[00:00:01]
>> I'D LIKE TO CALL THE NOVEMBER 26TH MEETING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING TO ORDER.
[A. Call to Order (6:00 pm)]
MISS KNOTT, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.>> NEXT WE'LL MOVE TO MRS. WAYMACK IS GOING TO DO THE INVOCATION,
[B. Business Meeting]
AND MR. COX IS GOING TO DO PLEDGE.>> DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME TO YOU THANKFUL FOR OUR MANY BLESSINGS.
CONTINUE TO PROTECT US, CONTINUE TO SHIELD US, FATHER.
AS WE PREPARE FOR A THANKSGIVING DAY, LET US REMEMBER TO BE THANKFUL FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL LAND AND THE GOOD PEOPLE IN IT.
LET US BE THANKFUL FOR OUR FAMILIES AND OUR FRIENDS.
LET US BE THANKFUL FOR MANY THINGS, BUT LET US BE MOST THANKFUL FOR OUR SERVICE TO OTHERS AND FOR THOSE WHO SERVE US.
OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, WE ARE THANKFUL FOR THEM.
ALL OF THOSE WHO LABOR FOR THE COUNTY, WE ARE THANKFUL FOR THEM.
ALL OF THOSE WHO LABOR FOR OUR STATE, WE ARE THANKFUL FOR THEM, AND THOSE WHO LABOR FOR OUR COUNTRY, WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THEM.
FATHER, PLEASE BE WITH THOSE WHO ARE SICK IN MIND AND BODY AND SPIRIT.
BE WITH THEM. COMFORT THOSE WHO HAVE LOST LOVED ONES.
COMFORT THEM. IN YOUR HOLY NAME, WE PRAY, AMEN.
FOLKS, NOW, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO OUR PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY GOING TO BE SPOKE TO NOT ONLY PUBLIC HEARINGS WE HAVE, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK, NOW IS THE TIME TO ADDRESS THE BOARD.
GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
ANYONE LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TURN IT BACK OVER, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE BOARD, ADOPTION TO THE AGENDA.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THERE'S NO CORRECTIONS OR UPDATES TO THE AGENDA, I SO MOVE THAT WE WOULD ADOPT THE AGENDA AS PRINTED.
>> MISS KNOTT, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> YES. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THE CONSENT GENDER?
[C. Consent Agenda]
>> I'M MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> MISS KNOTT, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> NEXT, WE'LL GO TO SUPERVISOR COMMENT TONIGHT SINCE I'VE BEEN SKIPPING.
[D. Comments]
I'M GOING TO START WITH MR. BROWN.>> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR COMING OUT THIS EVENING.
WE HAVE A LOT ON OUR PLATE FOR TONIGHT.
I ALSO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO WISH EVERYONE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING COMING UP HERE REAL SOON.
JUST PLEASE STAY SAFE, BUT I THINK, AS MRS. WAYMACK SAID, DURING THE BOARD'S INVOCATION, THINK ABOUT OTHERS.
PUT YOUR HAND OUT TO HELP SOMEONE UP, NOT TO PUSH THEM DOWN.
AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT, AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE, AND I HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A VERY WONDERFUL THANKSGIVING WITH FAMILIES AND FRIENDS. THANK YOU.
>> I'D LIKE TO ECHO THE SAME SENTIMENTS.
I HOPE EVERYBODY HAS A VERY HAPPY THANKSGIVING.
CHRISTMAS IS COMING RIGHT ON THE HEELS OF IT, AND THAT WILL BE HERE BEFORE WE KNOW IT AS WELL.
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ASK EVERYBODY TO KEEP A THOUGHT AND PRAYER FOR THE BROCKWELL FAMILY.
MR. STEVE BROCKWELL IS ONE OF OUR PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS.
HE LOST HIS MOTHER LAST THURSDAY.
BAD TIME OF YEAR TO BE GOING THROUGH THAT, SO IF YOU WILL, JUST KEEP A KIND WORD FOR HIM. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.
>> I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT.
ANYBODY TRAVELING FOR THANKSGIVING, PLEASE BE SAFE ON THE ROADWAYS.
I'D LIKE TO ECHO EVERYBODY ELSE'S COMMENTS UP HERE TONIGHT. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.
PLEASE BE CAREFUL ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TRAVELING.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF Y'ALL RUN THE ROADS ON A REGULAR BASIS.
IT'S BAD ENOUGH ON A GOOD DAY.
[00:05:02]
THIS WEEKEND IS SUPPOSED TO BE REALLY ATROCIOUS, AND EVERYBODY'S GOT THE SAME IDEA OF TRYING TO HIT THE ROAD EARLY TO BEAT THE TRAFFIC.I THINK EVERYBODY ELSE HAS FIGURED THAT OUT.
BUT I'M GOING TO ECHO THE SAME SENTIMENTS.
SORRY TO HEAR ABOUT MR. BROCKWELL.
THAT'S THE FIRST I HEARD OF THAT. PLEASE PASS ALONG.
>> NOW WE'LL MOVE TO ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS.
AS WE APPROACH THE HOLIDAY SEASON, COUNTY OFFICES WILL BE CLOSED TOMORROW, BEGINNING AT 12:30 PM FOR A HALF DAY.
THEY WILL BE CLOSED THURSDAY FOR THANKSGIVING AND FRIDAY FOR THANKSGIVING.
SATURDAY IS SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY.
PLEASE SUPPORT YOUR SMALL BUSINESSES AND MERCHANTS.
DECEMBER 2ND, THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RIGHT HERE AT SIX O'CLOCK REGARDING AN UPDATE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY THE PRINCE GEORGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE BERKELEY GROUP.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4TH IS THE ANNUAL TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY HOSTED BY PARKS AND REC AT 7:00 PM.
THEN ALSO HOSTED BY PARKS AND REC ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 7TH, WILL BE THE PRINCE GEORGE CHRISTMAS PARADE BEGINNING AT 3:00 PM. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> THANK YOU. FOLKS, NEXT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO REPORTS.
[E. Reports]
THE FIRST ONE ON THE LIST IS PUBLIC AREA TRANSIT.I THINK MR. DEBREE IS GOING TO START OFF WITH THIS.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN WEBB, VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN, BOARD MEMBERS, MR. STOKE, AND MISS ERARD.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING US PRESENT TONIGHT ON OUR SURVEY FINDINGS FROM THE PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT EXTENSION AND TWO INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
WE HAVE HERE TONIGHT MR. LESTER STEVENSON, WHO'S THE OPERATIONS MANAGER WITH PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT.
HE'LL BE GOING OVER A PART OF THE PRESENTATION AS WELL.
I DO WANT TO THANK PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT AND THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR ASSISTING WITH OUR RESEARCH.
WE'LL BE GOING OVER A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND SURVEY RESULTS, THE STOPS PROPOSED BY PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT, NEXT STEPS, AND ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
ON JUNE 11TH, PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT PRESENTED TO THE BOARD THE OPTION OF EXTENDING THEIR SERVICES TO INDUSTRIAL AREAS IN THE COUNTY.
AT THAT TIME, THE BOARD SUGGESTED STAFF TO SURVEY AND RESEARCH THE NEED IN EXTENDING THEIR SERVICES INTO INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT A STUDY THAT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE TRI CITIES MPO THAT STATES THAT OF COURSE, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY IS VERY PROMINENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND USE.
BUT WE DO HAVE INDUSTRIAL LAND USE THAT'S CONCENTRATED NEAR OUR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS THAT MINIMIZES THE IMPACT FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
WE ARE WELL SUITED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THOSE CORRIDORS.
THIS STUDY ALSO HIGHLIGHTS THAT PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT SERVES AS THE BACKBONE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE TRI CITIES METRO, AND CURRENTLY, THEY'RE RUNNING 12 ROUTES.
THEY CONNECT TO THE GREATER RICHMOND TRANSIT COMPANY AND BLACKSTONE TRANSIT DINWIDDIE EXPRESS LINE.
BUT IT DOES NOT EXTEND INTO RURAL OR INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
WITH THAT, THE STUDY DID FIND SOME ISSUES.
WE DO HAVE A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONE OR FEWER VEHICLES.
TRANSPORTATION IS AN ISSUE WITHIN THOSE URBAN AREAS, AND THOSE POPULATION DENSITY URBAN AREAS CANNOT REACH JOBS IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
THE SOLUTION THAT THIS STUDY SUGGESTED WAS TO EXPAND PUBLIC TRANSIT TO THOSE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES IN THE COUNTY.
ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, OUR DEPARTMENT, ALONG WITH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT, HELD A PUBLIC INPUT MEETING FOR BUSINESSES WITHIN SOUTH POINT, CROSS POINT, AND WE INCLUDED STANDARD MOTORS, FOOD LINE DISTRIBUTION IN BOSTIC.
ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, SURVEYS WERE EMAILED TO ALL THOSE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES,
[00:10:04]
AND ALSO OUR DEPARTMENT PHYSICALLY MAILED SURVEYS TO THE INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES.THERE WERE A TOTAL OF 23 BUSINESSES, WITH SEVEN AGREEING THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT OR BE INTERESTED IN THOSE SERVICES.
SIX OF THEM STATE THAT THERE IS A STRUGGLE WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES FOR TRANSPORTATION TO WORK.
SOME OF THE CONCERNS WERE THE TIMING AND SAFETY CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO THE STOPS.
WE ALSO WORKED WITH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ON ANY REGULATIONS WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAYS, BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THESE PROPOSED ROUTES ARE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
WITH THAT, VDOT HAS STATED THAT ALL NEW STOPS WOULD HAVE TO CONFORM TO THE US ACCESS BOARD OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES.
THESE REQUIREMENTS BASICALLY REQUIRE A ADA TYPE OF STOP.
THAT WOULD COME WITH CONCRETE, OVERHANG, LIGHTING, AND WHATNOT.
WITH OUR RESEARCH, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THESE TYPE OF TRANSIT SHELTERS WOULD COST AROUND $20,000 OR MORE.
THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT WOULD WORK WITH THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN UTILIZING THE PARKING LOTS WITHIN THAT BUSINESS.
WITH THAT, I'LL LET MR. STEVENSON GO OVER SOME EXAMPLES OF THE STOPS AND HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
>> AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE, PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT, OFF THE BACK OF WHAT MR. JABRI SAID, WE WENT AND SURVEYED THESE PROPERTIES AND SAW WHERE IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO GO THROUGH THE PARKING LOT AND USE THE PARKING LOT FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT'S INTERESTED IN HAVING A SERVICE IN THE AREA.
AS HE SPOKE OF THE SHELTERS AND THE STOPS ARE NOT NECESSARY, WE FOUND THE WAY AROUND THAT TO BE MORE COST EFFICIENT.
EACH LOCATION THAT WE WOULD BE GOING TO HAS A PARKING LOT WHERE WE WOULD BE DROPPING THOSE RIDERS OFF INSIDE OF THE PARKING LOTS.
EACH SLIDE WILL SHOW YOU WHERE WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE DROPPING THE PASSENGERS OFF.
I WANT TO GO BACK. DO ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YOU GOT MORE [INAUDIBLE].
THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE SHOWS A SCHEDULE.
WE CAN MAKE THE SCHEDULE ANY WAY IT NEEDS TO BE, IS NOTHING THAT'S IN CONCRETE.
THE MOST PART OF IT IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PASSENGERS ARE GETTING WHERE THEY NEED TO BE AT THE TIMES THAT THEY NEED TO ACTUALLY BE THERE.
THIS IS JUST A DRAFT OF ONE OF THE SCHEDULE WHICH SHOWS THE TIME POINTS AND THE AREAS THAT WE WERE TRAVELING INTO PRINCE GEORGE.
>> THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION.
IF THE BOARD WISHES, STAFF CAN WORK WITH PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT AND OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY ON DRAFTING A CONTRACT AGREEMENT TO BRING THIS FORTH AT A LATER DATE FOR THE BOARD.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
>> MY QUESTION, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE TWO CONCERNS.
I THINK IT WAS TIMING AND SAFETY.
I HEARD ABOUT TIMING THAT'S NOT SET IN STONE, SO I'M SURE THAT CAN PROBABLY BE ACCOMMODATED TO THOSE BUSINESSES.
WHAT WERE THE SAFETY CONCERNS, AND DOES THE PARKING LOT PICKUP ADDRESS THOSE SAFETY CONCERNS?
>> YES. DUE TO THE REGULATIONS THAT HE SPOKE OF, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH MUCH MORE TO GET THE STOPS PUT OUT ON THE REGULAR STREETS, THE ROADS, DUE TO THE SPEED LIMITS, THE BUSES STOPPING, HOLDING UP PRINCE GEORGE CITIZENS WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THE WORK, ETC.
GOING INTO THE PRIVATE PARKING LOTS,
[00:15:03]
THEY ARE PRIVATE, AND THAT WOULD ELIMINATE ANY RISK FOR ANY PASSENGERS.WE HAVE A LOT OF SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE UNIQUE LANDSCAPE SITUATIONS TO WHERE WE CAN'T ACTUALLY STOP ON THE STREET, SO WE DO GO INTO THOSE BUSINESSES LIKE WALMART, ETC.
WE GO INTO THOSE BUSINESSES AND WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE TO HAVE A STOP, WE GET WITH THE BUSINESS OWNER AND WE FIND OUT WHERE THE SAFEST LOCATION WOULD BE, AND WHAT THEY WOULD DO TO CONTRIBUTE FOR IT TO BE SAFE.
MOST LIKELY, LIKE WALMART ON SOUTH CRATER ROAD, IT WOULD BE A SHELTER.
IT WOULD BE A POLE TO BE ABLE TO STOP THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC FROM HITTING THE RIDERS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
>> IN THOSE PARKING LOTS, THERE STILL WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF SHELTER, BUT IT'S IN THE PRIVATE PARKING LOT?
>> IT'S IN THE PRIVATE PARKING LOT.
WOULD TAKE IT OFF THE STREETS OF PRINCE GEORGE, SO YOU GUYS WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
IT WOULD BE UP TO THE BUSINESS OWNER HOW THEY WANT TO SET UP THE STOPS.
WE HAVE A VARIETY OF WAYS OF HOW WE SET STOPS UP.
SOME WE CAN JUST PUT A POLE DOWN.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME MARKINGS TO MAKE IT ADA COMPLIANT BECAUSE ONCE YOU DEBARK A PASSENGER, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET ACROSS FROM ONE SECTION TO THE OTHER SECTION, SO IT WOULD BE A SAFE DEBARKING.
>> ARE THERE OVERHEAD PROTECTION FOR THOSE RIDERS LIKE IN THE BAD WEATHER? IS THAT NECESSARY IN THE PARKING LOT?
>> YES. IT'S NECESSARY, BUT DUE TO THE FACT THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY PULLING UP TO A BUSINESS, AND EVERYBODY WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A TIME SCHEDULE, WE JUST MADE A PAT WEBSITE, SO IT GIVES YOU DIRECT INFORMATION OF EVERYTHING THAT YOU WOULD NEED.
MOST LIKELY, THOSE RIDERS WOULD JUST COME OUT OF THE JOB WHICHEVER AREA THAT THEY'RE COMING FROM AND JUST GET ON THE BUS.
THAT WOULDN'T BE A MAJOR CONCERN IN THE BEGINNING, BUT HOPEFULLY ONCE THE PILOT TAKES OFF AND EVERYBODY GETS ABOARD, WE'LL BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND PUT THOSE SHELTERS OUT TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE ELEMENTS.
>> LAST QUESTION. WITH THE CHANGE IN THE TYPE OF THE SHELTERS OR THE PICKUP IN THE PRIVATE PARKING, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE FULL ADA COMPLIANT WAS 20,000 PLUS.
ANY GUESSTIMATION ON THE COST WITH IT BEING IN THE PARKING LOT THAT'S [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO. IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE ACTUAL COURSE OF THE SHELTER.
THE SHELTER WOULD BE THE COURSE OF THE SHELTER BECAUSE THE MATERIAL AND WHAT IT IS MADE OF TO BE WEATHERPROOF AND SO IT WOULD BE THE SAME.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE A WORRY BECAUSE THE BUSINESS OWNERS MOST LIKELY WOULD WANT TO PROTECT.
THE SHELTERS ARE BASICALLY BUILT LIKE IF YOU SEE A SMOKING SECTION, AND THEY HAVE A SHELTER TO GO IN.
SOME OF THEM ARE NOSTALGIC, SOME OF THEM, IT'S JUST METAL.
ONCE WE TALK TO THOSE GUYS, WE WOULD SEE HOW FAR THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO GO TO ASSIST WITH IT, AND I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE AN ISSUE.
IT'S ONE OF THE MINOR DETAILS.
THE TRANSIT ITSELF, THE OPERATORS, THE MECHANICS, AND ALL THE OTHER MOVING PARTS IS MORE INTRICATE THAN THE SHELTERS.
>> MR. JABRI, REMIND US AGAIN, WHAT COST ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? I HEARD THE COST FOR THE SHELTER.
I REMEMBER AT THE LAST PRESENTATION, THERE WAS A COST FOR A CONTRACT FOR X NUMBER OF YEARS, BUT CAN YOU JUST HIGH LEVEL, IF YOU REMEMBER IT, JUST SO THE BOARD IS STILL AWARE OF WHAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> YES. I BELIEVE THE NEW FIGURE BECAUSE THIS WILL EXTEND OUT TO FOOD LINE AND CEDAR MOTORS.
I BELIEVE IT'S AROUND $26,000.
I BELIEVE STAFF, THE BOARD WAS LOOKING THAT THIS WOULD POSSIBLY COME OUT FROM MEALS TAX, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND, WHICH WE DO HAVE A HEALTHY FUND RIGHT NOW FOR THAT.
>> WOULD THAT ALSO INCLUDE THEN THE SHELTERS COMING OUT OF THAT OR [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE SHELTERS WOULD BE ON THE PRIVATE BUSINESS TO ESTABLISH.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS A COUNTY EXPENSE. I'M SORRY.
>> YEAH, I GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
THE ONLY WAY TO GET ON THE BUS IS THE CURRENT BUS STOP, CORRECT?
>> IF WE'VE GOT AREAS IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, HOW ARE OUR RESIDENTS GOING TO GET ON THE BUS TO GO TO THESE JOBS? THAT'S MY CONCERN. ARE THEY GOING TO DRIVE TO PETERSBURG AND GET ON THE BUS TO GO WORK IN OUR BUSINESS PARK?
>> NO, YOU CAN ORCHESTRATE THE ROUTE.
AS LONG AS THE ROUTE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING
[00:20:01]
IS ACTUALLY AN EXTENSION TO ANOTHER 460 COUNTY DRIVE ROUTE, WHICH COMES INTO PRINCE GEORGE.HOTWELL ITSELF, YOU HAVE BOUNDARIES THAT'S ALREADY PRINCE GEORGE, SO WHAT RELATES TO THAT IS, WE WERE GOING TO PUT A STOP OUT IN FRONT OF THE COURTHOUSE HERE AND THAT WOULD BE ONE.
ANY OTHER STOPS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RESIDENTS THAT WOULD NEED TO GO, WE CAN JUST ORCHESTRATE THE ROUTE TO GO THAT WAY AS LONG AS IT SEND REASON TO WHERE WE CAN MAKE IT BACK TO PETERSBURG STATION.
>> MY CONCERN IS, THEN WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADA COMPLIANT AND THE BUS STOP HERE AT THE COURTHOUSE COMPLEX, CORRECT?
>> THEN SAY IF WE WANTED DECATUR TO THE JEFFERSON POINT APARTMENTS OR BRANCHESTER, LAKES OR BURCH, WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE STOPS AS WELL.
>> YES, BUT LET ME REITERATE THAT THE SHELTERS IS A PLUS TO SERVICE.
OF COURSE, YOU WANT TO PROTECT FOLKS THAT HAVE TO STAND OUT THERE, BUT EVERY STOP THAT WE HAVE IS ADA COMPLIANT, THAT WE ALREADY SERVICE, AND THERE ARE NO SHELTERS AT EVERY STOP.
WE HAVE SHELTERS AT HIGH VOLUME STOPS.
IF YOU HAD A HIGH VOLUME STOP OR YOU HAD A PERSON THAT WOULD NEED TO GET ON THE BUS OR MULTIPLE PEOPLE THAT WOULD NEED TO GET ON THE BUS AT THAT LOCATION, THAT WOULD BE A PRIME STOP FOR YOU TO PUT A SHELTER.
TO LOOK AT IT AS $20,000 OR WHATEVER THAT COST MAY BE FOR EVERY STOP THAT YOU PUT OUT, IT WON'T BE NECESSARY.
>> I GUESS MY CONCERN IS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS BENEFITS THE CURRENT CITIZEN IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY WITH TRANSPORTATION.
THE SECOND THING I'VE GOT A QUESTION ON, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO GET EMPLOYEES TO THESE BUSINESSES, BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A NON-EMPLOYEE GETS OFF THE BUS AT THAT BUSINESS? IS THAT GOING TO CAUSE AN ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD? THAT'S MY OTHER CONCERN.
IS THERE SOMETHING IN PLACE IF THEY DON'T WORK THERE OR IF THEY'RE THERE FOR AN INTERVIEW, HEY, I GOT LOST.
I'M HERE NOW AND CAUSING ISSUES.
IS THERE SOMETHING IN PLACE WITH THE BUS?
>> WITH TRANSIT IN EVERY STATE AND EVERY JURISDICTION IS ALWAYS THAT WORRYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PASSENGER ABOARD THAT'S GOING TO LOITER OR GET OFF IN A LOCATION.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE ROUTES THAT GO THROUGH VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY.
YOU DO HAVE MINORS THERE, YOU HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN.
WE GO THROUGH RICHARD BLAND, SO WE DON'T EXPERIENCE ANY OF THOSE ISSUES AT THIS TIME, SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A MAJOR WORRY.
OF COURSE, I CAN'T LOOK INTO THE FUTURE, BUT WE HAVE THINGS IN PLACE TO WHERE THE OPERATORS ARE CURRENTLY TRAINED, AND WE DO REGULAR TRAINING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY LOOK OUT FOR THESE THINGS.
WE HAVE CAMERAS ABOARD THE BUSES, AND WE ALSO DEAL WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
>> THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I'VE GOT AT THIS TIME.
>> I'VE GOT A COUPLE. I APPRECIATE THE SURVEY, BUT WHAT THE SURVEY HAS SHOWN ME IS THAT TWO THIRDS OF THE BUSINESSES ARE NOT EVEN INTERESTED.
THEY DIDN'T EVEN RESPOND TO IT.
>> IT'S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THAT.
WHEN YOU SEND A ROUTE THROUGH A AREA, NOBODY KNOWS IF THEY'RE GOING TO NEED THE ROUTE UNTIL THEY NEED TRANSPORTATION.
IF YOU STARTED OFF AS A PILOT AT A LOW COST, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IT WILL GAIN MOMENTUM WITHIN TIME.
THERE'S ONLY TWO THINGS THAT EVERYTHING DOES, IS EITHER PASS OR IT FAILS.
THE ONLY WAY TO SEE IF IT'S GOING TO PASS IS TO APPROVE THE PILOT AND SEE WHAT MOMENTUM YOU'RE GOING TO GAIN.
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE THE SURVEY.
IT SHOULD HAVE WENT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AND TRIED TO FIND OUT HOW MANY EMPLOYEES FROM EACH LOCATION WOULD BE INTERESTED IN RIDING THE BUS.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEND THE COUNTY TAXPAYERS DOLLARS FOR ONE OR TWO RIDERS.
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WELL RECEIVED, SENT OUT, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THEN IS IT GOING TO BE EVEN WORSE WHEN THE EMPLOYEES DON'T EVEN RESPOND TO IT, OR THERE'S NO RIDERS ON IT AND WE'VE GOT OURSELVES LOCKED INTO A CONTRACT.
PETERSBURG MODERNIZATION, WE'RE DEALING WITH THEM RIGHT NOW, AS FAR AS OUR PRIVATE TRANSIT SERVICE.
THEY'RE OUT, AND THEY'RE GIVING SURVEYS, AND THEY HAVE A SURVEY THAT I JUST PUT ON THE WEBSITE, AND IT HAS PICKED UP ABOUT 1,600 PEOPLE WITHIN TWO MONTHS.
IT CAN BE ADVERTISED FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO GET THOSE NUMBERS BEFORE YOU MAKE A DEFINITE DECISION, BUT EVERY ROUTE STARTS OFF THIS WAY.
IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A IF THERE, BUT IF YOU PUT IT OUT THERE AND YOU SEND IT TO
[00:25:02]
YOUR POPULAR AREAS WHERE YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PASSENGERS OR WHERE YOU KNOW PEOPLE DON'T HAVE VEHICLES, I BELIEVE THAT THE MOMENTUM WILL PICK UP AND MAKE YOU HAPPY THAT YOU CHOSE TO DO IT.>> ONE OTHER QUESTION, MS. [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR YOU.
WHAT LIABILITY DOES A BUSINESS HAVE IF A BUS COMES ONTO THEIR FACILITY AND SOMEONE THAT IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE GETS HURT?
>> I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE NATURE OF THE INJURY.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT'S AN INJURY RELATED TO INADEQUATE LIGHTING, SNOW OR ICE REMOVAL, A HOLE IN THE GROUND, THERE COULD BE SOME LIABILITY FOR THAT, BUT OTHERWISE, NOT REALLY MUCH LIABILITY.
I WOULD THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE BUS COMPANY SAYING THAT THE BUS COMPANY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, INJURIES, ETC.
>> BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING I'D REALLY BE INTERESTED IN IS, DO WE HAVE THOSE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE BEFORE WE MAKE AN AGREEMENT? BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE CAN MAKE AN AGREEMENT AND THEN ALL OF THEM SAY, WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.
THAT, AGAIN, IS SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
HOW MANY BUSINESS ACTUALLY, WHEN THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD AND THEY KNOW ALL THE DETAILS, WILL ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE AND ALLOWING Y'ALL TO COME ON THEIR FACILITIES?
>> WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT IS ONCE THEY PARTICIPATE, THEIR PROPERTY BECOMES PART OF THE ROUTE.
WALMART HAVE A LOT OF YOUNG KIDS.
THEY HAVE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, ELDERLY, ETC, AND THEY TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE STREET, AND THE OPERATORS ARE TRAINED TO SLOW DOWN.
WE ONLY GO FIVE OR LESS INSIDE PARKING LOTS.
EACH ONE OF THOSE OPERATORS ARE EMPLOYED THROUGH THEIR CDL.
NOBODY IS TRYING TO JEOPARDIZE A CDL FOR SPEEDING, ETC.
I THINK THAT CONCERN IS LEGITIMATE, BUT ALL THE BUSINESSES THAT MR. JABRI HAS SIGNED UP, THAT AGREEMENT GOES WITH THAT, THEIR PROPERTY BECOMES PART OF THE ROUTE.
>> MR. DREW, CAN YOU SHARE THE BUSINESSES THAT HAVE AGREED TO IT?
>> I DO NOT HAVE THE LIST WITH ME TODAY, BUT WE CAN SHARE THAT LIST WITH THE BOARD.
>> I ASKED TO ADD ONE OTHER THING.
I THINK THIS CONVERSATION IS TWOFOLD.
ONE, IT'S ABOUT THE CITIZENS HERE IN PRINCE GEORGE, BUT I THINK THE OTHER PICTURE IS WORKFORCE RELATED, AND THAT IS US OFFERING A MECHANISM FOR THE BUSINESSES IN THE COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO GET A WORKFORCE COMING IN TO THEM, WHICH WE ALL KNOW, WHEN WE BRING BUSINESSES HERE IN THE COUNTY, THAT'S THEIR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT WORKFORCE.
ALSO SITTING FOR ME AS THE CHAIR ON THE ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR THE CRATER WORKFORCE BOARD.
I THINK THIS IS GREAT THING MYSELF, JUST BECAUSE IT OPENS UP THE DOOR FOR PEOPLE LOOKING FOR JOBS HERE IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
IT GIVES US A MECHANISM TO BRING THAT WORKFORCE IN.
I THINK WHEN OTHER COMPANIES SEE THAT, THAT MIGHT OPEN THEIR EYES INTO WHY THEY SHOULD BE IN PRINCE GEORGE, IF PRINCE GEORGE IS MAKING AN EFFORT TO BRING THE WORKFORCE TO THEM.
I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.
>> MR. BROWN, I THINK I CAN GET BEHIND YOU ON THE WORKFORCE.
MY CONCERN IS I DON'T WANT TO USE THE CITIZENS' TAX DOLLARS TO PAY FOR IT DOWN THE ROAD. THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
IF THE BUSINESSES WANT TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO HELP WITH THIS BECAUSE WE WANT EMPLOYEES, I'M ALL FOR IT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND X TO GET WORKERS TO A BUSINESS FOR THE BUSINESS.
YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING, WHEN IT'S THE CITIZENS' DOLLAR.
>> I GET IT. IT'S THE CITIZENS' DOLLAR, BUT KEEP IN MIND, BRINGING THE WORKFORCE INTO THESE BUSINESSES AND GETTING EITHER ATTRACTING NEW BUSINESS INCREASES OUR TAX BASE.
IN TURN, THAT TAX BASE HELPS TO KEEP OUR TAXES TO OUR CITIZENS LOWER.
I'M NOT SAYING MAKING DECISION TONIGHT.
I'M JUST THROWING OUT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
I PERSONALLY HEAR ALL THE OTHER CONCERNS, AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE NOT VALID CONCERNS.
I'M JUST TRYING TO EVEN THE SCALE A LITTLE BIT.
>> JUST AS A REMINDER, IF I MAY.
DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE THAT COMES WITH
[00:30:02]
THE SERVICE FOR ELDERLY, HANDICAP, ETC.ONCE YOU SIGN ON TO THE SERVICE, YOU ALSO GET THAT ON THE TAIL END.
>> THAT'S OUR PARATRANSIT SERVICES.
WE PICK UP ELDERLY BY APPOINTMENT, AND WE TRAVEL THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE TO WHICHEVER WAY THAT WE GO ON THE ROUTE.
>> THERE IS NO AGE LIMIT. IT'S BY NEED.
RIGHT NOW, AS I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, PETERSBURG, MODERNIZATION, THEY'RE HANDING OUT FLYERS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO OFFSET NON-EMERGENCY CALLS FROM GOING TO THE EMERGENCY ESTABLISHMENTS TO CUT OFF THE EMTS FOR ELDERLY THAT NEED TO GET TO THE DOCTOR, FEEL LIKE THEY'RE SICK, BUT IT'S NOT EMERGENCY, WE'RE WILLING TO GO OUT AND GET THOSE GUYS AND BRING THEM TO THE LOCATIONS THAT THEY NEED TO BE.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE ONE BASICALLY, A STATEMENT OR CLARIFICATION.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE PAID AT THE MEALS TAX, CORRECT?
>> THAT WAS A SUGGESTION. YES.
>> GRANT, THAT IS THE TAX HOUSE, BUT IT'S ALSO COMBINED WITH TRANSIENT.
ANYBODY COMES FROM OUTSIDE OUR LOCATION TO STAY IN HOTELS, EAT IN A RESTAURANTS, WHATEVER, THAT'S ALL PART OF THE DEAL, SO YEAH, IT IS SHARED.
MY COMMENT IS, IT'S BEEN ASKED ABOUT SEVERAL DIFFERENT YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD.
I DO AGREE WITH MR. BROWN ON THE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN THING WE GET ASKED ABOUT, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET PEOPLE.
WE WANT TO HAVE THE BUSINESS, BUT WE WANT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET PEOPLE.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA MYSELF.
AT LEAST TO TRY IT, SEE THE DETAILS.
WORST CASE SCENARIO DON'T WORK, THEN WE PULL IT BACK, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A LOT OF SENIOR CITIZENS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH TRYING TO DRIVE AND WITH THE TRAFFIC, ESPECIALLY THE WAY IT'S GETTING OUT IN TODAY'S WORLD.
>> WE DO ASSIST PETERSBURG AND THE OTHER LOCALITIES.
WE ASSIST THEM WITH BURNOUTS, EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION AND THINGS OF THAT NEED, SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP OUT TREMENDOUSLY AS FAR AS THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE'VE ALSO WENT OUT AND VOLUNTEERED OURSELVES WHEN THE CARRIAGE HOUSE WENT DOWN DUE TO THEIR SITUATION, WE WENT OUT AND WE PICKED THOSE FOLKS UP FOR ABOUT TWO MONTHS AND GOT THEM TO THE LOCATION SO THEY CAN STILL GET TO THE BASIC NECESSITIES.
>> NO. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF ALL YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS A CONSENSUS EITHER WAY TONIGHT, I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND STEP OUT THERE.
I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH AT LEAST ALLOWING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT TO DRAFT UP A CONTRACT THAT WOULD THEN NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS BOARD FOR US TO REVIEW AND ASK OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT AT LEAST THIS IS NOT MAKING COMMITMENT YET THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT.
IT'S JUST GIVING HER THE OKAY TO GO AHEAD AND LOOK TO DRAFT UP A CONTRACT.
I WOULD BE A THUMBS-UP ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT PIECE.
>> I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING.
>> I WANT TO SEE WHAT BUSINESSES HAVE SIGNED ON TO IT BEFORE I COMMIT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT ALL OF OUR I'S DOTTED AND OUR T'S CROSSED.
>> I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WORKING ON IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO INQUIRE SOME MORE INFORMATION. ABSOLUTELY.
>> I'M GOING TO AGREE AS WELL.
>> I GOT ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, SIR, BEFORE YOU LEAVE.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, INTRODUCE THAT GENTLEMAN STANDING BEHIND YOU.
YOU'VE BEEN STANDING THERE [OVERLAPPING] THE WHOLE HOUR. [LAUGHTER]
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS MICHAEL EDWARDS.
I'M ONE OF THE SUPERVISORS AT PETERSBURG AREA TRANSIT, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING BUSINESS WITH PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
[LAUGHTER] HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING.
>> I DO WANT TO THANK THE BOARD FOR PASSING THE RESOLUTION FOR SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY, AND THIS NEXT PRESENTATION FITS THE THEME FOR THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR LETTING ME PRESENT.
THIS WILL BE ANOTHER DUAL PRESENTATION WITH MR. JAMES CLEMENTS, THE TREASURER OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE IN REGARDS TO THEIR MICROBUSINESS GRANT PROGRAM.
[00:35:03]
>> SO WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER THE BACKGROUND, THE GUIDELINES, AND NEXT STEPS.
ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON A POSSIBILITY OF A GRANT PROGRAM FOR OVER TWO YEARS NOW.
IN 2022, THE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN DOES DIRECT STAFF TO EXPLORE POTENTIAL INCENTIVES FOR CONTINUED BUSINESS GROWTH.
WE DO, THROUGH OUR DEPARTMENT, GET A LOT OF REQUESTS OR QUESTIONS THROUGH OUR BUSINESS RETENTION AND EXPANSION PROGRAM ON WHAT INCENTIVES ARE FOR MICROBUSINESSES.
MR. CLEMENTS WILL EXPLAIN WHAT ARE MICROBUSINESSES, BUT THEY ARE 25 EMPLOYEES OR LESS, AND OUR COUNTY CONSISTS OF 90% OR MORE OF THOSE BUSINESSES.
WE KNOW THAT WHEN LOCAL BUSINESSES THRIVE, THEY CREATE JOBS, INCREASE REVENUE FOR THE LOCALITY, AND FOSTER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR CITIZENS.
OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS APPROVED THE GUIDELINES THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT, BUT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR FUNDING.
WITH THAT, I WILL PASS IT OVER TO MR. JAMES CLEMENTS TO GO OVER THE PROGRAM.
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU FOR LETTING US PRESENT TONIGHT, AND JUST INTRODUCTION AGAIN.
JAMES CLEMENTS, TREASURER ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THE TIME TONIGHT.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER.
ALSO, I LIKE TO THANK CHAIRMAN HUNT, AND WE HAVE MANY DIRECTORS ON THE EDA HERE TONIGHT AS WELL, SO WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW A STRONG SUPPORT FOR THIS PROGRAM.
WE REALLY ARE PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS, AND WE SEE A STRONG NEED FOR IT IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
THIS IS A MICROBUSINESS GRANT PROGRAM THE EDA WILL BE RUNNING.
I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST START OFF BY SAYING THAT THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT THE EDA DIRECTORS ARE COMMITTED TO DOING WHETHER OR NOT THAT IT IS COUNTY-FUNDED SUPPORTED.
THE EDA HAS FUNDS, AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING THIS PROGRAM AND HELPING THE BUSINESSES IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, HOWEVER BEST WE CAN DO IT.
WE SEE A STRONG NEED FOR THIS PROGRAM, BUT THE IMPACT CAN BE MUCH LARGER WITH THE COUNTY SUPPORT, SO THAT'S WHY I'M STANDING HERE IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.
THE ELIGIBILITY, WE REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON MICROBUSINESSES, LIKE MR. JABRI SAID, 25 EMPLOYEES OR LESS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IS IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
WE REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND PROBABLY ABOUT TWO YEARS OR SO, NOT NECESSARILY START-UP BUSINESSES.
WE WANT THESE FUNDS TO GO TO BUSINESSES THAT WOULD REALLY BE ABLE TO THEN TAKE THE NEXT STEP WITH THEIR BUSINESS.
WE WANT THESE PROJECTS TO SUCCEED.
WE WANT TO SEE THIS PROGRAM VERY SUCCESSFUL AND CONTINUE ON IN FUTURE YEARS.
THIS IS NOT JUST A ONE-YEAR PROGRAM THAT THE EDA WOULD LIKE TO DO.
WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS MOVING FORWARD, BUT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON MICROBUSINESSES.
IDEALLY, WE WOULD HAVE WE KEPT THE GUIDELINES OPEN ABOUT SPECIFIC AMOUNTS OF GRANTS OR SPECIFIC FUNDING FOR EACH GRANT.
WE HAVE A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $25,000 PER BUSINESS PROJECT, BUT WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW HOW MANY APPLICATIONS WE'RE GOING TO GET.
IF WE GET SOMETHING AROUND 15-20 APPLICATIONS IN THE FIRST YEAR, WE WILL CALL THAT A SUCCESS BY ALL MEANS, AND SO WE ARE LOOKING AT FUNDING ROUGHLY 5-7 PROJECTS IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY WITH MAXIMUM FUNDING OF UP TO $25,000, BUT SOME OF THE GRANTS WILL BE OBVIOUSLY LESS THAN THAT, BUT THE EDA WILL GO THROUGH EACH APPLICATION AND WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE THAT THE BUSINESS PROJECT WILL FIT WITHIN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, WILL FIT WITHIN THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNTY, AND MAKE SURE THAT IT WILL HAVE THE BEST IMPACT THAT IT CAN HAVE, REALLY.
WE WILL HAVE A COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS.
DURING THIS PROCESS, WHEN APPLICANTS ARE SELECTED, WE WILL ALSO ENCOURAGE THEM, AND IT WILL BE PART OF THE PROGRAM FOR THEM TO TAKE BUSINESS EDUCATION COURSES, AS WELL.
WE HAVE GIVEN A VARIETY OF OPTIONS FOR THESE APPLICANTS TO BE ABLE TO GET MORE EDUCATION ABOUT THESE SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND EXPANSIONS THAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR BUSINESSES.
ONCE THESE APPLICANTS ARE SELECTED, GO THROUGH THE EDUCATION COURSES, THEY WILL THEN PITCH THEIR PROPOSAL TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
[00:40:02]
GIVING THE DIRECTORS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL OF OUR INFORMATION IN ORDER FROM THE BUSINESS AND THEN THEY WILL BE AWARDED FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT, IS WHAT WE ARE AIMING TO DO, BUT WE HAVE A FAIRLY COMPREHENSIVE SET OF GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN VOTED ON AND APPROVED BY THE EDA.NOW, THESE PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY, WE ALSO KEPT THIS A LITTLE OPEN ENDED AS WELL BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY LIMIT THE PROJECTS THAT COME BECAUSE OF THIS MICROBUSINESS GRANT PROGRAM.
WE HAVE SOME SUGGESTED USES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND SOME SUGGESTED NOT NECESSARILY A GOOD FIT WITH PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY AS WELL, THE DIRECTION OF THINGS, BUT WE WANT TO KEEP IT VERY OPEN ENDED.
WE WANT TO SEE INNOVATIVE, CREATIVE.
PROJECTS THAT REALLY HELP OUT THE COUNTY.
WE ARE PREPARED TO WORK THROUGH THESE APPLICATIONS AND TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE BEST IMPACT FOR THEIR BUSINESS IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY AND THE CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE USING CITIZENS FUNDS.
THE ACTUAL PROCESS TERMS. THERE WE GO. MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE RIGHT SIDE HERE.
THE TERMS OF THE MICROBUSINESS PROGRAM HERE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY APPLICANT IS WITHIN GOOD STANDING OF THE COUNTY.
IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY AWARDED FUNDS, THAT WILL BE PROBABLY TOP PRIORITY OF THESE APPLICANTS TO ENSURE YOU'RE UP TO DATE ON ANY DELINQUENT TAXES OR ANYTHING DUE TO THE COUNTY.
WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EDA WILL WRITE GRANT AGREEMENTS AND MOUS THAT THE APPLICANTS WILL SIGN WITH THE EDA TO THEN ENSURE THAT THE FUNDS ARE USED FOR THE PROJECT ACTUALLY INTENDED.
AT THE END OF THE PROJECT, THE APPLICANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN EXPENSE REPORT WITH INVOICES TO SHOW THAT THEY ACTUALLY SPENT THE FUNDS ON THE ACTUAL PROJECT DURING THE APPLICANT.
WE PUT SOME GUIDELINES AND RULES IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT FUNDS ARE ACTUALLY USED APPROPRIATELY, BUT WE REALLY WANT TO ENSURE THAT THESE FUNDS GO TO BUSINESSES THAT REALLY NEED THESE PROJECTS AND CAN REALLY SEE SOME GROWTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.
HONESTLY, WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROGRAM.
YES. I WANT TO THANK THE ECON DEPARTMENT HERE, PRINCE GEORGE AS WELL.
THEY HAVE DEFINITELY GENEROUSLY AGREED TO HELP US COLLECT THESE APPLICATIONS THAT WE GET IN AND TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION.
THEN ONCE THE APPLICATIONS COME IN, THE ECONOMIC AUTHORITY HAS A SUBCOMMITTEE AND WE WILL BE SCORING AND REVIEWING THESE APPLICATIONS, AND THEN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WILL THEN VOTE ON AND APPROVE THESE APPLICATIONS.
WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT A ONE-TIME GRANT PER YEAR IS THAT REALLY IN THE SPRING IS WHEN WE MARKET THIS PROGRAM, BUILD UP COUNTY SUPPORT, SUMMERS, WHEN WE WOULD COLLECT APPLICATIONS AND SCORE AND REVIEW THEM, TO ENSURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION.
FALL, WOULD BE WE WOULD ACTUALLY AWARD THE MONEY AND SELECT THE WINNERS.
THEN WINTER, WE WOULD ACTUALLY REVIEW THE PROGRAM TO ENSURE THAT WE HIT OUR MEASURES OF SUCCESS AS AN ECONOMICAL AUTHORITY AND MAKE SURE THAT WE USED ALL OF THE FUNDS FOR THE APPROPRIATE PROJECTS.
THAT IS OUR TYPICAL TIMELINE REALLY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
THIS IS SOMETHING TOO, I WANT TO ADD, VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN, YOUR COMMENTS EARLIER ABOUT ABOUT HELPING PEOPLE.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS PROGRAM IS ABOUT.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT TOO MANY LABELS ON IT.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT FOR A WHILE.
I HAVE HAD MANY CITIZENS ASK ME ON THE EDA, AS MUCH AS ANYTHING, JUST WANTING SOMEWHERE TO GO TO GET MORE HELP, AND WE REALLY SEE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE EDA CAN DO.
WE HAVE THE RIGHT DIRECTORS IN PLACE TO ACHIEVE THIS PROGRAM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE READY TO GET STARTED, AND WE WILL BE GETTING STARTED COME DECEMBER, AND WE WILL GET READY TO START THIS PROGRAM IN 2025.
I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO MR. JABRI TO CONCLUDE THE PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU. AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD, EITHER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS OR NOT.
THIS ALSO WOULD BE THE STAFF PROPOSES TO BE FUNDED BY MEALS TAX.
THE EDA IS ASKING FOR $100,000 FOR THE PROGRAM IN WHICH IT CAN BE BUDGETED FOR FY26.
[00:45:06]
LIKE MR. CLEMENTS HAS STATED, A RESOLUTION CAN BE BROUGHT FORTH BACK HOPEFULLY IN AROUND JANUARY IN WHICH WE CAN THEN BEGIN MARKETING FOR THE PROGRAM AND OUTREACH IN MARCH AND APRIL.>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE EDA THAT ARE HERE?
>> SURE. WE HAVE CHAIR STERLING HUNT IN THE AUDIENCE.
>> WE HAVE DR. BOYD, AS WELL, WHO SERVES AS OUR SECRETARY.
>> MS. JUDY CHALKY, [OVERLAPPING] WHO'S A NEW MEMBER ON THE EDA.
WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THEM BEING HERE.
WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT THIS BOARD, WE HAVE AN ACTIVE BOARD WHO'S LOOKING TO HELP BUSINESSES, AND IT'S BEEN A GREAT PLEASURE WITH ME WORKING WITH THEM, SO REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS PROGRAM, AND I'M EXCITED.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTION, BUT THIS MAKES MY HEART GLAD.
I HAVE, FOR YEARS, WANTED TO SEE THE EDA MOVE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION BECAUSE BEFORE IT WAS PRETTY MUCH JUST A PASS-THROUGH, AND I THINK THAT THE EDA IS OUT THERE ON THE EDGE OF HELPING US EITHER TO RETAIN BUSINESSES OR BECAUSE OF THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS, MAYBE EVEN ATTRACT NEW BUSINESSES.
EVEN THOUGH WE DO MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION, I ALSO THINK WE HAVE TO SHOW THE SAME LEVEL OF INTEREST IN THOSE SMALL LOCAL BUSINESSES HERE BECAUSE TOGETHER, I THINK THAT'S WHAT MAKES PRINCE GEORGE VERY UNIQUE.
I DEFINITELY SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS, SO I'M JUST GOING TO STOP RIGHT THERE FOR NOW.
>> I JUST GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
THESE MICROBUSINESSES, HOW LONG WOULD THEY HAVE TO BE A BUSINESS IN THE COUNTY? SIX MONTHS, A YEAR? IS THAT SOMETHING [INAUDIBLE].
>> ROUGHLY TWO YEARS. WE WANT TO NOT NECESSARILY FOCUS ON STARTUPS, BUT ESTABLISHED BUSINESSES HERE THAT CAN USE THESE FUNDS.
>> WOULD Y'ALL HAVE THEM SUBMIT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO SEE WHERE A NEED WAS? THEN HOW LONG WOULD YOU REQUIRE THEM TO CONTINUE TO BE A BUSINESS AFTER THE GRANT WAS GIVEN?
>> THE APPROVED GUIDELINES SAY ONE YEAR AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
>> I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA, GUYS.
I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, AND IT REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE, SO I WILL SUPPORT IT.
THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK.
>> YES, I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF IT.
>> I AGREE, ALSO. IT'S A GOOD CONCEPT. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO A FIRST PUBLIC HEARING.
[F. Public Hearings]
SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR SE-24-08, REQUEST TO PERMIT A PERSONAL TRAINING FACILITY AND A SMALL HAIR AND SKIN CARE STUDIO WITHIN A LIMITED INDUSTRIAL 1 ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS 90-393(20), 90-392(7), AND 90-443(2). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8810 COMMUNITY LANE, AND IS IDENTIFIED IN TAX MAP AS 340(0A)00-011-A.COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATES THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL USE. MR. GREENSTEIN.
>> MY NAME'S TIM GRAVES. I'M FILLING IN FOR MR. GREENSTEIN ON THIS.
>> I'M SORRY. I READ IT OFF THE PAGE. I DIDN'T LOOK UP.
>> [LAUGHTER] THAT'S US. WE PUT THAT ON THERE.
>> THAT WAS A TEST. [LAUGHTER]
>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS GOING TO BE STANDING HERE WHEN YOU LOOK UP.
THIS IS A REQUEST, AS YOU JUST HEARD SUMMARIZED THERE.
WE HAVE THE SATELLITE VIEW ON THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY.
SATELLITE VIEW, PRETTY ZOOMED OUT HERE.
THE LOCATION IS NEXT TO THE INTERSTATE INTERCHANGE ALONG ROUTE 460.
IN THIS CLOSER IN VIEW, YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SEVERAL BUILDINGS ON THAT PROPERTY ALONG COMMUNITY LANE, AND THIS REQUEST IS FOR INSIDE OF ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS.
THE LIGHT GRAY COLOR IS M1, LIMITED INDUSTRIAL.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR AN INSTRUCTIONAL AND/OR TRAINING FACILITY AND A BARBER SHOP AND BEAUTY SHOP.
[00:50:05]
THOSE ARE THE ORDINANCE TERMS FOR WHAT THEY SPECIFICALLY WANT TO DO, AND WHAT THEY SPECIFICALLY WANT TO DO IS A PERSONAL TRAINING FACILITY AND A HAIR SKIN CARE STUDIO.THIS IS A HUSBAND AND WIFE TEAM THAT RUN A SMALL BUSINESS, ESTABLISHED SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
MOST OF THEIR CLIENTELE IS IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, AND THEY'VE BEEN ASKING FOR THEM TO LOCATE IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
IN THIS PLAN THAT THEY HAVE, THEY WOULD HAVE APPOINTMENT-ONLY WORKOUTS WITH SMALL GROUPS, THIS IS A SMALL-SCALE THING FOR INDIVIDUALIZED TRAINING.
SMALL PORTION OF ONE OF THE UNITS WOULD BE OCCUPIED FOR HAIR, SKIN CARE, WAXING, SPRAY TAN, AGAIN, BY APPOINTMENT ONLY.
YOU CAN SEE EXAMPLE FLOOR PLANS FOR INSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THEY'D BE USING THREE UNITS SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL UNITS IN THE BUILDING.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.
THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND THEN ALSO INCLUDING THOSE STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS, WHICH DEFINE WHAT THOSE USES ARE.
OF COURSE, WE ADVERTISED THIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE CODE, WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE. IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM, THEY COULD COME UP, BUT OTHERWISE, WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANTS OR YOU WANT TO TURN IT BACK ON TO US?
>> I SAY YOU OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
>> ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, WE OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORTH AND SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE COME UP NOW.
ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE COME UP.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE BOARD.
>> MR. COX, JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'S A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED.
>> FOLKS, NEXT, WE GOT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION SE-24-09, REQUEST TO REVOKE AN EXISTING SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR A BORROW PIT AND ASSOCIATED USES WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, R-A, ZONE DISTRICT.
THE APPLICATION REQUESTED TO BE REVOKED IS IDENTIFIED AS SE-24-01.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT JAMES RIVER DRIVE AND RUFFIN ROAD AND IS IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP 130(0A)00-074-0, 140(0A)00-005-0, AND 140(0A)00-003-0.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATES THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR VILLAGE CENTER AND RESIDENTIAL USE. MR. GRAVES, AGAIN.
>> [NOISE] THANK YOU. THIS IS A LOCATION MAP TO REMIND YOU OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF JAMES RIVER DRIVE AND RUFFIN ROAD, CONSISTING OF THREE PARCELS.
THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THAT PROPERTY, THE OUTLINE OF IT.
AS YOU HEARD IN THE SUMMARY THERE, THERE WAS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR BY THE BOARD FOR A BORROW PIT AND SIMILAR ASSOCIATED USES ON THAT PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO REVOKE THIS BECAUSE THE APPROVAL OF THAT USE TRIGGERED THE NEED FOR THE OWNER TO PAY ROLLBACK TAXES AS THEY EXITED THE LAND USE PROGRAM BECAUSE THEIR LAND WAS NOW HAD A COMMERCIAL USE APPROVED FOR IT.
THE OWNER FINDING OUT OF THAT DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD RATHER THAT THIS STAY IN ITS CURRENT USE OF AGRICULTURE SO THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO PAY THE TAXES.
THUS THEY REQUESTED TO REVOKE THIS PERMIT.
IT'S UNUSUAL, NOT A COMMON THING, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU AND WHY WE HAD ONE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF YOU APPROVE IT, THEN ALL THE PERMISSIONS FROM THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR, THOSE WOULD BE REVOKED AND COULD NOT OCCUR ON THE PROPERTY.
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING, THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
WE ADVERTISED THIS, THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
CURRENTLY, THAT AREA IS ZONED R-A ZONING DISTRICT, CORRECT?
>> MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WE GAVE THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION, WAS THE ZONING DISTRICT OR THAT PROPERTY,
[00:55:03]
WAS THAT GOING TO BE CHANGED FROM R-A?>> IT DID NOT CHANGE, CORRECT.
>> IT WOULD HAVE STAYED THE SAME, JUST THE TAX BREAK FROM THE FARM WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST?
>> WHEN YOU APPROVED THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION, YOU APPROVED THE SET OF USES THAT ARE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE.
WHEN THAT MESSAGE MADE ITS WAY TO THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, THEY TREATED IT SIMILAR TO A REZONING, IN THAT NOW IT HAD A COMMERCIAL USE APPROVED ON IT.
>> OKAY. MY NEXT QUESTION WAS, ONLY PART OF THAT WAS WE GAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR IT TO CONDUCT THAT ON? WAS THE TAXES PRO-RATED ON JUST THAT PARCEL OR WAS IT THE ENTIRE PARCEL TO COME OUT OF [INAUDIBLE]?
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THAT'D HAVE TO COME FROM THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE.
>> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I GOT RIGHT NOW.
>> ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYONE LIKE TO COME FORWARD, SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW.
ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE COME UP NOW.
SEEING NO ONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND WE'LL MOVE TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE BOARD. WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD, I WOULD SO MOVE THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THIS REQUEST TO REVOKE THAT EXISTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION THAT WAS GRANTED BEFORE.
I'M ESPECIALLY DOING THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS REQUESTED BY THE LANDOWNER, SO I'M MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE TO REVOKE THIS OTHER SPECIAL EXCEPTION.
>> WAS THAT MR. PUGH WITH A SECOND?
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION SE-24-10, REQUEST TO PERMIT A PRIVATE SCHOOL WITHIN A GENERAL BUSINESS, B-1, ONE ZONING DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 90-393(32).
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 1.496 ACRES IN SIZE, LOCATED AT 4902 PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE, AND IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP 24F(01)0A-001-0.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATES THE PROPERTY IS PLANNED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. MR. GRAVES, AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU. HERE WE HAVE A LOCATION MAP SHOWING THIS LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY WITH THIS BUILDING ON IT ON PRINCE GEORGE DRIVE.
HERE'S CLOSER IN AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THAT EXISTING BUILDING.
AGAIN, THIS REQUEST, THEY'RE INTENDING TO OPERATE IN ONE OF THE THREE UNITS IN THAT BUILDING.
THE ZONING MAP SHOWS THE PROPERTY IS ZONED B-1 FOR COMMERCIAL.
THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE BUILDING.
AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL PURSUANT TO A COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION, AND THEY SPECIFICALLY WANT TO HAVE A FAITH-BASED PRIVATE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
THIS WOULD BE FOR GRADES K-12, ESTIMATED TARGET NUMBER OF STUDENTS IS 40-50 STUDENTS IN YEAR 1.
THEY PLAN TO DEVELOP BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES.
BY YEAR 3, THEY'D LIKE TO MOVE TO A LARGER LOCATION.
HOURS ARE INTENDED TO BE SIMILAR TO ANY OTHER SCHOOL, 6:00-5:30.
I THINK THAT INCLUDES ANY AFTER-SCHOOL TYPE ACTIVITIES.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
THEY HELD A PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO THAT RECOMMENDATION, AND THEY PROVIDED A REASON FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
THERE WERE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS.
WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TONIGHT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM, AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
>> THANK YOU, MR. GRAVES. I THOUGHT HE HAD SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY.
FOLKS THIS IS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.
PLEASE COME FORTH IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS FOR OR AGAINST. PLEASE APPROACH.
[01:00:04]
>> HI, FOLKS. MY NAME IS FORD PUGH.
I ATTENDED A TOWN HALL TYPE OF OPEN HOUSE WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED TO GET INTERESTED IN THIS.
THE HARTMAN'S ARE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
I LOOKED AT THEIR TOOLS AND THEIR LEARNING CURRICULUMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEY LOOK VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT, SO I WOULD SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.
>> MY NAME IS DR. STACY HARTMAN.
I'M THE ONE WHO SUBMITTED THE REQUEST. THANK YOU, FORD.
I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THE REASON WHY WE WANT TO OPEN THIS IS WE ALL HAVE CONCERNS WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THIS.
SOME OF US ARE WORKING FULL TIME AND BEING HOME SCHOOL PARENTS, I AM ONE OF THOSE THAT DO THAT.
I'VE BEEN TEACHING FOR 18 YEARS IN DIFFERENT SECTORS AND DIFFERENT PROJECTS, AND I HAVE CONSTANTLY BEEN ADVOCATED, HEY, YOU SHOULD OPEN A SCHOOL.
A LOT OF PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY ARE LEAVING OUR COMMUNITY TO GO TO OTHER DISTRICTS, FROM CHESTERFIELD TO CHESTER TO DINWIDDIE, TO FIND ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION CHOICES THAT MEET OUR OWN PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEMS, MORALITY, THE NEUTRALITY SYSTEM, DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES THAT STUDENTS NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXCEL IN THE NEUROSCIENCES THAT DEVELOP THE BRAIN.
THIS PRIVATE SCHOOL IS FUNDED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT ABILITY FOR THE STUDENTS.
SO NOT ONLY DOES IT MEET THE MORALITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARENTS, WHICH IS WHAT OUR EDUCATION SYSTEM IS FOUNDED ON, BUT ALSO ALLOWS US TO HAVE THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, IT ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE CHILDREN TO HAVE EXPRESSIVE LEARNING.
METHODOLOGIES THAT IS IMPLEMENTED THAT OTHERWISE CANNOT BE BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT MEET THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND WOULD BE LEGAL FOR THE TEACHERS TO TEACH SOME OF THOSE COMPONENTS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS BUILDING.
WE'RE STARTING OFF WITH 50, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THUS FAR, I HAVE OVER 247 FAMILIES THAT HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
I BELIEVE THE TOTAL NUMBER, THE LAST TIME I CHECKED WAS CLOSE TO 600 FAMILIES FROM OUTSIDE COUNTY DISTRICTS THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME HERE AS IT'S ON THE WAY TO RICHMOND OR TO THE BASE.
IN ADDITION, I'VE ALSO WORKED AS AN EDUCATION DIRECTOR WITH THE MILITARY, AND I AM GOING TO BE WORKING ON CREATING A BOARD AND WORKING WITH THE MILITARY EDUCATION SYSTEM AS WELL IN HOPES OF SUPPORT, WHICH I THINK THAT WE CAN GET AND WORK WITH THE CDCS AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN THAT NATURE AS WELL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK, PLEASE APPROACH.
SEEING NO ONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE BOARD.
>> DO YOU ALL SEE THIS AS A STOPGAP TO PROBABLY MOVING TO A LARGER FACILITY IN THE FUTURE, DEPENDING ON ENROLLMENT?
>> YES. THE INTENT IS THAT THIS IS A STARTING POINT UNTIL WE CAN FIND LAND AND CREATE A LARGER FUNDING.
MY HUSBAND AND I ARE FUNDING THIS SOLELY BY OURSELVES SO THIS IS A STARTING POINT FOR US, AND THAT IS THE INTENT, IS TO HAVE A LARGER SCHOOL SYSTEM TO DEFINITELY BE CREATED.
AGAIN, WE'RE ON LITERALLY LOOKING FOR LAND EVERY DAY AND BUILDINGS AND DIFFERENT THINGS.
BUT YES, ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO HAVE A BUILDING OF 500.
I EVEN HAVE INTEREST FROM STUDENTS THAT ARE GOING TO THE HOPEWELL SCHOOL.
I HAVE INTEREST FROM PARENTS AS WELL TO COME TO PRINCE GEORGE IN PARTICULAR, THE TOWN OF PRINCE GEORGE AND CARSON.
>> HOPEFULLY YOU WILL STAY IN PRINCE GEORGE. HOPEFULLY.
>> WE'RE YOUR RESIDENTS HERE, AND MY HUSBAND IS A RETIRED MILITARY SO THIS IS WHERE WE'RE STAYING FOREVER.
THIS IS OUR HOME ROOTS, AND THAT'S WHERE OUR INTENT IS TO STAY HERE IN PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY.
>> WITH THAT, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> JUST REAL QUICK, MINOR QUESTION.
WHAT'S THE CAPACITY ON THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN THE LOCATION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO MOVE INTO NOW?
>> THE BUILDING IS 2,046 SQUARE FEET, ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AGAIN, PRIVATE SCHOOLS HAVE TO FIT THOSE PARTICULAR REGULATIONS ACCORDING TO VCPE, WHICH I HAVE BEEN APPROVED FROM THEM, AS WELL AS ACCREDITATION AGENCY I'M WORKING WITH.
ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS, THEY ONLY NEED 35 SQUARE FEET, BUT IT'S DEPENDENT ON AGE 40 SQUARE FEET, IF IT'S A SECONDARY.
THE SECONDARY EDUCATION SYSTEM IS VERY FLUCTUOUS HERE IN VIRGINIA, IN THE SENSE THAT IT DOESN'T OUTLINE THE EXACT AGE.
BUT FROM MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES, USUALLY SECONDARY EDUCATION IS THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL SO IT WOULD BE DEPENDING ON THE ENROLLMENT.
IF WE HAVE A LOT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION SYSTEM,
[01:05:01]
THEN IT WOULD BE 35 SQUARE FEET, WHICH I BELIEVE THAT WAS 52 CHILDREN.IF IT WAS THE SECONDARY EDUCATION SYSTEM, IT COULD BE APPROXIMATELY OF MAXIMUM OF 45, I BELIEVE.
>> BECAUSE I HEARD IN THE PRESENTATION YOU WERE LOOKING AT ABOUT 50.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.
>> YES. ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ONE EXCEPTION THAT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL EXPIRE WHEN THEY VACATE THE BUILDING SO IT REVERTS BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL STATE.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE GO WITH THAT RIGHT?
>> YEAH, THAT'S A QUESTION. [LAUGHTER]
>> ALWAYS A QUESTION, NOT A STATEMENT.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE WAY THAT WE PHRASE IT IS THAT IF THE USE IS ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 24 MONTHS, THAT THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES NULL AND VOID.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHORTEN THAT TIME FRAME?
>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE FOR IT TO BE?
>> TWELVE MONTHS INSTEAD OF 24?
>> WE NEED TO JUST STOP CARTE BLANCHE, GIVEN SPECIFIC EXCEPTION THEY'VE LIVED FOREVER ONCE A BUSINESS IS GONE.
I WANT TO APPROVE IT BUT WHEN THEY DO LEAVE, WHICH THEY'RE HOPING TO MOVE TO LARGER FACILITIES THAT I THINK THAT IT SHOULD SUNSET AT SOME POINT.
>> DO YOU WANT TO SAY SIX MONTHS?
>> WOULD SIX MONTHS BE WORKABLE FOR YOU?
>> WELL, IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THEM.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHEN THEY LEAVE THE BUILDING ONCE THE BUSINESS MOVES, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION WILL COME OFF.
>> BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE THINGS OR [INAUDIBLE] WELL, THAT THE ABILITY TO OPERATE THE SCHOOL AT THAT BUILDING WOULD EXPIRE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF YOUR MOVE.
THAT'S OKAY? OKAY.. I'M GOING TO CHANGE NUMBER 3 TO SAY, IF THE REQUESTED USE OF THE PREMISES IS ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 24 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS, I'M GOING TO CHANGE THAT TO SIX CONSECUTIVE MONTHS, THEN THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID.
>> QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT.
I GUESS WHERE I'M REALLY TRYING TO BE CAREFUL OF IS, TO ME, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE COMING FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THEY DO.
I'M JUST TRYING TO BE REAL CAREFUL WITH US CONSTANTLY PUTTING SOME ADDITIONAL LITTLE SPIN ON SOMETHING WHEN I BELIEVE IN THAT IF WE SHOULD WORK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE BUT TO ME, I WOULD HAVE HOPED THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING IRONED OUT BEFORE IT GOT HERE TONIGHT.
I'M NOT AGAINST APPROVING IT, I'M JUST REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE'RE PUTTING ON IF.
I KNOW IF I SAY NO, I'M ACTUALLY SHOOTING DOWN THE WHOLE DEAL, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO DO THAT, BUT I JUST HAVE CONCERN WITH US CONTINUING TO PUT OTHER LITTLE SPIN AND TWISTS.
WE GET THIS INFORMATION AT LEAST 4-5 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING AND I THINK WHEN WE GET THIS INFORMATION, WE HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT AND SPEAK WITH MR. BALDWIN'S OFFICE AND MAYBE ASK THOSE QUESTIONS THAT MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED BEFORE HE GETS HERE TO THE ACTUAL MEETING.
THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. THAT'S MY QUESTION.
>> WELL, ANYBODY'S GOT ANY COMMENT BEFORE I SAY SOMETHING? TYPICALLY, WE DO LEAVE IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND IT'S USUALLY THE CRITERIA THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GOVERN BY.
IF THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO THAT CRITERIA, THEN THEY WILL BRING IT BACK TO US, AND IT COULD BE REVOKED AT THAT TIME.
GUYS, LADIES, I TEND TO AGREE WITH MR. BROWN.
I REALLY THINK WE'RE GETTING ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE HERE, BECAUSE IF THEY DECIDE TO VACATE, WELL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO KNOW IT AND THEN THE STEPS WILL TAKE PLACE, WHETHER IT'S SIX MONTHS OR 24 MONTHS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT.
MA'AM, I'M 100% BEHIND YOU BY THE WAY, JUST ME SPEAKING.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING CHANGE IN THE EXCEPTIONS TO WHAT WAS PRESENTED,
[01:10:04]
BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY TYPICAL.GRANTED, WE WANT TO TRY TO GET AWAY FROM ALL THESE SPECIAL ACCESSION, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK TOWARDS THAT.
BUT THIS IS FOR THE BETTER GOOD AND ALL I SEE IS FOR THE KIDS.
WHAT'S GOING ON AROUND THE COUNTRY, YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THE NEWS, DEPENDING ON HOW THEY PLAY IT, A LOT OF PARENTS ARE LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO HAVE THEIR KIDS TAUGHT BECAUSE THEY DON'T APPROVE OF SOME OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN SOME AREAS.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION. WHEN WE GIVE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO GO IN THAT BUILDING AFTER THIS INDIVIDUAL, FOR 24 MONTHS, THEY COULD PUT ANOTHER SCHOOL THERE WITHOUT CONSULTING US, IT'S BY RIGHT, CORRECT?
>> THANK YOU. ASKING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY?
>> IT'S BY RIGHT, CORRECT. FOR INSTANCE, YOU HAVE A SCHOOL WE ALL AGREE UPON RIGHT NOW.
WELL, THEY'VE GOT DIFFERENT SCHOOLS THAT DO DIFFERENT THINGS THAT TEACH DIFFERENT METHODS.
BY LEAVING THAT SPECIAL EXCEPTION THERE FOR SIX MONTHS, 24 MONTHS, IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR MAYBE A SCHOOL YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE COMING IN THERE.
IT COULD BE ANYTHING. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THAT'S WHY YOU KNOW, I LIKE ME PERSONALLY, YOU'VE GIVEN A SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICANT, AND ONCE THAT APPLICANT LEAVES COMES BACK TO US.
THAT'S THE WAY I THINK IT SHOULD BE AND I THINK MAYBE THAT'S A DISCUSSION WE NEED TO HAVE WITH ZONE.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL GOT TO HAVE A CONSENSUS TO DO THAT, OR WHAT, BUT I'M 100% FOR THIS SCHOOL.
>> WHATEVER WE GOT TO DO TO MAKE SURE IT'S PASSED, I THINK YOU GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.
>> LET ME ASK ONE MORE. THE REASON FOR MY QUESTION IS, IF SHE WAS TO COME FORWARD TODAY AND SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE BECAUSE WE THINK WE'VE GOT SOMEWHERE ELSE TO GO TO, AND SHE REALIZES IN EIGHT MONTHS THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
NOW, WE'VE SAID TO HER, BUT YOUR SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS GONE AFTER SIX MONTHS. YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? I'M MORE IN THE WE NEED TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS TO WORK IT OUT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FOR THE FUTURE TO SAY, HOW CAN YOU HELP US BETTER ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE? I'M JUST REAL CAUTIOUS ABOUT US PILING ON SPECIAL THINGS ON TOP OF IT.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION OR IF ANYBODY ELSE GOT A QUESTION BEFORE I SPEAK?
>> NOT REALLY A QUESTION, IT'S MORE WHEN DO YOU WANT TO SET A WORK SESSION TO HAVE IT WITH THE ZONING? IS THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO?
>> WE'LL DO SOME OF THAT. I GOT A QUESTION FIRST.
>> I KNOW TYPICALLY, IT STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY.
HAS IT EVER BEEN DONE WHERE THE EXCEPTION IS TIED SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICANT?
>> AGAIN, HOW DOES THAT PUT US TO MAKE THAT OPERATE THIS WAY? IF YOU'RE SAYING THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION RUNS WITH THE LAND, BUT WE'RE SAYING IF THEY MOVE OUT THAT IT EXPIRED, TO ME, IT'S NOT STAYING WITH THE LAND.
>> WELL, IT'S IT'S BEING BASED ON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SET CONDITIONS ON ABANDONMENT, BUT YOU CAN'T SET IT TO THE PERSON.
>> I GOT IT. MY DOG DON'T NEED TO BE IN THIS FIGHT TONIGHT, TRUST ME.
[LAUGHTER] BECAUSE THIS IS DRAGGING ON.
I JUST THINK WE NEED TO LOOK DOWN THE ROAD AND TALK MORE ABOUT HOW DO WE ADDRESS THIS IN THE FUTURE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
>> GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. I GOT ONE LAST QUESTION.
>> YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE SIX MONTHS?
>> I'M JUST ASKING, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PUSH YOU IN THE CORNER AND I KNOW YOU'RE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND ARE DOING, AND WE SUPPORT YOU.
>> FOR CLARITY IT'S NOT OPERATING THE BUSINESS FOR SIX MONTHS, IT'S UPON ME MOVING OUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A MOTION IN A SECOND. MISS [INAUDIBLE] CALL THE ROLL.
>> WELCOME TO THE COUNTY BUSINESS WISE.
>> TWO YEARS, YOU PUT IT FOR A GRANT.
>> ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, NEXT IS A RESOLUTION FOR A GRANT FOR A 15 FOOT BY 546.9 FOOT EASEMENT ADJACENT TO RIVER ROAD, STATE ROUTE 645 FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANIES, MISSI ROD.
[01:15:03]
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MR. STOKE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH YOU THIS EVENING.
AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE ARMY AT FORT GREG ADAMS WOULD LIKE TO RE ESTABLISH A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR PARACHUTING AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THE NEARBY ELECTRIC LINES NEED TO BE UNDERGROUND SO AS TO NOT HAVE AN ACCIDENT LIKE WHAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO.
THE ARMY HAS SOME SURPLUS FUNDS THAT THEY CAN USE FOR THAT THIS YEAR, AND SO THEY HAVE REQUESTED AN EASEMENT FROM US.
HERE'S GENERALLY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND ALONG THAT RIGHT SIDE, THAT RECTANGLE SHOWS THE UNDERGROUND EASEMENT THAT IS BEING REQUESTED.
THIS IS FROM OUR GIS MAP THAT SHOWS THE YELLOW AREA IS WHAT WOULD BE THE EASEMENT.
I DID INCLUDE IN THE RESOLUTION THAT RECORDING THIS EASEMENT IS CONTINGENT UPON THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE OVERHEAD EASEMENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BOTH, THEY WOULD JUST HAVE THE UNDERGROUND EASEMENT.
STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT ANYTIME WE CONVEY AN INTEREST IN PROPERTY, THAT WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE AND CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT IS WHY I'M BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] DOG IN THIS FLIGHT. [LAUGHTER].
>> THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND, BUT I STILL NEED TO ASK YOU.
MISS [INAUDIBLE], THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, THIS IS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.
PLEASE COME FORTH IF YOU'D LIKE SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST.
PLEASE COME FORTH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST.
HEARING NINE, I'M TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE BOARD. WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD SO MOVE THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION FOR GRANTING THIS EASEMENT ALONG RIVER ROAD. THANK YOU.
>> MISS [INAUDIBLE] CALL THE ROLL.
NEXT, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION FOR INSURANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,221,000 AND SECTIONS OF TRUIST BANK, I'M SORRY I MISPRONOUNCED IT.
TRUIST COMMERCIAL EQUITIES AS LENDER.
MISS TRUI IS GOING TO SPEAK TO THIS.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS, MR. STOKE AND MR. RARD.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.
BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I DID WANT TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION AS YOU SAW ON BOARD DOCS, A COPY OF THIS PRESENTATION WAS POSTED ALONG WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, WHICH WAS PREPARED BY OUR BOND ATTORNEY, MR. DOUGS BERTOLLI, WITH WILLIAMS MULLEN, WHO IS IN THE AUDIENCE.
A BANK REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WAS PREPARED.
THERE WAS A LISTING OF THE LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO WHICH THAT WAS PROVIDED BY DAVENPORT AND COMPANY, OUR CONTRACTED FINANCIAL ADVISOR.
WE HAVE WITH US THIS EVENING, MR. BEN WILSON AND GRACIE CAPLES FROM DAVENPORT AND ASSOCIATES, WHO WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE LENDING OR THE LENDER.
THE RESULTS OF THAT RFP WERE PROVIDED ALONG WITH A DRAFT SPECIMEN OF THE BOND PREPARED BY OUR BOND ATTORNEY THEN THERE IS A RESOLUTION IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF YOU SO CHOOSE, WOULD AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF DEBT.
TO RECAP, ONE MORE TIME, COUNTY CODE SECTION 74.4 COMMITS $0.02 OF YOUR REAL ESTATE TAX REVENUE FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIRE AND EMS APPARATUS.
THE BOARD TYPICALLY ENGAGES IN A BORROWING EVERY FIVE YEARS TO PURCHASE THAT APPARATUS AND REPAYS THE DEBT USING THAT DEVOTED $0.02.
THE BOARD DID APPROPRIATE ON OCTOBER 3,221,000 IN FUTURE DEBT PROCEEDS TO PURCHASE APPARATUS TOTALING
[01:20:01]
03,171,000 WITH ESTIMATED ISSUANCE COSTS OF ABOUT 50.THOSE ISSUANCE COSTS ARE SLIGHTLY HIGHER.
THERE IS AN ITEM LATER ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING TO REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL 21,450, AND ANOTHER 3.829 MILLION WAS APPROPRIATED FROM YOUR GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE TO PURCHASE A TOTAL OF $7 MILLION IN APPARATUS.
>> THE IMPACT, THERE IS NO TAX INCREASE NECESSARY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THIS DEBT.
AGAIN, YOU'RE USING THAT DEVOTED TWO CENTS AS SPECIFIED IN YOUR COUNTY CODE.
THE BOND REPAYMENT OF THIS DEBT ISSUANCE, IF APPROVED, WILL BEGIN IN FY'26, AND WILL BE PART OF YOUR '26 BUDGET.
THE DEBT FROM THE 2019 FALL BORROWING WILL FALL OFF OF OUR TAX OBLIGATIONS.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS APPROPRIATELY ADVERTISED.
THE AD WAS PREPARED BY MR. SPERTOLI, THE BOND ATTORNEY, AS REQUIRED, IT APPEARED IN TWO EDITIONS OF THE LOCAL PAPER, THE PROGRESS INDEX ON NOVEMBER THE 12TH AND NOVEMBER THE 19TH.
DAVENPORT AND COMPANY, MR. BEN WILSON WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN ISSUING AN RFP ON OCTOBER THE 9TH.
THE PROPOSALS WERE DUE ON NOVEMBER 1ST.
A NUMBER OF LENDERS RECEIVED THE OPPORTUNITIES TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS.
NEXT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MR. WILSON PROVIDE A REVIEW OF THAT RFP PROCESS AND TO RECAP THE PROPOSALS THAT WERE RECEIVED AND WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS.
WE WILL ALLOW YOU, OF COURSE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF MYSELF, MR. WILSON, OR MR. SPERTOLI.
FOLLOWING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENT, THERE IS A RESOLUTION IN YOUR PACKET, WHICH DOES APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF DEBT AND SELECT THE LENDER.
>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
MY COLLEAGUE, TED COLE, SENDS HIS REGARDS.
HE JUST WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT.
BUT I WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH TED AND OUR COLLEAGUES MITCH [INAUDIBLE] AND GRACIE CAPLES, ON THIS FOR THE COUNTY.
LIKE BETSY MENTIONED, WE SENT OUT AN RFP.
>> NO WORRIES. I'VE GOT IT HERE.
DO YOU ALL HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU? WE HAVE HARD COPIES, IF YOU'D LIKE.
I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS VERY QUICKLY.
LIKE BETSY MENTIONED, WE SENT OUT AN RFP IN OCTOBER TO OVER 100 BANKS, REQUESTING A LOAN OF 3.2 MILLION OVER A FIVE-YEAR REPAYMENT PERIOD.
AHEAD OF THE DEADLINE ON THE FIRST, WE RECEIVED PROPOSALS FROM THE EIGHT BANKS, WHICH IS A VERY STRONG RESPONSE.
IN THIS PRESENTATION, WE'VE SUMMARIZED THOSE RESPONSES, AND LIKE BETSY MENTIONED WITH A RECOMMENDATION.
IF YOU FLIP TO THE NEXT PAGE, LIKE I MENTIONED, WE RECEIVED PROPOSALS FROM EIGHT BANKS.
SOME OF THEM PROVIDED PROPOSALS WITH DIFFERENT OPTIONS, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE SEVERAL MORE THAN EIGHT HERE.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE ON THAT PAGE, TRULST PROVIDED THE FIVE LOWEST INTEREST RATES, THE MOST FAVORABLE PROPOSALS FOR YOU ALL.
THE LOWEST BEING AN INTEREST RATE OF 3.25%.
THE NEXT LOWEST WAS BANK OF AMERICA PUBLIC CAPITAL CORP.
HOWEVER, THEY WOULD HAVE YOU ISSUE THIS NOT AS A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, WHICH IS WHAT YOU NORMALLY DO, BUT AS A LEASE FINANCING, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED AND COME WITH MORE COSTS ON THE FRONT END.
THAT BEING SAID, THEY ALSO HAD A HIGHER INTEREST RATE.
REALLY, THE FOCUS HERE IS GOING TO BE ON TRULST.
IF YOU FLIP AGAIN, WE'VE COMPARED TRULST AND WEBSTER IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.
WEBSTER PROVIDED THE NEXT LOWEST INTEREST RATE FOR A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND.
LIKE I MENTIONED, TRULST PROVIDED SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO THE PREPAYMENT OF THE LOAN.
ESSENTIALLY, IF THERE'S ANY PENALTY, IF YOU WERE TO PREPAY THE LOAN AHEAD OF THE FIVE YEARS PERIOD THAT YOU WILL BE REPAYING IT.
IN SPEAKING WITH STAFF, BECAUSE YOU MAKE THESE PAYMENTS FROM THAT TWO CENTS ON YOUR TAX RATE, THERE'S NOT REALLY AN EXPECTATION THAT YOU ALL WILL BE PREPAYING ANY PORTION OF THIS LOAN.
IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO GO TO THE LOWEST INTEREST RATE IS WHAT WE'VE TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT.
ON THE NEXT PAGE, WE LOOK A LITTLE BIT AT WHAT THE DEBT SERVICE WOULD LOOK LIKE ON THAT, SO THAT'S REPAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, TAKING IN THE ACCOUNT THE COSTS THAT YOU HAVE ON THE FRONT END,
[01:25:04]
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT 3.25% IS OBVIOUSLY THE LOWEST THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO REPAY.WEBSTER DID HAVE SLIGHTLY LOWER COSTS ON THE FRONT END, BUT THE INTEREST RATE BEING HIGHER MADE IT STILL A HIGHER COST OVERALL FOR YOU ALL.
SO THAT BEING SAID, WE WOULD RECOMMEND YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT 3.25% WITH TRULST.
THERE IS A MAKE WHOLE PROVISION IF YOU WERE TO PREPAY THE LOAN, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS JUST YOU WOULD HAVE A PENALTY IF INTEREST RATES GO DOWN.
IF IN THE FUTURE, YOU NEED TO MAKE A PREPAYMENT, AND INTEREST RATES HAVE GONE UP, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY PENALTY.
THAT MAKE WHOLE PROVISION ALSO ALLOWS FOR SOME PARTIAL PREPAYMENT, AS WELL, IF YOU HAVE MORE REVENUE THAN YOU EXPECTED AND WANT TO PAY DOWN A PORTION OF THE LOAN.
AGAIN, IT'S THE LOWEST INTEREST RATE, LOWEST ALL IN COST.
WE WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO REFINANCE THIS IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS FOR ANY REAL MATERIAL SAVINGS.
THAT PENALTY IS NOT MUCH OF A CONCERN TO US.
THIS WILL BE THE ONLY AUTHORIZATION YOU NEED TO MAKE.
THERE WILL BE NO ACTION THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE NEXT MONTH AND WE ANTICIPATE CLOSING THIS AHEAD OF CHRISTMAS SO THAT YOU ALL HAVE THE FUNDS IN HAND TO MAKE PURCHASES.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? FOR ME OR MR. YURY OR MR. SPERTOLI?
>> NO, SIR. NOT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU.
>> FOLKS, THIS IS ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE COME FORTH.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE COME FORTH.
SEEING NO ONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE BOARD WHICH Y'ALL IS A PLEASURE.
I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> LET'S NOW CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE RESOLUTION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FY2025 APPROPRIATION OF $10,937,835.
IN FUTURE BOND PROCEEDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE UTILITY RIVER ROAD TRANSIT MAIN BUDGET AMENDMENT. MISS DREW.
>> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
IT IS FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT IS JUST OVER 10.9 MILLION FOR APPROPRIATION OF FUTURE BOND PROCEEDS.
ON NOVEMBER 13TH, THE BOARD APPROVED AN AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT A RIVER ROAD TRANSMISSION MAIN AT A COST OF $10,937,835.
THE FUNDING SOURCE, FOR THIS PROJECT, WOULD BE DEBT PROCEEDS FROM A PLANNED SPRING 2025 BORROWING FOR UTILITIES.
WITH THE AWARD OF CONTRACT, THE BOARD ALSO APPROVED THE AUTHORIZATION OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROPRIATE FUTURE BOND PROCEEDS.
YOU ALSO APPROVED A REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION, EXPRESSING THE BOARD'S INTENT TO INCUR PROJECT EXPENDITURES AND REIMBURSE YOURSELVES LATER WITH BOND PROCEEDS.
THE ADOPTED FY'25 CURRENT YEAR UTILITIES BUDGET DOES INCLUDE BUDGETED AMOUNTS FOR PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST REPAYMENTS FOR AN ESTIMATED $30 MILLION IN DEBT FUNDED UTILITIES PROJECTS.
I DID PROVIDE AN EXCERPT OF THE BUDGET PAGE, AND IT IS ON PAGE 304 OF THE CURRENT YEAR ADOPTED BUDGET.
[LAUGHTER] THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS ADVERTISED.
WE REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING WHEN A BUDGET AMENDMENT EXCEEDS 1% OF THE ADOPTED BUDGET, WHICH IS OVER 1.6 MILLION.
[NOISE] WE DID ADVERTISE THAT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IN THE PROGRESS INDEX ON SEVEN DAYS PRIOR, AND IT APPEARED IN THE NOVEMBER 19TH EDITION.
THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO INCREASE ANY TAX OR UTILITY RATE AS A RESULT OF THIS PLANNED BORROWING IN THE FUTURE OR THIS BUDGET APPROPRIATION.
THE DEBT WILL BE REPAID WHEN ISSUED WITH BUDGETED UTILITY COLLECTIONS.
AFTER HOLDING THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARING, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUTURE DEBT PROCEEDS OF $10,937,835.
A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE SPRING WHEN THE DEBT IS ACTUALLY ISSUED SIMILAR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE JUST HELD.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
[01:30:04]
>> THANK YOU. FOLKS, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYBODY I'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST, PLEASE COME FORTH.
SEEING NO ONE I'M GOING TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE BOARD. WHICH QUESTION?
>> LET'S NOW CALL A ROLL, PLEASE.
>> FOLKS, THAT'S ALL OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS, NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IN.
[G. Order of Business]
FIRST ITEM IS TAX RELIEF FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLE.DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION.
MISS ROUSEY, HOW ARE YOU DOING?
>> FINE. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MR. STOKE. [INAUDIBLE]
>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO DISCUSS THE COUNTY'S TAX RELIEF PROGRAM FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED.
WE WANT TO SAY TAX RELIEF PROGRAM IS AVAILABLE TO OUR CITIZENS. I'M SORRY.
>> I WAS TO GET THE SPEAKER. IS AVAILABLE TO OUR SENIOR CITIZENS OR PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED TAXPAYERS.
IT ALLOWS THESE INDIVIDUALS TO EITHER GET A 50% OR 100% RELIEF BASED ON THEIR NET WORTH AND INCOME ON THEIR REAL ESTATE TAXES OR THEIR MOBILE HOME TAXES, WHATEVER IT APPLIES TO.
THE TAX RELIEF IS ON THEIR RESIDENTS AND UP TO FIVE ACRES OF LAND THAT THEY OWN.
APPLICATIONS ARE DUE ANNUALLY BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON NET WORTH AND INCOME.
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THAT ANNUALLY WITH OUR OFFICE FOR MOBILE HOMES.
THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE DUE BY FEBRUARY 15TH, SINCE THEY DO THE RELIEF SHOWS UP ON THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY BILL FOR JUNE 5.
FOR REAL ESTATE, THEY HAVE UNTIL AUGUST 1ST, BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT THEIR BILL UNTIL DECEMBER 5TH FOR THE NEW FISCAL YEAR.
THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS APPLICANT MUST BE 65 YEARS OF AGE OR PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY DISABLED AS OF DECEMBER 31ST OF THE PRECEDING TAX YEAR THAT THEY ARE APPLYING FOR.
THE TOTAL COMBINED HOUSEHOLD INCOME CANNOT EXCEED 45,000, THAT'S ANYONE LIVING IN THE HOME.
THEIR NET FINANCIAL WORTH CANNOT EXCEED 120,000.
NOW, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THEIR HOME THAT THEY'RE SEEKING THE EXEMPTION FOR OR UP TO FIVE ACRES OF LAND, AND THEY MUST OWN AND RESIDE IN THE HOME.
CURRENTLY, THE WAY THE RELIEF BREAK OUT IS IF THEY MAKE 0-$28,000, THEY GET 100% TAX RELIEF.
IF IT'S OVER 28,000, THEY WOULD GET 50% TAX.
WE HAVE 87 SENIOR CITIZENS RECEIVING THE TAX RELIEF IN THE PROGRAM CURRENTLY.
AS OF FISCAL YEAR '25, AS OF OCTOBER 11TH, IT WAS APPROXIMATELY ABOUT $114,000 IN RELIEF FOR THIS PROGRAM.
ON THIS SLIDE, I WANTED TO INCLUDE THE SURROUNDING LOCALITY SO THAT YOU COULD SEE WHAT THEIR INCOME AND ASSET LIMITS WERE IN COMPARISON TO OURS.
WE'RE PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH THE OTHER LOCALITIES AROUND US.
NOW, ISLE OF WIGHT AND CHESTERFIELD IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER BECAUSE THEIR POPULATION OF COURSE IS HIGHER THAN OURS.
CHANGES TO THE COUNTY ORDINANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE TAX RELIEF.
SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE IN THE OFFICE, WE'VE CHANGED IT THREE TIMES.
WE ADOPTED A CHANGE IN 2002, WHERE WE CHANGED THE INCOME FROM 25-3,000 WAS A $5,000 INCREASE, AND THEN THE NET WORTH FROM 65-85,000.
WE, AGAIN, ADOPTED ANOTHER ORDINANCE IN 2005, WHERE WE INCREASED THE INCOME AGAIN, ANOTHER 5,000, AND THEN THE NET WORTH 15,000.
THEN LASTLY, WHERE WE'RE AT NOW WAS IN 2008, AND WE INCREASED THE INCOME FROM 35-45,000 AND THE NET WORTH 100-120,000.
WE DID CHANGE THAT ACREAGE FROM 1-5 ACRES.
IT HAS BEEN QUITE A WHILE SINCE WE MADE ANY CHANGES TO THIS PROGRAM.
OUR PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION IS THAT WE CHANGE THE INCOME FROM 45-50,000, WHICH IS A $5,000 INCREASE AND THE NET WORTH FROM 120-125,000.
WE ALSO SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD CHANGE THE BREAKDOWN WHEN WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND IT WOULD BE FROM 0-35,000, AND THEY WOULD RECEIVE 100% RELIEF, ANYTHING OVER 35,000-50,000 50% RELIEF.
[01:35:04]
THAT'S JUST OUR PROPOSAL.AS FAR AS THE FISCAL IMPACT, WE REALLY CAN'T PREDICT WHAT THE OVERALL FISCAL IMPACT WOULD BE BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CITIZENS FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY OF AGE OR DISABLED UNDER THESE INCOME AMOUNTS.
I KNOW THIS YEAR I HAD FIVE APPLICANTS WHO HAVE RECEIVED IT IN THE PAST, AND THEY WERE DISQUALIFIED THIS YEAR JUST A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THEIR INCOME WAS OVER, THEIR NET WORTH.
NOW, IF WE WENT WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES, IT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL $6,000 RELIEF WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS IF THEY HAD GOTTEN IT.
WE HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND, AS WELL, IF WE WERE TO CHANGE THE RELIEF PERCENTAGES OR THE INCOME BRACKET, SOME OF THE TAXPAYERS CURRENTLY GETTING 50% WOULD THEREFORE BE GETTING 100%.
THAT WOULD CAUSE SOME IMPACT AS WELL.
BUT WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE MINIMAL IMPACT FOR THIS PROGRAM.
IT'S NOT LIKE OUR DISABLED VETERANS, WHERE WE HAVE 800 APPLICANTS.
>> AS FAR AS TIME FRAMES, IF WE DECIDE TO MAKE CHANGES, I WOULD RECOMMEND IT BEING EFFECTIVE FOR THE 2025 TAX RELIEF APPLICATION, WHICH IS THE APPLICATION COMING UP.
THE MOBILE HOMES WOULD HAVE TO BE FILED FEBRUARY 15TH, BECAUSE, AGAIN, THEIRS WOULD REFLECT ON THE PERSONAL PROPERTY BILL ON JUNE 5TH.
THE REAL ESTATE THEY HAVE UNTIL AUGUST 1ST, BECAUSE THEIRS WOULDN'T START UNTIL FISCAL YEAR '26, BUT BOTH OF THOSE ARE ON THE SAME APPLICATION.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE COULD DO MOBILE HOMES.
LIKE WE COULD WAIT AND DO MOBILE HOMES AT A LATER TIME.
THEN DO REAL ESTATE NOW, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BASICALLY THIS WAY.
THAT'S BASICALLY IT'S JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW HERE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME.
>> I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE MORE OF A STATEMENT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING SINCE 2008, AND, SOCIAL SECURITY INCREASES GO UP AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
I THINK I HAVE HAD QUITE A FEW PEOPLE REACH OUT TO ME THAT, PRINCE GEORGE NEEDS TO LOOK AT DOING SOMETHING.
MOST OF THESE FOLKS ARE ON FIXED INCOMES.
THEY DEPEND ON, MOST OF THEM JUST SOCIAL SECURITY.
SOCIAL SECURITY GOES UP, AND THEY NOW ARE IN A DIFFERENT BRACKET, AND THEY LOSE THAT.
NOW HAVING TO NOT HAVE THAT BREAK IS A HUGE IMPACT TO THEM.
I PERSONALLY THINK WE HAVEN'T DONE IT SINCE 2008.
I WOULD THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD LOOK AT AROUND 10,000 INSTEAD OF FIVE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN.
BUT IF WE ADJUST THE INCOME, WE ALSO PROBABLY NEED TO ADJUST UP THE NUMBER FOR THEIR ASSET WORTH AS WELL.
>> I AGREE WITH MR. BROWN, IT'S UNFORTUNATELY, THE LITTLE PITTANCE THAT SOCIAL SECURITY GETS IN A BUMP.
>> IS ENOUGH TO KNOCK HIM OUT OF A PROGRAM, BUT YET IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO PAY THE BILLS.
IT'S A VERY SAD STATE OF THIS COUNTRY WE'RE IN, I WOULD AGREE WITH MR. BROWN THAT 10,000.
THEN I THINK TOO, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY OR THE TOTAL THAT NEEDS THE ASSET LIMIT NEEDS TO INCREASE AS WELL.
>> I THINK YOU WERE LOOKING AT GOING UP ON THE PROPERTY WORTH 5,000 FROM WHAT IT IS TODAY.
I WOULD SAY THAT WOULD GO TO 10,000 AS WELL.
>> YOU GOT THE 10,000 BUMP ON THE INCOME AND A 10,000 BUMP ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT, AS WELL.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE BRACKET.
>> ABSOLUTELY. YOUR BRACKETS WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
>> YOU RECOMMEND DOING THE SAME THING WITH THE ASSETS TOO IN THE BACK.
>> THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, 10,000 ON THE ASSETS INCREASE FROM WHAT IT IS TODAY, AND 10,000 ON THE INCOME PIECE FROM WHAT IS TODAY VERSUS THE 5,000 THAT.
I APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE I KNOW SEVERAL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, MR. WEBB.
I THINK MR. COX BOTH HAVE THOUGHT OF THIS IN THE PAST.
I KNOW MR. WEBB HAS, AND DIDN'T WANT TO PULL THE TRIGGER WITH ALL THAT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE ROLLED THE ASSESSMENTS. I GOT NERVOUS.
>> I MEAN, WE HAVE SUCH, DISABLED VETERANS, WE HAVE ALMOST 800, LOSING ALMOST THREE MILLION IN REVENUE JUST FROM THE DISABLED VETERAN APPLICATION.
I THINK WE WERE A LITTLE HESITANT IN THE PAST.
>> TO DO ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO THIS.
>> THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE PAID FOR STUFF ALONG THE WAY.
[01:40:01]
NOW IT'S TIME FOR US TO LOOK AFTER THEM A LITTLE BIT.>> THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I'M GLAD WE'RE DISCUSSING IT.
IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. MR. BROWN, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO PUT IT TO A MOTION, I WILL SECOND YOU.
>> YES, SIR. I WOULD SO MOVE THAT FOR THE TAX RELIEF, WE WOULD MAKE THE INCOME BRACKET 10,000 MORE THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY.
ON THE ASSET WORTH, WE WOULD MAKE THAT 10,000 MORE THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY, AND THEN YOU'LL JUST NEED TO ADJUST THE BRACKETS. THAT'S MY MOTION.
>> MOTION SECOND. MISS NOT CALL THE ROLL.
>> THIS IS NOT AN AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE?
>> RESOLUTION IS AN AUTHORITY.
>> WE'VE GOT IT WRITTEN DOWN THIS.
IT'S JUST A CONSENSUS AT THIS POINT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OH, IT'S JUST A CONS.
>> HOW IS THAT PLAYING TO THE TIME? A MOTION.
WE SECOND AND WE VOTE ON AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE FOR JANUARY. THANK YOU.
OKAY. WELL, THEN I'LL CHANGE IT'S AN ORDINANCE.
OKAY. I'LL WITHDRAW THE MOTION IF YOU'LL WITHDRAW.
I'LL CHANGE THE MOTION TO ADVERTISE.
>> YES. I WOULD SO MOVE THAT WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND DO IT AND WE WOULD ADVERTISE FOR THAT TO COME BACK TO THIS BOARD FOR JANUARY THE 14TH.
>> I'LL SECOND THAT. WE TRY TO GIVE IT TO YOU QUICKER, BUT [LAUGHTER].
>> NO, THAT'S FINE. WE NEED TO, SO WE CAN NOTIFY THE CITIZENS FOR FEBRUARY.
>> TAKE TAKE A VOTE, WE HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE TO ADVERTISE.
>> YES. ONE THING BEFORE YOU STEP AWAY.
IF WE BRING THIS BACK IN JANUARY THE 14TH, DOES THAT REALLY GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME BETWEEN JANUARY 14TH AND FEBRUARY'S APPLICATION DEADLINE TO REALLY MAKE PEOPLE AWARE THAT THIS CHANGED.
I THINK THAT'S CUTTING IT CLOSE.
THAT'S NOT FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
>> WELL, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING INSERTS IN THE APPLICATIONS, AND I KNOW WITH JACK WIND'S HELP, MAYBE WE CAN GET.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THIS OUT TO PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT, CAUSE I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT APPLY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. SORRY FOR YOUR CONFUSION.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE RESOLUTION APPROPRIATION OF GENERAL FUNDS, FUND BALANCE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION, TRACTOR REPLACEMENT, $31,599.90. MR. ROTZOLL.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN WEBB.
VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MR. STOKE, MRS. ERARD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING TO ALLOW ME TO PRESENT A REQUEST FOR THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT TRACTOR.
OUR 1995 JOHN DEERE TRACTOR IS INOPERABLE.
THIS TRACTOR IS NEEDED TO PERFORM NUMEROUS FUNCTIONS TO MAINTAIN AND DEVELOP OUR ATHLETIC PARKS AND FIELDS.
AMONG THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE USE IT FOR SPRING FALL FERTILIZATION.
WE HAVE WEED MANAGEMENT, LIME FOR ATHLETIC FIELDS.
WE HAVE OUR BEAUTIFUL BERMUDA GRASS FIELDS.
WE HAVE REGULAR FESCUE FIELDS.
WE USE IT FOR INFIELD PREP AND DIRT, TRANSPORTATION, FALL OVERSEEDING, PARK MAINTENANCE, PARKING LOT GRADING, SNOW REMOVAL.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO NEED IT THIS YEAR, BUT MAYBE THIS WILL BE THE ONE.
ALSO IT PULLS SANTA SLEIGH IN THE CHRISTMAS PARADE.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PICTURES, DIDN'T QUITE MAKE IT TO 30 YEARS, SO I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S A WARRANTY ON IT ANYMORE, BUT IT'S BEEN VERY GOOD USE.
SINCE THIS WAS NOT PLANNED, WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THIS REQUESTING THIS IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PAPERWORK, THE INITIAL REPAIR COST WAS A LITTLE OVER $7,000.
THAT'S JUST A BREAK OPEN THE TRANSMISSION.
ONCE WE GET IN THERE, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND.
ANOTHER OPTION THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS RENTAL.
THAT'S ALSO GOVERNMENT CONTRACT, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER $10,000 FOR RENTAL FROM NOW UNTIL JUNE WHEN WE COULD GET AN ADDITIONAL TRACTOR.
[01:45:01]
PURCHASE OF A TRACTOR WOULD BE EVEN MORE THAN IT IS AT THE MOMENT.PARKS AND RECREATION IS EXTREMELY GRATEFUL THAT OVER THE YEARS, THE BOARD HAS FUNDED THE TRANSFORMATION OF OUR ATHLETIC VENUES, TURNING THEM INTO ATTRACTIVE, WELL MAINTAINED DESTINATIONS FOR BOTH OUR CITIZENS TO ENJOY AND ATTRACT LARGE REVENUE GENERATING TOURNAMENTS.
WITHOUT A FUNCTIONAL TRACTOR, WE WOULD NEED TO EITHER PAY AN OUTSIDE VENDOR TO PERFORM MAINTENANCE TASK, RENT A TRACTOR, WHICH WE JUST DISCUSSED, OR WORST CASE SCENARIO, LET OUR EXCELLENT FACILITIES DEGRADE.
I'M ASSUMING YOU ALL HAVE BEEN TO THE PARKS.
WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY PROUD OF THEM.
THE STAFF IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT RECREATION TRACTOR AT A COST OF NOT TO EXCEED 31,599 AND $0.90.
THE PARKS AND RECREATION BUDGET HAS 5,418.79 AVAILABLE TOWARD THIS PURCHASE AND IS REQUESTING AN APPROPRIATION OF GENERAL FUND BALANCE FOR $26,101.11.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE, I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO WAIT UNTIL NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
YOU WOULD WANT THIS OUT OF THE FUND BALANCE SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET THIS NOW.
>> IS A 35 HORSE POWER GOING TO BE BIG ENOUGH FOR YOUR NEEDS?
>> YES, SIR. IT'S REALLY SMALL.
WE HAVE A LARGER TRACTOR THAT'S GOT SOME AGRICULTURAL WHEELS ON IT.
BUT WE CAN'T USE THOSE ON BALL FIELDS.
WE NEED SOMETHING THAT WE'VE GOT THE TURF TIRES, AND IT'S LIGHTER.
IT SERVES A DIFFERENT FUNCTION.
>> DO WE NEED A NEW BLADE? DO WE NOT HAVE ONE, OR.
>> AS FAR AS THE PALETTE FORKS.
>> HAVE YOU ALL VERIFIED THE LIFT CAPACITY?
>> FOR WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO USE IT FOR, YES.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO, LIFT CRAZY WEIGHTS OF IT, BASIC THING THAT.
THIS REALLY SERVES THE NEEDS OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE FUNDS TO.
>> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH, AND WELCOME I HOPE TO SEE YOU AT THE TREE LIGHTING AND HAY.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ASSESSMENT DATA. MRS. ERARD.
>> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND MR. STOKE. I AM REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO FILE A PETITION WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING THE 2025 REASSESSMENT.
AS YOU MAY RECALL, WE HAVE HIRED VISION BACK EARLIER IN THIS YEAR, AND VISION HAS BEEN WORKING ON DATA ENTRY IN TERMS OF THE 24 ASSESSMENT DATA, BUT ALSO WORKING ON THE 25 REASSESSMENT.
WHEN WE HIRED VISION TO DO THIS, YOU MAY RECALL THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE IT DONE BY DECEMBER 31ST.
THERE'S THE STATUTE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT HAS TO BE FILED AND HOW MANY COPIES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH IN TERMS OF A REASSESSMENT.
THEN HERE'S THE STATUTE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN GET UP TO ANOTHER THREE MONTHS BY ORDER OF THE COURT FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN TO SUBMIT THE REASSESSMENT DATA.
I'M REQUESTING AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY AND THE BOARD TO FILE SUCH A PETITION AND REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF TIME.
[01:50:03]
>> NOBODY'S GOT ANY QUESTIONS.
>> NEXT, WE HAVE A RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATION GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE FOR BOND INSURANCE C 21,450, MRS. JURY.
>> YES, SIR. GOOD EVENING AGAIN FOR THE LAST ITEM.
WE ARE ASKING FOR AN INCREASED APPROPRIATION FOR BOND ISSUANCE COSTS.
THEY TOTAL $71,450 INSTEAD OF THE INITIAL PLACEHOLDER ESTIMATE OF 50,000 THAT WAS INCLUDED IN A PRIOR APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION.
I AM ASKING THIS EVENING TO APPROPRIATE $21,450 FROM GENERAL FUND BALANCE TO COVER THE TOTAL OF THE BOND ISSUANCE COSTS FOR THE BOND ISSUANCE YOU JUST APPROVED.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? SIR. I'LL TAKE A MOTION.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I WOULD SO MOVE THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THIS.
>> MRS. NOAH CALL A ROLL, PLEASE?
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LET'S MISREAD SOMETHING AGAIN.
[BACKGROUND] WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN TO DECEMBER 2ND RIGHT HERE? 6:00 PM.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FOLKS. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.