Loading...
05-17-2011 BOS Adjourned MeetingAdjourned Meeting May 17, 2011 Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors Tuesday, May 17, 2011 Adjourned Meeting VIRGINIA: The Adjourned Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors was held on Tuesday, May 17, 20l 1 in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Addition in Chatham, Virginia. Tim R. Barber, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The following members were present: Tim R. Barber James H. Snead William H. Pritchett Coy E. Harville Fred M. Ingram Marshall A. Ecker Henry A. "Hank" Davis, Jr Tunstall District Dan River District Banister District Westover District Callands-Gretna District Staunton River District Chatham-Blairs District Mr. William D. Sleeper, County Administrator, Mr. J. Vaden Hunt, County Attorney, Mr. Greg Sides, Assistant County Administrator for Planning and Development, Mr. Odie H. Shelton, Jr., Director of Code Compliance, and Ms. Rebecca Flippen, Deputy Clerk to the Board, were also present. Mr. Snead gave the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Pritchett, to approve the agenda with the following additions/deletions: (a) Add Solid Waste Concerns and Dilapidated Structures-Mr. Harville (b) Removal of Item 14-Proposed Plan B 1-Redistricting plan-Mr. Ingram (c) Add Request for Tax F,xempt Status-Little Gretna Theater (d) Add State Routes 726 and 729-Mr. Davis (e) Add Closed Session- Discussion with County Attorney and the Board of Supervisors concerning litigation of the Pittsylvania County Jail Motion was made by Mr. Ecker, seconded by Mr. Harville, to approve the agenda with the aforementioned additions/deletions, which was unanimously approved by the Board. Hearing of the Citizens Mr. Richard Shumate, of the Westover District, made comments on the old Chatham Elementary School; how he would like to see it put to a useful purpose by the County, perhaps as a building to house County Administration or other County offices. Mr. George Stanhope, of the Callands-Gretna District, made comments of concern regarding uranium mining in Pittsylvania County and distributed FEMA maps that show a flood zone at the area that tailings are proposed to be stored if the Coles Hill area is mined for uranium. Mr. Stanhope also mentioned a recent newspaper article about the Roanoke River being named by an environmental group as one of the 10 most endangered rivers in the country because of threats from proposed uranium mining at Coles Hill. This concluded the Hearing of the Citizens. Consent Agenda Resolution for Robert Dowd Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Snead, to approve Resolution 2011-OS-06, commending Mr. Robert Dowd on his service with the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the West Piedmont Planning District Commission, which was unanimously approved by the Board. Adjourned Meeting May 17, 2011 PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION 2011-OS-06 VIRGINIA: At the regular meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors held on Tuesday, May 17, 201 1, in the General District Courtroom of the Edwin R. Shields Courthouse Addition, the following resolution was presented and adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Robert W. Dowd, the executive director of the West Piedmont Planning District Commission, has announced his retirement on June 30, 20l l; and WHEREAS, Robert Dowd began his exemplary career with the West Piedmont District Planning Commission in 1977 as a senior plam~er, and ten years later, in 1987, Mr. Dowd was promoted to the executive director of the West Piedmont Planning District Commission and has served in that capacity with great distinction; and WHEREAS, Robert Dowd has contributed to the region's economy by establishing an Economic Development District and assisting with many federally funded economic development projects and the development of economic development plans; and WHEREAS, Robert Dowd has been instrumental in developing awell-planned transportation network by developing numerous transportation plans and studies, and by serving as the Danville Metropolitan Planning Organization's Administrator throughout his tenure as West Piedmont Planning District Commission Executive Director; and WHEREAS, Robert Dowd has tirelessly given his time and effort to improve the services of the West Piedmont Planning District Commission, and to assist staff, citizens and public officials with all local and regional planning needs; and WHEREAS, Robert Dowd has played a crucial role in the growth and development of Pittsylvania County, as well as the surrounding Counties of Henry, Patrick and Franklin and the Cities of Martinsville and Danville, for more than three decades, giving his invaluable expertise to governmental officials by orchestrating cooperation between local, state and federal agencies, bringing innovation to the local planning, updating comprehensive plans for many localities, including Pittsylvania County, guiding localities on the best use of their community resources, and crafting a careful balance between residential, instihrtional and industrial needs-all geared towards improving the quality of life in Pittsylvania County and surrounding localities; then THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, on the behalf of the citizens of Pittsylvania County, the Board of Supervisors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Mr. Robert W. Dowd for his distinguished service as Executive Director of the West Piedmont Planning District Commission and Administrator for the Danville-Pittsylvania Metropolitan Planning Organization and wish I~im the best in his retirement; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLOVED that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Robert W. Dowd Public Hearings Rezoning Cases Case 1: Roland H. Worley -Staunton River District: R-11-013 (R-1, Residential Suhurhan Subdivision Dish~ict to A-1, Agricultural District) Mr. Barber opened the public hearing at 7:17pm. Mr. Shelton explained that Roland Worley had petitioned to rezone the R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District portions of 76.65 acres, two parcels, to A-1, Agricultural District (to make the zoning consistent with the remaining 38.ldacres and to construct an addition to his home). The R-1 parcels are a total of 38.51 acres, located off State Road 996/Covington Road, in the Staunton River Election District. The Planning Commission, with no Adjourned Meeting May 17, 2011 opposition, recommended granting the petitioner's request. Meredith Parsons was present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Barber closed the public hearing 7:18pm. Motion was made by Mr. Ecker, seconded by Mr. Ingratn, to approve granting the petitioner's request to rezone from R-1 to A-l. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett- Yes; Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Ecker's motion to rezone R-11-013 from A-1 to R-1 had been unanimously approved. Case 2: Donald W. Deboe & Kim G. Deboe-Tunstall District: R-11-014 (R-1, Residential Sttburbcrn Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District) Mr. Barber opened the public hearing at 7:19pm. Mr. Shelton explained that Donald and Kim Deboe had petitioned to rezone 16.75 acres, located on State Road 836/White Oak Circle, in the Tunstall Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District (for placement of a second dwelling, asingle-wide mobile home, .for their daughter's residence). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioners' request. Mr. Chairman, Don and Kim Deboe were present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Barber closed the public hearing at 7:19pm. Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Davis, to approve rezoning R-11-014 from R-1 to A-1. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Snead's motion to rezone R-11-014 from R-1 to A-1 had been unanimously approved. Case 3: English Developers, Inc., & A. Douglas llaiton, Jr.-Banister District: R-11-015 A-1, Agricultural District to M-2. Industrinl District, Heavy Industry) Mr. Barber opened the public hearing at 7:20pm. Mr. Shelton explained that English Developers, Inc., and A. Douglas Dalton, Jr., had petitioned to rezone a portion of 49.3b acres (0.21$ acre, per plat), located on U.S. Highway 29 North, in the Banister Election District from A-l, Agricultural District to M-2, Industrial District, Heavy Industry (to be combined with GPIN # 217-85- 6421 that is zoned M-2). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioners' request. Kevin Owen was there to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Barber closed the public hearing at 7:21pm. Motion was made by Mr. Pritchett, seconded by Mr. [ngram, to approve rezoning R-11-015 from A-1 to M-2. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Pritchett-Yes; Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Snead's motion to rezone R-11-015 from A-1 to M-2 had been unanimously approved. Case 4: Jurgen Walter & Angela S. Walter- Dan River District: R-11-016 (R-1, Residential Suburban .Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District) Mr. Barber opened the public hearing at 7:21pm. Mr. Shelton explained that Jurgen and Angela Walter had petitioned to rezone 2.00 acres, located on State Road 719/Green Farm Road, in the Dan River Election District from R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District (to make the zoning consistent with the adjacent parcel of land zoned A-1). The Planning Commission, with opposition, recommended granting the petitioners' request. Jurgen and Angela Walter were there to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Barber closed the public hearing at 7:22pm. Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Davis, to approve rezoning R-11-016 from R-1 to A- 1. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Snead's motion to rezone R- 11-016 from R-1 to A-1 had been unanimously approved. Adjourned Meeting May 17, 2011 Case 5: Archer A. Hyler -Tunstall District: R-11-017 (R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to A-l, Agricultural District) Mr. Barber opened the public hearing at 7:23pm. Mr. Shelton explained that Archer Hyler had petitioned to rezone 5.92 acres, located on State Road 876/Mangrums Road, in the "Tunstall Election District from R-l, Residential Suburban Subdivision District to A-1, Agricultural District (for future subdivision of the property _for family members). 'The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended denying the petitioner's request. Mr. Hyler and his daughter were present to represent the petition. Mr. Joseph Shaffer who moved to the area three years ago, paying a premium price for his property, bought in that area because it was a restricted area and feels that rezoning R-1 1-017 would be spot zoning and devalue the surround properties. Mr. Barbara McCarty, Mr. Hyler's daughter, stated there were trailers already on the road and she wanted to put up a nice trailer for her grandson to live. No one else signed up to speak and after some discussion Mr. Hyler elected to withdraw his petition. Mr. Barber closed the hearing at 7:30pm. Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Snead, to accept Mr. Hyler's withdrawal of petition for Case R-11-017, without penalty. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett- Yes; Mr. Ingram-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Harville's motion was unanimously approved. Case 6: Withdrawn: R-11-018 Case 7: Nancy C. Motley, Life Tenant & Ann H. Doss, Kemainderman-Banister District: 12-11-019 (R-1, Residential Suburban Sttbdivisivn District to A-1, Agricultural District) Mr. Barber opened the public hearing at 7:31pm. Mr. Shelton explained that Nancy Motley and Ann Doss had petitioned to rezone the R-1, Residential Suburban Subdivision District portions of 46.11 acres, three parcels, to A-l, Agricultural District (to make the zoning consistent with the remaining 36.73 acres und,for future sale of portions of~the property to adjacent property owners). The R-1 parcels are a total of 9.38 acres, located on State Road 821/Cheyenne Lane, in the Banister and Callands-Gretna Election Districts. The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioners' request. Nancy Motley was present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Barber closed the hearing at 7:32pm. Motion was made by Mr. Pritchett, seconded by Mr. Ingram, to approve rezoning Case R-11-019 from R-1 to A-1. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Pritchett's motion to rezone R- l 1-019 from R-1 to A-1 had been unanimously approved. Case 8: James M. Whitt -Tunstall District - R-11-020 (M-2, Industrial District, ffea-y Industry to A-1, Agricultural District) Mr. Barber opened the public hearing at 7:33pm. Mr. Shelton explained that James Whitt had petitioned to rezone 1.04 acres, located on State Road 856/Cobbs Knob Road, in the Tunstall Election District from M-2, Industrial District, Heavy Industry to A-1, Agricultural District (for placement of a single-wide mobile home for his personal residence). The Planning Commission, with no opposition, recommended granting the petitioner's request. James Whitt was present to represent the petition. No one signed up to speak and Mr. Barber closed the hearing at 7:34pm. Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Ecker, to approve rezoning Case R-11-020 from M-2 to A-1. The following Roll Call Vote was recorded: Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville- Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Ilarville's motion to rezone R-11-020 from M-2 to A-1 had been unanimously approved. This concluded the Public I-Tearing Rezoning Cases. Adjourned Meeting May 17, 2011 Public Hearings Proposed Redistricting Plan entitled "Plan B" with required amendments to Chapter 8 of the Pittsylvania County Code describing Election Districts, Precincts, and Polling Place. Chairman Tim Barber opened the public hearing at 7:40pm. Mr. Sleeper gave a brief summary on the Redistricting Committee holding several meetings to develop Plan B, which has been properly advertised for public hearing. Once approved, the redistricting plan becomes Chapter 8 of the Pittsylvania County Code which describes election districts, precincts and polling places. Within this public hearing on the redistricting plan are also three (3) proposals for polling place changes: (1) moving the Riceville Precinct from the 640 Rescue Squad Building to the Riceville-Java Fire Department; (2) moving the East Gretna Precinct from the Gretna Elementary School to the Gretna Fire Department; and (3) moving the Mt. Hermon Precinct from the Woodsmen of the World Building to the Mt. Hermon Courtyard. T'he following citizens made comments concerning the cited proposals: Chairman of the Redistricting Committee, Mr. Robert Gilbert, withdrew from making comment. Mr. James Adams, of the Tunstall Electoral District, commended the Redistricting Committee on their job and he was willing to concur with the committee. However, based on the information he had, he questioned how sincere the Board of Supervisors were in contacting the Attorney General for an opinion concerning the Census inclusion of the prison population (that cannot vote) at the Green Rock facility. Furthermore, Mr. Adams stated he felt the minority vote was highly diluted. The Tunstall Electoral District was at one time 35% minority and has dropped. Other districts should also have a higher minority voting population than they do and the Board of Supervisors should be more concerned about this drop. Mr. Adams concluded that the Board of Supervisors should also consider staggered office terms. Ms. Jennylee Sanders, Registrar for Pittsylvania County, passed for comment at this time. Mr. Bobby Walker, of the Banister Electoral District and member of the 640 Rescue Squad, passed for comment at this time. Mr. George Stanhope, of the Callands-Gretna Electoral District, passed for comment at this time. Ms. Deborah Lovelace, of the Callands-Gretna Electoral District, thanked the Redistricting Committee for their hard work and efforts they put into developing Plan B and she offered her support of Plan B. She understood the expense involved in redistricting and encouraged the Board of Supervisors to support and vote to approve Plan B. Mr. Phillip Lovelace, of the Callands-Gretna Electoral District, agreed with Ms. Lovelace's comments. Ms. Eloise Nenon, of the Chatham-Blairs Electoral District, passed for commenting at this time. Mr. Jerry Hagerman, of the Callands-Gretna Electoral District, passed for commenting. Mr. Willie Fitzgerald, President of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and At-Large member of the Redistricting Committee, thanked his fellow committee members for all of their hard work in reaching the development of Plan B, and gave special thanks to Mr. Terry Whitt, GIS Coordinator for Pittsylvania County for his work and expertise in helping develop Plan B, a plan that Mr. Fitzgerald supported. Ms. Karen Maute, of the Westover Electoral District, passed for comment, as did Ms. Deborah Dix, of the Chatham-Blairs Electoral District. Mr. Bobby Walker, of the Banister Electoral District and member of the 640 Rescue Squad, made comments opposing the move of the Riceville Precinct from the 640 Rescue Squad to the Riceville-Java Fire Department. Mr. Walker stated the Riceville-Java Fire Department Facility offered no more parking and no more space than was provided by the 640 Rescue Squad and that the citizens of the area he had talked to also were in opposition of the move. Mr. Willie Fitzgerald also made objections to moving the Riceville Precinct from the 640 Rescue Squad to the Riceville-Java Fire Department. Adjourned Meeting May l7, 20l I Ms. Jennylee Sanders, Registrar for Pittsylvania County, stated she had no objections in the Riceville Precinct remaining at the 640 Rescue Squad. Chairman Barber then closed the public hearing at 8:01 pm. Mr. Ingram stated he was opposed to moving the East Gretna Precinct from the Gretna Elementary School to the Gretna Fire Department, commenting that the people in the area stated they did not wish it to be moved. Ms. Sanders made no comments opposing the East Gretna Precinct remaining at the Gretna Elementary School. Motion was then made by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Snead, to approve Plan B for the 2011 Redistricting Plan for Pittsylvania County with the required amendments to Chapter 8 of the Pittsylvania County Code which would include the moving of the Mt. Hermon Precinct from the Woodsmen of the World Building to the Mt. Hermon Courtyard facility but that the East Gretna Precinct would remain at the Gretna Elementary School as well as the Riceville Precinct remaining at the 640 Rescue Squad, and to authorize the County Administrator to submit the approved plan to the Justice Department for preclearance. The following roll call vote was recorded: Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Davis's motion was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors. Proposed amendment to the Pittsylvania County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 35-Zoning, SEC.35- 40, PRINCIPAL DEFINITIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Accessory Building - to delete the following: An accessory building shall not dominate a principal building in area, extent or purpose. Mr. Barber opened the public hearing at 8:16pm. Mr. Shelton explained the Planning Commission proposal recommended, after holding a public hearing, that the Board of Supervisors change the current definition in Chapter 35, Section 35-40 to delete "An accessory building shall not dominate a principal building in area, extent or purpose ". Ms. Barbara Hudson stated that at the March public hearing held by the Board, no citizen that showed up agreed with the proposed change and opposed amending the ordinance. Mr. Karen Maute stated that she agreed with Ms. Hudson's comments and thought that the purpose of a Special Use Permit was to deal with cases in which an applicant might need an accessory building that would dominant the principal building in area, extent or purpose and proposed the ordinance change as presented. Mr. Barber closed the public hearing at 8:26pm. After discussion, Mr. Harville made a motion to approve the ordinance change as advertised, seconded by Mr. Ingram. A substitute motion as made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Davis, to refer it back to the Planning Commission, recommending the Planning Commission consider in changing the definition to eliminate "An accessory building shall not dominate a principal building in area, extent or purpose " to incorporate a change under §35-74(2) that should be changed to read "The location of accessory buildings and uses in residential districts and agricultural zoned pr•c~perdy in residential use under five (5) ucres in size, must meet the,following restrictions ". The following vote was recorded on the substitute motion: Mr. Ecker- Yes, Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; Mr. Ingram-No; Mr. Harville-No; and Mr. Barber-No. Mr. Snead's motion was approved by a majority 4-3 vote of the Board. Proposed addition to the Pittsylvania County Code, Chapter 1, under Intergovernmental Agreements to add a Memorandum of Understanding as an intergovernmental agreement on the Southern Virginia Regional Alliance. Mr. Barber opened the public hearing at 8:33pm. Mr. Sleeper explained this was a proposed addition to the Pittsylvania County Code, Chapter 1, under Intergovernmental Agreements to add a Memorandum of Understanding as an intergovernmental agreement on the Southern Virginia Regional Alliance. The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, in cooperation with surrounding counties and cities, developed the Southern Virginia Regional Alliance as an avenue for economic development and marketing of our entire region. In doing so, an intergovernmental agreement was drafted entitled "Memorandum of Understanding for the Southern Virginia Regional Alliance". Ms. Barbara Hudson asked how could the Board work with surrounding counties when they themselves wouldn't even adopt Adjourned Meeting May 17, 201 1 a resolution against mining uranium and every county around Pittsylvania County has, and if mining occurred, there would be no economic development. No one else signed up to speak and Mr. Barber closed the hearing at 8:34pm. Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Ingram, to approve the proposed amendment to Chapter 1, under Intergovernmental Agreements to add a Memorandum of Understanding as an intergovernmental agreement on the Southern Virginia Regional Alliance. The following Roll Call vote was recorded: Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis- No; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Ilarville's motion was approved by a majority 6-1 vote of the Board of Supervisors. Unfinished Business At the May 2, 2011 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, a motion was made by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Pritchett, to approve an appropriation of $5,833.33 for payment to Regional One for June 241 1, which required a 10-day layover that now had been met. The following Roll Call vote was recorded: Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Davis's motion was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors. At the April 19, 2011 meeting, motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Ecker, to approve $35,000 from unappropriated surplus to the legal service line to pay for legal counsels outside of the normal legal department activities in Pittsylvania County which required a 10-day layover that has now been met. The following Roll Call vote was recorded: Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Harville's motion was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors. At the May 2, 2011 meeting, motion was made by Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. Pritchett, to reappropriation of funds as follows: $15.77 to Board of Supervisors-Travel (100-4-011010-5500), $35.00 to Sheriff=National Night Out (100-4-031200-5880), $60.00 to Sheriff-Parts (1 00-4-03 1 200- 6030), $250.00 to Sherift=Labor (1 00-4-03 1 200-603 1), $124.24 to Extradition (100-4-033100-5550), $1,482.00 to B&G-Service Contracts-Equipment (100-4-043100-3320), $21.90 to Library-Telephone (100-4-073 l 00-5230), $260.00 to Library-Postage (100-4-073100-5210), $66.33 to Economic Development-Office Supplies (100-4-082510-6001), $9,745.03 to WIA-Rent (251-4-353160-5420), $7,386.50 to Berry Hill-Engineering (325-4-815526-3163). This motion required a 10-day layover which had been met. The following Roll Call vote was recorded: Mr. Ingram-Yes; Mr. Harville-Yes; Mr. Ecker-Yes; Mr. Davis-Yes; Mr. Snead-Yes; Mr. Pritchett-Yes; and Mr. Barber-Yes. Mr. Davis's motion was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors. Adjourned Meeting May 17, 201 I SOUTHERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL ALLIANCE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This ME NDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (the "MOU") made and entered into this ~ day of ~~201 I, by and among the VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP AUTHORITY ("VEDP"),apolitical subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Commonwealth"), the FUTURE OF THE PIEDMONT FOUNDATION, a Virginia nonstock corporation (the "Foundation"}, the CITY OF DANVILLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth ("Danville"), the COUNTY OF HALIFAX, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth ("Halifax"), the COUNTY OF HENRY, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth ("Henry"), the CITY OF MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth ("Martinsville"), the COUNTY OF PATRICK, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth ("Patrick"), and the COUNTY OF PITTSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth ("Pittsylvania" and, together with Danville, Halifax, Henry, Martinsville and Patrick, the "Localities"). WITNESSETH: VEDP wishes to work with the Localities on identifying targeted industry sectors for economic development within the area served by the Localities (the "Region") and designing and implementing a program to market the Region to those targeted industry sectors. The body of work to be performed under this MOU is referred to in this MOU as the "Program." Together with the Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission ("TICRC'~, VEDP and the Localities have agreed to provide moneys to fund the Program (the "Program Funds'. VEDP and the Localities have asked the Foundation to collect and administer the Program Funds, and the Foundation has agreed to do so. The following Program Funds have been promised to fund the Program through June 30, 2012: [OFF BY SS?] Enti FY2011 Contribution FY2012 Contribution VEDP $100,000 $100,000 TICRC 100,000 100,000 Danville 19,784 19,784 Halifax 15,302 15,302 He 23,821 23,821 Martinsville 6,356 6,356 Patrick 8,088 8,088 Pittsylvania ___ ___ _ .:6,654_ _ __ __ ?6,654 The animating purpose for providing the Program Funds is to stimulate the tax base and the employment base in the Region by coalescing the marketing efforts of VEDP and the Localities around a common strategy targeting specific industry sectors. This growth in the lax Southern Virginia Regional Alliance MOU D22S11 Adjourned Meeting May 17, 201 t base and the employment base is critical to the future economic well-being of the Region and the Commonwealth. This animating purpose constitutes a valid public purpose for the expenditure of public funds. VEDP, the Foundation and the Localities desire to set forth their understanding and agreement as to the deposit of the Program Funds with the Foundation, the use of the Program Funds, the obligations of VEDP, the Foundation and the Localities, and the repayment by the Localities of all or part of the Program Funds under certain circumstances. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the mutual benefits, promises and undertakings of the parties to this MOU, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties covenant and agree as follows. Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this MOU, the following terms shall have the following definitions: "Budget" means the listing of the expected categories of Expenses and the expected timeline for the disbursement of the Expenses, as it may be amended. The initial Budget is attached to the MOU as Exhibit A. "End Date" means June 30, 2012. The parties may agree to extend the End Date to no later than June 30, 2013. If the End Date is extended, the parties will acknowledgement that extension in writing and the date to which the End Date has been extended shall be the "End Date" for the purposes of this MOU. "Expenditure Report" means a written detailed report from the Foundation to VEDP and each of the Localities listing the Program Funds received, the Program Funds disbursed by the Foundation for Expenses, the interest, dividends or other investment earnings earned from the Program Funds, the interest, dividends or other investment earnings withdrawn by the Foundation for its own account, and the remaining balance of Program Funds. "Expense" means a cost or expense of designing or implementing the Program. Expenses do not include the payment or reimbursement to the Localities for their staff time spent on designing or implementing the Program, although Expenses may include the salary and related expenses of a coordinator hired at the behest of the Working Group. "Representative" means the person or persons designated in writing from the Working Group to the Foundation as being authorized to request disbursements from the Program Funds to pay Expenses. "Working Group" means the group consisting of one designated person from each of the Localities and from VEDP. The Working Group will design and implement the Program and develop and amend, if need be, the Budget. The Working Group shall designate the Representative and notify the Foundation in writing of the identity of the Representative. Southern VirQinie RegiaW Alli~na MOU 022611 Adjourned Meeting May 17, 2011 Section 2. Deaosit and Investment of Program Funds; Expenditure Report On or before April 1, 2011 and August 31, 2011, VEDP and each of the Localities agrees to deposit with the Foundation its contribution to the Program Funds for Fiscal Years 2011 and 2012, respectively. TICRC will create a separate funding mechanism between itself and the Foundation. The deposits due in Fiscal Year 2012 are subject to appropriation by the governing body of VEDP, and each Locality. The Foundation may deposit the Program Funds into anon-interest bearing account, an interest bearing account, os both. The interest bearing account may be a savings account or interest-bearing checking account with the Foundation's banking institution or may be a money market fund that invests all or substantially all of its funds in U.S. Treasury securities. The Foundation may withdraw on a monthly basis for its own account and retain any interest, dividends or other investment earnings on the investment of the Program Funds. The Foundation will not be entitled to any other compensation for performing its duties under this MOU. [WE ARE INTERESTED IN HEARING THE FOUNDATION'S IDEAS FOR OTHER SAFE INVESTMENTS]. While it is expected that the Foundation will account separately for the Program Funds, it is not necessary that the Foundation segregate the moneys of the Frogram Funds. It is necessary that the Foundation maintain adequate records that will allow it to prepare Expenditure Reports. By the 15`" day of each month, commencing May 15, 2011, the Foundation shall forward to VEDP and to each Locality an Expenditure Report covering the prior calcndar month. Any Program Funds remaining unspent as of the End Date shall be returned to VEDP, and the Localities in the same proportion in which each entity contributed Program Funds. Any other residual assets, such as office equipment and supplies, remaining as of the End Date may be sold for fair market value, with the proceeds being delivered to VEDP and the Localities in tbe same proportion in which each entity contributed Program Funds, or may be distributed at no cost to the Foundation, as authorized by the Working Group. Section 3. Working Groua. VEDP and each Locality shall designate a person to serve on the Working Group. The initial member of the Working Group from VEDP and each Locality is noted on the signature page to this MOU. By giving written notice to each of the other parties, VEDP or any Locality may change the identity of its member of the Working Group. Working Group will convene in person or electronically as needed to design and implement the Program. Four members of the Working Group shall constitute a quorum. Decisions shall be made by a majority of a quorum of the Working Group. The Working Group will have responsibility for designing and implementing the Program and setting the Budget. Soulhan Virginia Regimd /Uli~nu MOU 02211 I J Adjourned Meeting May 17, 201 i The initial Budget is attached to this MOU as Exhibit A. As the Working Group designs and implements the Program, it may become desirable to allocate the Program Funds in the Budget in a manner different or on a timeline different from that provided in the then-applicable Budget, including, if need be, an extension of the End Date. Adjustments to the Budget, including an extension of the End Date, will require the prior approval of the Working Group and VEDP. Any approved amendments to the Budget will be shared with the Foundation and VEDP. The Working Group will cause the expenditwe of the Program Funds only on Expenses approved in the Budget. The Working Group will direct the Representative to seek the payment from the Foundation of Expenses from the Program Funds. Section 4. Representative. The Working Group shall designate one or more people as Representatives. The Representatives need not be members of the Working Group. The Working Group shall provide written notice to the Foundation of the identity of the Representatives. By giving written notice to the Foundation, the Working Group may change the identity of one or all of the Representatives. Until such written notice is received, the Foundation is entitled to assume that the persons previously identified to it as Representatives continue to be authorized to act. A Representative may submit a request to the Foundation for the expenditure of Program Funds. The Foundation shall have no obligation to verify that the requested expenditure is proper or is in accordance with the Budget. Nevertheless, if the Foundation has a question about the propriety of a requested disbursement, it may direct that question to any or all of the parties and to fully rely on the answer received. The Foundation will make the disbursements requested by a Representative within !0 business days of the receipt of the request for the disbursement. By the 15's day of each month, commencing May 15, 2011, each Representative shall report to the Working Group the disbursements requested by the Representative during the prior calendar month. Section 5. Reustvment OblsQatioa. (a) IJProgram Funds are Misspent: If VEDP or any Locality shall determine that Program Funds have been expended on costs other than Program Expenses, such party shall notify the others. Expenditures of Program Funds shall cease until all parties agree that the matter has been satisfactorily resolved. (b) IJ Poyraent of Fxperues is Delayed: The Working Group shall cause the expenditure of the Program Funds by the End Date. To the extent that the Program Funds are not so spent, the unspent Program Funds as of the End Date shall be repaid to VEDP, the TICRC and the Localities in the same proportion in which they contributed Program Funds. Southern Virginia Regional Alliance MOU 02261 I Adjourned Meeting May 17, 2011 (c) Repayments Subject to Appropriation: Any repayments due from any party, except the Foundation, are subject to appropriation by the party's governing body. (d) Repayment Date; Cure Period: Any repayments due from any party shall be due within 90 days of the date that the need for such repayment has been determined. (e) Withdrawal by a Party: On any 30 day's prior written notice to all of the other parties, any party to this MOU may withdraw from the Working Group and cease its work on the Program. In such event, the Working Group shall revise the Budget and return to the withdrawing party its proportionate share of the remaining Program Funds, net of a reserve to pay Expenses incurred but not yet disbursed. Section 7. Notices. Any notices required or permitted under this MOU shall be given in writing, and shall be deemed to be received upon receipt or refusal after mailing of the same in the United States Mail by certified mail, postage fully pre-paid or by overnight courier (refusal shall mean return of certified mail or overnight courier package not accepted by the addressee): if to the Foundation, to: with a copy to: Future of the Piedmont Foundation Attention: if to VEDP, to: Virginia Economic Development Partnership 901 East Byrd Street, 19`~ Floor Post Office Box 798 (zip: 23218-0798) Richmond, Virginia 23219 Attention: President and CEO Attention: with a copy to: Virginia Economic Development Partnership 901 East Byrd Street, l9`" Floor Post Office Box 798 (zip: 23218-0798) Richmond, Virginia 23219 Attention: General Counsel [f to Danville, to: City of Danville P.O. Box 3300 427 Patton St. Danville, Virginia 24543 Attention: City Manager If to Halifax, to: County of Halifax with a copy to: Attention: with a copy to: Somlaxnn Virginia Rcgianal Alliance MOU 02281 I Adjourned Meeting May 17, 201 I 134 South Main Street P. 0. Box 699 Halifax, Virginia 24558 Attention: County Administrator Attention: If to Henry, to: with a copy to County of Henry 3300 Kings Mountain Road P.O. Box 7 Collinsville, Virginia 24078 Attention: County Administrator Attention: If to Martinsville, to: with a copy to City of Martinsville 55 West Church St. P.O. Box I 1 12 Martinsville, Virginia 24112 Attention: City Manager Attention: If to Patrick, to: with a copy to: County of Patrick 106 Rucker Street P.O. Box 466 Stuart, Virginia 24171 Attention: County Administrator Attention: If to Pittsylvania, to: with a copy to: County of Pittsylvania Y~ ~-6vti'r ~I 21 North Main Street ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~1v~/y1~~~7~ P.O. Box 426 ~C Z Chatham, Virginia 24531 "3/ Attention: County Administrator Attention: ~ M ~,wm A,U Section 8. Miscellaneous. (a) Entire Agreement; Amendrrlenls: This MOU constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto as to the expenditure of Program Funds and may not be amended or modified, except in writing, signed by each of the parties hereto. This MOU shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. No party may assign its rights and obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of all of the other parties. Saw)rm Virginia Regional Alliance MOU 02281 I Adjourned Meeting May 17, 201 (b) Governing Law; Yenue: This MOU is made, and is intended to be performed, in the Commonwealth and shall be construed and enforced by the laws of the Commonwealth. Jurisdiction and venue for any litigation arising out of or involving this MOU shall lie in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, and such litigation shall be brought only in such court. (c) Counterparts: This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which together shall be one and the same instrument. (d) Severability: If any provision of this MOU is determined to be unenforceable, invalid or illegal, then the enforceability, validity and legality of the remaining provisions will not in any way be affected or impaired, and such provision will be deemed to be restated to reflect the original intentions of the parties as neazly as possible in accordance with applicable law. (e) Dispute Resolution: In the event of any dispute, controversy or claim of any kind or nature arising under or in connection with this MOU (including disputes as to the creation, validity, or interpretation of this MOU) (a "Dispute"), then upon the written request of any party, each of the parties will appoint a designated senior official whose task it will be to mcet for the purpose of endeavoring to resolve the Dispute. Such officials will discuss the Dispute and will negotiate in good faith in an effort to resolve the Dispute without the necessity of any formal proceeding relating thereto. The specific format for such discussions will be left to the discretion of the officials. No forma! proceedings for the resolution of the Dispute may be commenced until the earlier to occur of (a) a good faith mutual conclusion by the officials that amicable resolution through continued negotiation of the matter in issue does not appeaz likely or (b) the 60th day after the initial request to negotiate the Dispute. If the resolution of the Dispute requires any party to take, to cause to be taken or to cease taking, some action, such party shall be provided a reasonable period of time, not to exceed sixty (60) days, to take, to cause, or to cease taking, such action. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Saudiem Virginia Rcgional Alliu~ce MOU 022811 Adjourned Meeting May 17, 2011 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Performance Agreement as of the date first written above. VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP AUTHORITY By Name: Jeffrey M. Anderson Title: President and CEO Date: Mazch _, 2011 Initial Member: CITY OF DANVILLE By Name: Title: Date: March _, 2011 Initial Member: COUNTY OF HENRY By Name: Title: Date: March _, 2011 Initial Member: COUNTY OF PATRICK By Name: Title: Date: March _, 2011 Initial Member: Exhibit A: Budget FUTURE OF THE PIEDMONT By Name: Title: Date: March _, 2011 COUNTY OF HALIFAX By Name: Title: Date: March _, 2011 Initial Member: CITY OF MARTINSVILLE By Name: Title: Date: March _, 201 I Initial Member: COUNTY ay Date: A~fr Initial Member: Southern Vv6inia RegiortN Allima MOU 02281 I Ad~oumed Meeting May l7, 2011 EXHIBIT A Regional Marketing Budget Proposal Branding Logo Tag Line 15,000 Website 530,000 3 Designs Content Content Management Site Optimization Hosting 4 Full-Page Ad Campaign :10,000 Development of Ads S Dlract Mall Campaign 512,000 Desgn Postage Printing Brochuro Design Printing 510,000 Ad Placements (Print and OnNne) 1150,000 General Site Selection Pubs (examples below} Area Development Business Facilities Forbes CNBC or Target Publications within our Target Sectors (examples below) Aviation Week Aerospace Manufacturing Washington Technology Marketing Trips (8) 140,000 Atlanta Dallas Chicago New York Charlotte Trade Shows inGudas Aghts, meals, entertainirp of consuMents, clients, etc.ror 2 psopb tfOm the fsyion - If1e bbrr psnon snd One othef feOlOnel rep 310 Lead Generation Contract 120,000 Southern Virginia Reyonal Alliance MOU 022611 Adjourned Meeting May 17, 2011 New Business Motion came from the Properties and Buildings Committee to do aPre-titling Survey and a Phase I Environmental on the old Chatham Elementary School which was unanimously approved by the Board. Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Snead to hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to Chapter 21-Water & Sewer, of the Pittsylvania County Code, which was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors. Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Esker, to approve a lease agreement with the Mt. Hermon Courtyard and to authorize the County Administrator and County Attorney to draft a lease agreement with Mr. Hermon Courtyard for the use of that facility as a polling place in the Westover Election District, for an amount of $150.00 per day each year as use for a polling place, and that the County pay $100.00 per day if second election is necessary within the same year for special elections or primaries. Mr. Harville's motion was unanimously approved by the Board. Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Harville, to approve an appropriation of $8,000 to Central Accounting to insure a positive year-end balance. This motion requires a 10-day layover. Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Snead, to approve Change Order #5 and #6 to Steve Martin Trenching, Inc. for the new booster station within the Town of Chatham. This total amended this contract by $84,989.98 for Change Order #5 and reduced the total by $67,317.32 in Change Order #6. The new construction totaled $933,327.16. Mr. Harville's motion was unanimously approved by the Board. Motion was made by Mr. Snead, seconded by Mr. Ingram appropriate $94,000.00 from unappropriated surplus to the Olde Dominion Agricultural Complex Water & Sanitary Sewer Project. This motion required a 10-day layover. Motion was made by Mr. Esker, seconded by Mr. Ingram, to award of contract to LE&D Professionals, PC for the engineering services for water and sewer and industrial access road surveying at the former Klopman Mills textile facility site in Hurt, Virginia, and authorize the County Administrator to sign all necessary documentation. Mr. Esker's motion was unanimously approved by the Board. Added Items Mr. Harville stated that he had been getting phone calls from citizens complaining about the conditions at the compactor sites in his district; his viewing of a dilapidated structure near the compactor site at Callahan's Hill that needed to be removed along with the adding of an opened box container there and asked that a Solid Waste Committee meeting be set to address these issues. Mr. Davis asked if the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) had made proposals on what their intents were for the area of State Routes 726 and 729, and if none were known of, to please ask VDOT about this. Motion was made by Mr. Ingram, seconded by Mr. Harville, to set a public hearing to amend §6- 6.3 of the Pittsylvania County Code exempting by classification or designation the properties of the Adjourned Meeting May 17, 201 1 Gretna Little Theatre at 101 North Main Street, Gretna, Virginia with a total of tax exemption annually of $133.00. Mr. Ingram's motion was unanimously approved by the Board. Closed Session Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Snead, to enter to Closed Session for discussion with legal counsel hired by the Board of Supervisors concerning litigation of the Pittsylvania County Jail: Authority: §2.2-3711(A)(7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended Subject Matter: Civil Rights Act, 42 USC, 1983, County Jail Purpose: Briefing on Board of Supervisors facts and status The Board unanimously approved Mr. Harville's motion and entered into Closed Session at 9:11 pm. Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Davis, to return to Open Meeting Session and called for the Certification of Closed Meeting, which was unanimously approved by the Board. The following certification resolution was read and approved by the following roll call vote: PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CERTIFY CLOSF,D MEF,TING BE IT RESOLVED that at the Adjourned Meeting of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors on May 17, 2011, the board hereby certifies by a recorded vote that to the best of each board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered in the closed meeting. If any member believes that there was a departure from the requirements of the Code, he shall so state prior to the vote indicating the substance of the departure. The statement shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board. Vote Coy E. Harville Yes Marshall A. Ecker Yes Tim R. Barber Yes .lames H. Snead Yes Williams H. Pritchett Yes Fred M. Ingram Yes Henry A. Davis, Jr. Yes Certification was unanimous and Open Session reconvened at 9:18prn. No action was taken trom Closed Session Adjournment Motion was made by Mr. Harville, seconded by Mr. Ecker to adjourn, which the Board unanimously approved. The meeting ended at 9:20pm.