Docstoc

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Document Sample
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Powered By Docstoc
					                                BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
                                  REGULAR MEETING
                                  NOVEMBER 13, 2003


       At the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Floyd County, Virginia, held on
Thursday, November 13, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. in the Board Room of the County Administration
Building, thereof;

       PRESENT: David W. Ingram, Chairman (entered the meeting at 1:00 p.m.); J. Fred
Gerald, Vice Chairman; Diane B. Belcher (entered the meeting at 8:45 a.m.), Jerry W. Boothe,
Kerry W. Whitlock, Board Members; George W. Nester, County Administrator; Terri W. Morris,
Assistant County Administrator.

       The Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. with the reading of the
handicapping statement.

       The Opening Prayer was led by Vice Chairman Gerald.

       The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Supervisor Boothe.

        Mrs. Deronda Thomas, Treasurer, appeared before the Board. She presented the invested
cash as of November 13, 2003 and noted that a new line indicating cash in office had been added
to her report. She reported tax collections were $58,000 ahead of last year at this time.
$1,395,000 has been collected to date.

       Mrs. Morris presented the balance sheet ending October 31, 2003 and the
revenue/expenditure report as of October 31, 2003, for the Board’s information.

       The minutes of October 14, 2003 and October 22, 2003 were presented to the Board for
consideration.

       On a motion of Supervisor Whitlock, seconded by Supervisor Belcher, and carried, it was
resolved to approve the minutes of October 14, 2003 as presented and the minutes of October 22,
2003 as amended.

      Supervisor Boothe commented that discussion of shielded lights should be added to the
October 22, 2003 minutes, it was a consensus of the Board to add this item to the draft


                                         Page 1 of 19
manufactured home park ordinance.

               Supervisor Boothe - aye
               Supervisor Belcher - aye
               Supervisor Whitlock - aye
               Supervisor Gerald - aye
               Supervisor Ingram - absent

         The monthly disbursements were presented to the Board for review and consideration. A
list of additional bills was also presented for consideration. Mr. Nester outlined several unusual
disbursements: 1) Route 811 project - grant was received by County so we are required to pay the
bill. Several of the households on Route 811 may be eligible for low cost loans for the
water/sewer installation. 2) Microwave link - digital - $115,000. 3) Refurb of fire truck, which
saved a great deal of money instead of purchasing a new one.

       On a motion of Supervisor Whitlock, seconded by Supervisor Boothe, and carried, it was
resolved to approve the monthly disbursements, plus additions, as presented.
               Supervisor Boothe - aye
               Supervisor Belcher - aye
               Supervisor Whitlock - aye
               Supervisor Gerald - aye
               Supervisor Ingram - absent

        Supervisor Boothe questioned if the Treasurer’s Office would be using a different type of
tax ticket for the twice yearly collection. Mr. Nester stated that they were investigating different
types of tickets to see which one would fit their needs best. Also, received an opinion from the
County Attorney as to setting of the tax levy. This will need to be done by January 31 to allow
the Commissioner’s and Treasurer’s Offices time to prepare the books and tickets. According to
the Attorney’s opinion, the opportunity is available for the Board to make a mid-year change in
the levy if needed.

       At 9:00 a.m., the Chairman called for the Public Comment Period.

        Ms. Carol Moates and Ms. Carrie Jessie - we are here to ask for improvements on Route
822, or Hideaway Lane, which is where we live. We all got together and made a list of concerns.

1.     There are more families now living at the far end of Hideaway Lane, there is new
       construction presently under way, as well as more land for sale at the far end of the road.
2.     There are presently fifteen people regularly driving on the road. There is one elderly
       driver (in his 80's) and several young drivers with more to get their drivers license within
       the next year.
3.     The road is very narrow and there is not room for two vehicles to pass each other in many
       areas, especially one long stretch.


                                            Page 2 of 19
4.    In the most narrow stretch of road, which is about 200 yards long, there are blind spots
      entering from either direction which has caused many near misses of head on collisions.
      In this narrow stretch of road it is necessary for one of the vehicles to back up quite a
      distance in order to allow the other vehicle to pass by. The only safe time to drive that
      section of the road is at night when you can see headlights coming.
5.    On nice days, children walk home from the bus and that is a very dangerous section of
      road for a vehicle to suddenly meet a child or children walking in the road because you
      cannot see what lies ahead due to the lay of the land and the curving of the road.
6.    Snow is an extreme problem in this narrow section of road. The road is very narrow and
      dips below the ground level on both sides causing an accumulation of snow so great that
      it requires a front end loader and dump truck to dig out that area. All the residents (at
      present four families and one home under construction) past that area are completely
      blocked in or out with any amount of snow and wind. The road is one of last to be
      scraped due to it being a dead end road which can mean you being blocked in or out of
      your home for long periods of time. There is never snow fence placed in this area.
      Several residents have called VDOT and requested snow fence to be put up but were told
      the land owner would not allow the fence to be placed on his property.
7.    There is land for sale at the farthest end of Hideaway Lane. One parcel has been bought
      and construction has begun on a new residence. This means more traffic: dump trucks
      hauling gravel, large delivery trucks for building materials and the construction crews
      trucks, not to mention the new land owners vehicles.
8.    There are parties, wedding, and family gatherings at several of the properties at the far
      end of Hideaway Lane. When this occurs, there is a large increase in traffic. The narrow
      section of road causes a dangerous bottleneck during any high traffic time.
9.    There are four families that must meet the school bus in the mornings and afternoons at
      the intersection of Routes 822-Hideaway Lane and 668-Cannaday School Road, which
      causes congestion at that intersection for other vehicles in that area.
10.   The sides of Hideaway Lane were not mown this year at all and only one time last year.
      The high weeds keep you from being able to see if anything is coming when entering the
      road from a driveway.

REQUESTS:

11.   Widen the road in these problem spots between Cannaday School Road and the
      Longabough property line (369 Hideaway Lane). If that cannot happen soon, make pull
      over spots in the worst areas as soon as possible.
12.   Work out a solution to the snow accumulation problem in a more timely and reasonable
      manner. Snow fence could be very helpful. Leveling out that one area could solve many
      problems, i.e. snow would not have the dip to accumulate in, blind spots would be
      eliminated, road would be wider to allow two vehicles to pass by safely.
13.   Have VDOT mow regularly during the growing seasons to allow for better visibility.

      Supervisor Whitlock - this is something that we may want to talk to Bob Beasley about in


                                        Page 3 of 19
closed session.

       Supervisor Whitlock questioned if there had been any accidents or just near misses.

        Ms. Jessie - near misses. The gravel situation doesn’t help, especially in that narrow
space, its got a downhill. Its really tight.

        Ms. Moates - both of our families have lived back there for ten years or so. When we
first moved, it was not a problem, there weren’t kids in school, there wasn’t young drivers or old
drivers, and now that its building up, seems just like within the last year and half, things have
really gotten crazy with the amount of traffic and children.

        Supervisor Whitlock - I have talked with Mr. Beasley about the situation to some extent,
and I think he was going to check on the right-of-way to see what could be done. All the roads
have different right-of-ways.

     After no further comments from the audience, the Vice Chairman declared the Public
Comment Period closed.

       Agenda Item 8a - Subdivision plats as approved by Agent for October 2003. Mr. Nester
reported 33 new tracts were approved by the Agent.

       Supervisor Boothe questioned if staff had been able to check on divisions of property
again within the five year period.

        Mr. Nester commented that staff is preparing a report, but have not completed it yet.
Really feel we should have the surveyor certify that no division has occurred. We believe it is in
the ordinance already but the attorney would need to check that.

         Agenda Item 8b - Report - Virginia Heritage Music Trail. Mr. Nester reported on the
scenic road that will chronicle music in Southwest Virginia. Floyd County is the front door entry
to the trail on Route 58. A cd will provide a self-guided tour. An ARC grant will fund the
signage, and VDOT will install the signs. The General Assembly will be asked in January to
designate sections of Route 58 for the trail. A $100,000 grant was received from the State for the
program. Mr. Nester reported that the team meets every month, and he had been assigned to the
Marketing Committee, which will determine how the trail will be promoted; and the Guide
Committee, which will look at all venues along the route to determine appropriateness to Trail.

       Mr. Dennis Anderson, Virginia Department of Forestry, next appeared before the Board.
He reported on several items:
       - Their agency is responsible to inspect all logging jobs in the County. There are 24 in
process at this time. The loggers are required to notify Forestry of their operations and they are
required to keep mud out of the creeks. We are involved with the enforcement process.


                                           Page 4 of 19
       - Seedling program - there are three State nurseries - hope to move the seedling cooler
soon next to the tractor shed at the landfill.
       - Tipping is going on now. There are two large companies in the County that do this.
       - Willis Fire Department received a grant for three dry hydrants through the Forestry
Department.

        Supervisor Belcher commented that she appreciated the Forestry Department following
up on illegal logging operations and taking care of that problem.

        Agenda Item 8c - Legislative request 2004 General Assembly - set meeting with
legislators.

      Supervisor Belcher suggested that the sections concerning meals tax and transient tax be
amended to state that the County is requesting the option to implement these taxes, not the actual
implementation.

       Consensus of the Board was for staff to schedule the legislators at the Board’s December
meeting and send a copy of the legislative requests to them in advance.

        Agenda Item 8d - Proposed resolution - Authorizing the Continued Operation of a Joint
Virginia Juvenile Community Criminal Control Act Program with Montgomery County. Mr.
Nester reported that the program has been very successful and has reduced costs, which is good
since the State has reduced funding for the program. Montgomery County served as the fiscal
agent and is willing to continue that role. To continue this joint program, DCJJ is requesting the
resolution for continuation of the joint program and designation of Montgomery County as fiscal
agent.

       On a motion of Supervisor Belcher, seconded by Supervisor Boothe, and carried, it was
resolved to adopt the resolution as presented, Authorizing the Continued Operation of a Joint
Virginia Juvenile Community Criminal Control Act Program With Montgomery County
(Document File Number               ).
               Supervisor Boothe - aye
               Supervisor Belcher - aye
               Supervisor Whitlock - aye
               Supervisor Gerald - aye
               Supervisor Ingram - absent

       Mr. Bob Beasley, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, next appeared before the Board.
 He presented approved copies of the 6-year secondary road plan to the Board and staff. He
reported that paving will be completed in the next couple of weeks. Line painting has been
completed.

       Supervisor Boothe - have heard a few comments about the mowing, but I have tried to


                                          Page 5 of 19
explain the situation that they may only get done once.

       Supervisor Boothe - how far behind is paving on secondary roads?

        Mr. Beasley - paving is not behind, surface treatment is behind because of funding and it
will be added to next year’s schedule.

       Mr. Nester - how much has your budget been reduced?

        Mr. Beasley - 45% construction for secondary. On the maintenance side, we have been
instructed to prepare plans for 5%, 10% and 15% reductions if it is needed, for large events such
as Hurricane Isabel. Cuts could be done at any time.

        Mr. Nester - the Salem District has been hit hard, especially for items like the Smart Road
and toll road on I-81 which will put more traffic on the secondary roads. You have more
demands with less funding.

       Mr. Beasley - like the 6-year plan, issues have arisen such as disasters, revenue shortfalls,
etc. which all have a real effect on the plan. The effect in the last several years has been
negative.

         Supervisor Whitlock - when funds were pulled out for the Smart Road, has any other
district had funds taken out like that?

       Mr. Beasley - I can’t say.

       Supervisor Belcher - Route 726, Black Ridge Road, last two miles coming back from
Parkway - the road is buckling in several places. In Town, along where the new Food Lion is
being built, need pavement or gravel in the areas where a water or utility line has been laid.

       Mr. Beasley - the contractor will take care of that.

        Supervisor Belcher - appreciate the work done on gravel roads after we got some
moisture. Also, I need a road count on the road past the rock church from Black Ridge Road, not
sure of the road number.

       Supervisor Whitlock - appreciate the work on Route 793, really improved the curve.

       Supervisor Whitlock - Route 822, really do not know how to approach this situation.

        Mr. Beasley - unimproved road in the system for eons, unless it is in the 6-year plan,
these roads stay as they are. Have to be on the 6-year plan and get a design improvement plan.
There is not a lot of change to take place. We provide the maintenance. If property is sold and


                                           Page 6 of 19
the residents want to pay for improvements, it can be done but that doesn’t happen very often.

       Supervisor Whitlock - Route 681/221 intersection - could the yellow line be changed to
stop people further back or take out the pine trees for better sight distance.

         Mr. Beasley - the property owner will not consider taking out the pines. We’ve tried that
route.

       Supervisor Whitlock - could the yellow line be changed or a white line be installed?
People turning in are having to go behind them to turn because they are so far out.

         Mr. Beasley - traffic engineer has looked at it and it should accommodate the turning. It
is at an angle.

        Supervisor Whitlock - people pull up straight with the line and sit at an angle. It blocks
the intersection and people turning left shortcut it. Also, there was an accident at the curve in
front of the Baptist Church. A pickup rear-ended by an SUV. Buses had to detour through
Town. Talk of wanting to put a stoplight at Barberry/221. We need to look at options to
alleviate the congestion.

        Mr. Beasley - not sure that we have the right-of-way for the foundation for a stoplight. It
has to be warranted by a 13-point survey such as configuration of intersection, traffic count,
number and type of movements, etc.

      Supervisor Boothe - would you (to Supervisor Whitlock) be ok with him contacting the
Town Council since it is in the Town to see if they have ideas?

         Supervisor Whitlock - yes, they have talked about one at 221/Oxford Street also.

        Mr. Beasley - the overall effect has to be looked at also, sometimes it is not a cure. Once
the study begins, it takes on a life of its own.

        Supervisor Gerald - Route 751, Windy Hill Road - construction has started, understand
they are working late and we appreciate that.

        Mr. Beasley - the contractor took on too much work. It was to be done by November 1,
so the $300 fee a day does encourage them to work longer.

       Supervisor Gerald - Route 787 - center line has been done but side lines have not been
done. If you could check on that I would appreciate it.

        Mr. Nester - we need cost estimates on production and location of signs for the music
trail. Who would I see about this?


                                           Page 7 of 19
       Mr. Beasley - interstates and other roads are different. Interstates are governed by the
Feds, primaries and secondaries are easier, size and location restrictions will apply. Bob Yates
would be the one to start with.

       Supervisor Boothe - safety recommendation signs on Beaver Creek Road - did you get to
check on them?

       Mr. Beasley - we have to have traffic engineering do a study to locate the signs.

        Ms. Beth Obenchain, New River Valley Land Trust, next appeared before the Board. She
reported on the mission of the Trust, which is to conserve farmland, forest, open spaces and
historic places in Virginia’s New River region. Some of the important points from her
presentation were:
       Work with landowners only on a volunteer basis;
       Montgomery County is losing 1000 acres of land a year to development;
       Floyd County has 53% more road mileage with less than 20% of the population - cost of
        serving population is greater;
       A farm requires 10 cents of services for every $1 a farmer pays in taxes - a new house
        requires $1.40 in services for every $1 in taxes;
       Farmers make a living selling crops, then they make a living selling land, now
        conservation easements allows them to keep land and still have a harvest of cash;
       Conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust to
        protect open spaces and agricultural values of land - only thing you cannot do is
        subdivide it or put a shopping mall on it;
       State tax credit is 50% of the value of the conservation easement;
       A person is allowed three houses on 100 acres such as primary residence and home for a
        child or mother-in-law;
       Commissioner of Revenue has to consider the lower value of land under the easement in
        valuing property for County tax purposes, but with land use here in this County, it will
        not be that big of a difference;
       Governments can help by: 1) prioritizing areas for conservation; 2) allocate funds to help
        low-income farmers with legal and appraisal costs; 3) starting fund from roll-back taxes
        from land use program to buy conservation easements; 4) partner with land trust in
        hosting community meetings.

        Ms. Obenchain commented that there are eleven landowners in Floyd County with 1504
acres that are being worked with this year.

       Discussion followed on the nursery stock that is being taken out of the County, as to
whether this follows the conservation idea, even though it is allowed under the program. It was
the consensus of the Board for the County Administrator to draft a letter to appropriate officials
concerning the Board’s idea of true conservation.



                                           Page 8 of 19
       The Board recessed for lunch.

       Chairman Ingram entered the meeting at 1:00 p.m

        Agenda Item 8e - Appointments to Industrial Development Authority of Floyd County,
two four-year terms which expire December 10, 2003. Mr. Shortt’s and Mrs. Janney’s terms will
be the ones that expire.

        On a motion of Supervisor Ingram, seconded by Supervisor Belcher, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to authorize the County Administrator to advertise for two positions on
the Industrial Development Authority of Floyd County, four year terms.
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

       Agenda Item 8f - Appointments to Floyd - Floyd County Parks and Recreation Authority
- two appointments for Courthouse and Indian Valley Districts, terms expire December 16, 2003.

       On a motion of Supervisor Boothe, seconded by Supervisor Ingram, and carried, it was
resolved to authorize the County Administrator to advertise for two positions on the Floyd -
Floyd County Parks and Recreation Authority, Courthouse and Indian Valley Districts, four year
terms.
               Supervisor Boothe - aye
               Supervisor Belcher - nay
               Supervisor Whitlock - aye
               Supervisor Ingram - aye
               Supervisor Gerald - aye

       Mr. John Rife, County Attorney, next appeared before the Board.

       Agenda Item 7g I) - Manufactured Home Park Ordinance (proposed) - Board will hold a
work session on November 18 to continue discussion on the draft.

       Agenda Item 7g ii) - Franchise Transfer Request - Time Warner Cable to Citizens
Cablevision. Mr. Rife reported that Citizens will upgrade capability in the service areas. Time
Warner thought it would be a good move to Citizens. Do not know what action the Town has
taken.

        On a motion of Supervisor Boothe, seconded by Supervisor Whitlock, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to adopt the resolution as presented for the franchise transfer from Time
Warner Cable to Citizens Cablevision (Document File Number                 ).


                                           Page 9 of 19
               Supervisor Boothe - aye
               Supervisor Belcher - aye
               Supervisor Whitlock - aye
               Supervisor Ingram - aye
               Supervisor Gerald - aye

       Mr. Nester also commented that he had received correspondence from Citizens
Cablevision concerning the transfer. This correspondence will be placed in the document file
also (Document File Number             ).

       Agenda Item 7g iii) - Request from Woody Crenshaw - abandon portion of unused right-
of-way on State Secondary Route 748. Defer for public hearing at 3:00 p.m.

        On a motion of Supervisor Boothe, seconded by Supervisor Whitlock, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to go into closed session under Section 2.2-3711, Paragraph A.3,
discussion or consideration of real property for a public purpose or of the disposition of publicly
held property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining or
negotiating strategy of the public body; Paragraph A.7, consultation with legal counsel pertaining
to actual or potential litigation and consultation with legal counsel regarding specific legal
matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel.
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

       On a motion of Supervisor Whitlock, seconded by Supervisor Boothe, and carried, it was
resolved to come out of closed session.
               Supervisor Boothe - aye
               Supervisor Belcher - aye
               Supervisor Whitlock - abstain - not present for entire closed session
               Supervisor Ingram - aye
               Supervisor Gerald - aye

       On a motion of Supervisor Boothe, seconded by Supervisor Ingram, and carried, it was
resolved to adopt the following certification resolution:

                 CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION - CLOSED MEETING

       WHEREAS, this Board convened in a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote on the motion to close the meeting to discuss real property and legal
matters in accordance with Section 2.2-3711, Paragraph A.3 and A.7 of the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act;


                                           Page 10 of 19
       WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
Board that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby certifies that, to the best
of each member’s knowledge (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act were heard, discussed or
considered in the closed meeting to which this certification applies; and (2) only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened
were heard, discussed or considered in the meeting to which this certification applies.
       Before a vote is taken on this resolution, is there any member who believes that there was
a departure from the requirements of number (1) or number (2)? If so, identify yourself and state
the substance of the matter and why in your judgement it was a departure.
       Hearing no statement, I call the question.
               Supervisor Boothe - aye
               Supervisor Belcher - aye
               Supervisor Whitlock - abstain - not present for entire closed session
               Supervisor Ingram - aye
               Supervisor Gerald - aye

       This Certification Resolution was adopted.

      At 3:00 p.m., the Vice Chairman called for the Public Hearing on the proposed
abandonment of 607 feet of State Secondary Route 748.

        The County Administrator read the call for the public hearing and noted that the public
hearing had been properly advertised, properly posted at the site, and certified letters had been
sent to adjacent property owners. He also showed a map of the proposed abandonment site to the
Board and audience.

       The Vice Chairman called for comments from the audience.

        Mr. Woody Crenshaw - would like the Board to understand that I own this piece of
property, parcel 43-171. In closing this right-of-way strip along here will allow me to have
access to Parkview Drive, and will allow that piece of property, which is a prime piece of
industrial property, to more easily be developed for industrial purposes. It does have 3-phase
power and water/sewer and it is really a fine piece of property for future development and we are
hoping this right-of-way will increase the ability of that piece of property to be developed.

      Mrs. Gladys Vaughan - the reason I am here is that I got a registered letter and I was just
coming to learn more about it.

       Mr. Nester - I think one thing that would also be included in that, in addition to retaining
the public utility easement in the portion of property that is developed, we had also requested that
the owner provide us with a piece of property located (Mr. Nester indicated on map) here, to put


                                          Page 11 of 19
a 25' turning radius in there right now. That is a really tight curve. This will allow us the
opportunity in whatever point in time we need to make that a wider turning radius, that there
won’t be such a wide turn required. There will still be a 60' right-of-way there, which is greater
than required by VDoT, which would remain in place. With that being said, I leave the matter to
the Board.

       After no further comments from the audience, the Vice Chairman declared the Public
Hearing closed.

     Mr. Rife commented that after the Board approves the resolution, it is sent to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board for their approval.

        On a motion of Supervisor Boothe, seconded by Supervisor Whitlock, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to adopt the resolution as presented, concerning abandonment of a 607
foot section of State Secondary Route 748 (Document File Number               ).
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

        On a motion of Supervisor Whitlock, seconded by Supervisor Boothe, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to go into closed session under Section 2.2-3711, Paragraph A.3,
discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose or of the
disposition of publicly held property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely
affect the bargaining or negotiating strategy of the public body.
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

        On a motion of Supervisor Whitlock, seconded by Supervisor Boothe, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to come out of closed session.
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

        On a motion of Supervisor Whitlock, seconded by Supervisor Ingram, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to adopt the following certification resolution:
                               CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION


                                          Page 12 of 19
       WHEREAS, this Board convened in a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote on the motion to close the meeting to discuss real estate in accordance
with Section 2.2-3711, Paragraph A.3 of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act;
       WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
Board that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby certifies that, to the best
of each member’s knowledge, (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act were heard, discussed or
considered in the closed meeting to which this certification applies; and (2) only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion by which the closed meeting was convened
were heard, discussed or considered in the meeting to which this certification applies.
       Before a vote is taken on this resolution, is there any member who believes that there was
a departure from the requirements of number (1) or number (2)? If so, identify yourself and state
the substance of the matter and why in your judgement it was a departure.
       Hearing no statement, I call the question.

               Supervisor Boothe - aye
               Supervisor Belcher - aye
               Supervisor Whitlock - aye
               Supervisor Ingram - aye
               Supervisor Gerald - aye

       This Certification Resolution was adopted.

        Agenda Item 8g - Report - Meeting with Virginia Economic Alliance on November 3,
2003. Mr. Nester reported that he attended the Monday morning staff meeting of the Alliance,
and was the only speaker that morning. Presented a power point presentation to the staff and felt
it was very well received. Mr. Nester gave the same presentation to the Board for their
information.

       Agenda Item 8h - Waste Management Contract - rebid? Mr. Nester explained that the
contract with Waste Management expired in October. Have received a call from another
company who is interested in bidding also. Consensus of the Board was for the County
Administrator to obtain a proposal from the other company for comparison purposes and report
back to the Board.

        Agenda Item 8i - Discussion on proposed toll road on Interstate 81. Mr. Nester presented
a copy of a position paper as developed by the New River Valley Planning District Commission
opposing any type of tolls. Supervisor Gerald commented that he had relayed that Floyd County
was against any type of tolls. The Planning Commission has delayed approval of the resolution
for further information.

       On a motion of Supervisor Boothe, seconded by Supervisor Whitlock, and unanimously


                                           Page 13 of 19
carried, it was resolved to adopt the resolution in opposition of any tolls on Interstate 81, and
authorize submittal of said resolution to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (Document
File Number            ).
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

       Agenda Item 8j - Review of Planning District boundaries - Request from Virginia
Department of Housing and Community Development. Mr. Nester commented that the
Department of Housing and Community Development has to perform this task periodically to
review boundaries.

        On a motion of Supervisor Whitlock, seconded by Supervisor Boothe, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to authorize the County Administrator to notify the Department of
Housing and Community Development that Floyd County would like to continue the current
planning district boundary with the New River Valley Planning District Commission.
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

        Agenda Item 8k - Approval of grant for Clerk of Court for security system - $2745.00.
Ms. Morris reported that the Clerk had applied for and received a grant to update the office
security system. The Board would need to accept this grant from the State to transfer to the
Clerk’s proper expense line item.

        On a motion of Supervisor Whitlock, seconded by Supervisor Ingram, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to accept the grant in the amount of $2745 from the State for the Clerk of
Circuit Court.
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

       Mr. Nester presented a copy of a resignation letter received from Mr. Jack Kitts from the
New River Valley Development Corporation Board of Directors. Mr. Nester explained that this
Board handles the loan program developed years ago by ARC for small companies. Floyd
County has been a participant for over twenty years.



                                          Page 14 of 19
        On a motion of Supervisor Belcher, seconded by Supervisor Ingram, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to authorize the County Administrator to advertise for interested
applicants for the New River Valley Development Corporation Board of Directors.
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

        On a motion of Supervisor Ingram, seconded by Supervisor Whitlock, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to authorize the County Administrator to apply for appropriate grants for
water system improvements in the County.
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye
                Supervisor Ingram - aye
                Supervisor Gerald - aye

      Mr. Rife presented a proposed ordinance for criminal background checks for prospective
employees for the Board’s consideration in setting up a public hearing.

        On a motion of Supervisor Whitlock, it was resolved to authorize the County
Administrator to advertise for a public hearing on December 9, 2003 on the proposed ordinance
for criminal background checks for prospective employees.

       Motion died due to lack of a second.

     Consensus of the Board was to review the proposed ordinance and discuss it at the
December regular meeting.

        Supervisor Boothe stated that he had been contacted by several people concerning a
service from the New River Valley Agency on Aging. They provide a hot meal three days a
week at the Pine Ridge Apartments community room for low income, elderly persons. With the
cuts in State funding, they are only able to provide this service two days a week. There are
usually 15-30 people in attendance. Was asked if the County would take over funding for the
lost one day a week. The cost is approximately $3.25/person. Consensus of the Board was for
the County Administrator to obtain more information on the matter and report back to the Board.

       The Board recessed for the 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing.

        At 7:00 p.m., the Vice Chairman called for the Public Hearing on the proposal to sell,
grant or convey real estate known as Camp #5 in Willis, Virginia.



                                          Page 15 of 19
       Mr. James Cornwell, County Attorney, also joined the Board for the Public Hearing.

       The County Administrator read the call for the Public Hearing..

         Mr. Tommy Moles - On behalf of Hideaway Stables, I would like to extend our business.
 Some of the things that I would like to do with Camp #5 are horse shows, fund raising for local
churches and the rescue squad. I would like to have riding lessons for all ages and all types of
breeds of horses. Boarding for all kinds of breeds. I would like to have riding facilities used
year-round and a high school rodeo. This is a very good sport for young people. Clinics on the
latest things on training horses and shoeing horses and horse care. I am looking for a nice family
atmosphere for the community. I would like to take Camp #5, where it has not been used for 25
years, and turn it into a nice piece of property that would be good for the community to look at.

         Mr. Nester - at the Board’s request, we have advertised the proposed conveyance and sale
of Camp #5. Tonight’s meeting is being held after the appropriate public notice, as prescribed by
Title 15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia. The legal notice was published in the October 30, 2003
edition of The Floyd Press. The property has been owned by the County, on and off, for the past
20+ years. It is generally in a state of disrepair. Any proposal would be to convey the property
as it exists without any improvements being offered by the County. Any transaction would also
include the provision that some lead and asbestos in the facility would be abated as a condition of
the sale. Those are primarily the concerns County staff would have. The Board has received a
business plan from the proposer tonight and if its appropriate, I think its time to let the public
give their comments.

       The Vice Chairman declared the Public Hearing open for comments.

        Mr. Dave Gunn - I live on Gardner Road. I have a couple of questions. One is how is the
lead and asbestos are going to be taken care of? What is the treatment of it, will it be buried and
then covered? I have my doubts in that how can it be cost effective to put in a stable and take
care of the asbestos liability. The second question is, we were involved in it when Rebound tried
to take over. There seemed to be a requirement there by the Board that a certain number of jobs
would be provided. I know that when other people made offers on the land, or at least proposals
on it, who offered a greater number of jobs than this, what’s the requirement for the number of
jobs that would be created by it? Or is there one, maybe its been amended since then? The third
one is, I was under the impression that after Rebound, after it was bought back from them, that
there was some kind of covenant added to the deed that said that it could never be used for a
prison or a youth camp, not a Christian camp but a Rebound type, and I’m not sure that’s part of
the deed or not. But we would certainly like it to be if it is going to change hands and get out of
the County’s control, that there is some guarantee. A lot of widow ladies on that street who
endured the time when the prison was there. We moved into the area thinking that we were
never going to have a problem with that. Just for everybody’s peace of mind, we would like to
see that this covenant is part of the deed.



                                          Page 16 of 19
        Vice Chairman Gerald - at this time we are just taking comments. If you would like to
see the Attorney or your representative, you will have these questions answered before you leave.

          After no further comments from the audience, the Chairman declared the Public Hearing
closed.

        Mr. Nester - when the County acquired Camp #5, one of the conditions would be that
there would be a perpetual covenant included in the deed that specifically identified that the
property could never, and would never, be used for any type of correctional facility either for
youth or for juveniles. So that would be a covenant that would run with that land from now to
perpetuity. The other question was about the asbestos and the lead paint in the facility. Before
the Board would consider any proposal from Mr. Moles, we required him to provide us with a
proposal from a certified hazardous waste contractor about how the waste would be abated. And
that includes the hazardous waste contractor based on his contract with Mr. Moles, removing all
of that material from that property and disposing of it in a proper hazardous waste landfill. So
that will occur. Those are the two points that I felt appropriate that I could answer. Mr. Gunn, I
believe you had one other point that you asked about?

          Mr. Gunn - the other was about a minimum number of jobs?

          Mr. Nester - I’ll leave that to the Board. That’s more of a policy issue.

        Supervisor Ingram - Sir, I think some 20-25 years ago when that property first became
County property, that was a major concern and issue. At this point, and I’m going to speak until
I hear another Board member say something different, I think its come to the point that job
creation there is not as a big an issue as cleaning the property up, take care of some problems that
are there and put the property back on the tax roll. If someone else would like to add to that, that
is my opinion, not the Board’s. I think as time has gone on, priorities have changed there on
what the goal for the property is.

         Supervisor Boothe - I concur. From the liability standpoint, it is a major concern for me.
If someone, whether it be Tommy or whoever, actually trying to fix the property up and maintain
it, and actually being on the property, that will take care of a lot of our problem.

        Supervisor Whitlock - for myself, this is the first time that I’ve seen a Floyd Countian
come up with a proposal for what to do with that property. I think that’s one of the key things for
it. He will create some jobs, maybe not the most that we would require on some of our
commerce property, but, I do think it is appropriate and a good fit for the area. I think most of
the neighbors have expressed positive responses toward this and I would like to see something
that would make that area better, change the atmosphere of what that area has become for the last
sixty years. Everybody refers to it as the Camp #5 area. That’s an old era. I would like to see a
new era set up. I’m glad to see a Floyd Countian come up with a proposal that looks like it is a
good fit.


                                             Page 17 of 19
        Supervisor Gerald - that property has been an eyesore for a long time and I think Tommy
Moles, in talking to him, has some great ideas. I don’t think it will be an eyesore anymore, its
going to be a place where people in Floyd County can be proud of. And also, it will be back on
the tax roll. Does that answer your questions Mr. Gunn?

        Mr. Gunn - one thing I didn’t mention is that some of the neighbors would have bought
pieces of it, and we were looking at a piece of it too, back years ago. We would not have created
any jobs, our daughter was interested in building there. I know there were some other neighbors
who were interested in it.

        Mr. Nester - the next step is to have the County Attorney draft a conveyance document
that would include any of the reservations and restrictions that the Board wants to include. The
issue about the perpetual continuance of the property not being allowed for use as any type of
correctional facility is already in place and will continue to run with the property. There are
some other issues that the Board wanted to spell out.

        Supervisor Boothe - there are some issues concerning types of things I wouldn’t want to
allow there, without being arbitrary and capricious.

       Mr. Cornwell - I think with it being your property, you can be arbitrary and capricious.

        Supervisor Ingram - I don’t think we need to rush this decision because of just what was
said. There are several things that we need to make sure and get right and all of us need to have
time to make sure we are comfortable with those. What we feel is right for Floyd County. There
is also action that has been taken in the past concerning that property that will have to be reversed
and taken back and we can do that at any point up to the time that we do something else with it.
My suggestion would be for the Attorney to come up with the list of conditions that we want to
put with this, and us look at it, and see if we want to add or omit, would be my suggestion.

       Mr. Cornwell - the County Administrator and I can come up with some options for you.

       Supervisor Belcher - then we can look at the document and be satisfied and then Mr.
Moles can look at it, and have his attorney check it, should we get that far.

        It was the consensus of the Board for the County Attorney and County Administrator to
draft a proposed agreement for sale of Camp #5 for the Board’s review.

        On a motion of Supervisor Ingram, seconded by Supervisor Whitlock, and unanimously
carried, it was resolved to adjourn to November 18, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. for a work session on the
proposed manufactured home park ordinance.
                Supervisor Boothe - aye
                Supervisor Belcher - aye
                Supervisor Whitlock - aye


                                           Page 18 of 19
Supervisor Ingram - aye
Supervisor Gerald - aye




                          Page 19 of 19