Regular Meeting – September 26, 2012

Regular Meeting, Wednesday, September 26, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. Government Center, Verona, VA.

PRESENT: Tracy C. Pyles, Jr., Chairman
Jeffrey A. Moore, Vice-Chairman
David R. Beyeler
David A. Karaffa
Marshall W. Pattie
Michael L. Shull
Larry J. Wills
Timmy Fitzgerald, Director of Community Development
Becky Earhart, Senior Planner
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, September 26, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., at the Government Center, Verona, Virginia, and in the 237th year of the Commonwealth….

Chairman Pyles welcomed the citizens present.

Hanna Ward, a senior of Fort Defiance High School, led the Pledge of Allegiance. Hanna plans on attending West Virginia State University with a softball scholarship and majoring in Criminal Justice.

Tracy C. Pyles, Jr., Pastures District, delivered invocation.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STAGGERED TERMS – ORDINANCE

This being the day and time advertised to consider an ordinance providing for staggered terms for the November 2015 Board of Supervisors Election.

Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney, advised that tonight’s ordinance will establish that the Board of Supervisors and the School Board will run for staggered terms beginning at the November Election in 2015. In accordance with State law, once that determination has been made, four Board members will run for four-year terms and three Board members will run for two-year terms. The ordinance does not address how that decision would be made.

It was discussed at an earlier meeting that three can volunteer to run for two-year terms, or the Board of Elections can either determine which three districts would run for two-year terms prior to the qualification date for running for office; or the day immediately after the Election, they can do that by drawing lots.

Chairman Pyles asked, in terms of procedure, if the public can give opinion on the term and methodology tonight. Mr. Morgan said that would be appropriate. Chairman Pyles also asked if the Board decides to vote tonight to move forward would the map also be decided upon. Mr. Morgan said that decision could be made tonight, but pointed out that there was some time for consideration since the decision did not have to be made until 2015.

Chairman Pyles declared the public hearing open.

Randall Paugh asked what the cost was for holding a current election compared to staggered elections. Chairman Pyles explained that there were no additional elections.

On the off year, there are a few people, but stations are already manned and paid for.

There being no other speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.

Mr. Karaffa noted that staggered terms was one of the points that he ran on and that he is in full support of staggered terms. He also volunteered the Beverley Manor District to be one of the seats to serve a two-year term.

Mr. Wills said that he also supported the staggered terms but wanted to hear public opinion.

Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Beyeler, that the Board table this item until November 14, 2012.

Mr. Karaffa stated that this has been discussed thoroughly and did not feel that it needed to be tabled.

Mr. Beyeler noted that this has been discussed last year with a few speakers. He said that it was obvious that people were not interested because they were not present tonight. He also noted that there had been a newspaper article reflecting three Board members’ decisions.

Chairman Pyles said that when anyone runs for office, they tell their citizens what they stand for. He said that any Board member had the option to change his mind. He did not see a problem of delaying this item for a month.

Mr. Moore said that he had heard from several people who were in favor of staggered terms.

Mr. Karaffa expressed a concern of this being tabled indefinitely.

Mr. Beyeler noted that the public hearing has been closed tonight. “This was the period of time to allow people to speak.” Chairman Pyles said that the requirements of a public hearing have been met tonight, but if people wish to speak at the November meeting, it is the general practice of the Board to allow them to do so.

Vote was as follows: Yeas: Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: Karaffa and Pattie Motion carried.

ROUTE 636 PPTA

This being the day and time advertised to consider an Unsolicited Proposal for Approval of the Design and Construction of the Route 636 relocation project for approximately one mile from its intersection with Route 250 tying into existing Goose Creek Road (Route 636) near Village Creek Drive, including construction of a new bridge over the CSX railroad line along the proposed new route (Wayne District).

Dennis Burnett, Economic Development Director, reported that before the Board tonight is a consideration of a design build proposal received from Branch Highways for the relocation of Route 636, which connects Routes 285, 358 and 250 in the Fishersville area.

On June 29, 2012, Branch Highways submitted an Unsolicited Proposal for the design and construction of Route 636 – Re-located. In accordance with the County’s PPTA policy, the project was advertised for thirty days, in which time, no competing bids were received. On September 12th, the Board authorized staff to enter negotiations with Branch Highways for the best and final offer. Also, in accordance with the PPTA policy, independent review of the pricing was completed by Timmons Group who has reviewed and validated the proposal. Mr. Burnett gave a PowerPoint presentation with the following high-lights:

Ten-Year History 2002 – VDOT held public meetings; options were introduced.

2003 – Timmons Study looked at corridor and alternatives.

2004 – Adopted by Board of Supervisors in the Six-Year Plan.

2008 – TIF (Tax Increment Financing) agreement with Crescent Development.

2009 – 2011 – Additional allocations placed on the Six-Year Plan to the relocation of Route 636.

2012 – Right-of-ways for project have been secured.

The County had received an unsolicited PPTA (Public Private Partnership Act) proposal from Branch Highways to build this road. That proposal includes five different phases.

(Map was displayed.) Phase 1 (purple) starts at the new Mary Baldwin College campus to allow the college an entrance on the new location; Phase 1A (red) is where a box culvert is needed to be placed. Phase 2 (orange) is the Myers Corner property, which runs down to Route 250. Phase 3 (yellow) is all roadway built across two different properties (Hoy and Skyline/Critzer); Phase 4 (green) is a two-lane bridge across the railroad. Phase 5 (blue) is the Route 250 turn lanes and signal light at the intersection and associated work.

Emerging Corridor Investments:

Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation Center – $73 million Myers Corner/Maple Ridge Complex – $ 4 million Murphy Deming (Mary Baldwin site) – $25 million Augusta Health (new cardiac center) – $22 million + University of Virginia – $12 million Exit 91 – $42 million Existing Funding On the Six-Year Plan, Dedicated Secondary Road System: $2.6 million (roadway and bridge) Tax Increment Financing: $3.6 million (Crescent) TIF Total: $6.2 million Mr. Burnett introduced Michael Higgins, Vice-President of Branch Highways. Mr. Higgins also gave a PowerPoint presentation with the following high-lights:

Why they are here:

• Balzer and Associates – Ongoing Working Experience • Crescent Development Group • Site Grading Project Adjacent to Route 636 A picture was shown of construction being done at the Mary Baldwin’s Murphy Deming College of Health Sciences location.

Information on Branch Highways:

• Over 45 Years of Experience • Previous Design-Build Experience • Previous Experience Working with Counties (Prince William, Wythe and Bedford) • Top 400 Contractors since 1989* • Strong Safety Record Introduction of the Team:

• Branch Highways, Inc. • Balzer & Associates, Inc. • Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP (Quality control inspection) • Crescent Development Group, LLC An Organization Chart was displayed.

Overview of Project:

• 6,000 Linear Feet (from Augusta Medical to top of Route 250) • 2 – 12 Foot Lanes with Shoulders • Bridge over the Railroad Tracks (designed to accommodate the current and future tracks) • 3 Box Culverts • Large Amount of Excavation include Rock • Storm Drainage • Erosion Control • Traffic Signal @ Rt 250 Intersection An aerial overlay of the project was displayed.

Project costs: Construction, Design, Inspection: $13,000,000 Stream Mitigation: $ 400,000 Private Utility Relocation Expense: $ 245,000 Sub-total Allowance Expense: $ 645,000 Mr. Pattie asked how long it took for Branch Highways to put together the unsolicited bid. Mr. Higgins said it took about nine months from first discussions internally with the team and then engaging Augusta County to determine its interest in moving forward.

Chairman Pyles asked what was requested tonight. Mr. Burnett said that the next move would be to enter into a Comprehensive Agreement. Patrick J. Morgan, County Attorney, added that the purpose of tonight’s public hearing is to determine whether there is support for the Comprehensive Agreement. Mr. Moore added that this was part of the PPTA policy.

The Chairman declared the public hearing open.

There being no speakers, the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.

Mr. Moore noted that letters of support from Murphy Deming College of Health Sciences, Augusta Health Center, Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation Center, Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission, Augusta County School Board, and Augusta Health Care for Women had been distributed to the Board.

Mr. Moore stated that this project has been ongoing for 12 years. As Mr. Burnett’s presentation indicated, this is developing into a health care corridor and Mr. Moore noted that Health Care is the second largest employer in the County. He further stated, “one thing this Board is trying to do is keep our taxes low. To keep our taxes low and be able to provide services, we need revenue. We need growth to generate revenue to pay for those services. The Comprehensive Plan supports growth in the Urban Service Areas. I think it is prudent of the County to invest in the infrastructure of those Urban Service Areas to allow the growth to develop in that area.” Mr. Moore moved, seconded by Mr. Karaffa, that the Board authorize staff to draft a Comprehensive Agreement with Branch Highways.

Mr. Karaffa expressed appreciation to the diligent work on this project. “It really shows vision for moving forward in our County along the lines of economic development and our commitment to bringing high-paying jobs to our area. With the improvements to Exit 91, I think we’re really going to see this area pop!” Mr. Pattie expressed concern of only receiving one bid for a $13 million project. He supported the overall road.

Mr. Moore stated that, as part of the PPTA policy, the Branch Highways’ proposal was reviewed by the Timmons Group, which is completely independent and unbiased, to give their recommendations and concerns. Timmons Group sent the proposal out to an actual road builder who evaluated the proposal and stated that $13 million was appropriate.

Chairman Pyles added that, at one time, he was strongly opposed to what was in place before based upon the County was fully funding what road was being done – $3.5 million without any other aspects. He further stated that this will be a benefit to the County. He noted that Crescent was amenable to do away with the TIF and allow the County to use the $3.6 million to apply to the State for match funding. He noted that Branch already has equipment on site because of the work they are doing. With planned improvements at Interstate 64’s Exit 91, the County could use improvements to handle some of the extra traffic. “We need more places to send this traffic. This allows that to be done.” Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.

Mr. Wills asked that the Service Authority be made aware of this project. It was the consensus of the Board to authorize the County Administrator to see that the Service Authority is fully advised.

MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC – NONE

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

The Board considered Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) proposed boundary map.

Mr. Fitzgerald advised that this had been discussed at Monday’s Staff Briefing. A map was displayed for the proposed boundaries for the Staunton, Augusta, and Waynesboro MPO. The boundaries suggested by the Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission are shown as green on the map. What was brought to the Board on Monday was the consideration of the red line. If the Board wishes to include Weyers Cave and the Airport, a purple boundary had been included on the map showing the proposed addition to the suggested boundary. Tonight’s map shows a slight adjustment (with Weyers Cave/Airport) having a blue line. Another question raised was the population. Mr. Fitzgerald said that inside the blue line, the population for Augusta County is $30,375; population of Weyers Cave area is 3,266; totaling 33,641. Mr. Fitzgerald added that there will be an MPO Policy Board meeting next week with an agenda including the Memorandum of Understanding (that will have to be approved by the Board and the two City Councils) and a discussion of the boundaries on the map. Language in the Memorandum of Understanding states that if the Policy Board feels that the boundaries need to be changed, they can do so at any time. If the Weyers Cave is not included now; at a later point, it can be added if desired by the Policy Board. He noted that, while recommendations of the line are submitted to the Policy Board, those recommendations are then forwarded to VDOT and FHWA for a final approval.

Mr. Wills mentioned that he had spoken with Gerald Garber, who is Chairman of the Shenandoah Valley Airport, and Greg Campbell, who is the Executive Director. They have asked for additional time to discuss with their FAA counterparts and other airports that are within MPO districts to decide if it is an advantage or disadvantage to be included. Mr. Wills expressed concern of Exit 235 on the Interstate. “With Blue Ridge Community College growth in that area, I think that’s going to be our next ‘Exit 91’ situation.” He wanted Shenandoah Valley Airport to have ample time for consideration.

Mr. Wills also asked staff to clarify in writing what the MPO Policy Board has authority of. He understood from Monday’s discussion that it was “any” Federal grants. Today, after discussion with Messrs. Garber and Campbell, he understands that it is only Federal grants if it comes with the Federal Highway funds. From the Airport’s standpoint, most of their funding comes through FAA, but if there would be Federal transportation funds that they could access, that may be a reason for them to participate. Chairman Pyles asked if there would be a problem to table this item. Mr. Fitzgerald said that discussion could occur at next week’s meeting and a recommendation can be made at a later date.

Mr. Pattie moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, that the Board table this item to October 10, 2012.

Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.

FIRE AND RESCUE

The Board considered carryover topics from Board’s August 29th and September 12th meetings:

1. SAFER Deployment proposal with Waynesboro (WFAC) option 2. Career Chief (Title 27) resolution, as revised 3. New Hope Ambulance Purchase Funding Sources: Beverley Manor Infrastructure Account #80000-8011-59 $19,000 Middle River Infrastructure Account #80000-8012-73 19,000 $38,000 Jerry Walus, Craigsville Fire Department, said that this proposal would help the community.

Wayne Martin, Craigsville Fire Department, felt that Career Chief (Title 27) would be detrimental to the Volunteers. He also thanked the Board for “all they have done for Craigsville over the years. We really appreciate and hope that we can continue working together”.

Jodi Fitzgerald, Craigsville Rescue Department, said that the career staff has been of great assistance and fully support the plan.

Dale Early, New Hope Fire Department, opposed part of the plan “as it gives no help as it has been repeatedly asked for”. He stated that the last plan was to provide them three re-deployed firefighters from the Grottoes area. He added that they have a 11.4% no-response rate, which is the highest in the County. He had also asked if they could become a floater station and was refused. He noted that New Hope is basically a bedroom community with no industries and no business to hold the younger people in the area. Every one of New Hope’s firefighters and EMTs live outside of the Department’s first response area. He asked for three more staff firefighters to provide 24/7 coverage for the New Hope community.

John T. “Tommy” Key, President of the New Hope Fire Department, agreed with Chief Early’s comments.

* * * SAFER Deployment Proposal Fire Chief Carson Holloway advised the revised plan had been discussed at Monday’s Staff Briefing and the plan has not changed. Three each of the 21 positions will go to Middlebrook, Verona and Dooms Fire Departments. Staff at those departments will be redeployed to other stations in the County as needed per SAFER guidelines. Six each of the SAFER Grant positions (floaters) will go to the Augusta County Company 10 Station and to Preston L. Yancey. He added that this was the best area for the floaters where there was more apparatus in the area. He noted that he had spoken with Chief Early about having floaters at New Hope but explained that the floaters would be out of the stations most of the time to help other departments. Fire Chief Holloway felt that this was the best option.

Fire Chief Holloway added that it was also discussed at Monday’s Staff Briefing to set up a meeting with Mr. Moore and Waynesboro First Aid Crew. That meeting has been scheduled for October 9th to look at possible negotiations of interacting with them at the Preston L. Yancey Station.

Mr. Karaffa mentioned he had discussed with the Fire Chief about certain stations currently having three career personnel on Monday-Friday, six to six. He was aware that New Hope has three career personnel serving in their six-to-six, Monday-Friday and Deerfield has three which do a 24/7. He asked if New Hope Fire Department wanted to be a 24/7, that could be looked at as long as there was one volunteer present with the 24/7 career staff provided giving the level of coverage that they are requesting.

Fire Chief Holloway said that option was discussed and stated concerns of having one person responding alone. It had been asked if New Hope could guarantee a volunteer to respond on the 24/7 basis or let them know so that they could re-deploy that person.

Mr. Karaffa understood that the Fire Chief would instruct his Captains to be aware of if it were to be a rare circumstance that if they had a 24/7 makeup at New Hope, when there was only one person there, when a volunteer was not available, than a floater could be placed there. Fire Chief said if there was a floater available, it could be used at New Hope. “If it was planned ahead of time; they provide us a roster of the next 30- day schedule, we would make every effort to provide it.” He added that New Hope could not guarantee that; however, at this time, they could not guarantee a volunteer 24/7. He noted that Deerfield has provided consistently a secondary person. Mr. Karaffa added that if Augusta partnered with Waynesboro, it could possibly open up another floater position that could be used on a daily basis. Mr. Karaffa commended Fire Chief Holloway for his diligent work on this plan. “You and your staff have done a commendable job.” Mr. Wills, in response to New Hope, understands their needs but stated that he has problems with using outlying communities with floaters. He felt that they would have less coverage if they pulled from that station every time a floater was needed. He hoped to continue working with New Hope to improve the situation. He wanted to assure New Hope that there is no intent to close New Hope and put a station at Crimora. The only discussion made is that there would be a sub-station for both New Hope and Dooms. “In no way is it our intent to try to close you down and re-deploy your equipment or your personnel anywhere else. Please assure your people of that. That is not part of the plan.” He noted that it is not a good route in the New Hope area; therefore, “taking a department out of New Hope altogether, to me, is not an option.” Mr. Moore added that he had spoken with Dooms and could not support a Crimora station.

Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, that the Board adopt the proposal, along with the ability for the Fire Chief and Vice-Chairman to negotiate with Waynesboro First Aid Crew.

Mr. Wills added, “The Board is doing this with recognition that we are about $550,000 in the hole once the grant is over with. Either through other means, whether it be less money going out to our neighboring counties, whatever, or a tax increase, or some way that if we continue to keep all the personnel that we are adding, we will have to come to a reckoning in about three years as to how we’re going to fund that. I support it, but it is with the recognition that there are dollars needed down the road.” Mr. Shull also thanked Fire Chief Holloway and staff for their diligent work. “You came up with a plan to begin with and we heard the concerns of all the companies around and I think they were addressed and they will continue to be addressed. Nothing is set in stone, yet, and If we see problems that arise, then we’ll address those problems when they come. We had to start somewhere and the Chief came up with a plan.” Mr. Pattie agreed with Mr. Wills’ sentiment. “Basically, this gives us two years of breathing room to figure out how best to use them and whether this is financially viable in the next few years. One of the things I would like to see is we have two years to try to ramp up our volunteers and support them. I think this is something we should try to focus on because it is a lot cheaper to go that route than to keep adding these people.” Mr. Beyeler appreciated Fire Chief Holloway and staff’s efforts, but would be voting against the motion. He also agreed with Messrs. Wills’ and Pattie’s concerns in what is going to happen in two years. He felt that it would be quite a bit more than $550,000.

“All of the other expenses that I don’t think were considered is going to show up and two years down the road, what the costs are going to be, we’re going to have to have a tax increase to do this.” Mr. Beyeler added, “Let me say to the volunteers that are out here, I appreciate what you have done. Your pay, in most cases, isn’t even a thank-you from your community. I want you to know I appreciate what you do and, hopefully, your community will say thank you more often.” Chairman Pyles acknowledged, through this plan, we have gained 21 people and made the following comments:

Our needs continue to grow. With 21, we’re not meeting all the needs of the communities. New Hope is not the only one requesting more staff. They were ahead of the game with the first three, but it took a while for some of the others to get people.

Mount Solon is just now asking and they have been asking for many years. The Board has weighed rightly or wrongly costs versus what we can do and try to find a balance.

These 21 folks—you can’t put three of them in Deerfield and say that is going to cover everybody all the time because it takes more. If you look at the number of hours in a year, when you look at the number of people three, there is going to be holes. There has to be backfilling for them. We’re adding these 21 additional folks. If we place 14 of them, we have 7 to back them up, that just merely fills in the gaps to a large extent. The changing of the floaters was just to hold down costs. It wasn’t to stop New Hope from having folks. Our over-time and part-time budget will go through the roof. If there is a $500,000 hole now, there would be a much larger hole and harder to get. I think what we’re going to find out next year is just how well we do with deploying our people and I’m going to challenge Chief and folks there to be as effective as possible. Any time a floater is working, I’m thinking we are going to be losing money sometime down the road when we’re going to have to bring in part-time or over-time to cover a spot. As far as Riverheads, part of it is for Revenue Recovery to have money to offset and keep us able to support these folks and maybe more. When we get into a situation where a company says they need $200,000 to provide coverage, and then we allow ourselves to continue to do that where the next year they might be they need some more or more after that, we have the responsibility to take responsibility for them and to have it out there and find the best way to supply people with services. One of the things that we do with the increase to Weyers Cave, is we have another place that is going to deliver rescue service. When we have rescue service from every fire department, then we have done as much as we can do to a large extent in having people as close to the point of need as possible for a quick delivery. It would be cheaper to have four or five big stations that supply all the rescue responses in the area, but the time to get to a Craigsville or Mount Solon or Sherando and different areas is critical. It is life-altering, or changing, or saving. That all goes into the hopper. You have to understand that right now we’ve been put in a tough financial situation as your household has been and as the State has been. They have continued to cut us. We don’t get as much money as we did before. We lost $3 million in schools this year. We wrote $500,000 worth of checks back to the State with other cuts.

We’re trying to struggle and balance it in every way we can to make it work. This is a step. I will tell you that we are rebounding and we will continue to rebound. Our revenues will grow as other things grow. For the first dozen or thirteen years I was on the Board, we continued to add people to Fire and Rescue. We went from 14 in 1995 to where we have 59 now. That is without doing much within the last couple of years. That is going to be a continuing thing. Our goal right now is to be able to keep these folks in place when the time is ended. I think we will probably have to do more than that because we cannot weigh totally costs and emergency services. As people can’t keep up, we’re going to have to do more. The better we can get value out of what we have now, the better we’re going to be able to do more in the future. We do want to encourage more volunteers and we’re hopeful that, as we have more people out, delivering more responses, that the strain on individual companies will go down. Maybe, New Hope won’t have as many calls to respond to and that will be helpful for their volunteer staff. I would just ask you to give us through next year to understand how this is all going to play out. It is positive that we have 21 more people that helps everybody.” Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore and Pyles Nays: Beyeler Motion carried.

* * * Career Chief (Title 27) Fire Chief Holloway made the following comments:

Title 27, after talking with ISO, would come under one umbrella (certainly, much like we’ve done when Fishersville had the issues and went to a 10). We incorporated that territory with Augusta County Fire-Rescue allowing for those good resources from both stations to be utilized and determine a new rating. It did improve that rating. It went from a 4/9 for Company 10 and a 10 for Fishersville to a combination of 5/8B. Again, there was some give and take, but by taking Title 27 into consideration, It would help with consistency. Chief Martin does have a point, I don’t know; I can’t guarantee that the whole County will be a 5/9, but by doing it, what I can guarantee, it allows us to know where we are regarding ISO. It gives us the ability to go into these departments and interact with them and to work with them on their records management, to oversee it, and hopefully across the County, I would project that the County would be as countywide possibly a 6/9 or somewhere in that area. Again, it is some give and take on both parts, but, overall, it would improve and allow more stability as far as maintaining a consistent ISO average across the County. The more rural areas will have to be looked at regarding County overall rating.

Mr. Wills made the following comments:

What we’re trying to do here, and I hope the fire companies understand this, is that when the volunteers are there, and we’re required anytime there is a fire to have four minimum to be able to enter a building. If we automatically dispatch for structure fire, we automatically dispatch to companies. We get credit for that dispatch if we go this way.

Otherwise, if two companies show up, each with three men, we have six there and both companies still get penalized for not meeting ISO. I don’t think we have much choice. I think the way it is written it is under the direction of this Board. If we have a Chief down the road that is not working cooperatively with the volunteer companies, I am sure we’re going to hear about it as a Board. The Chief works directly under this Board and we will have to work with those situations. I think the situation is that we want to work with volunteers. We want to improve what they’re doing. The idea of record management, that is strictly to make sure that, when the ISO man asks for something, that he gets what he is asking for and that you don’t turn around and get an even more critical type of inspection later because you didn’t have the proper documentation the first time. If you have it right, the County is not going to interfere; but it is a matter of checking it before the inspection comes in. Again, we took it back off of this thing where we had the great big long document; we’re back to one resolution that says we have one Chief in charge of Fire and Rescue and that he works with the fire departments under the direction of the Board. That, basically, is what the provisions says. I will support it.

Mr. Moore clarified that the resolution that the Board reviewed at Monday’s Staff Briefing was a draft. Tonight’s resolution has the same wording but is the official document to be adopted and signed by the Chairman.

Mr. Shull stated that he has received concerns from several companies stating that the Chiefs needed to remain heads of their companies. If there was anything that needed to be directed to those companies, it needed to be directed to that Chief and let that Chief direct it to his members. Some felt that if wording came down from the Fire Chief, than it is taking their command and leadership away. He would like to see that if anything needed to be disbursed to any of the companies, that it goes through the Chief first. Chief Holloway said that there was no intention on staff’s part to micromanage everything in all departments. He said that the change would just improve communication and enable him to keep the Board informed. He added that he went to the Association meeting last night and provided the resolution for review. There were no comments or concerns mentioned. He noted that the Association had voted 9-6 in favor of this resolution at its May meeting.

Mr. Karaffa felt that this was the kind of communication that should always exist inside of the Fire and Rescue departments. “The Board looks to the Fire Chief to communicate with us affectively about the condition of the service in the County. This solidifies that. I believe that it will also maintain the identity for fundraising purposes and identification purposes of the respected companies that have been in those communities for a very long time. I would share in Mr. Shull’s desire that the attitude be collaborative and that the respect for the Chiefs that are in those stations be maintained.

As it has been before, but reiterated again, that the career staff that we have in departments are guests in those departments and that he wouldn’t pass down directives to them that would change the functions of the volunteer station without first talking with the Chief at that station and working out those details. I have all the respect in the world for you. I believe that is the attitude that you would bring to that job and I think this will greatly enhance our ability to not only help stations to get ready for ISO inspections, but also to keep us apprised of the condition of the service throughout the County.” Mr. Beyeler referred to Craigsville concerns. “If they show up with four people at a fire, do they still get a 5?” Fire Chief Holloway stated that ISO requires to have four on structure fires. He stated if they went countywide, it was a possibly of that number changing. In looking at it countywide, the entire County would get one rating. He noted that some stations have higher ratings and the countywide rating may reduce those ratings. Mr. Beyeler asked how many 5s did the County have. Fire Chief Holloway said there was one at Company 10; Craigsville; and a couple of others (four or five). He said there were several 6s; a couple of 7s and then a few 9/10s. Collectively, the overall score would be brought up. He reiterated the idea behind this was “to provide consistency countywide and make sure that we don’t get another 10 or a low rating where we would have the opportunity to intervene prior to that happening.” Mr. Beyeler asked how the scoring was determined. Fire Chief Holloway explained that, in the ISO rating, the first number is within 5 miles and within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant; the second number is within 5 miles without a hydrant and possible supplemental water supply (such as Tanker Task Force, which would be a 5.9). Preston L. Yancey is a 5.8B because they have hydrants and they have Tanker Task Force supplementary fire flow.

Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Moore, that the Board adopt the following resolution, as revised:

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

OF AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA

WHEREAS, Augusta County is committed to continuous improvements in Public Safety, ISO ratings, service delivery, response assignments; and WHEREAS, it is desired to remove the individual boundaries of Volunteer Fire and/or Rescue Agencies in Augusta County and to combine all Agencies under Augusta County Fire-Rescue making it into one large fire/rescue district forming a partnership in public safety under the jurisdiction of the Chief of Augusta County Fire-Rescue; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of §27-23.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Board of Supervisors is empowered to create and establish fire/EMS zones or districts within the County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

OF AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA:

1. The individual boundaries of all Volunteer Fire and/or Rescue Agencies are hereby removed and the present designated first due areas will be for fundraising and solicitations for financial support only, all volunteer Fire and/or Rescue Agencies and Augusta County Fire-Rescue are hereby combined into one large fire/rescue district and, in accordance with §27-6.1 of the Code of Virginia, under the jurisdiction and leadership of the Chief of Augusta County Fire- Rescue.

2. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.

* * * New Hope Ambulance Purchase Fire Chief Holloway advised that New Hope Fire Department has mentioned that they have a fully equipped ambulance for sale for $35,000. The Board originally spoke about $38,000. He asked to keep the amount of $38,000 to offset some possible maintenance/relettering costs.

Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Wills, that the Board approve the allocation of funds from the Beverley Manor and Middle River Infrastructure Accounts in the amount of $19,000 each, totaling $38,000.

Funding Sources:

Beverley Manor Infrastructure Account #80000-8011-59 Middle River Infrastructure Account #80000-8012-73 Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.

* * *

STAUNTON-AUGUSTA RESCUE SQUAD (SARS)

Chairman Pyles advised that SARS has submitted a letter stating that they had asked for funds earlier in the year in the amount of $200,000 annually. Chairman Pyles felt that, with the deployments to Riverheads and Preston Yancey, and working with Waynesboro First-Aid Crew, it is not necessary to continue current agreements with SARS.

Mr. Wills agreed with the Chairman and noted that SARS had stated in their letter that they were giving a 90-day notification.

Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board authorize Chairman Pyles to accept SARS termination noted and express appreciation for past services rendered.

Mr. Karaffa added that it was important to recognize that SARS would continue helping in other areas of the County and that the Board appreciates the partnership that the County has with them.

Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.

MOUNT SOLON FIRE DEPARTMENT GENERATOR

The Board considered hookup costs for Mount Solon Fire Department generator (North River District).

Funding Source: North River Infrastructure Account #80000-8013-38 $550 Patrick J. Coffield, County Administrator, reported that this was discussed at Monday’s Staff Briefing. A vendor’s estimate for the work in an amount of $450 was attached to the Board’s agenda tonight. What was discussed on Monday was $550.

Mr. Pattie added that after the windstorm, he realized the need for a heating/cooling system in Mount Solon. He felt that this was a good expense to “make it a good safe area for our people out there”.

Mr. Pattie moved, seconded by Mr. Karaffa, that the Board approve an amount not to exceed $550 to upgrade their generator electrical hookup.

Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.

WAIVERS/VARIANCES

1. The State at Ana Marie Mr. Fitzgerald reported that this had been discussed at Monday’s Staff Briefing. In August, the Board approved a rezoning request that would allow for some additional residential homes adjacent to the Ana Maria Estates which is located in the City of Waynesboro. Section 21-9.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires the street to be curb and gutter because of the fact that the streets will connect to an existing curb and gutter street. The waiver tonight is asking to allow for a shoulder and ditch section instead of the curb and gutter requirement. He noted that the subdivision is different in nature than the one in the City. It is a larger lot subdivision and does not have public water and sewer; it is on well and septics in that area. Stormwater is a concern and having the open ditches will help. Mr. Boutros was present to answer any questions that the Board may have.

Mr. Moore 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.

CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board approve the consent agenda as follows:

MINUTES

Considered minutes of the following meetings:

• Special Meeting, Wednesday, August 29, 2012 • Regular Meeting, Wednesday, September 12, 2012

BUFFALO GAP MUSIC BOOSTERS – RABIES CLINIC

Considered request to hold a rabies clinic on October 6, 2012, at Buffalo Gap High School, for the purpose of vaccination of cats and dogs from rabies as a fundraiser for the school’s music program.

BERRY FARM INVITATION FOR BID

Considered issuing Invitation for Bid for cutting of marketable timber at Berry Farm (North River 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. Beyeler: Bridge Naming Memorial – will be paying out of South River Infrastructure Account.

Mr. Wills:

1. Crimora Community Center needs – Asked that the Board authorize County staff to work with him and Ruritans to develop a cost estimate for improvements. It was the consensus of the Board to authorize the County Administrator to do so.

2. Comprehensive Plan update – Major changes from Planning Commission recommendations (deletion of Exclusive Ag zoning classification; eminent domain wording; interior landscaping requirement in parking lots 25 spaces and more).

Asked that Planning Commission be allowed to bring these items back to the Board if necessary for consideration.

Mr. Wills moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board allow the Planning Commission to bring back items previously discussed to the Board for consideration if needed.

Mr. Karaffa asked if it would be possible to bring this back to the Board at the next meeting as an overview (October 10th). Mr. Wills agreed to withdraw his motion.

Chairman Pyles noted that there are many instances where the Planning Commission has to consider several things at one time. Having things brought up individually, with a good explanation of the need, helps the Board to make a better decision.

Mr. Pattie: Regionalism/Governance – Asked if a list of agreements with Waynesboro and Staunton could be provided to the Board, noting funding. The Board asked that the Service Authority’s agreements with Staunton and Waynesboro be included.

Mr. Karaffa:

1. Senior Dance – Wonderful event!

2. VDOT – toured Beverley Manor District and identified projects.

3. Panhandling – still receiving complaints. Mr. Morgan advised that this will be discussed at next meeting (October 10th).

Chairman Pyles: Cellphone Towers – Asked that Mr. Coffield coordinate a meeting with Marshall Pattie, Tracy Pyles and Donna Good – It was noted that Monday was a good day for both Messrs. Pyles and Pattie.

MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY STAFF

Staff discussed the following issues:

1. Ordinance Committee – October 14th meeting 2. FOIA – Mr. Morgan reminded the Board that before they took office, he gave a presentation on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and presented them with a copy of the statute. The Local Government Attorneys Association and the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service created a concise “pocket manual” on the FOIA in question/answer form. Copies were distributed to Board.

3. Wind Energy – Becky Earhart, Senior Planner, noted that Mr. Morgan has done some research and asked if this could be brought to the Ordinance Committee for further discussion. Mr. Morgan added that the current ordinance does not address the utility grade-type systems and he felt that it should be referred to the Ordinance Committee.

Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Shull, that the Board approve referring Wind Energy to the Ordinance Committee for further discussion.

Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None Motion carried.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Wills, the Board went into closed session pursuant to:

(1) 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) Alternative on-site sewer systems (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) Industrial Prospect On motion of Mr. Beyeler, seconded by Mr. Pattie, the Board came out of closed Session.

Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler 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, Karaffa, Shull, Wills, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles NAY: None The Chairman authorized the County Administrator/Clerk of the Board to record this certification in the minutes.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no other business to come before the Board, Mr. Karaffa moved, seconded by Mr. Pattie, the Board adjourned subject to call of the Chairman.

Vote was as follows: Yeas: Pattie, Karaffa, Shull, Moore, Beyeler and Pyles Nays: None

Absent: Wills
Motion carried.
Chairman County Administrator
H9-26min.12