Greene County July 8 BOS summary

Greene County Administration Building – 7/8/2008

Kara L. Reese, Greene County Field Officer

 

Executive Summary:

 

Amendment to Chapter 35 – Article II of the Greene County Code to add Section 35.57 – Central Absentee Voter Precinct – Approved

Resolution to Provide Local Aid to the Commonwealth – Approved

 

Call to Order: 7:30 pm

 

I. Presentation of Public Service Awards:

 

            The Greene County Board of Supervisors handed out four service awards to its employees on Tuesday night. Lisa Roach-Herring and Kimberly Morris both received 5 year service awards. Krystal Brinkley was given a 15 year service award. Outgoing Superintendant Raymond C. Dingledine, III was also honored for his service to the County Schools.

 

II.  Public hearing on an amendment to Chapter 35 – Article II of the Greene County Code to add Section 35.57 – Central Absentee Voter Precinct.

           

            A brief public hearing was held on Section 35.57 establishing a Central Absentee Voter Precinct.  In order to comply with new laws, the County was required to either create one central location where absentee ballots could be cast on a voting machine or provide a machine for each precinct to allow for in-precinct counting of absentee votes. The amendment to the Code creating on central location for absentee voting was unanimously approved.

  

III. Quarterly meeting with VDOT Resident Administrator.

           

            VDOT presented the Board with its quarterly report. There were several members of the public present to comment on the current state of Virginia’s Roads. Three roads were of particular interest to the public Simms Road, Middle River Road, and Rosebrook Road. The public was interested in their potential to become upgraded to Rural Rustic Roads. This designation would permit paving of these roads.

 

Middle River Road:

Four residents spoke in favor of paving Middle River Road, while two individuals spoke on behalf of a larger coalition of residents who opposed the paving of the road. Those in favor of the paving cited the difficulty they had in reaching their properties after a rainstorm, the wear and tear on their vehicles and the danger of loose gravel as reasons to pave. Those opposed feared paving would increase traffic, encourage speeding and potentially pollute the river if the road were to wash out.

Simms Road:

Two residents requested that VDOT reevaluate Simms Road’s eligibility for Rural
Rustic Designation. Both VDOT and the Board were responsive to this request. VDOT was willing to reevaluate the road but not optimistic that it would qualify.

 

Rosebrook Road:

Two residents also requested that all of Rosebrook Road be improved. There was concern that VDOT was failing to focus on the most dangerous areas of the road. VDOT responded that while portions of Rosebrook would qualify as Rural Rustic, the lower portion would have to be improved through the traditional paving process resulting in much higher costs to the public.

 

IV. Matters from the public – None

 

V. Consent Agenda – Unanimously Approved
a. Minutes of previous meetings.

b. Revenue anticipation note resolution

c. Approval of loan for the purchase of new school busses

d. Approval of loan for the purchase of county vehicles

 

VI. Presentation of Park Master Plan.

           

            Kim Steika of the Community Design Assistance Center presented an overview of the new Park Master Plan. The Master Plan has two phases. The first phase will include construction of a concession stand and restrooms, expansion of the current parking lot, installation of tennis courts and creation of a new shelter near the parking lot. Phase two envisions the creation of a community center, a community pool, additional walking trails, baseball fields and a skate park.

 

            J. Bates requested that the Board of Supervisors adopt the plan. Once the Board adopts the plan, Parks and Recreation will begin applying for grants to fund construction of stage one. The Board will vote on the plan during one of their August meetings.

 

VII. Discussion of revised reductions in State revenue.

 

            T. Morris provided the Board with an overview of recent budget cuts from the State. The Board discussed whether they should absorb the cuts or pass them on to agencies within the County.

 

S. Catalano observed that the County has lost close to half a million dollars in state funding over the past several years. He is “mad as hell” and would be in favor of suing the State should a valid claim be identified. He gave the example of CSA where the County is on the hook if the state fails to pick up the costs. CSA costs alone could bankrupt the county in a few months and yet the county is required by state law to continue the program regardless if sufficient state funds are provided.

 

B. Peyton expressed a reluctance to make up for lost funds with local tax dollars. He felt that the County can not afford to raise taxes to fund the state cuts. B. Peyton was concerned that all the improvements the County has made financially could be lost if State funding shortfalls continue. He was also interested in banding together with other localities to lobby Richmond.

 

J. Allen noted that the County had already cut many programs. She wondered what is left to cut. Services such as the Library and JABA are a benefit to the community

 

C. Schmitt advocated passing the cuts along to the programs that the State had designated the cuts for and assured agencies that the Board is not out to punish anyone by passing on these cuts.

 

            The general consensus amongst Board Members was that the County will not absorb anymore funding cuts from the State. Cuts will be passed on the local agencies. When it becomes necessary they will close down some agencies and services. The Board unanimously approved a resolution to Provide Local Aid to the Commonwealth in opposition to the budget cuts. There was also discussion of inviting State Representatives to a Board meeting to discuss the cuts.

 

VIII. Other matters from the Board

 

C. Schmitt reported that the trip to Hanover with members of the School Board was a success.

 

            S. Catalano reported that the Rescue Squad was continuing to investigate various means of revenue recovery.

 

            J. Allen reported that the Senate is considering a Bill that would replace the proffer system with impact fees. This should be a bill for the County to watch.

 

 

9:40 pm – Meeting Continued to July 22, 2008

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: