Regular Meeting – February 27, 2013
Regular Meeting, Wednesday, February 27, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. Government Center, Verona, VA.
PRESENT: Jeffrey A. Moore, Chairman
Larry J. Wills, Vice-Chairman
David R. Beyeler
David A. Karaffa
Marshall W. Pattie
Tracy C. Pyles, Jr.
Michael L. Shull
Timmy Fitzgerald, Director of Community Development
Jennifer M. Whetzel, Director of Finance
Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney
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, February 27, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., at the Government Center, Verona, Virginia, and in the 237th year of the Commonwealth….
Chairman Moore welcomed the citizens present.
Sierra Swisher, a senior at Buffalo Gap High School, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sierra attends Governor’s School, is the Vice President of Honor Society, participates in Track/cross country, is a Winter Guard, and hopes to attend UVA for Pre-Med.
David A. Karaffa, Beverley Manor District, delivered invocation.
ONE BOOK ONE COMMUNITY – PROCLAMATION
The Board considered proclamation naming March Community Read Month.
Diantha McCauley, Augusta County Librarian, advised that Christiana Shields of the Community Foundation of the Central Blue Ridge, was unavailable tonight because of a rescheduled children’s play at school. She reported that the Staunton-Augusta- Waynesboro area has successfully hosted a community-wide read since 2008. This sixth annual celebration of literature is with the One Book One Community, funded entirely by area organizations. One Book One Community gives this area the opportunity to unite in the reading of one common book. There will be a month of activities open to the public around the book A Walk in the Woods. The Foundation will be giving 1,280 books for distribution. The purpose of this is to promote reading and literacy in our community. A schedule of events for the month of March, along with the book, A Walk in the Woods, and a “Spring 2013” brochure were distributed to the Board.
Mr. Wills read the proclamation.
Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board adopt the following proclamation:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, ONE BOOK ONE COMMUNITY is designated to bring communities together through literature: and WHEREAS, ONE BOOK ONE COMMUNITY aims to address the critical issue of declining literacy reading in America; and WHEREAS, aided by a strong sense of community and passion for the arts, Staunton, Waynesboro, and Augusta County are working together to participate in ONE BOOK ONE COMMUNITY programs; and WHEREAS, a Walk in the Woods, written by Bill Bryson, is the book upon which activities such as lectures, book discussions, and other special events are based; and WHEREAS, due in large part to the dedication of the Community Foundation of the Central Blue Ridge, the Augusta County Library, the Staunton Public Library, the Waynesboro Public Library, and the citizens of Augusta County, Staunton, and Waynesboro have joined together through literature to make ONE BOOK ONE COMMUNITY a success; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeffrey A. Moore, Chairman of the Augusta County Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of March 2013 to be
ONE BOOK ONE COMMUNITY MONTH
In Augusta County, Virginia.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
COUNTY OF AUGUSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; MILL PLACE OFFICE PARK,
LC, AND HANSEN PARTNERS, LLC – AMENDMENT
This being the day and time advertised to consider a request to amend the Concept Plan and the proffers for the Mill Place Commerce Park owned by County of Augusta Board of Supervisors; Mill Place Office Park, LC and Hansen Partners, LLC, and located in the southwest quadrant of the Interstate 81/Laurel Hill Road (Route 612) Interchange in Verona (Beverley Manor District). The Planning Commission recommends approval of the amended Concept Plan with proffers.
Becky Earhart, Senior Planner, displayed property outlined in aqua. The only changes in the proffers is going from four areas to three. Area 3 would have a limited amount of outdoor storage area (changed reference from Area 4). This is basically a technical change that needs to be made. Currently, the Concept Plan for the Mill Place Commerce Park has four areas. In each area, there are different uses that are allowed. Area 3 is the subject of the amendment tonight. The plan is to make Area 3 part of Area 4; therefore, the uses in Area 4 will now be in Area 3, which include:
• Professional and business offices • Research and development uses • Retail and service businesses • Warehouse uses • General industrial uses • Common open space • Limited outdoor storage.
She noted the big change was where in Area 3, there was a limit on the industrial uses that was capped at 50,000 square feet of industrial space; it becomes open to any type of general industrial use with no limit on square footage. It would also include common open space and limited outdoor storage. There is an area appropriate for a larger amount of outdoor storage and it is allowed upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit.
That area remains the same as it was before, which precludes outdoor storage in the area that is adjacent to Interstate 81 (with the purpose of keeping it attractive near the
COUNTY OF AUGUSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; MILL PLACE OFFICE PARK,
Interstate). This property is in the Urban Service Area and is slated for Business and Industrial development; public water and sewer are available and utilized in Mill Place.
The Chairman declared the public hearing open.
Dennis Burnett, Economic Development Director and Applicant, added that this Concept Plan mirror images the engineering work that has been previously authorized from the Beverley Manor Infrastructure Account. He said that he is looking forward to “site- readiness” and felt that consolidating those areas was appropriate. He was available to answer any questions that the Board may have.
There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Karaffa noted that the Board had received a Blue Ridge Community College presentation on how to attract businesses in Augusta County. He moved forward in designating an area to prepare for businesses. It allows for more uses of the property and hoped that the Board would approve the rezoning.
Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board adopt the following ordinance, with amended proffers:
A request to amend the Concept Plan and the proffers for the Mill Place Commerce Park owned by County of Augusta Board of Supervisors, Mill Place Office Park, LC, and Hansen Partners, LLC, and located in the southwest quadrant of the Interstate 81/Laurel Hill Road (Route 612) Interchange in Verona in the Beverley Manor District.
AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 25 "Zoning" of the Code of Augusta County, Virginia.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Board of Supervisors to amend the Augusta County Zoning Maps, WHEREAS, the Augusta County Planning Commission, after a public hearing, has made their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has conducted a public hearing, WHEREAS, both the Commission and Board public hearings have been properly advertised and all public notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia properly completed, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the application, the Planning Commission recommendation and the comments presented at the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors that the Augusta County Zoning Maps be amended as follows:
The Concept Plan for Parcel numbers 73, 73B, and 73C, on tax map number 46, containing a total of approximately 341.6 acres is amended with the following proffers:
1. General Outdoor Storage will only be allowed in a portion of Area 3, as depicted on the Concept Plan and only upon the issuance of a Special Use Permit by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
2. All the intersection of Mill Place Parkway and Laurel Hill Road (Route 612) has been designed to accommodate up to 4,000 vehicles per day. Once that capacity has been reached, additional transportation improvements may be needed. Therefore, once the intersection capacity has been reached and at the time of submission of a site plan for any new construction on any portion of the Mill Place Commerce Park, the developer shall submit to Augusta County and VDOT, for review and approval, a Traffic Impact Analysis projecting the additional vehicle trips to be generated by the proposed development and taking into consideration any remaining undeveloped portions of the Park. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for any additional development, the Applicant or his successors or assigns shall construct road improvements, as required
COUNTY OF AUGUSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; MILL PLACE OFFICE PARK,
by the findings of the approved Traffic Study, commensurate with the extent of the proposed development for which occupancy permits are requested.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
Dr. Chuck Bishop, Superintendent for the Augusta County Schools, reported that a bus accident occurred this morning with 35 students, two with injuries. He personally thanked Chief Holloway, today, and left a message for Sheriff Fisher. “The coordination of handling the situation between School personnel, Fire and Rescue, Police Department, including the State Police, was unbelievable. We hope we never have to put our crisis plans to use, but when we have to, to see them go off as we planned, makes you feel really good.” He added that there would be a debriefing tomorrow on how to improve the plan. He mainly wanted to publicly express his appreciation for their support, including Riverheads Fire Department, Augusta County Fire and Rescue, Augusta County Sheriff’s Department and State Police. He noted that the two students and the bus driver were home and doing well.
ROAD ABANDONMENT
The Board considered abandonment of a portion of old Route 664, located in the South River Magisterial District. This item was tabled at the February 13, 2013 regular Board meeting.
Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, that the Board remove this item from the table.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
* * * Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney, recalled that at the last meeting (February 13th), a public hearing was held to determine whether or not to recommend to the State Department of Transportation that a certain section of old Route 664 be abandoned. He personally posted notices along the route that was to be abandoned and noted that it was obvious that the road had not been used in many years. An issue had been brought up of a waterline that goes through that area. A question had been raised whether or not if there is an easement that can remain or by abandoning the road it may cause the waterline to be removed. Since that time, the property owners have entered into a formal easement agreement and is reflected in the resolution to be considered tonight.
Morris Henderson, of Windy Acres Lane, said that he owned both sides at the bottom of Mount Torrey Road entrance. It had been his parents’ property since 1954. Since the upper portion of the road was closed, traffic had been directed through his property. He pointed out that there had never been any notification of the road closure. He noted that there was undeveloped land in that particular area and expressed concern of development occurring in the future causing heavier traffic. He added that, when the road was first closed, there were only 3 people using the road; now, there are 9. He also mentioned his concerns of the cement bridge, which is 100 years old and not in good condition.
Chairman Moore asked if there was any traffic on the area marked on the map. Mr. Henderson said there was not traffic on that area. It was closed in 1991.
Mr. Pattie asked if Windy Acres Lane was a private or public road. Mr. Fitzgerald said it was private. Mr. Pattie asked if the Board can request VDOT to maintain that portion of the road. Mr. Coffield said there was a process for a private road to be accepted. There was a question of it being a private road. Mr. Morgan clarified that it was “discontinued”. Mr. Coffield said that, normally, the State does not maintain it unless it meets the Secondary Road standard. Mr. Pattie asked how long the area was. Mr. Fitzgerald estimated it to be approximately 750 to 800 feet and said that it would have to be upgraded to State standards. At this point, it would require a minimum of 40-foot of right-of-way. There is a 30-foot proscriptive easement from the old road; VDOT would require a 40-foot fee-simple right-of-way, which would mean the residents along that road would have to donate a right- of-way for the additional width and requirements. Mr. Pattie said he was sympathetic to Mr. Henderson having an abandoned road that he has to upkeep and other people are using. Mr. Pattie asked if an easement could be put directly through Mt. Torrey Road. Mr. Henderson said that he had discussed this with his neighbor who owns a portion of the road needed. Mr. Henderson said that he would allow the right-of-way to come through his property.
Chairman Moore clarified that the only thing to be approved tonight is the red section, which has been closed since 1991, and designated for abandonment.
Mr. Coffield added that we have 300 miles of state-maintained gravel roads that are higher on the priority list and this should be considered before accepting new private streets.
Mr. Beyeler reiterated that the designated red area was the old state road that was completely abandoned. From where the red starts on back to Windy Acres Lane is an old right-of-way that goes back to the nursery property. If development occurs, the road would have to be brought up to standards. Mr. Pattie did not have a problem with the abandonment, but would like to see a solution of Mr. Henderson having to privately maintain the road where it is traveled by others. Mr. Wills suggested that the residents using the road should all be responsible. Mr. Henderson said that Mr. Lunsford and Mr. Lowery are the only ones who have helped maintain the road.
Mr. Pyles asked Mr. Fitzgerald about control of any development. How many houses can be built without improving the roads? Mr. Fitzgerald said the only control was development occurring through the Family Member Exception process and requiring an entrance permit from VDOT. If it meets sight distance and requirements of minimum standards of subdivision entrance, it is then submitted to Community Development. Community Development does not have any control over maintenance.
Mr. Wills asked how many lots could be developed. Ms. Earhart said one acre minimum lot size, (Family Member Exception lots).
Mr. Shull asked if the entrance required black top. Mr. Henderson said it was paved by his father. Mr. Lunsford has been responsible for improvements of the road.
Mr. Pattie restated that he supported the closing of the road, but felt there should be a solution so that someone does not have to privately a road used by others. Mr. Shull referred to Stoney Creek subdivision and suggested that an association be developed to resolve these issues.
Mr. Beyeler moved, seconded by Mr. Karaffa, that the Board adopt the following resolution, as revised:
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Hestel M. Lowery and Judith Lowery, are the owners of certain real estate abutting the old State Route 664 secondary road in the South River District of Augusta County, Virginia.
WHEREAS, Hestel M. Lowery and Judith T. Lowery have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Augusta County (“Board”) for the abandonment of a portion of old State Route 664, more particularly described as ROW of old Rt. 664 shown on highway plans for State Route 664 revised 12-13-40 from the northern point of intersection with relocated Rt. 664, such intersection now located between 1653 and 1655 Mt. Torrey Road, and approximately due south along old alignment to point of intersection with what is now known as “Windy Acres Lane.”, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-151.
WHEREAS, a public notice was posted and published as prescribed under Virginia Code § 33.1-151, announcing (a) the intention of the Board to abandon the above described portion of State Route 664 from the secondary system of state highways and (b) a public hearing to receive comments concerning such abandonment.
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation was provided the prescribed notice of the Board’s intent to abandon a portion of old State Route 664.
WHEREAS, after considering all evidence available, the Board is satisfied that the above described portion of old State Route 664 is no longer necessary as a part of the secondary system of state highways and the safety and welfare of the public would be best served by the abandonment of the same.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Board abandons the portion of old State Route 664, as described above, and removes it from the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to Virginia Code § 33.1-151.
2. That the effect of this abandonment shall be to vest fee simple title to a portion of old State Route 664, more particularly described as ROW of old Rt. 664 shown on highway plans for State Route 664 revised 12-13-40 from the northern point of intersection with relocated Rt. 664, such intersection now located between 1653 and 1655 Mt. Torrey Road, and approximately due south along old alignment to point of intersection with what is now known as “Windy Acres Lane.” in Hestel Mangus Lowery and Judith Lowery.
3. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as having any effect on any waterline easement in or adjacent to the right of way to be abandoned.
4. That a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
5. That a certified copy of this resolution shall be recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Augusta County, Virginia, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter this resolution upon the public land records of the Court.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
* * * Mr. Pyles said that these right-of-way easements should be reviewed for future development.
Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board refer development on private lanes to the Ordinance Review Committee.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY COLLEGE – UPDATE
The Board received a presentation by County representative regarding update on Blue Ridge Community College activities.
Dr. John Downey, President of Blue Ridge Community College (BRCC), expressed his appreciation of the Board for its ongoing support over the years for the funding and the Augusta County representatives provided for the Blue Ridge Community College Board (Dr. Bruce Bowman and Lynn Dively). A packet of information with statistics about the impact BRCC has on Augusta County residents was provided to the Board. Of the 171 high school graduates last year, 23% chose BRCC; 49% of all Augusta County residents, who chose to go to college last year, chose BRCC. As President of BRCC, Dr. Downey tries to concentrate on the role BRCC plays on economic development. He said it is a pleasure to work with Dennis Burnett, Economic Development Director, as well as Robin Sullenberger, with the Shenandoah Valley Partnership (SVP). “I think the partnership and our work together has made a significant difference in the region, not only in attracting companies to the region and having existing companies expand, but most, importantly, I think in creating jobs in this County.” He felt that one of the most significant factors in that partnership is the opening of the Advanced Manufacturing Center where they collect data on the businesses BRCC serve (2010-2011 served approximately 300 businesses; 2011-2012 served approximately 750 businesses). He gave a brief General Assembly update. Local legislators are strong advocates of BRCC. BRCC, in partnership with the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and the SVP will receive $195,000 to focus specifically on manufacturing support in the region. That includes some money devoted to training where the companies will get an incentive to work not only with BRCC but with the technical centers and other education training providers to receive training for their company. The company has to pay half the cost and this grant will pay the other half. Also, some of the funding will go to the WIB on- the-job training program, which has been very highly acclaimed and received by manufacturers locally. This program allows the manufactures to hire a person, give them on-the-job training and an incentive for a period of time that they agree to work for that company, they get all of that paid for by a Department of Labor grant that WIB has.
BRCC will augment that to give WIB more flexibility in promoting that on-the-job training program. The rest of the funding will support a manufacturing support person on the BRCC staff who can help coordinate all the many ways BRCC is reaching out to local manufacturers. The General Assembly budget proposal also includes the first raise for State employees in about five years. There are two buildings in the proposed State budget: 1) Economic Student Classroom Building, which would allow expansion of the library, cafeteria and classroom space, and 2) the BioScience Building. Dr. Downey added that parking is a continued challenge on the campus and that he will be coming back within the next few years asking for the Board’s support. He noted that the relationship with Blue Ridge Criminal Justice Training Academy remains strong. The BRCC Director of Security went through the Criminal Justice Training Academy and trained to become a police officer; in a couple of weeks a police office on campus will be opened. They are working with the Academy to possibly have some of their staff become auxiliary officers for the BRCC police office. A variety of programs are still being offered, both in the transfer in the career and technical area to meet the needs of local employers. He mentioned that the transfer program continues to have the guaranteed admission agreement with virtually every 4-year public and private college in Virginia. The nursing program continues to serve the needs of Augusta Health and other local health care employers. In partnership with Hershey during the past year and a half, BRCC developed a “Mechatronics” program, which is a mixture of mechanical training with electronic training. Industry and manufacturers are going more toward people who have multiple skills and talents. Mechatronics combines two different skills and gives those people enough training to do the work that Hershey needs done. That partnership has also resulted in partnerships with Valley Vo-Tech where Hershey is sponsoring six or seven apprentices through Valley Vo-Tech, but some of the course work is being done at BRCC. BRCC works closely with a number of employers in the area: McKee, Hollister, McQuay, NIBCO and others. “In Augusta County, I think we are responding, hopefully, to the needs of area employers. If you hear differently, I want to know. I think our staff really tries to bend over backwards to support you in the work you do in making Augusta County a great place to live and work.” The Board commended Blue Ridge Community College for what it provides. Mr. Karaffa said it has really been an asset when talking to potential businesses.
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
The Board considered extending offer to School Board for use of office space at Government Center.
A. Pupil Services to old State DSS space B. Parks and Recreation to Pupil Services (old ACSA) space C. School Administration/Finance to current Parks and Recreation space.
Considerations:
o Logistical timing (carpet, painting, IT, phones, lighting, security, etc.) o Activity room(s) scheduling/Gym space Memorandum(s) of Understanding o School Board offsetting of Custodial/utilities/parking lot improvements/security costs, etc. Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator, reported that in 1987, the Board was looking at several relocations to locate the Government Center from Staunton. That is when the former Smith Transfer property was considered. A Master Plan was done for the site which included space for the Augusta County Schools. It was always intended, from the very first, to be an inclusive Master Plan – Extension, USDA, Headwaters, as well as courts, Jail, Sheriff’s Department and many other government-related agencies. There have been two subsequent Master Plan updates: when the Sheriff’s Department, Jail and the Juvenile Detention Home were added, and more recently, considering the courthouse, as well as the schools. At one time, a 40,000 square foot School addition was being considered (similar to the ACSA addition). Since that time, the request has been refined.
Mr. Coffield said that this was consistent with the Master Plan. “There will be some long-term benefits generated from closer working relationships.” Chairman Moore commented that this has been a strong desire of his since he served on the School Board for several years. The facilities that the School Board is currently using was not intended to be office space. They were temporary housing for World War II. He felt that it is a good thing to utilize the space available and that it was an opportunity to use that space at a small cost.
Mr. Wills said that he has supported this for 20 years when he was on the Board of Supervisors previously and also on the School Board. He appreciated the School staff being willing to consider the existing space rather than having to have new space. “I think it is a win-win for both.” Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board extend the offer to the School Board for the use of office spaces as outlined. Mr. Beyeler added that this should occur by August 1, 2013.
Mr. Karaffa hoped that the School Board would accept this offer.
Mr. Pattie felt that this was a great example of what could be done. He noted that he has previously expressed that he was against spending $3.5 million to expand and build a new construction. “This is a good example of how to think creatively; how to solve a problem. We solved a problem that, for 20 years, we could have solved doing the exact same method. It’s been there this whole time, but it was only the pushing of finding a more efficient and more effective way to utilize our space and to utilize our money that this solution occurred.” Chairman Moore felt that this was a great opportunity for Augusta County and Augusta County Schools and called for the vote.
Dr. Bishop thanked the Board for its offer and said that it would be presented to the Board Thursday night.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
VHDA – HOUSING TAX CREDITS
The Board considered requests by applicant for County endorsement of rental projects:
1. Montague Terrace II (Riverheads District) 100 units 2. Woodhazel Terrace Apartments (Wayne District) 100 units 3. Ganderbrook Apartments (Wayne District) 100 units Timmy Fitzgerald, Director of Community Development, reported that this had been discussed at Monday’s Staff Briefing. Since Monday, the developer has withdrawn the requests on Montague Terrace II and Woodhazel Terrace Apartments. The only request to be considered tonight is the Ganderbrook Apartments. The property was displayed and Mr. Fitzgerald noted that it was located on Route 250 across from the entrance of Imperial Drive where Countryside Land Development is located. This property is zoned Multi-Family and there are some questions on entrances that can be worked out at the site plan stage. The Board has two choices: 1) The Board can take a stance of making a recommendation of approval for the project, or 2) The Board can take a “no comment” position. He noted that if the Board approved the request, they would receive 50 points; if the Board takes “no comment”, they would receive 25 points.
He noted that the Board could not take the position of not approving because of the fact that the zoning is in place.
Chairman Moore supported the request and felt that the area is appropriate for this type of development. He felt that low-income housing is a need for the community. He noted that there are three currently at 97%. The target residence for this property would be a requirement of having jobs with an income from $14,000 to $50,000. Mr. Fitzgerald said the income level is based on a household median income, which is $62,700. It is based on a percentage of that. This project is going to do a certain percentage of them at 50% and a certain percentage at 60% of the median income. He added that a revitalization letter will be required at a later time as the project moves along. Chairman Moore added that the Humanities Foundation, which is the applicant, currently has the Waterford Village across the street of this property that is at 97% of its capacity. He felt it prudent to have these properties located in the same area for transit services purposes. He added that the quality of Waterford Village makes it attractive properties.
Mr. Shull looked at the Waterford Village property and felt that it was well-maintained.
He realized that this development would not be suitable in other areas, but that this area was appropriate for this type of development.
Mr. Pattie felt that the Board needed to establish a general policy to be consistent in handling similar requests in the future.
Mr. Karaffa stated that he had voiced strong opposition at Monday’s meeting. He still had reservation as to how tax credit apartments work toward how they pay taxes. He agreed with Mr. Pattie in maintaining consistency. Since it is already zoned Multi- Family, he felt it would be difficult to develop something else. “Given the history of quality of this company, I am willing to support it. Moving forward, I would say that companies need to proffer that when they want to go Multi-Family apartments that they will not ever seek waiver for lower assessments.
Mr. Pattie clarified that the zoning has already been approved. Mr. Morgan added that proffers are only available during the rezoning process.
Mr. Pyles referred to the Washington sequester and noted that it is about Government overspending. “Money they don’t have for things that seem like good ideas, but we can’t afford them anymore. Somebody is getting a break on this and it is coming from the taxpayer. ” He understood that the plan is to help people, but money is taken to build an apartment complex at one of the most prosperous areas and then money will not be available where needed. He felt that this location is the wrong place and not good for the County. He suggested building the apartments in his area – Augusta Springs or Craigsville.
Mr. Wills expressed concern of the type of housing in terms of the 50% of the median income ($31,350). When they did the apartments at Weyers Cave, he had hoped that the needs of the working families who are struggling to make ends meet could be addressed. He gave an example of a single teacher with a child that cannot qualify for this type of housing. “We are not meeting the needs for the people that we need to meet the needs of.” He felt that this was a good location for apartments and apologized for “going against the supervisor in his own district when he asks for something in development”. He felt that the criteria could not be met and he did not want to ask staff and County Administrator to sign a letter confirming that it is a “blighted area” or that it met the criteria that is in the revitalization letter. He also noted that the letter stating he would not seek an assessment waiver could always be recorded or a future owner could request that the assessment be lowered.
Mr. Karaffa asked if the revitalization letter had to refer to a “blighted area”. Mr. Fitzgerald said it had to do two things: 1) It can be a blighted area, or 2) An area of economic development that will provide housing in areas that lack the housing there.
Chairman Moore added that was the type of letter signed for Montague and Waterford and other similar development.
Mr. Karaffa stated at the Monday Staffing Briefing, it was discussed 50% to 80% and questioned why it was changed to 50% to 60% and asked for an explanation of the limitations. Mr. Fitzgerald explained “the way the VHDA process works is if you say that your housing development will be 100% of the units will be rented to those with no more than 50% of the median income, you get an X number of points. I think it is 50. The way these applications work is the more points you get, the better your chances of your winning in the competition and getting your tax project.” Mr. Karaffa asked about who was applicable for renting the apartment. Mr. Fitzgerald said it applied to those who make 50% or 60% of the median income, which is $62,700. He explained that it could be done two ways. Weyers Cave did it at 100% of the units—every unit is at 50% of the median income and it is adjusted by family size and other stipulations.
The minimum requirement is that you have to have 20% of the units at 50% of the median income. Not all 100% of them will be at 50%; a certain amount of them will be at 60%. When this is done, it gives them less points on their application (if they are not 100% on the application). It all depends on how many points they want on their application and how they want to structure their rentals. Mr. Karaffa expressed concern that hospital employees would be unable to rent from these apartments because of their income and the locality was suitable for them. Chairman Moore emphasized that it was based on your “adjusted” income not your “gross” income. When your taxes are done with deductions it could determine qualification. Mr. Karaffa expressed concern of the apartments being overcrowded to qualify.
Mr. Beyeler noted that you could make $36,000 with three children and qualify.
“Whether or not we need this in Augusta County, I don’t know. In talking with someone today, the ones we have, I would estimate it at 50% were coming out of somewhere beside Augusta County. What are we getting?” Mr. Wills emphasized, “When you vote, make sure you are willing to ask Staff to sign a letter that they are recommending against, and I’m not.” Chairman Moore noted that there are already three developments in the County that have signed the same letter.
Mr. Fitzgerald said there was an April 1st deadline for action and that if the Board felt the need of tabling tonight, they had enough time to consider. Mr. Wills noted that if no action was taken, they would get 25 points. Chairman Moore felt that if they do not get an endorsement from the community, the State would take that into consideration and probably feel that there was no need of the development. “Support of the Board is the first step. Without support of the Board, it is most likely not going to get support from the State.” He did not feel the need of tabling the item.
Mr. Shull moved, seconded by Mr. Karaffa, that the Board approve the request.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Shull and Moore Nays: Karaffa, Pattie, Wills, Beyeler and Pyles Motion failed.
DANGEROUS AND VICIOUS DOGS
The Board received a briefing by County Attorney on State Code provisions.
Mr. Morgan reported that he had been asked by the Board at Monday’s Staff Briefing to look into the matter of vicious dogs and whether the County had authority to increase the fees that were charged for animals determined to be dangerous or vicious.
Information was distributed to the Board. Section 3.2-6540 of the State Code of Virginia notes that a “dangerous dog” is one that has “been bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat. A “vicious dog” is one that has killed or inflicted serious injury on a human being. He highlighted the following:
1. § 3.2-6540. Control of dangerous or vicious dogs; penalties – Paragraph C:
“No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited.” This means that the County is without authority to say that pit bulls would be outlawed and could not be brought into the County.
2. Paragraph E – “The owner of any animal found to be a dangerous dog shall, within 45 days of such finding, obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate from the local animal control officer or treasurer for a fee of $150, in addition to other fees that may be authorized by law.” There is a judicial procedure to have the dog declared dangerous or vicious. When the summons has been made, then the animal control officer is to take custody of the dog until the court procedure is completed.
3. Paragraph F – After the dog has been declared vicious or dangerous and the owner wants to keep the animal, the residence has to have posted clearly visible signs warning both minors and adults. The dog will also have to be either tattooed or electronically implanted so that it can be identified if it runs at-large.
The owner will also have to carry liability insurance of at least $100,000 to cover animal bites. The owner may obtain and maintain a bond in lieu of liability insurance. Mr. Coffield added that he has discussed this with the animal control officer and it was determined that no one has gone through this process. It has been considered problematic to find an insurance carrier.
4. Paragraph H – If the owner moves out of this jurisdiction, they are given 10 days once they have re-located to give a written notice to the local animal control authority of the old address from which the animal was moved and the new address. Both localities are notified of the address change.
5. Paragraph J – (Punishment section if declared dangerous or vicious and attacks another animal.) a. Class 2 misdemeanor (if it attacks and injures or kills a cat or dog that is a companion animal belonging to another person) – 6 months in prison/$1,000 fine or both b. Class 1 misdemeanor (if it attacks another person and injures him) – 1 year in prison/$2,500 fine or both c. Class 6 felony (if the owner of the dog either acts, or fails to act, in a way that is considered gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life) – 1-5 years in prison or one year in prison and a $2,500 fine.
6. Paragraph M – “The governing body of any locality may enact an ordinance parallel to this statute regulating dangerous and vicious dogs. No locality may impose a felony penalty for violation of such ordinances.
7. § 3.2-6543. This section determines, or discusses, what other ordinances they can pass concerning animal control. In Paragraph A, it reads: “The governing body of any locality of the Commonwealth may adopt and make more stringent ordinances that parallel § 3.2-6521 – 3.2-6539, 3.2-6546 – 3.2-6555.” He noted that 3.2-6540 was not mentioned. That means that the County is NOT allowed to make an ordinance that is more stringent than the State Code; therefore, the fees that are charged in the State Code, after the dog has been found “vicious”, $150 for the registration and $85 for annual renewal, is the most that can be done.
Chairman Moore explained that the purpose of this discussion was to determine if the Ordinance Committee needed to review to determine if fees could be increased. From this discussion, he believes those questions have been answered.
Mr. Karaffa asked if the amount of liability can be increased. Mr. Morgan said that would be more stringent.
Mr. Wills asked if the County had a vicious dog ordinance. Mr. Morgan said we followed the State Code and a County ordinance was not needed.
VALLEY RECYCLERS UPDATE
The Board considered a request to cost share fencing costs.
Funding Source: Wayne District Infrastructure Account #80000-8017-81 $2,243.13 Mr. Fitzgerald advised that this has been discussed at Monday’s Staff Briefing. The Board had been given an update of the community meeting held expressing concerns of the visual impacts of Valley Recyclers. At that meeting, there was discussion of installing fencing material that would eliminate seeing through the fence. The request tonight is for an amount not to exceed $2,243.13 with Valley Recyclers being responsible for the installation.
Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board approve the request.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
DRAINAGE – 2ND STREET
The Board considered additional funding for previously authorized VDOT-County joint project.
Funding Source: Beverley manor Infrastructure Account #80000-8011-58 $79.52 Mr. Fitzgerald advised that this was a project completed in conjunction with VDOT as a partnership to replace a pipe under the road and some ditch work at an estimated cost of $1,400; however, there has been determined an additional cost of $79.52.
Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board approve the request.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
WAIVERS/VARIANCES – NONE
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Karaffa, that the Board approve the consent agenda as follows:
MINUTES
Considered minutes of the following meetings:
• Regular Meeting, Wednesday, February 13, 2013
DEERFIELD RURITAN CLUB REQUEST – RABIES CLINIC
Considered request to hold a rabies clinic for the purpose of rabies vaccination for cats and dogs at the Deerfield Community Center on Friday, April 5, 2013 (Pastures District).
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
(END OF CONSENT AGENDA)
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE BOARD
The Board discussed the following issues:
Mr. Pyles gave a presentation regarding schools (information distributed to the Board) and made the following comments:
This has been open season, I think, on the Board of Supervisors and in some ways on the school system and I don’t know what this Board intends to do as far as the budget coming up. We haven’t met; we haven’t discussed. Last year, I kind of got the Board consensus and we came up with I thought a pretty good plan to increase the spending during the schools and I didn’t think we needed a tax increase, but we did it. There has been an effort to really say that we needed to increase taxes. It started, I think, they were at the School Board retreat and it just seemed that it rubbed them the wrong way that our tax rate was 48¢; they said you had to get it at 58¢. That seemed to be something that sticks in a lot of people’s crawl, that we do a good job at a reasonable price and that because we’re not as wasteful as other people, we’re not good people.
We need to raise the taxes whether we need to or not. You saw from that, the School Board asked for 58¢, and then the employees of the School Board came up with a petition on line – raise the taxes to 58¢–that’s what we need to do! We have two of the top Board members there just recently saying, ‘It’s hardly any money. It’s like $80; it’s just cents.’ They’re talking in cents. One of them said, ‘It’s cheap to live in Augusta County’. Augusta County isn’t an island. It isn’t a principality like Monaco. Anybody who lives here also pays gas tax, State sales tax; they pay income tax; they pay the Federal government; they pay the State government; they pay everybody. They just got a 2% hit on their payroll tax. I guess some people they’re living cheap. I look at every person that says, ‘Increase my taxes,’ I go look at their real estate bill. I think most of them are accurate. They ought to pay more. Even one teacher who wrote about making the County into backwater, he’s on land use taxation. No one is restricted from sending more money in. On my first year on the term of the Board, our attorney, Ed Plunkett, prepared for me a voluntary taxation form that I would give to anybody who said, ‘my taxes aren’t high enough and you’re welcome to pay as much as you want to pay if you want to pay it’. I didn’t get any takers. And these folks who are getting great deals because their taxes went down four years ago because their assessment didn’t go up as much as we lowered the tax rate, they’re welcome to do more. Everyone that I have looked at, they’ve got a pretty good deal from land use tax, or their taxes went down.
We’ve been pretty hard that we’re not doing our fair share. This County is not stepping up to the plate and doing what we need to do. They’re not just talking about money, they’re just ‘raise our taxes. Let’s do things right.’ I’ve looked at all of our budgets and I wanted to start with a couple of things here.
I took the taxes . . . It’s all on line. I can’t get much information from the School Board.
Either they don’t know what information they should have, or they’re not willing to provide it. What we have are our website has a budget going back some years and I took the last year before the economy went to heck, you know, 2006 was the last year of booming times; after that, we had bust times. The fact that people don’t have an appreciation that we are still in bad times and 245 houses being built last year, lowest since 1973, and there are still bad times. We still talk about people being under-employed and not employed as well as they should be. Then we get to the thing about how bad our system is. Our system is not bad! It is not failing! It’s an exceptional system! My kids were in it from 1989 until whenever the last one graduated and I’ve been involved with the school since then. The young lady here, Ms. Swisher with Ms. Fields, she’s going to UVA. Our kids get into the best colleges in this nation if they want to go there. Mr. Coffield’s daughters – UVA graduates. My kids got accepted at UVA and Virginia Tech. We got kids that are scholarship students. I got one of the letters today saying, ‘You know we’re not going to compete very well with scholarships.’ Well, we got one from our wrestling team last year that went to Washington & Lee, pretty good school on an academic scholarship. We had a kid from the wrestling team, the year before, a full ride at Virginia Tech. We had a kid at Buffalo Gap, when I gave the graduation speech, and started looking into the kids, he got a national scholarship for diesel mechanics. We had a kid that was recruited to do a livestock judging out at Texas Tech and he was recruited against Oklahoma State and other schools. Our kids can go as far as they want to go and our system doesn’t hold them back. It is not a failing system! It’s a heck of a good system and I’ll stand for it and anybody who thinks it is a failing system, should not be within 100 yards of perspective employers because I wouldn’t want that person to tell a fib or tell the employer we have a failing system. We don’t. We produce good workers.
We produce good educated people. We need to stop beating up on our teachers and on our system and understand that there are other ways to go. When you talked about this moving the school site, I think that ought to be called the Marshall Plan because it was last year when Dr. Pattie raised cane at our joint meeting with those folks about doing something else. He was talking about Ladd or Beverley Manor or someplace else to put it. Necessity is the mother of invention. So they didn’t have the money, so low and behold after 20 years, we have some space over here. People have to be backed into a corner. They have to rely on their own resources to do better, and they’re not doing it.
I am comparing 2007 with 2013 on the PowerPoint. Our tax rate was 58¢ in 2007 and is now 48¢. I want you to note, first, that we had 10,913 students in FY2007.
This year, September enrollments were 10,504. We’re down 400 kids. We’re down a whole school worth of kids in that time. Then I compared every item in the School Board, how it did in 2007 and how they’re doing in 2013. Classroom Instruction took a hit of $3,894,147. The whole system only took a hit of $3,837,038. It means that classroom instruction took the entire hit at $57,000 more. Should that have been if you had less students, yes, you need less instructors, but don’t you need less of all the rest? Couldn’t you cut them, too? To put it all on the teachers, is how we get into this mess. It’s no wonder they come up here and say, ‘What the heck’. They’re asked to do more with less and no increases when the rest keep going. There was not a proportional cut to the other items. People get it. We had a guy who came into our public meeting and he talked about, ‘We got too many principals and the standards are too high’. Well, that went up $275,000 and then we went down 400 students. We went from $5.5 million to $5.8 million. At a time when all of the budgets were being cut, that still went up. They go back and forth and change things around a little bit, but the things overall didn’t go down.
Then I want to take you to the bottom of the page and understand what is happening.
The capital debt service went from $5.5 million to $9 million. They cut nearly $4 million from operating and we increased $3.5 million on capital. Our per capita spending in Augusta County went from $8,762 to $9,537. We went up almost $1,000 per student, but we’re doing a bad job and not giving them what they want. We gave them what they wanted! Capital spending!
Now, on the next page, how have we rated with everybody else? In your packet, I got you what came from our website to where the numbers come from. The local charges, what they’re charging to students . . . They went up $600,000 on our students and parents and fees. Okay, you pay for what you’re getting. I don’t have a big complaint with that, but we put it to our students for services pretty heavy there; going up 50%. The Virginia taxpayer is going down from $57,600,000 to $50,135,000. We’re getting $7.5 million less from the State. The Augusta County taxpayer has gone up from $36,800,000 to $43,600,000. We’ve gone up $7 million during the worst recession since the depression. When people lost their jobs, their values for their homes tanked, we still were able to go up by $7 million and we went from $3,374 per student to $4,153. We’ve been doing our part. Now, you look at the chart down there, we have more than made up for everybody else. We did our part.
The thing about necessity is a mother of invention, I’ve been trying for many years to get people to look at different ways to do things. I’ve looked for waste in the system. That’s what we’re obliged to do. I know they don’t want oversight. You remember when we met last year one of them said, ‘just give us the money; you won’t have any responsibility to look to see how it is spent. Just give us the money.’ I want you to look at how much money we spend for substitutes in a year. We don’t give value out of substitutes. They warehouse the kids; they sit and show a video; they keep them quiet, but they’re not teaching anybody anything. We spend over $1 million a year for substitutes. That’s $65 a day; that’s 91 substitutes on average in our systems every day; 91 people. It costs us $11,700 a year for each one of those 91 people—over $1 million.
We’ve got to get more value for our money. This is no value for that million. I’ve talked about bus drivers. Every person who works, does a good job for the County. Bus drivers do what they have been asked to do. The substitutes are doing what they’ve been asked to do. But we have 150 bus drivers who work part-time and get full-time health benefits.
Most of them, in value for the County, only are serving the County about 2 hours a day.
From the time from the first pick up to when they get to the school is an hour or less usually. At most, it is an hour and a half. We get, maybe, two to three hours of value a day. When you look at the costs for what our insurance cost, we’re spending $10 an hour just for medical benefits and that’s going to go up 16% for next year. That’s a ton of money that we’re paying for a benefit for a part-time employee. We have other part-time employees. If you look at the salary scale that I put in there, under Food Service, they set a contract for 5.5 hours a day. Again, 5.5 hours a day for 180-182 days is part-time by Federal guidelines for the health care. When I was a kid, Cecil Kip drove our school bus. He started at the Rockbridge County line. He drove us to Churchville, then he and some other people drove over to Woodrow Wilson area where they were carpenters for the school system. Then they came back at the end of the day and they drove the bus home. The bus only had the mileage from the Rockbridge County line to Churchville and back. What we have today on most of our systems is about a 50% deadhead miles. It’s where the bus driver leaves his home, goes to the first stop, drives to school, takes the bus to someplace else during the day, then when it is time to leave, he drives the bus back to the school, then drives to the kids’ home and then he comes back to his home. I asked for this from the School Board and guess what I got? ‘We won’t give it to you.’ So I had to go to the Freedom of Information to get the information because they didn’t want to share how much waste is in the system. They had a person at one of the public meetings, he brought this up—buses. People get it. They know we’re putting in too much money on overhead and not enough money into instruction. It’s not an inconceivable process to say a bus drive can do something else during the day. If he’s just a substitute, we can save money on the annual salary and save the deadhead miles.
You could say you need 50 every day and it wouldn’t be a problem. There are needs in the cafeteria where the person may not be there to start the first breakfast who have to clean up and stay all day and clean up afterwards. There’s Building and Grounds; there are aides. We have teachers, you can believe it or not, have part-time jobs. They are waitresses. They work at WalMart. They do all that. What if you gave them the opportunity to make an extra $8,000 or $9,000 a year? You would save over $5,000 on the health benefit and you would save a couple of thousand dollars a year on what you would be paying somebody else. We need to reduce all these part-time jobs we have into full-time good jobs instead of people working other jobs. You know these people would probably qualify for some of these apartments, but let’s make them so they don’t qualify; that they’re making enough on their own. But they won’t look at it.
I bring you down to what I think that there are things that we should have savings on. Dr. Bishop, the last time he was here, said they saved 70,000 miles a deadhead.
When I looked at numbers before, it was $3 a mile. We ought to get $200,000 a savings that could be put to the teachers. This Ladd thing, you know, when it came to us, it was going to be $500,000 or $600,000 savings. I heard, when they were trying to tell the parents at Cassell, ‘well, we have to do it for the savings,’ and they’re talking about as much as $1 million, and, now, I don’t read anything about savings, but I saw where they were going to have to spend an extra $114,000 on electric at the Wilson Elementary School. We have to have savings there. It ought to be $800,000. When they responded to me a year later to my why-not letter, they said they could save $600,000 by closing Craigsville. You close Craigsville, you have extra transportation expenses. You have other things going on there. To say you can’t save more money in closing Ladd than in closing Craigsville, goes against common sense. But I wanted to find out, so I asked them to send me the cost for operating in the school. Guess what! They don’t know.
How could you run a business and not know what your costs centers are costing you?
They got six people in accounting. It wouldn’t seem to me that it would be that hard to figure it out. We used to get this sort of information. We used to have a number of full- time employees. We don’t get that anymore. I figured it out by backing into the expenses for medical. I divided what it cost annually for medical, divided it into each of the things, and came up with what was going on. I found out from that, that they were down 26 employees since 2007, but they’re down 32 teachers, so they subtracted 6 more teachers and giving them to overhead. That’s not what we should be doing in these hard times. We need these guys, before they come asking for more money from us, to take waste out of the system. I see where Dr. Bishop and Bob (Bob Stuart-The News Virginian) left. I think I’m going to tell them on Thursday what I think because they don’t mind telling us to raise taxes. I represent people who say their taxes are high enough and some of the assessments are so great that it is unfair. There is a lot going on. I went through everyone of those budgets. I have looked at them line-for-line. They added a bunch when they got more money, but we have fewer students. If this Board considers raising taxes, I would think you would better served to ask them to cut their expenses and get the waste out of the system before they start asking our people to spend more.
* * * Mr. Pattie:
1. SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK – CELEBRATE SHENANDOAH GROUP
APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Pattie moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board make the following two appointments to serve on the Shenandoah National Park – Celebrate Shenandoah Group:
1. Larry J. Wills and Jeffrey A. Moore (as alternate) and 2. Jessica Staples Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
* * * 2. Rockingham Fire and Rescue Meeting – Mr. Wills, Mr. Coffield and he met today with Rockingham Board members, as well as their Administrator. “We’ve come to a basic agreement about what to do with Grottoes Fire that we’re pretty comfortable with.” 3. Sediment and Nutrient Monitoring in Augusta County (U.S. Geological Survey plan) – information distributed to the Board. Mr. Pattie expressed interest in coming up with a strategic plan to deal with the EPA and water pollution regulations. The USGS came up with a 33% grant with the remaining $77,000 to be left to Augusta County if they wanted to move forward with it. He had spoken with Rockingham who showed interest in joining Augusta County. He noted that it was a 3-year plan that could be done in one-year increments and canceled at any time. After much discussion from the Board, it was decided that this needed to be considered during the Budget process.
Mr. Wills:
1. Rockingham/Grottoes Rescue – plan to be in the Weyers Cave Fire Station with ambulance service by April 1st. “I feel very comfortable. Grottoes has come a long way in the last two to three years. They were almost out of business at one time. With new leadership down there—younger leadership—they are getting volunteers. They are doing classes on their own. They have six drivers and six EMTs that will come on line in May.” May be some contention with SARS but he felt sure that it would be discussed at the next meeting.
Mr. Beyeler: Ordinance Committee Meeting – David Karaffa and he attended meeting today and discussed Erosion and Sediment Control and the Stormwater Draft Ordinance. A draft ordinance is required to be submitted to DCR by April 1st. He noted that the State has not given a final recommendation. If a draft is submitted, this will extend their time before the additional regulations go into affect July 1, 2014. Mr. Fitzgerald added that at some point DCR will be changing over to DEQ. Mr. Wills added that VACo is trying to get some background information to help challenge the 28% State fee.
Mr. Fitzgerald added that “they are asking us to pay them to come and review our plans and tell us what we’re doing wrong.” Mr. Shull: Stormwater – Asked if there were still plans on meeting with contractors. Mr. Fitzgerald said that, as part of the grant, there is an educational component. The website shows Stormwater information and the Partnering Session will be used. There will be an opportunity to provide input and training as we move forward.
The County draft ordinance combines E&S and Stormwater together. It follows the State Code requirements. It was noted that the State needs to approve the plan.
Mr. Karaffa:
1. Gochenhour House – plat of property needs to be recorded.
Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board authorize staff to record plat.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
* * * 2. Restructure of schools – Beverley Manor Elementary School and Beverley Manor Middle School – spoke with residents who supported the K-7/8-12 concept.
Questioned how money could be better designated to the schools.
It was the consensus of the Board to ask the School Board to meet with them on March 27th (during their Budget work session) at 1:00 p.m. to discuss their budget. They requested that their budget be provided to them by March 22nd .
MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF
Staff discussed the following issues:
1. School Salaries/number of Employees – information distributed to the Board.
2. Friends of Middle River – information placed in Board’s mail slots.
3. Route 608/250 turn lane – Future public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to come before the Board, Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, the Board adjourned subject to call of the Chairman.
Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Moore, Beyeler, Wills and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.
Chairman County Administrator H2-27min.13
