

[01:15:50]

YES, SIR. THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S FINE. MR. WEBB NOTHING TONIGHT.

MRS. WAYMACK? YES. I WOULD LIKE EVERYBODY TO BE CONSCIOUS AND PRAYERFUL FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE WHO ARE GOING THROUGH FLOODS.

IT'S BEEN VERY BAD.

THANK GOODNESS WE WERE SPARED THE BAD WEATHER.

BUT PEOPLE UP NORTH ARE REALLY HAVING A BAD TIME.

SO LET'S SAY PRAYERS FOR THEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MRS. WAYMACK. AND I, TOO, JUST WANT TO SPEAK REAL BRIEFLY TO OUR CO MEMBER, MR. BROWN'S, HE'S HAD A TRAGIC SITUATION.

HE'S HAD A SERIOUS SURGERY, THE LOSS OF HIS DAD, AND THEN TODAY THE LOSS OF HIS UNCLE.

I FEEL FOR MR. BROWN AND OUR PRAYERS AND THOUGHTS ARE WITH HIM AND ALL OF HIS FAMILY.

SO. MR. BROWN. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN HUNTER.

FIRST, I WANT TO GIVE A QUICK BEFORE I SPEAK ABOUT MY DAD.

I'D LIKE TO GIVE A REALLY, REALLY QUICK SHOUT OUT.

ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO, I MET MISS CYNTHIA WHITE AND SHE'S IN PRINCE GEORGE, AND I MET HER SON, HARPER.

AND NOW HARPER HAS BECOME MY NEW BEST FRIEND.

HE'S SUCH A PLEASURE.

WE REALLY ENJOYED MEETING HIM.

AND I TOLD HIM AND HIS MOM THAT I WANTED TO GIVE HIM A QUICK SHOUT OUT TODAY.

SO. HELLO, HARPER.

THE OTHER THING IS, AFTER 93 YEARS, I LOST MY DAD ON LAST THURSDAY AND WE'RE STRUGGLING, BUT WE'RE MAKING IT THROUGH. AND THEN WE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL LATE LAST NIGHT THAT HIS LAST LIVING BROTHER, MY UNCLE, PASSED AWAY.

SO IT'S IT'S TOUGH.

BUT I UNDERSTAND AND HOW THINGS HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD.

THE FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS HAS BEEN SENT OUT.

IT'S BEEN POSTED IN MANY PLACES.

IF THERE'S ANYONE THERE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND, IT WILL BE AT PRINCE GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM ON MONDAY, JULY THE 17TH AT 11 A.M.

AND I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR CARDS, THEIR CONDOLENCES, FLOWERS, JUST TO STOP BY OR TO CALL TO EXPRESS HOW THEY FELT ABOUT MY FATHER. SO THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN HUNTER? YES, SIR.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND THANK THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FOR THEIR COMMENTS.

ONCE AGAIN, MR. CARMICHAEL IS ON VACATION AND MUCH, MUCH DESERVED.

I NOW HAVE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS.

[COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S COMMENTS]

JUST THREE ITEMS OF NOTE.

THERE IS SATURDAY, JULY 15TH.

THE PRINCE GEORGE FARMERS MARKET CONTINUES THROUGH THE SUMMER.

CHRISTMAS IN JULY AND KIDS DAY AT THE MARKET AT 9 A.M.

TO 1 P.M. AT SCOTT PARK SATURDAY, JULY 22ND.

FOUNDERS DAY CELEBRATION HOSTED BY AND AT THE PRINCE GEORGE REGIONAL HERITAGE CENTER.

RAIN OR SHINE.

FAMILY FUN, ICE CREAM, SWEET TREATS AND MUSIC.

7 P.M. TO 9 P.M.

AND THEN AUGUST 1ST, TUESDAY IS OUR NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, 5 P.M.

TO 9 P.M.

THERE'LL BE VARIOUS COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY THAT WILL BE CONTRIBUTING AND PARTICIPATING.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING FORWARD TO REPORTS.

[REPORTS]

PAUL HENSON.

HOW ARE YOU, SIR? DOING JUST FINE. VDOT REPRESENTATIVE.

GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MISTER CHAIRMAN, FILLING IN FOR CRYSTAL SMITH THIS EVENING.

UM, WE SENT OUR MONTHLY PACKAGE, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR UPDATES IN YOUR BOARD PACKAGES.

IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, I CAN ANSWER THOSE FOR YOU AS WELL.

GOT SOME OTHER UPDATES FOR YOU AS WELL.

GOLF COURSE ROAD.

THE BRIDGE WORK HAS BEGUN.

WE'VE STARTED INSTALLING SOME MS. THE DETOUR IS GOING TO GO UP ON 724 FOR THAT PROJECT.

[01:20:05]

WE ALSO HAVE BRIDGE WORK UNDERWAY THERE.

THERE ALSO BE BE A DETOUR FOR THAT.

OUR SURFACE TREATMENT IS PRETTY MUCH DONE FOR THE YEAR.

WE HAVE A FEW PUNCH LIST ITEMS LEFT, A LITTLE BIT OF PAVEMENT MARKING A FEW THINGS.

SLURRY SEAL IS IN THE SAME SITUATION.

IT'S PRETTY MUCH DONE FOR THE YEAR.

JUST SOME PUNCH LIST ITEMS REMAINING.

THE ROUNDABOUT PROJECT ON COURTHOUSE ROAD AND BULL HILL ROAD.

WE'RE GOING TO ISSUE A FULL NOTICE TO PROCEED IN OCTOBER.

SO THAT'S BEEN ADVERTISED AND AWARDED AND WE'RE GOING TO AWARD IT IN OCTOBER.

TEMPLETON ROAD NO.

THROUGH TRUCK RESTRICTIONS ALSO INVOLVES LOG ROAD, LAMP LANE, ROWAN ROAD, LANSING ROAD THAT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED AND THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS CLOSED AND WE'RE WORKING ON THE NEXT STEPS TO SEND THAT PACKAGE FORWARD FOR FINALIZATION.

NOW THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAVE. UNLESS THE BOARD HAS SOME QUESTIONS FOR ME.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. HANSON? I'M GOOD.

NO, WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR REPORT.

WELL, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO HELP YOU OUT.

YES, SIR. HAVE A NICE EVENING.

WE HAVE ONE POSTPONED ITEM TO A RESOLUTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE APPOMATTOX REGIONAL.

[POSTPONED ITEMS]

I THINK THERE'S ONE APPLICANT THAT WE WERE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPOINT GENE ARE HILL ATKINS TO THE.

LIBRARY BOARD.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

ANY COMMENT, MR. BROWN? NO, SIR.

NO COMMENT. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS THE ONE.

ALL RIGHT. A ONE IS A RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY ATTORNEY.

[ORDER OF BUSINESS]

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MISS HURT.

ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT? YES. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MR. STOKE. I COME BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING WITH A RESOLUTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY ATTORNEY.

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS SOLICITED AND RECEIVED APPLICATIONS STATEWIDE FOR THE POSITION OF COUNTY ATTORNEY, AND AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, HAS SELECTED MS. ANDREA ERARD TO BE OUR NEXT COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR PRINCE GEORGE.

BOTH MISS ERARD AND THE BOARD HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR DESIRE TO ENTER INTO THIS CONTRACT.

AND SO YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. ONCE SIGNED, THIS WILL BE RETROACTIVE BACK TO JULY 1ST.

ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS.

ANYTHING? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.

ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SO MOVED.

SECOND. SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

MR. BROWN, SECONDED.

AND MR. WEBB MADE THE MOTION.

CALL THE ROLL.

CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES.

THANK YOU, MISS HURT.

RESOLUTION TO REQUEST OF HOPEWELL PARKS AND RECREATION FOR A WAIVER OF PERMIT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE JOINT FIREWORKS DISPLAY IN THE APPOMATTOX RIVER IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP 20 20-1.

MR. HARRISON. YES.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

CHAIRMAN HUNTER. VICE CHAIR WEBB.

MY DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A FEE WAIVER REQUEST FOR MS..

TABITHA MARTINEZ, WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OF HOPEWELL CITY PARKS AND RECREATION.

THIS IS REGARDING THE PERMITTING FEES FOR FIREWORKS PERMIT.

THIS EVENT ALREADY OCCURRED ON JULY 1ST ON THE APPOMATTOX RIVER.

AGAIN, THIS REQUEST WAS RECEIVED AROUND THE DIFFICULT TIME LATE DIRECTOR MISS JULIE WALTON'S SUDDEN ILLNESS AND UNEXPECTED PASSING.

AND IT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS BEING REVIEWED AT THAT TIME AND UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS DELAYED IN ITS PROCESSING.

CITY OF HOPEWELL PROVIDED THIS ANNUAL FIREWORK DISPLAY FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS AT NO COST TO THE ATTENDEES AND IS OPEN TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE SURROUNDING TRI-CITIES AREA, WHICH INCLUDES PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.

THE ACTUAL FEE FOR THIS PERMIT IS A TOTAL OF $102 AND CONSIDERED TO BE OF A MINIMAL, MINIMAL IMPACT TO OUR DEPARTMENT.

SO AS WE'VE BEEN ADJUSTING TO THE LOSS OF MISS WALTON, THIS REQUEST WAS REDISCOVERED AND IS NOW BEING PRESENTED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK THIS IS DONE ON A REGULAR BASIS IN THE PAST.

YEAH. OKAY.

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS RESOLUTION.

[01:25:05]

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SO I GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY COMMENTS? ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. CALL THE ROLL.

YES. THANK YOU, MR. HARRISON. A-3 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT FOR WATER LAND EXTENSION TO ROUTE TEN CORRIDOR.

MR. HOLCOMB. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MR. STOKES. AND CONGRATULATIONS, MR. ROURKE. AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THE WATER LINE ALONG ROUTE TEN, AND THAT PROJECT WOULD EXTEND THE CENTRAL WATER SYSTEM TO OUR ROUTE TEN CORRIDOR TO SERVE JORDAN ON THE JAMES AND BEECHWOOD MANOR AND CHAPEL CREEK AREAS.

THIS PROJECT DOES REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION OF PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS.

AND TONIGHT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD THREE OF THOSE EASEMENTS, ALL OWNED BY THE SAME PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND WE ARE REQUESTING THAT WE ACCEPT THOSE EASEMENTS INTO THE SYSTEM.

THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MAP OF THESE THESE LOCATIONS IN YOUR PACKET.

THE ACQUISITION ACQUISITION OF THESE EASEMENTS WILL INCLUDE SOME COMPENSATION TO ADDRESS THE IMPACTS TO THOSE PARCELS, AND IT'S BASED ON THE MARKET LAND VALUE AND FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE STRUCTURES OF THESE TREES ON THE PROPERTIES.

THE ANTICIPATED TOTAL COST TO OBTAIN THE EASEMENTS WITH THE WATER LINE EXTENSION IS ABOUT $7,500 AND THIS ACCEPTANCE WILL ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER MAIN ALONG ROUTE TEN CORRIDOR.

THANK YOU. IT'S A CONTINUING DEAL.

WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IF? NO QUESTIONS.

ACCEPT A RESOLUTION.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION AND SECOND.

MR.. THANK YOU, MR. BROWN.

CALL THE ROLL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL GO TO A-5.

A-5 IS ALSO CHIEF, WELL, NEVER MIND.

HERE WE GO. WE'LL DO A-4.

A-4 RESOLUTION, AWARD OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION OF PURCHASE AND BUILDING SOLUTION RADIO SYSTEM.

WELL, GOOD EVENING.

YES, GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MS. ERARD.

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

AS OUR BOARD RECALLS, WE YOU APPROVED AN AWARD OF CONTRACT L3 HARRIS REPLACEMENT PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2019. THE COUNTY ENGAGED IN SERIES 2017 AND 2018, BORROWING FOR THE RADIO SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND RELATED CONSULTING SERVICES.

DURING THE NOVEMBER 2022 WORK SESSION, STAFF BRIEFED YOU OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, REGARDING AVAILABLE FUNDS REMAINING IN THE PROJECT BUDGET.

I BELIEVE IN ATTACHMENT A IN YOUR PACKET PROVIDES AN UPDATED PROJECT BUDGET.

THE RADIO PROJECT WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDS THE PURCHASE OF IN-BUILDING SOLUTIONS TO ENHANCE THE RADIO SIGNAL AT TWO COUNTY OWNED SITES.

THOSE SITES ARE JEJ MOORE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND FIRE STATION SEVEN.

THESE SITES HAD WEAK SIGNALS DURING THE TESTING PROCESS.

COUNTY PUT OUT AN INVITATION FOR BIDS THAT WAS ISSUED ON MAY 30TH OF THIS YEAR AND CLOSED ON JUNE 27TH TO PROCURE THE IN-BUILDING SOLUTIONS.

THE COUNTY RECEIVED SIX BIDS AND A BID SUMMARY IS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET ATTACHMENT B.

THE LOWEST BID WAS FROM MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, INC.

FOR $78,703.29.

THAT'S $52,092 FOR JEJ AND 26,611 FOR STATION SEVEN.

SUFFICIENT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE THESE IN-BUILDING SOLUTIONS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT AS PART OF THE RADIO SYSTEM PROJECT.

SO THE BOARD ACTION REQUESTED IS TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, INC., NOT TO EXCEED $78,703.29 TO PURCHASE THE IN-BUILDING SOLUTIONS FOR JEJ MOORE AND STATION SEVEN.

THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR THE CHIEF MANAGER, ECC MANAGER CHAD BOSEMAN IS HERE.

IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING, ANY QUESTIONS AND HE'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER, HE COULD ANSWER THEM ALL.

I NO, BUT HAVE ANY ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M GOOD. IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PASS THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED.

SO MOVED.

ALL RIGHT, MISS WAYMACK.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. CALL THE ROLL.

[01:30:06]

ON MARCH 14TH OF THIS YEAR, YOU ARE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

AUTHORIZE US TO APPLY FOR AN AVAILABLE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES ARPA GRANT.

THE GRANT WAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY AND THE AMOUNT TOTALING 233,000.

THE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES AWARDED THESE FUNDS ON MAY 11TH, 2023, AND ON JUNE 13TH, YOU, OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, APPROPRIATED THE FUNDS TO THE FY 24 BUDGET. THE GRANT APPLICATION INCLUDED THE PURCHASE OF MOBILE FORENSIC SYSTEM GRAYSHIFT, GRAYKEY AND RELATED INSTALLATION, WHICH EXCEEDS $50,000 AND REQUIRES THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO APPROVE AN AWARD OF CONTRACT.

A COOPERATIVE GSA CONTRACT WITH PAN AMERICA COMPUTERS INC.

IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING FOR $120,405.28.

THIS AMOUNT IS AVAILABLE WITHIN THE DCJS ARPA FUNDS AWARDED, AND I BELIEVE THERE IS A QUOTE ATTACHED IN YOUR PACKET.

YES THERE IS.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PAN AMERICAN COMPUTERS, INC.

FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE GRAY GRAY KEY MOBILE FORENSICS, EQUIPMENT RELATED LICENSE AND TRAINING AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $120,405.28. SO WE'RE ASKING YOU TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT.

WE HAVE ATTACHED RESOLUTION.

ANY QUESTIONS? IT'S NO QUESTION ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION.

SO MOVED. SO MOVED.

SECOND TAKE. FLOYD.

ALL RIGHT. FLOYD'S GOT THE MOTION.

MR. WEBB. SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

[PUBLIC HEARINGS]

FIRST ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR A REZONING 2306 REQUEST OF MR. FLOYD POWERS TO REZONE 1.328 ACRES FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL M-2 TO GENERAL BUSINESS B-1 ZONING.

AND I THINK THERE WE GO.

MR. TIM GRAVES.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN HUNTER.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MR. STOKE AND MISS ERARD.

AS YOU HEARD FROM THE INTRODUCTION, IT'S A REZONING REQUEST FROM M-2 TO B-1 ON PROPERTY ADDRESSED 5108 PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE AND TAX MAP NUMBER, WHICH WILL BE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IN A MINUTE.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATES THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL USES.

HERE'S A MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN RELATION TO PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE NEAR THE INTERSECTION WITH MT.

SINAI. AND THE PROPERTIES HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.

THERE'S AN EXISTING BUILDING ON IT.

THIS IS THE ZONING MAP.

AND YOU CAN SEE WITH THE GRAY COLOR.

AND IN THIS VIEW, IT'S OUTLINED IN BLUE.

AND THE GRAY COLOR REPRESENTS INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

AND THEN THE RED COLOR REPRESENTS BUSINESS, GENERAL BUSINESS, ZONING.

AND SO THEY'D LIKE TO REZONE THAT GRAY COLORED LOT TO RED FOR BUSINESS USE.

THIS IS THE COMP PLAN MAP, AND IT SHOWS THAT THIS PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING MOST OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL, COMMERCIAL OR REALLY BUSINESS USES.

THERE'S ALSO THE PURPLE COLOR TO THE NORTH IS INDUSTRIAL AND THE YELLOW COLOR IS RESIDENTIAL.

SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ONE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY JUST TOUCHING THIS REQUEST PROPERTY.

HERE'S THE AERIAL VIEW.

YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.

AND THE THE THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH AND THE HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE TO THE WEST.

AND THE APPLICANT'S GOAL AND THE APPLICANT IS HER NAME IS TONYA HALEY.

SHE WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT TONIGHT.

THEY HAD PREEXISTING TRAVEL PLANS, BUT THEY DID HAVE A COUPLE MANAGERS OF THE BUSINESS HERE, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ALSO HERE, FLOYD POWERS.

BUT THE APPLICANT GOALS ARE TO LEASE AND THEN BUY THE PROPERTY.

CONSISTING OF TWO TAX PARCELS.

THE HIGHLIGHTED ONE AND THE ONE IN BETWEEN.

THAT AND PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE, WHICH IS VACANT AS THERE PLANS TO PURCHASE THOSE TWO PARCELS AND OPEN A MEAD AND HONEY PRODUCTION FACILITY AND A TASTING ROOM.

INCLUDING A SNACK BAR.

[01:35:01]

SO AGAIN, THEIR REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW THE BUSINESS USE AND THE ADJACENT USES ON OTHER PROPERTIES, WHICH WE PREVIEWED THAT ON THE AERIAL VIEW. BUT YOU HAVE PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE TO THE EAST AND THEN ACROSS THE PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE, YOU HAVE VACANT LAND TO THE SOUTH, YOU HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL USE TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE A DWELLING AND TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL USE.

EXPECTED IMPACTS FROM A REZONING ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ROADWAYS.

THERE'S NO MAJOR CHANGE BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY ZONED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE, WHICH IS WHICH CAN BE MORE INTENSIVE THAN BUSINESS USES.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE ARE BUSINESSES OPERATING, DOING BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, BUT THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS FOR MORE INTENSIVE USES THAN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. AND SO GIVEN THAT THE COMP PLAN PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL USE, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT HAD COMMENTS.

THERE WAS VDOT REVIEWED THIS AND THEY STATED THAT THE COMMERCIAL ENTRANCES EXISTING THAT IT'S ALREADY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS ON PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE.

THERE'S NO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REQUIRED BY VDOT, BY THE STATE CODE AND THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM VDOT ON THIS THIS LAND BEING REZONED.

BUILDING INSPECTIONS OFFICE NOTED THAT BASED ON WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IN THE BUILDING, A CHANGE OF USE PROCESS WOULD BE REQUIRED, WHICH IS THE STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH JUST NOTED THAT IF THEY'RE GOING TO USE A PRIVATE WELL OR SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR THEIR BUSINESS USE, THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO HAVE THE SYSTEM EVALUATED BY A PROFESSIONAL. AND THE UTILITIES OFFICE NOTICED THAT, NOTED THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES, THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY THE COST TO CONNECT TO PUBLIC UTILITY LINES, WHICH ARE NEARBY.

I THINK THE BUILDING IS CONNECTED TO WATER AT THE MOMENT.

THE APPLICANT DIDN'T PROFFER ANY CONDITIONS.

STAFF DIDN'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH THIS.

THIS IS A DOWN ZONING FROM M2 TO B1.

AND THE ANY CONCERNS OR YOU KNOW, ABOUT THE MEAT PRODUCTION OR THE TASTING ROOM, THOSE THOSE CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WHICH WILL FOLLOW AFTER THIS BECAUSE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS FOR THOSE IS REQUIRED FOR THOSE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT THEY WANT TO DO ON THE PROPERTY.

UM, REGARDING PUBLIC FEEDBACK.

AFTER WE SENT THE NOTICES AND POSTED THE SIGN ON THE PROPERTY AND ADVERTISED IN THE NEWSPAPER SOME TIME BACK, WE HAD BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THERE WERE TWO CITIZENS THAT CALLED TO JUST TO EXPRESS THEIR GENERAL SUPPORT FOR WHAT THE APPLICANT PLANS TO DO ON THE PROPERTY.

AND THERE WAS ONE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS THE THE OWNER OF THE DWELLING, HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WAS PROPOSED THERE AND WE'LL FOCUS ON THOSE DURING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST, SINCE THOSE ARE ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC THING THAT SPECIFIC USES THAT THEY WANT TO DO ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THIS REZONING WOULD NOT ALLOW A MEAD PRODUCTION AND TASTING ROOM THAT HAS TO HAVE SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVED.

THERE WAS NO PUBLIC FEEDBACK, NO COMMENTS DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING.

AND AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN JUNE, THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

AND THE REASON PROVIDED WAS THE REQUEST APPEARS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CURRENT SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING DISTRICTS.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ALSO APPROVAL.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR STAFF.

I'M GOOD. GOOD.

YOU'RE GOOD. MR. BROWN. ANY QUESTIONS, SIR? NO, SIR. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU'VE JUST HEARD MR. GRAVES DESCRIBE WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO REZONE IT.

SO WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING CHANGE.

SO ANYBODY HAS ANY COMMENTS TO MAKE FOR OR AGAINST THIS ZONING CHANGE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

ONE MORE TIME.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST THIS REZONING REQUEST? HEARING NONE. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE BOARD FOR ANY COMMENTS.

ANYBODY HAVE COMMENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS? GOOD. ANYBODY? MR. BROWN? ANYTHING?

[01:40:07]

SORRY. I WAS CANCELING ANOTHER CALL FOR ME.

NO, NO PROBLEM.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE THE MOTION THAT THIS ZONING BE APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. REZONING.

REZONING. YES, MA'AM.

I HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND. A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE REZONING.

CALL THE ROLL. MR. BROWN? YES.

MRS. WAYMACK? YES. MR. HUNTER.

YES. MR. WEBB. YES.

THANK YOU. NOW WE HAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST.

ALL RIGHT. JUST WAITING FOR IT TO COME UP ON THE SCREEN.

THERE YOU GO. AND HERE WE GO.

THIS IS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST.

THE APPLICATION NUMBER IS 20 305, AND IT'S A REQUEST FOR WHOLESALE AND PROCESSING ACTIVITIES.

AND A TAVERN.

THOSE USES ARE NAMED IN ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE B1 ZONING DISTRICT.

AND THIS IS REGARDING THE PROPERTY THAT YOU JUST RE ZONED TO BUSINESS.

SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS FOR THAT MEAD PRODUCTION FACILITY AND TASTING ROOM THAT I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO.

AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 2.35 ACRES IN SIZE, CONSISTING OF TWO TAX PARCELS.

THE REZONING CASE WE JUST CONSIDERED WAS JUST ONE TAX PARCEL.

SO THERE ARE THOSE TWO TAX PARCELS.

SAME LOCATION. PRINCE GEORGE.

DRIVE OFF OF PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE.

AND THEY'RE BOTH HIGHLIGHTED HERE.

THEY'RE NOW ALL ZONED BUSINESS.

AND THE AERIAL VIEW AGAIN, SO THAT THE ADDITIONAL TAX PARCEL INVOLVED HERE TOWARD PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE IS VACANT.

THERE'S NOTHING ON THAT.

WE'LL SHOW A PHOTO IN A MINUTE.

IT'S JUST GRASS.

THE REQUEST SUMMARY IS AS FOLLOWS THAT THE GOALS ARE TO LEASE AND THEN BUY THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF TWO TAX PARCELS AND THEY WANT TO OPEN A MEAT AND HONEY PRODUCTION FACILITY AND TASTING ROOM THAT WILL INCLUDE A SNACK BAR, OUTDOOR SEATING, SMALL STAGE FOR ENTERTAINMENT, AND THEY PLAN TO PLANT ADDITIONAL TREES.

I'M IN LANDSCAPING TO TO BEAUTIFY IT.

SO THEY HAVE REQUESTED THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THESE USES TO DO WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S ANOTHER AERIAL VIEW.

THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN RED HERE.

AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE AREA TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ALONG PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE IS IS EMPTY AND THERE IS AN EXISTING BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE IS A PHOTO FROM PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE TOWARD THE BUILDING.

AND THEN ON THE BOTTOM IS A PHOTO OF THE REAR OF THE BUILDING SHOWING THE ROLL UP DOORS AND THE ASPHALT AREA BEHIND THAT.

THERE'S ALSO A FENCED IN AREA BEHIND THE ASPHALT.

ANOTHER AERIAL VIEW THIS HAS.

THIS IS WHAT WAS USED AS THE SKETCH.

IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT IT DESCRIBES TO HELP VISUALIZE A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ON THE PROPERTY.

THE BUILDING ITSELF IS LABELED AS THE TAVERN, AND THAT WOULD ALSO BE THE PRODUCTION FACILITY.

THE PARKING. THERE'S PARKING AREA BEHIND THAT BUILDING TO THE LEFT.

TO THE LEFT IN THE IMAGE.

AND THEY WANT TO DO SOME PLANTINGS IN THAT AREA AROUND THE PARKING AREA AND ALSO OUTDOOR SEATING AND SOME OUTDOOR SEATING IN THAT AREA.

THEY ALSO SHOWED TOWARD PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE THERE WOULD BE TREES PLANTED ALONG THE ROAD.

THERE'S OUTDOOR SEATING ON THAT OPEN AREA AND THEY'VE THEY IMAGINE HAVING A SMALL STAGE FOR ACOUSTIC STYLE.

UM, ENTERTAINMENT FOR THE PEOPLE.

YOU KNOW, DRINKING AND EATING ON THE PROPERTY.

HERE IS THE INDOOR VIEW.

IT'S JUST A FLOOR PLAN.

IT JUST SHOWS A BAR TOP WITH SEATING.

KITCHEN AREA, A PRODUCTION AREA AND SOME OPEN FLOOR AREA.

THE ROLL OFF ROLL UP DOORS ARE SHOWN ON THE TOP OF THE SKETCH.

AND HERE ARE SOME IMAGES THAT THE APPLICANT GAVE US TO HELP VISUALIZE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

YOU CAN SEE SOME OUTDOOR SEATING AT, I THINK, SOME WINERIES ELSEWHERE.

THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE LOOKING.

AND UNDER THE UNDER THE ROOF IS FROM ONE OF THEIR EXISTING.

SO THIS IS TANYA HALEY, WHO IS THE APPLICANT OWNS HALEY'S HONEY MEADERY.

[01:45:02]

IN OTHER THEY HAVE AN EXISTING LOCATION IN FREDERICKSBURG AND AN EXISTING LOCATION IN HOPEWELL.

AND SO THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO ANOTHER LOCATION IN PRINCE GEORGE.

THAT'S IMPORTANT PART, I FORGOT TO ADD.

SO THAT IMAGE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS ONE OF THEIR EXISTING LOCATIONS AND PEOPLE PROBABLY LISTENING TO A GUITARIST OR SOMETHING AT AT AN EXISTING LOCATION.

THE BOTTOM LEFT PHOTO SHOWS THE INDOOR FACILITY IN HOPEWELL AND THE THOSE THE PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT IS THE PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT.

SO ZONING COMMENTS.

WE JUST NOTED THAT THE TWO USES THAT THEY'VE ASKED FOR ARE THE FIRST ONE IS WHOLESALE AND PROCESSING, AND THAT'S JUST A VERY GENERAL TERM.

IT SAYS NOT OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE OF DUST, NOISE OR ODORS.

THIS SEEMS TO FIT THAT.

WE DO RECOMMEND A CONDITION THAT THIS BE LIMITED TO MEAD AND RELATED PRODUCTS, SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND A TAVERN.

NOT A WORD WE USE MUCH ANYMORE, BUT THAT THE DICTIONARY DEFINES THAT AS AN ESTABLISHMENT WHERE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE SOLD TO BE DRUNK ON THE PREMISES.

SO WE DO RECOMMEND THAT CONDITION THAT THIS BE FOCUSED ON THE MEAD THAT THEY PRODUCE BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR THAT'S THEIR INTENT IS THAT THEY PRODUCE THE MEAD AND SERVE IT TO FOLKS. IT'S NOT NOT INTENDED TO BE A GENERAL BAR.

THE ADJACENT USES ON OTHER PROPERTIES WE'VE GONE OVER THAT THERE'S VACANT LAND ACROSS THE ROAD AND THERE'S SOME INDUSTRIAL USERS AROUND THIS PROPERTY AND THERE'S ONE HOUSE TO THE WEST.

THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH CALLS FOR COMMERCIAL USE.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT TRAFFIC IMPACTS.

AND NO, NO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WAS REQUIRED BY VDOT AND STAFF DOESN'T SEE A NEED FOR FOR ANOTHER TYPE OF ANALYSIS.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT IT WOULD GENERATE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC BEYOND WHAT IS ALREADY ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY IN AB1 ZONING DISTRICT.

VDOT HAS NOTED THAT THE REQUIRED TYPE OF ENTRANCE IS ALREADY ADEQUATE IN PLACE AND REGARDING PARKING AND OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ON BEING VISIBLE OR HEARD ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THERE ARE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS RELATING TO SCREENING AND THE APPLICANT PLANS TO PLANT ADDITIONAL TREES ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD ALSO HELP WITH THAT NOISE.

THERE COULD BE. THIS WILL OF COURSE BE SOME NOISE AUDIBLE FROM CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE AND SO THERE IS THE COUNTY NOISE ORDINANCE WHICH PROTECTS AGAINST NOISE OUTSIDE OF, YOU KNOW, AFTER 10 P.M.

AND BEFORE 6 A.M.

AND THE OWNERS HAVE STATED THAT THE OUTDOOR MUSIC WILL BE ACOUSTIC IN NATURE.

IT'S NOT. THEY WOULD JUST USE A SMALL AMPLIFIER FOR THAT, IF ANYTHING.

THE BUILDINGS AND THERE'S CONDITION REQUIRING BUILDINGS, TREES OR SCREENING TO GENERAL SCREENING TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE ANY STAGE AREA AND ANY EXISTING DWELLINGS.

THERE'S ONLY REALLY ONE CLOSE BY AND IT HAS SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET AWAY.

SO AND THERE IS ALSO A RECOMMENDED CONDITION THAT THE STAGE BE LOCATED IN THAT FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY TOWARD PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE.

OTHER STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS CAME FROM VDOT.

WE'VE GONE OVER THOSE IN THE REZONING.

THE ENTRANCE IS ADEQUATE.

NO OBJECTION.

A CHANGE OF USE PROCESS IS REQUIRED FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT ALSO NOTED THAT THERE MAY BE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES REQUIREMENTS WHICH THEY'LL HAVE REGARDING PRODUCTION OF FOOD AND DRINK.

SO THEY'LL HAVE TO AND SERVING THAT.

SO THEY'LL HAVE TO ADHERE TO THAT AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS AND OF COURSE, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THEY USE WELL OR SEPTIC FOR THEIR DIFFERENT OR PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER, THEY'LL HAVE TO PAY FOR THE CONNECTION FEES AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING MEETS ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

STAFF HAS A LIST OF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS IN YOUR IN YOUR PACKET AND IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

AND SOME SOME OF THOSE ARE HIGHLIGHTED HERE.

WE HAVE DEFINED A TAVERN AS BASICALLY USING THAT DICTIONARY DEFINITION AND SAYING IT'S PRIMARILY MEAD PRODUCED BY THE BUSINESS OWNER.

AND THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE A SNACK BAR, INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SEATING AND INDOOR OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT OF AN ACCESSORY NATURE.

IT'S NOT A CONCERT VENUE.

IT'S JUST A IT'S A TASTING AREA.

AND THEY HAVE THEY MAY HAVE AN ENTERTAINMENT SOMETIMES, BUT IT THE WHOLESALE AND PROCESSING WE RECOMMEND THAT IT BE LIMITED TO THE MEAD WINE AND RELATED PRODUCTS THAT THEY PRODUCE.

[01:50:01]

AND THEN THERE'S RECOMMENDED TO BE A TIME LIMIT ON THE OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT NO LATER THAN 9 P.M..

AND AGAIN, THAT STAGE, ANY STAGE, IF IF THEY DO HAVE ONE, WOULD NEED TO BE IN THE FRONT PART OF THE PROPERTY AWAY FROM THE ONE DWELLING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.

AND OF COURSE, THEY'LL THEY'RE REQUIRED TO GET ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LICENSES, PERMITS SUCH AS ABC LICENSE THAT'S REQUIRED, WHETHER OR NOT WE INCLUDE A CONDITION. BUT WE DO HAVE THAT IN THERE.

SO PUBLIC FEEDBACK AGAIN.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WHO EXPRESSED QUESTIONS AND THEY DID NOT COME TO THE THEY DID NOT COME OR SPEAK AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING.

WE DO STAFF DOES FEEL THAT THE ANY ANY CONCERNS THAT SHE RAISES ARE ADDRESSED BY THE CONDITIONS OR CAN OTHERWISE BE ADDRESSED BY STAFF. SO AND AGAIN, THERE WAS NO COMMENT.

THERE WERE NO COMMENTS DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING.

PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS WAS APPROVAL AFTER HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE THE BASIS IS PROVIDED THERE, AND THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

SO NOTHING IN WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM SELLING OTHER ALCOHOL THERE.

IS THAT CORRECT? IT SAYS PRIMARILY RIGHT STUFF IF THERE'S YEAH, IT'S IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT THEM BUT THE FOCUS IS NEEDS TO BE WHAT THEY PRODUCE.

OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T WANT IT TO GET OUT OF HAND POSSIBLY.

SO I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I DO. I HAVE ONE.

MR. GRAVES, IS BEEKEEPING GOING TO BE ON THIS PROPERTY? THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE HONEY, IS THE HONEY BROUGHT IN FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE? I THINK THEY'RE PRODUCING.

HONEY, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE BEEKEEPING.

I'LL ASK IF THERE'S A MANAGER.

SOMEBODY WANT TO COME ON THE PREMISES? IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME FORWARD.

THANK YOU. NO, COME FORWARD.

AND IF YOU COULD ALSO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ALCOHOL.

AND TELL US YOUR NAME AND MONIQUE SINGLETON FOR THE ALCOHOL PART.

WE DO SELL CIDERS RIGHT NOW.

THAT IS ALSO A VIRGINIA COMPANY.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY ONES WE DO IS MEET AND CIDER.

BUT THAT'S JUST CORRELATIONS WITH THAT.

BUT WHAT WE'D BE SELLING AND MANUFACTURING WOULD BE THE MEAT AND HONEY.

SHE ALREADY HAS OVER 33 DIFFERENT HIVES ON DIFFERENT FARMS AND WHATNOT THAT SHE PAYS PEOPLE TO TAKE CARE OF.

BUT BY THE ABC LAW THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE WE HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE HIVE ON THE PREMISES.

OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO BEING A PUBLIC HEARING, WE WANT TO OPEN IT TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.

AND WHAT THIS IS, IS THE 11.

WHAT WAS IT, 1.3, TWO EIGHT ACRE LOT THAT WAS REZONED.

AND THE ADDITIONAL LOT WOULD BE BOTH OF THEM COMBINED TO MAKE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

SO ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, COME FORWARD NOW AND SPEAK TO THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO ADDRESS THIS SPECIAL EXCEPTION? COME FORWARD NOW AND SPEAK.

ONE MORE TIME. ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO FOR OR AGAINST A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO COME FORWARD AND LET IT BE HEARD.

ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY.

COME ON. JUST HIT ME.

YES, MA'AM. LILA MYERS.

8711 SECOND.

COURT DISPUTANTA, VIRGINIA.

I JUST HAPPEN TO BE REFERRING BACK IN MY MIND THAT MEADE IS A GOOD OLD SLAVIC WORD MODE.

I LOVE HONEY.

I LOVE HONEY SNACKS.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST IT, SO I'M TOTALLY STOKED AND EXCITED.

AND I ASK THAT YOU SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I'LL BE BUYING THAT HONEY, IF THEY PRODUCE IT.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PROJECT? THIS REZONING SPECIAL EXCEPTION? SEEING NO ONE ELSE.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT TO THE BOARD.

COMMENTS. ANYBODY MAKE A COMMENT? WANT TO RECOMMEND THIS? MR. CHAIR, APPROVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION?

[01:55:02]

YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. A MOTION INCLUDES THE CONDITIONS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

CORRECT. OKAY.

YES, THEY DO. YOU HEAR THAT, MR. BROWN? YES, SIR.

I DID HEAR THAT. YES.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

MRS. WAYMACK? YES, MR. HUNTER. YES, MR. WEBB? YES, MR. BROWN. YES.

YES. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION ON BUXTON STREET.

MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, MA'AM. I BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD IS FAMILIAR WITH THIS ITEM.

THE BOARD HAS HAD SEVERAL PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE PAST.

THE REASON FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING IS THAT AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER, THE LOTS WERE RECONFIGURED A LITTLE BIT, AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE AND GET AUTHORIZATION TO SELL THE LOTS AS THEY ARE. AND SO JUST ASKING THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE RESOLUTION THIS EVENING AUTHORIZING THE THE SALE OF THE LOTS TO THE PURCHASER IN THE RECONFIGURED CONFIGURATION.

YES, SIR. WHATEVER. OKAY.

SUPER. THANK YOU, MADAM COUNTY ATTORNEY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

YOU'VE HEARD THE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF OF COUNTY PROPERTY.

AND WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANOTHER ONE IS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SLIGHTLY RECONFIGURED, BUT IT'S STILL THE SAME PROPERTY.

SO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY ON IN RIVER'S EDGE SUBDIVISION ON BUXTON STREET.

ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION? SEEING NO ONE COMING FORWARD, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS, I WOULD STILL MOVE THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THIS REQUEST. OKAY.

THE RESOLUTION REQUEST HAS BEEN REQUESTED.

ANYBODY SECOND? I SECOND. A MOTION IN A SECOND FOR THE RESOLUTION.

CALL THE ROLL. MR. WAYMACK? YES, MR. HUNTER. YES. MR. WEBB. YES.

MR. BROWN.

YES. THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

WE'LL GO BACK TO A6 UNDER REGULAR BUSINESS.

A RESOLUTION TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO ASSIST WORKERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF FUEL FOCUS, NOT TO EXCEED.

YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN HUNTER.

VICE CHAIR WEBB. MS..

WAYMACK, MR. BROWN AND MISS ERARD.

MR. STOKE THE BOARD DURING ITS FY 24 BUDGET PROCESS AND DURING AN APPROPRIATION OF SOME FEDERAL FUNDING, RECEIVED AN OVERVIEW FROM OUR FLEET MANAGER, MR. TALMAGE, REGARDING FUEL FOCUS, WHICH IS AN INTEGRATED VEHICLE FUEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

AND THE MERITS OF THAT SYSTEM WOULD ALLOW WOULD IMPROVE ACCURACY AND TIMELINESS OF FUEL REPORTING TO THE GARAGE, WOULD REDUCE ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR MISUSE OF FUEL AND WOULD ALSO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION TO THE GARAGE WHEN THERE IS A VEHICLE THAT'S DUE FOR PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE AND ANY THAT ARE EXPERIENCING DIAGNOSTIC TROUBLE TROUBLE CODES, HE WOULD GET AN AUTOMATIC REPORTING OF THAT.

RIGHT NOW, WE RELY ON INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE FUELING TO ENTER THEIR MILEAGE AND WE DO HAVE HUMAN ERRORS FREQUENTLY.

SO DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, THE BOARD APPROVED A TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR FY 24 FOR $314,502.

ADDITIONALLY, YOU APPROVED THE USE OF $100,000 IN FEDERAL LOCAL ASSISTANCE AND TRIBAL CONSISTENCY FUNDS TO MAKE THIS PURCHASE BECAUSE THE PURCHASE IS OVER $50,000.

THE PROCUREMENT POLICY REQUIRES REQUIRES THE BOARD TO AWARD THE CONTRACT.

WE DID RECEIVE AN UPDATED QUOTE, THIS IS A COOPERATIVE CONTRACT, GSA COOPERATIVE CONTRACT FROM ASSET WORKS

[02:00:03]

$414,502 HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED FOR THE PROJECT.

SO THAT IS WITHIN THE BUDGET AND LEAVES A SMALL 3% CONTINGENCY OF JUST OVER $12,000.

WE ARE REQUESTING THE BOARD TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ASSET WORKS TO PURCHASE FUEL FOCUS AND MR. TALMAGE AND HIS TEAM CAN BEGIN THE IMPLEMENTATION ONCE IT'S APPROVED.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AND MR. SIMMONS IS IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANY QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A RESOLUTION.

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO PASS A RESOLUTION.

SO MOVED. A SECOND.

SECOND. A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY COMMENT, MR. BROWN? NO COMMENT.

CHAIRMAN. HONEY. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

MRS. WAYMACK? YES, MR. BROWN.

YES. MR. WEBB? YES.

MR. HUNTER. YES.

A7. A RESOLUTION TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO FURNISH AND INTERIORS BY THE SUPPLY ROOM FOR THE PURCHASE OF CIRCUIT COURT FURNITURE.

YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

YES, MA'AM. AS YOU'RE AWARE, THE BOARD APPROVED A RENOVATION OF THE CIRCUIT COURTROOM.

PART OF THE BUDGET FOR THAT PROJECT, WHICH WAS APPROPRIATED PREVIOUSLY, DID INCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF FURNITURE.

WE HAVE RECEIVED DESIGN SERVICES THROUGH MOSTLY ARCHITECTS, AND FURNITURE WAS SELECTED BY THE JUDGES AND THE STAFF IN THE COURTROOM AND THE COURT FACILITY.

AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO FURNITURE AND INTERIORS BY THE SUPPLY ROOM, WHICH IS A COOPERATIVE OMNIA CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,303.53. YOU HAVE AN ATTACHMENT THAT SHOWS THE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND THE QUOTE, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

MR. SIMMONS IS IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR AN AWARD OF AUTHORIZATION FOR MR. STOKE TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR $91,303.53 TO THE SUPPLY ROOM.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS DREWRY OR MR. SIMMONS? NO, I'M GOOD.

NO QUESTIONS. NO QUESTIONS.

ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SO MOVE. THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. I SECOND THE MOTION IN A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

MR. BROWN.

YES. MR. WEBB.

YES. MR. HUNTER.

YES. MRS. WAYMACK.

YES. A8 IS THE ADDED TO THE AGENDA IS THE APPOINTMENT.

YEAH. YEAH.

FOR A FOR A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTMENT.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE TO APPOINT ROBERT BALDWIN AS A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COUNTY OF PRINCE GEORGE, EFFECTIVE JULY THE 17TH, 2023.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND A MOTION IN A SECOND.

ANY QUESTIONS? HERE AND NONE. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

MR. BROWN.

YES, MR. WEBB? YES, MR. HUNTER. YES.

MRS. WAYMACK? YES.

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN TO THE AUGUST 8TH AUGUST 8TH MEETING.

SO MOVED. SO MOVED, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. A SECOND.

A SECOND. A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY QUESTIONS? CALL THE ROLL. MR. WEBB? YES.

MR. HUNTER. YES.

MRS. WAYMACK.

YES. MR. BROWN. YES.

THANK YOU FOR BEING THERE, MR. BROWN. WITH ALL OF THE THINGS.

YES, SIR. AT 803.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.