Regular Meeting – December 9, 2015
Regular Meeting, Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 7:00 p.m. Government Center, Verona, VA.
PRESENT: Michael L. Shull, Chairman
Carolyn S. Bragg, Vice-Chairman
Jeffrey A. Moore
Marshall W. Pattie
Tracy C. Pyles, Jr.
G. L. “Butch” Wells
Larry J. Wills
Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney
Timmy Fitzgerald, Director of Community Development
Jennifer Whetzel, Director of Finance
Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator
Rita R. Austin, CMC, Executive Secretary
VIRGINIA: At a regular meeting of the Augusta County Board of Supervisors held on Wednesday, December 9, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., at the Government Center, Verona, Virginia, and in the 240th year of the Commonwealth….
Ayden Jones, seventh graders at S. Gordon Stewart Middle School, led us with the Pledge of Allegiance. Ayden enjoys playing soccer.
Tracy C. Pyles, Jr., Supervisor for the Pastures District, delivered invocation.
Chairman Shull welcomed the citizens present and recognized the students from Riverheads High School.
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC – NONE
AUDIT PRESENTATION
The Board received a presentation by P.B. Mares of 2015 Augusta County Comprehensive Annual Report.
Jennifer Whetzel, Director of Finance, reported that the County has completed its annual financial audit and introduced representatives of P. B. Mares to present the report to the Board: Betsy Hedrick, Partner of P.B. Mares; and Shannon Winslow, Supervisor.
Ms. Hedrick noted that an “Unmodified Opinion” has been issued on the County’s Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ending July 30, 2015. She explained that an “Unmodified Opinion” is the best opinion that can be given as auditors. The other two reports issued are located in the Compliance Section in the back of the Financial Statements. She reported that they met earlier tonight with the Audit Committee and went over the Comprehensive Financial Report and other written communications. The County was required to implement the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement #68, which is an accounting and financial report for pensions and financial statements. To comply with the new GATSBY, the County had to report its net pension liabilities for the Virginia Retirement System. Implementation of the new standard required a prior period of adjustment position is described in Note 19 to the financial statements. The statement of that position is located on page 24. That position is the difference between total assets and deferred outflows of resources and total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources. The County’s total net position, as of June 30, 2015, was approximately $45.9 million, which is a decrease of $655,000 from the prior year. She noted the summary of the Fiscal Year can be located on pages 13- 23, which is management’s discussion and analysis and written by Jennifer Whetzel, Director of Finance. The statistical section is located at the back of the financial statement which provides historical trend information. She highlighted from the statistical section the County’s net bonded debt per capita, which is $609 and noted that that number is significantly less than the average of the other audit clients, which approximates $2,000 debt per capita. Also, included in the audit is the Management Letter and a report to the Board of Supervisors, which describes certain matters that are required, by professional standards, to be communicated to the Board. Ms. Hedrick extended her appreciation “for the courtesy and cooperation extended to us from all departments during the audit. We have really met and worked with a lot of great people.” Mr. Wills expressed an appreciation for what the auditors had done. “You have been very thorough. I think our staff and you all have communicated well. I appreciate both staff’s standpoint and from your standpoint in working together well. You kept the Audit Committee informed. We appreciate that.” Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator, restated the County’s debt of $609 versus $2,000 per capita.
Dr. Pattie asked what the auditor’s recommendation was regarding cyber security. He realizes that it is going to happen and noted that the County has been proactive on dams and other issues. “We know this is probably going to become a mandate.
Anytime we can find grants, or things coming down the stream that we can get ahead of, I think that is something we need to focus on.” Chairman Shull commended staff and how the County operates and debt cost per capita of $609.
AUGUSTA COUNTY SCHOOLS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
The Board considered construction bids and authorization for School Board to proceed with financing and award for Riverheads Elementary School, Cassell Elementary School and Wilson Middle School Projects.
Funding Source: VPSA Bonds $45,548,166 Dr. Eric Bond, Augusta County School Superintendent, provided a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the following:
Bidding • Received bids on November 10, 2015 • 6 contractors submitted bids 4 contractors bid on all three projects o 2 contractors bid only on Wilson Middle School o Bid Tabulation Sheet (Hard costs only) • General Contractor Bids only – not total project costs • Highlighted in blue reflected lowest bid and alternates selected Martin Brothers Construction (Roanoke, VA), for:
o Hugh K. Cassell Elementary School: $18.9 million Riverheads Elementary: $19.1 million Combined bid due to proto-type style and process: $37.7 million (cost savings of $270,000) Nielsen Builders, Inc. (Harrisonburg, VA), for:
o Wilson Middle School (add-on project): $2,036,000 Bid Alternates recommended to School Board:
o Cassell Elementary School:
Credit for reuse of walk-in freezer: ( $5,000) Add implementation of LED lighting in gym: $5,000 Add for Card Reader Access System (Security): $19,000 Riverheads Elementary School:
Add LED lighting in gym: $5,000 Add for Card Reader Access System (Security): $19,000 Wilson Middle School:
Wood Casework to match existing casework: $10,000 Combined bids total with accepted alternates:
o Martin Brothers Contractors: $37.8 million Nielsen Builders, Inc. $ 2.0 million Less Value Engineering Elementary: $1.0 million Less Value Engineering Middle: $10,600 Contract Award Amounts Elementary: $36.8 million Contract Award Amounts Middle: $ 2.0 million Total: $38.8 million Project Budgets Soft Costs:
o Cassell Elementary School: $ 3.7 million Riverheads Elementary School: $ 2.4 million Wilson Elementary School: $ .5 million Total: $ 6.7 million Hard Costs:
o Cassell Elementary School (w/savings $134,163): $18.8 million Riverheads Elementary School (w/savings $135,837): $19.0 million Wilson Elementary School: $ 2.0 million Total: $39.8 million Total Bid Alternates:
o Cassell Elementary School: $19,000 Riverheads Elementary School: $24,000 Wilson Elementary School: $10,000 Total: $53,000 Hard costs + Bid Alternates:
o Cassell Elementary School: $18.8 million Riverheads Elementary School: $19.0 million Wilson Elementary School: $ 2.0 million Total: $39.8 million Total Hard Costs + Bid Alternates w/Value Engineering Changes: $38.8 million Soft Costs: $ 6.7 million Total: $45,548,166 Dr. Bond mentioned that, with the continual annual commitment of $7.2 million, no additional revenue will be requested. He thanked the Board for that commitment.
He presented two scenarios:
Schedule A:
(Maintaining Capital Depreciation/Infrastructure for FY17) 1. Capital Depreciation/Infrastructure (est. 10-year Capital Plan) remains intact.
2. Recommendation of two bond sales ($30 million in Spring/2016; and $15.5 million in Fall/2016) 3. Will remain solvent up to 2020, with highest deficit in 2022 ($188,867) 4. Year-end Operational Fund Balance allocation – nothing had been accounted on preceding years.
Schedule B:
(No Appropriation for Capital Depreciation/Infrastructure FY17) 1. Capital Depreciation/Infrastructure (delayed project for 2016/2017 one year) 2. Recommendation of two bond sales ($30 million in Spring/2016; and $15.5 million in Fall/2016) 3. Cash flow will remain solvent throughout Cost Factors • Sitework Original budgeted amount for sitework for both Riverheads and Cassel was $4.2 million. Actual costs based upon bid day results is slightly more than $6.6 million. Sitework costs increased due to:
• Unsuitable soils at Riverheads Elementary School • Wetlands areas at Riverheads Elementary School • Increased scope of work (ball fields) at Cassell due to design changes on site, due to existing conditions (rock, well, phasing concerns) • Lack of available water for construction at Cassell during initial 9 months of construction • Water/Sewer – Cassell The projected cost to hookup to public water and sewer is $1.3 million.
The initial project cost for Cassell was based upon continued use of an onsite waste water treatment facility and well water.
These factors have affected the total project costs negatively almost $4 million.
Cost Data • The school projects were designed to be highly efficient in cost and remain so, as the bid results, minus the site costs, result in the lowest cost per square foot of new elementary construction in Virginia, compared to the state average, since 2012.
• Based on the State rated capacity of the new elementary school buildings, these projects reflect the lowest overall expenditure per student, compared to the state average for new elementary schools, since 2010.
A chart was shown indicating the square footage per student was 101 versus a 5-year Virginia average of 119. The total project cost per square foot on these projects were $196.56 compared to $206.16 on the 5-year average in Virginia.
The Building only cost per square foot is $162 with a 5-year Virginia average of $173.72. Total cost per pupil is $20,317 with a 5-year Virginia average of $24,693.
• In addition, cost savings have been realized by:
The re-use of kitchen equipment at Cassell: $260,000 o Utilization of prototypical design for Cassell and o Riverheads saving in architectural and engineering costs: $325,198 Issuance of combined bid: $270,000 o Project Update December 3, 2015 – School Board award of bids December 9, 2015 – Board of Supervisors approval of projects December 10, 2015 – Crabtree, Rohrbaugh & Associates issues Notice of Intent to Award December 10 – 17, 2015 – Contractor prepares/submits bonds, insurance and signed contracts December 17 – 18, 2015 – Owner/Architect review/execute contract December 18, 2015 – Notice to Proceed Date TBD – Pre-construction meeting August 2016 – Completion of WMS Phase I – 7th & 8th Grade Classrooms (#8) January 2017 – Completion of WMS Phase II – 6th Grade Classrooms (#4) August 2017 – Completion of Cassell & Riverheads Elementary Schools Dr. Bond read the following statement:
The Augusta County School Board is requesting the Augusta County Board of Supervisors to finance the construction of a new Riverheads Elementary, a new Cassell Elementary, and the expansion of Wilson Middle School by participating in the sale of the general obligation bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority in the total amount not to exceed $45,548,166. The School Finance Director and the County Finance Director have discussed the finance of these projects and believe it to be advantageous to participate in two bond sales as referenced in “Debt Schedule A”. That would be a Spring 2016 bond sale in the amount of $30 million and Fall 2016 bond sale in the amount of $15.548 million. Two bond sales help the school’s CIP account’s cash flow position and extends the amount of time to expend the proceeds from the bond sale by six months.
This also allows us to keep our capital depreciation infrastructure account on schedule as described in our 10-year Capital Plan.
Dr. Bond introduced Hal Hart, Lead Architect from Crabtree, Rohrbaugh & Associates, and thanked him and his design team for their hard work and diligence over the year for these projects.
Mr. Moore asked for clarification on Schedule A of the worst year being $188,867 in 2022; however, in 2023, it gets back to a positive net financial position. Dr. Bond confirmed that statement. Mr. Moore referred to line #13, regarding the Riverheads Buffalo Gap Middle School, as to not being a part of this project. Dr. Bond said this was the cash-flow analysis for the 10-year Capital Plan and was left in the report for information.
Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Moore, that the Board approve the request.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: Pattie Motion carried.
Chairman Shull thanked Dr. Bond for his presentation and stated that the reason that we are able to approve this financing without a tax increase is because the new debt will replace old debt being retired from 20 years ago. Dr. Bond agreed.
FIRE AND RESCUE – TRUCK 106 REPLACEMENT
The Board considered Committee recommendation to award bid to replace Truck 106 (aerial).
Funding Source: F&R Depreciation Account #80000-8057 $1,102,575 Mr. Coffield advised that a Ladder Truck was bought in 1995. The Committee had narrowed it down to 4 vendors and after working with each to address specific needs, the Committee recommended that the bid be awarded to Kovatch Mobile Equipment (KME).
Jeff Hurst, Bt. Commander, was available to answer questions. He noted that there was a committee consisting of five who put many hours reviewing the specifications.
The committee felt that KME best suited the needs.
Mr. Wills asked for the delivery time. Bt. Com. Hurst said it would be nine to thirteen months.
Mr. Wills asked how the payments were structured and expressed concern of the obligation not being fulfilled. Ms. Whetzel said this does not require prepayments. Mr. Coffield added that funding for this apparatus will come from Fire and Rescue depreciation account.
Ms. Bragg asked if construction was going occur in Roanoke. Bt. Com. Hurst said part of it will be built in Roanoke but was not sure where the chassis will be made. He thought the plan for KME is to eventually move their Ladder Division to Roanoke.
Roanoke is where it will be serviced.
Chairman Shull said he thought KME is out of Pennsylvania. He noted that the 1995 truck has had to be sent to Ohio for service and did not feel they would have these same issues with the new truck. He noted that Staunton and Waynesboro are also having some problems with their equipment. “We need this equipment to help one another.” Dr. Pattie asked if it was a 4-wheel drive. Bt. Com. Hurst said it was not 4-wheel drive but had a differential lock that could be utilized in muddy situations.
Mr. Moore noted the need for this truck in areas such as Lifecore Drive to support that growth and future growth.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Moore, that the Board approve the request.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: None Motion carried.
MCKEE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
The Board considered McKee Performance Agreement for expansion.
Mr. Coffield noted that a copy of the agreement had been provided to the Board. He explained to the audience that in 2012 we had a $19 million dollar expansion at McKee’s. With that, we received a $200,000 State grant and matched with a $250,000 County grant. That grant is 95% closed out. There was a second opportunity for expansion. This is a $34 million investment by McKee. We were successful in securing a $300,000 State grant and a $300,000 County grant funded through Tax Increment Finance (TIF). He noted that these expansions represent a significant investment by McKee’s and more importantly this re-investment helps secure employment for a 1,000 plus employees locally. Ms. Glover has worked closely with the Corporate in Tennessee, Jean Shrewsbury, Jennifer Whetzel, Tim Fitzgerald and Pat Morgan offices to finalize the agreement.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Dr. Pattie, that the Board approve the McKee Performance Agreement.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: None Motion carried.
NARROWBANDING
The Board considered Committee recommendation to award contract for Regional Radio Equipment upgrade.
Funding Source: ECC Depreciation Account #80000-8058 $3,195,062.23 Ms. Whetzel and Donna Good, ECC Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation with the following highlights. Ms. Whetzel said that the presentation includes some technical information about what narrowbanding is and the quiet zone and an explanation of what type of project is being considered and the reasoning for the upgrade.
Piece of Project/”The Puzzle” Consisted of: FCC/Green Bank, New Partners, Consultant, ECC, Installation, Equipment and Towers and Owners Current System The existing Augusta County’s Emergency Communications (radio) system was installed in 1998 at a cost of $2.5 million.
The system is a conventional analog UHF wide band simulcast system using microwave.
Definitions Conventional system: most popular two-way radio system. Range from analog, voice-only communications over a confined area (single-site), to region-wide (wide-area) integrated voice and data networks with digital signaling, voting, multicast, and simulcast broadcasting.
Simulcast: simultaneous broadcast of the same voice or message from multiple transmitter sites on the same frequency.
Voting: equipment selects the best signal if a single transmitter provides sufficient outbound coverage, but a single receiver does not provide sufficient inbound coverage for subscriber transmissions.
Analog: of or relating to a device or process in which data is represented by physical quantities that change continuously Narrowbanding Mandate requires the County’s UHF land mobile radio (LMR) which is currently operating using 25KHz “wideband” technology to migrate to 12.5KHz “narrowband” technology.
Increases the RF spectrum to accommodate more users Quiet Zone The County is located in the Quiet Zone as mandated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO).
NRAO has reduced the output power allowed at County antenna sites.
NRAO reviews frequency and power output usage of County equipment/sites prior to submission to the FCC.
The County has added sites to the system to help offset this reduction in power, providing radio coverage similar to what is currently in place.
Project Goal Scope of Work presented was to design, provide and deploy a narrowband compliant communication system.
This system will be a narrowband UHF simulcast system upgrade.
Allows for exploration of future technology without replacing the hardware included in the upgrade.
Proposed System Upgrade Eight channel UHF analog conventional simulcast system Narrowband Prime site, five transmit/receive Radio Frequency (RF) sites, three receive-only sites Enables County to meet the FCC narrowbanding mandate requirement.
Sites in Proposal Devil’s Knob (Wintergreen) Elliot’s Knob Massanutten Verona Deerfield Troxell Gap Mt. Solon receiver site Craigsville receiver site Back-up in Staunton Coverage Testing Conduct an initial baseline coverage test of the County’s existing system.
After new system is implemented the Coverage Acceptance Test Plan will verify the coverage guarantees in the proposal.
County will be divided into test grids.
County to provide personnel to assist in completing coverage testing.
Motorola Installed existing system Maintenance agreement for existing system Continued partnership 85+ years in supporting public safety agencies across the world Project Team Motorola Account Manager Engineer Site work specialist Microwave specialist LMR specialist Warranty and Maintenance specialist Communications Consultant County Representatives Ms. Whetzel added that the Project Team met on Monday, December 7th, and went through a proposal consisting of approximately 200 pages. The Team went through it section-by-section and narrowed it down to what was thought to be an issue based on their Scope of Work versus the proposal.
Timeline December 2015 – Contract Award March 2016 – Design Review April 2016 – Order/Manufacture June 2016 – Shipment (location where it can be tested internally) October 2016 – Installation *She noted that there will be some site development and pre-coverage testing will be done some time in the Spring. Post-coverage testing will be after the system has been optimized. Ms. Good added that the pre-testing would occur because of the foliage on the trees.
November 2016 – Optimization (tested) May 2017 – Acceptance Testing July 2017 – Final Acceptance Payment Schedule Proposed 25% (based on services performed such as Engineering, Management meetings, and coverage testing), March 2016 $ 798,766 45% (equipment shipped), June 2016 $1,437,778 25% (installation) October 2016 $ 798,766 5% (final payment – 100% acceptance) July 2017 $ 159,752 Total: $3,195,062 This total includes incentive if signed by end of December. The incentive would be different if signed before March.
Finance Options Motorola tax-exempt lease VRA Spring Pool Capital Depreciation Account $2.3 million available for project (Noted that, similar to the School Board, the County would be in the red in 2017 of approximately $400,000. If not borrowed, commitment would be required of putting money back into the depreciation account to fund other replacements, which could possibly qualify for grants.) Balance of $3.1 million Use of all funds would require a commitment to fund in future budgets for future replacements Project Budget Original Estimate: $4.3 to $5.2 million Work to date: $826,991 Motorola Contract: $3.2 million Tower modifications – estimate: $120,000 Consultant Fees – estimate $120,000 Total: $4.3 million Grants to Date:
VITA Grant – offsets above costs: $150,000 EMPG Grant – offsets above costs: $ 29,764 Homestead Security: $2 million for subscriber units Contingency of savings on warranty period for maintenance Future Upgrades Available Migrate the system to APCO Project 25 (digital). Additional cost to upgrade estimated at $2,279,861.
Migrate to APCO Project 25 trunking technology.
Steve Garner, from Motorola, was present to answer additional questions. Ms. Whetzel thanked him and his team for their efforts in the last few months of this proposal.
Procurement Motorola’s proposal is valid until December 31, 2015 and is subject to the purchase order, issued by the County that references the following language:
The applicable terms and conditions of the contract between the City of Suffolk, Virginia and Motorola dated December 21, 2012 shall govern this purchase.
Consideration Authorize for the County Administrator to execute a contract with Motorola not to exceed $3,195,062.23 before December 21, 2015, with continued review and approval of documents by Communications Committee and County Attorney.
Mr. Pyles asked if a Financing Plan was needed tonight. Ms. Whetzel said it was not needed tonight. If borrowed, it would be in the Spring. She would like to look at an overall capital plan during the next budget process and see if there are other significant items needed to be addressed.
Mr. Moore asked, once optimized in November, if it will run concurrently with the current system, before the old system be phased out. Ms. Good said that when equipment is added, it will be in use for approximately three months for the transition process and then the old system will be removed. Mr. Moore questioned if it was being installed in October, optimizing in November, but not accepting the new system until May 2017.
Ms. Whetzel explained that it was because of doing the coverage testing again to make sure the coverage is in line with the baseline which currently exists. Ms. Good added that the final acceptance would be where only the new equipment is being used. Mr. Moore clarified that they would not know if the new system was going to work as well as the old system until final testing is done. Ms. Good said that was correct. He further asked if the wideband is removed before the final acceptance, there would be some loss of service. Ms. Whetzel said that would be when it would be determined how to fix those losses.
Mr. Coffield added that, when Congressman Goodlatte is in the area, this same presentation needs to be shared with him. “I think it will take his effort to turn up the dial with “Quiet Zone”. It’s a normal narrowbanding issue with the feds. The Quiet Zone is with a whole different federal agency. We faced this the last time we upgraded.” Chairman Shull explained to the audience that the Quiet Zone is the facility that is operated by the federal government in West Virginia and they do not want radio frequency interference.
Mr. Pyles suggested that we should show Congressman Goodlatte and U.S. Senators what it would cost the County without taking into effect the Quiet Zone. The additional cost should be shared.
Mr. Garner addressed Mr. Moore’s question and explained that both systems are up at the same time because it is public safety. The old system cannot be removed until they are assured that the new system is working properly. The second coverage test is done before cutover. He reiterated that the coverage test is done first allowing them to have a baseline versus the new coverage test and providing a comparison before removing the old equipment.
Ms. Bragg clarified that the second test will be done in the Spring (May 2017). Mr. Garner explained it will be done then because of the leaves being on the trees to give a more stringent test. He further explained that things are going to be done at several sites and will take time to maneuver all of that and get everything in place. He said that the team would be meeting continuously for a smooth process.
Chairman Shull added that Rockbridge and Rockingham are narrowbanded with their coverage remaining the same.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Pyles, that the Board approve the award as recommended.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: None Motion carried.
PIPELINE UPDATE
A) The Board considered County response to recent Dominion route modification.
B) The Board considered letters suggested by Coordination America.
A) The Board considered County response to recent Dominion route modification.
Timmy Fitzgerald, Community Development Director, reported that a revised letter had been provided to the Board for review. He noted that the letter begins with the two route modifications:
1) Cow Knob, which was specifically in the National Forest. Concerns were yielded to the U.S. Forest Service of the appropriateness of this route modification.
2) Augusta County Service Authority, which moved the Pipeline out of the Source Water Protection Area for the Lyndhurst Water System. This is an important water resource regarding the public water supply.
Because of the rerouting, new concerns were raised for the County on specific aspects:
1. Blasting requirements in and around public water lines and the protocols associated with construction once the pipeline is in place. The burden of accommodating the pipeline appears to be on the Service Authority when doing routine water and sewer pipeline maintenance at an additional cost.
In recognizing all private wells within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline construction area and within 500 feet “in karst areas,” it is unclear as to what will be identified as being “in karst areas”. It is recommended that FERC require Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) to conduct a five-phase study on these private well areas.
a. Phase 1 – Conduct Regional Hydrogeological Assessment along the proposed gas pipeline route.
b. Phase 2 – Conduct a Detailed Assessment of those private and commercial wells most vulnerable to being impacted by the installation of the gas pipeline.
c. Phase 3 – Conduct a Groundwater Monitoring Program prior to, during, and after the construction/installation of the gas pipeline.
d. Phase 4 – Conduct Post Construction Assessment on all wells being investigated.
e. Phase 5 – Prepare Final Report and present conclusions and recommendation for mitigating observed adverse impacts/damage to wells. Mr. Fitzgerald felt this study to be important because it would provide a baseline yield and quality data so that the residents would have information they need to quantify any damage done to their wells.
2. Contingency fund to provide for compensation for damages to private wells. This contingency fund would provide a mechanism for compensation for citizens versus having to go through the normal claims process of an insurance company which can be expensive and time-consuming for citizens with a damaged water supply.
3. Reiteration of concerns raised in March 30, 2015 letter in regards to the pipeline in Augusta County and encouragement to reroute away from developed areas, schools, and proposed economic development sites, particularly, in Stuarts Draft.
4. Current route running south of Howardsville Turnpike appears to be running through houses. It is suggested that the pipeline be routed to minimize the impacts to individual parcels by using property lines and not going through the center of parcels.
5. Blasting regarding impact on flood control structures. It is recommended that FERC utilize Best Management Practices when determining blasting protocols.
Mr. Fitzgerald added that staff has worked with the Service Authority on this letter and asked that the Board consider approval of submitting to FERC.
Mr. Pyles thanked staff and Service Authority for the response. “This helps us to make up for the time we were cut off at public hearings. This is a better vehicle for getting information across. I know we have had a good dialogue from the Service Authority with FERC and understand how they think and work.” He explained that the pipeline needed to be away from the Lyndhurst well because of the impact that would occur.
This should also apply to private and public wells. He felt that 500 feet should be considered in all cases regarding karst. He agreed with the contingency fund to assist in legal and replacement costs.
Mr. Pyles moved that the Board approve the submittal of letter to FERC.
Ms. Bragg mentioned the differences in the two letters and suggested that the revised letter include 500 feet under Phase 2.
Mr. Moore added that when this whole discussion began, this Board made a decision not to take a hard stand against the pipeline so that “we could stay at the table and look out for as many and what is best for Augusta County over the whole process. I think this is a good example of that coming to fruition.” Mr. Wills agreed with Mr. Moore. “From this point, FERC has been very cooperative with Augusta County in addressing our needs. I think we are very appreciative of FERC for that. It seems that the process is working for us.” Mr. Pyles moved, seconded by Ms. Bragg, that the Board approve the submittal of letter to FERC, as revised.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: None Amended Motion carried.
* * * B) The Board considered letters suggested by Coordination America.
Mr. Fitzgerald advised that it had been suggested to submit letters to set up a meeting to talk about coordination. In following up with Mr. Wills’ comments regarding how FERC has been working with the County, it was Mr. Fitzgerald’s recommendation to not send out letters at this time. A recent letter from Mr. Bowman, of FERC, shared the recommendation of Dominion looking at the southern route. This letter was a 50-page document that indicated that FERC is paying close attention of what is happening.
They have reviewed the information and all the submittals from Dominion and have solid comments in the document. He reiterated that FERC is looking at it closely and he was not sure that a meeting in regards to coordination was needed at this time.
Wendell Coleman felt that this was a positive discussion but wanted assurance that FERC follows through with what they are agreeing to do.
It was the consensus of the Board to delay submitting letters at this time.
LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID
The Board considered revised Memorandum of Understanding for regional law enforcement mutual aid.
Mr. Coffield advised that, with the change in Sheriff, documents such as these are needed to be reviewed. Waynesboro did the first draft and the County Attorney has reviewed. It has also been reviewed by the Sheriff-Elect.
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, that the Board approve the revised Memorandum of Understanding for regional law enforcement mutual aid.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: None Motion carried.
COUNTY APPOINTMENTS
The Board considered appointments.
Mr. Fitzgerald reminded the Board that there are several positions on Boards that the County Administrator is appointed by the Board of Supervisors to serve on and there are also several that go by title. Those positions by title will be effective January 1, 2016. He suggested the following appointments by the Board of Supervisors to be made effective January 1, 2016:
Valley ASAP _ Timothy K. Fitzgerald Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center – Timothy K. Fitzgerald Middle River Regional Jail – Timothy K. Fitzgerald Department of Social Services – Jennifer Whetzel Mr. Wills asked if Ms. Whetzel would remain with the Middle River Regional Jail serving in the finance standpoint. Mr. Fitzgerald said she would still remain in that capacity.
COUNTY APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Pyles moved, seconded by Mr. Moore, that the Board approve the recommendations.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: None Motion carried.
WAIVERS/VARIANCES – NONE
CONSENT AGENDA
Ms. Bragg moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, that the Board approve the consent agenda as follows:
MINUTES
Approved minutes of the following meetings:
• Staff Briefing Meeting, Monday, November 23, 2015 • Regular Meeting, Tuesday, November 24, 2015
CLAIMS
Approved claims paid since November 12, 2015 Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: None Motion carried.
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE BOARD
The Board discussed the following issues:
Mr. Pyles made the following comment:
It was interesting to hear Mr. Coffield tell about how low the per capita per citizen was and then we proceeded to spend $50 million, which works out to be $671 per citizen. This is a significant Board meeting. This is an end of a chapter, end of a couple of chapters, and end of an era. It was Mr. Kiser who said, ‘We don’t publicize what we do enough. We don’t get it out there what goes on’. I think people do not understand what our successes are. The paper will let them know when we stump our toe, but when we do things right, they just don’t seem to get it through to the consciousness of the public. I wanted to bring up that this is the last Board that would have been elected together for four years. I’m glad that we are going to staggered terms, except, it is interesting to see that mostly in government you don’t get to live through a whole thing happening. You’re there doing the sowing and somebody else is doing the reaping. It is very few times that everything happens on your watch, especially, for a four-year watch. This Board was particularly successful in getting things done in four years and making things happen. I think it came from a concern in the beginning that we needed to look at economic development and enhancing that. Jennifer did put something in the paper that Mr. Stewart was kind enough to relay to the public — $233 million of investments and 12,058 jobs created on our watch.
These are direct jobs. This is the Shamrocks of the world that we had a hand in in bringing them in: Shamrock, Murphey Deming—they were fully done in this time period— this four years. Remarkable! As you drive by on 64, where we may have to buy a ladder truck for it, you look at not just the school, but what went with it. We’ve got that. I don’t think it’s not totally non-coincidental that Fishersville and Stuarts Draft are the best places in Virginia for a young family to buy and start a home. That’s pretty cool! What else do we want to do that we could be prouder of to be at a place where young people can find a place to live, find a place to work, and send their kids to good schools? I think that’s what that is all about. That is what has happened. The genesis started with a hospital going there. You think about the bumper-stickers back in the day for that. “No Hospital” I think most people, now, would conclude that that hospital there is the better medical option than we would have had with the two older facilities. We’re attracting as good of people as we can get for the size of community that we are and we have a lot of options there.
The plans that we started years ago:
608—We looked at that years ago and now we have gotten Exit 91 done. It is all due to advance planning. As we did that, more planning went into it. Our sewer lines are being put in – oversized now to take care of things in the future. We looked at infrastructure needs.
Changed a cul-de-sac to a thoroughfare and did it to be able to get money from the State and have the road built in four years. It’s amazing! It comes from a Board that wants to do things and a staff that is capable. If you think that someone from the street can just walk in and figure this out and get it right. The Board was very active in that.
Safety of Community – Increased number of paid responders—Emergency Services people by 67% in four years. From my time, the first year, we had 14 career people; at the end of the last term, we had 60; now, we’ve authorized having 100. Think about that – 40 new Fire and Rescue personnel authorized by this Board within a 58¢ tax rate. It’s not that we don’t want volunteers, but the demands grow and the number of responsibilities we have to make and the cost of doing it to your family, you just can’t keep up. We stepped up and did what we had to do to see that our people are safe. We had the Chief come to every Staff Briefing to determine what is being done with response times. How many are being turned over to somebody else? We looked at those things and said that we needed to get it where it needed to be.
Schools – $45 million today. You have to do it. We want to make sure that it is no more than we need to spend and no less than what is necessary. And we try to get it right. I think we had some good input with the School Board and they gave good response. They got what they needed and we were able to help manage people’s money and do it within the present structure. I think what we have to recognize, being up here, is that the School Board has seven people that are full- time advocates for schools. We have to be advocates for Schools, Fire & Rescue, Zoning, Law Enforcement and still be mindful of the tax burden. While it is very uncomfortable to vote for a tax increase, it is more difficult when people don’t understand. You took it down in 2008 for a reason because we had hard economic times. When the assessment changed, it was right to take it back.
This Board by large had to have the funds to do it. You can’t add 40 new people without more money. You can’t increase the School budgets enough to offset the losses from the State without more funding. In the end we are still at 58¢–a very moderate tax rate. Our unemployment in September is 3.9%. We are lower than 4% and we are better than the State and the State is better than the nation. We do a heck of a job here. We’ve got that right and we keep trying to get everything else right, but it takes money. You’ve got to have the courage of your convictions.
If you believe in good education; if you believe in Fire and Rescue; if you believe in investments for economic development, for the things that you are going to get back from that. Riverheads is one of the best schools in the whole nation—they got an award. We have kids in Stuarts Draft who were recognized for never getting a penalty for obnoxiousness in any sporting things. They are good kids.
We did things right. Augusta County does things right. We have greater challenges than most.
Landuse – Rockingham’s farmers pay 2.5 times as much as our farmers. The landuse numbers that come from Virginia Tech are 2.5 times bigger there than for ours. If we had the luxury that Rockingham has—the same farm use value—we would have an extra $7 million to spend annually. We could find a place for it, but we do it with what we have.
This Board did a lot of good things in its four years. We had two good additions that came in that didn’t seem to miss a beat and we got a lot of things done.
The other thing about the end of the era is Mr. Coffield leaving. I can’t under- estimate and the people of the County does not know what he has done for them—what he has done to keep our system efficient and moving forward in nearly every way. This building is better than it was when he got it. We have a Juvenile Detention Center back there. We have that Industrial Park. When he brought it to us his first term, we said, ‘Why are we spending all this money?’ But look what it has done for us! That was him bringing it to us. We have the Jail.
We’ve never gone above 58¢. And it is not just that. We have great staff. What we get every year—the number of people that show up to work without an absence. That comes from leadership. That is people that is not being stirred up every day about these things that are not right. Things get done. The key thing, too, is that he is worried about the future. Four years ago, on behalf of the Board, I said, ‘Mr. Coffield, what is your plan for retirement?’ He told me. It was this time frame. I said, ‘What do we have to do? What do we need to do to see that there is a good transition that things are in place?’ We did a number of things. Hiring Timmy wasn’t the worse thing we did. We changed people’s positions. We did things to encourage him to stay and work with us. We’ve had, in the last four or five years, a complete changing of the guard. Mr. McGehee is not here. Mr. Coffield is leaving. Joe Davis left. Things change. I think we are in good hands.
He put together a transition plan that would be the envy of anybody else. I think the County’ won’t see a missed beat with his leaving. We will miss him, but, part of this is because he institutionalized so many good practices that are going to stay . . . professionalism. He may not be Pat, the beloved; but he’s Pat, that did a darn good job! I thank you and it has been a pleasure to serve with this Board these four years.
Ones who are leaving, I wish you well. Sorry you’re going, but we have some good people coming on Board. We’ll be fine.
Dr. Pattie echoed Mr. Pyles comments. “We accomplished a lot in the last four years.
I’ve enjoyed our time up here. Two replacements out of nowhere. I wasn’t expecting that when I first came on the Board. Pat, thank you for your long service to the County.
I look forward to four more years in working with Timmy and our great staff here.” Ms. Bragg: “It has been an educational and amazing year and a half working with this group. Anybody that thinks they know what they do, you don’t know what they do.
Tonight, I think, was a culmination of a lot of work years and years of work and you have two new schools, tonight, and you have a new addition, tonight, and you have a new firetruck, tonight. You have the change in our Law Enforcement. You have the change of our County Administrator. We have three of our members leaving. We’re starting a new direction. It’s been a night that is very significant for everybody. I would like to thank those who are leaving for their service.” Stuarts Draft Christmas Parade – Saturday, December 12th!
Mr. Wills:
1. Echoed Mr. Pyles. “Board made a point to work together to make tonight’s accomplishments.” 2. Will miss the company of the Board of Supervisors but will not miss the phone calls.
3. Courthouse – Discouraged with the progress with Staunton and the Courthouse.
Encouraged the Board to move forward quickly, but leave the door open for Staunton to make another proposal. He would fully support the referendum.
4. Wished the best for the new Board and thanked Mr. Coffield for his service.
Mr. Moore:
1. Thanked the Wayne District voters for having him serve on the School Board and the Board of Supervisors. “This Board has gotten along well and we have done a lot of good stuff for Augusta County!” 2. Thanked Mr. Coffield for his dedication to the County. “I think the fiscal position this County is in is a direct result of you and your leadership you have given the different Boards that you have answered to and that has allowed us to do a lot of things we did here tonight to get our schools they need to be. A good number of these things are a direct result of your leadership. I wish you the best in retirement.” 3. “The upcoming leadership will be good leadership for years to come.” Mr. Wells:
1. Echoed Mr. Pyles.
2. “It has been an honor and a privilege to sit in this chair. While I won’t be here with you in body, I will be with you in spirit. I promise you I will be an ambassador for this County.” 3. “The highest compliment that you could be paid is that you leave a position and nobody knows you left. I think Mr. Coffield has made that very clear in what he has done. He has gotten people in proper places and he has made sure that he has a highly competent staff. Again, while he will be missed physically, he has assured that this County will continue to perform as it has under his regime. Pat, it has been an honor.” Chm. Shull:
1. “It has been an honor to serve with three Board members, Pat, and it was, also, an honor to serve with Mr. Beyeler and Mr. Karaffa. I think Timmy will do a good job.” 2. Last meeting, as Chairman, thanks for making it easier to serve.
3. Lot accomplished this term!
4. Construction of Schools – Good plan! Both Boards worked well together.
5. Riverheads State Championship – Good luck!
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF
Staff discussed the following:
1. January 6, 2016 Organization Meeting – Agenda Package distributed to Board.
2. 2016 Legislative Package – Good meeting! Strong dialogue!
3. Transition – Pleased with meeting; all attended. Proud of staff.
4. Tax Rate History distributed – Included in Audit 5. Hearthstone Dam “Final Plan” available 6. MPO – Mr. Fitzgerald read a resolution recognizing Jeffrey Moore for his service as Chairman for two years of the MPO Policy Board.
* * * 7. ACSA – Mill Place Waterline Easement – Memorandum from Ken Fanfoni, ACSA Executive Director, with his recommendations to proceed with the easement as originally presented last summer.
Mr. Pyles added that concerns were raised that the Service Authority might be difficult to work with. He did not agree. He felt that if someone had an issue it would be address in the same manner as any other matter by the Board. The Service Authority has asked for a standard easement and is more favorable to a developer/property owner than what Rockingham County provides.
Mr. Pyles moved, seconded by Ms. Bragg, that the Board approve the endorsement of the easement with the Service Authority based upon the easement language that was developed in cooperation with Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Wills expressed concern of the language regarding “fence” and the language that the Service Authority has to “approve” (which means they could also disapprove) the placing of a fence. He further stated that if an industry goes in the Industrial Park, they are going to need and want to be able to secure their facility. He recommended to ask staff to work with the Service Authority to provide language that would make the fence subject to an on-site coordination between the owner of the property and the Service Authority. This would assure that the Service Authority is involved and also allows the concerns of the owner to be addressed. He added that there has been a great investment in the Industrial Park and he did not want to see a devaluation of property.
Mr. Pyles expressed that this is a standard easement and is what is expected.
He felt the Service Authority to be cooperative with others. Not wanting a fence would restrict caring for a water break. He reiterated this to be a standard contract.
Mr. Moore mentioned that this had been discussed at the Service Authority meeting and felt that it does not benefit having a fence on top of the waterline.
He felt that people looking at the property would not like fencing.
Mr. Pyles felt that the easement needed restriction. Mr. Moore felt there needed to be better communication of the location of fencing regarding the waterline. It needs to be better clarity. Mr. Pyles questioned if all easements needed to have language changed. Mr. Moore restated that the emphasis is where the fencing should be placed.
Chairman Shull recommended that when an issue occurs, it should be brought before the Service Authority Board for consideration. He noted that that the Board of Supervisors would make the final decision, rather than the Service Authority.
Mr. Pyles amended the motion to include that if there is disagreement with the Service Authority, that it be brought before that Board for further discussion.
Ms. Bragg added that it “doesn’t totally block it out. It just says without prior written approval of the Authority.” From that comment, she assumed that the Service Authority would be open to further discussion.
Mr. Wills emphasized that we are the “utility” in this case and asked staff what there recommendation was.
Mr. Coffield said their recommendation was that “fence” should be deleted page 2, paragraph 5.
Ms. Bragg said that you needed to protect the access to pipes. If there is no wording regarding fences, then you could build over the waterline. “Something needs to be included about it for protection.” Mr. Pyles asked if there had ever been a problem concerning this. Mr. Coffield said there has not been an issue with Mill Place. Mr. Pyles said this could be considered when a problem occurs. Ms. Bragg said that the assets needed to be protected.
Chairman Shull asked if this request only concerns Mill Place. Mr. Moore said this language is for this particular easement. He added that there is a standard form that the Service Authority has and is used everywhere in the County. He supports that standard form. The exception to that is this particular easement in the Mill Place Industrial Park.
Mr. Pyles said this has not been an issue but referred to the waterlines breaking at Rowe’s and staff having problems of repairing. “This is something that we have to do to protect our investment that we already have. This is a minor thing for somebody else coming in.” Chairman Shull expressed concern if this sets precedence on future projects, would it expand over the private sector.
Mr. Wills said that if you had a problem with the utility, there are all kinds of utility easements that are changed with the specific landowner. You can work out specific easements per location.
Ms. Bragg asked if the County Attorney had a legal opinion.
Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney, agreed with Mr. Wills. You would need to address what should go in the terms of the easement pursuant to the individual property owner’s needs. If the fence is objectionable to the Board members, then that is something that needs to be addressed. Each property owner is free to negotiate their own conditions to the easements that are to be granted. Legally, he opined that if the Board finds fences to be objectionable, that language should be corrected. Each parcel should be considered separately. It does not set a precedent for any landowner or Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Bragg asked if it should be less than 25 feet. Mr. Moore said that was not the issue; it was the word “fence”.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Wells, Pyles and Bragg Nays: Wills, Shull and Moore Amended Motion carried.
* * * 8. Virginia Telecommunication Planning Grant Initiative Award – received notice of a grant in the amount of $75,000.
* * * Mr. Coffield made the following comment:
In parting, one of the honors of being the County Administrator in Augusta County is in how you appoint your Chairman. This County has had a tradition of rotating its Chairman.
People like me, County Administrators and City Managers types, usually have come from positions where someone is directly elected as Mayor or Mayors serving in that capacity for multiple terms. I had concern twenty-five years ago. I think Mr. Garber and I talked about it. You change Chairman every year and it was an unknown concept for me. I will say twenty-five years later I really do like the rotation. It allows staff to work personally with multiple Board members and get to know their personalities and strong emotional interests. Working so closely with people develops a wonderful relationship. It is actually constructive in seeing the fruits of your labors come together. I would encourage all of you to continue to have rotational chairmanships. The parting statement, “You did a great job this past four years!”
CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Ms. Bragg, seconded by Mr. Moore, the Board went into closed session pursuant to:
(1) the personnel exemption under Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(1) [discussion, consideration or interviews of (a) prospective candidates for employment, or (b) assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining or resignation of specific employees]:
A) Boards and Commissions (2) the economic development exemption under Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(5) [discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of its interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the county]:
A) Pending Economic Development Prospect(s) (3) the legal counsel exemption under Virginia Code § 2.2-3711(A)(7) [consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members or consultants pertaining to actual or probable litigation, and consultation with legal counsel regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel, as permitted under subsection (A) (7)]:
A) Economic Development Performance Agreement B) Ladd Elementary School Sale On motion of Dr. Pattie, seconded by Ms. Bragg, the Board came out of Closed Session and adjourned subject to the call of the Chairman.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wells, Wills, Bragg, Moore and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
The Chairman advised that each member is required to certify that to the best of their knowledge during the closed session only the following was discussed:
1. Public business matters lawfully exempted from statutory open meeting requirements, and 2. Only such public business matters identified in the motion to convene the executive session.
The Chairman asked if there is any Board member who cannot so certify.
Hearing none, the Chairman called upon the County Administrator/ Clerk of the Board to call the roll noting members of the Board who approve the certification shall answer AYE and those who cannot shall answer NAY.
Roll Call Vote was as follows:
AYE: Pattie, Wills, Wells, Moore, Bragg, Pyles and Shull NAY: None The Chairman authorized the County Administrator/Clerk of the Board to record this certification in the minutes.
NOTE: Mr. Wills asked that the Board of Supervisors-Elect be allowed to attend Closed Session.
Mr. Morgan said it was to be decided by discretion of the Chairman.
Chairman Shull said they were welcome to attend.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENT
Mr. Moore moved, seconded by Ms. Bragg, that the Board reappoint Douglas E. Layman to serve a term on the Parks and Recreation Commission, effective January 1, 2016 to expire June 30, 2016.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: None Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to come before the Board, Mr. Pyles moved, seconded by Ms. Bragg, the Board adjourned subject to call of the Chairman.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Shull, Wills, Wells, Moore, Pyles and Bragg Nays: None Motion carried.
Chairman County Administrator H:/Word/Minutes12-9min.15
