[0:00] pertains to our first public hearing on
ordinance 2026-03.
[0:11] Current and proposed building permit fee
rates and proposed additional flat fee
[0:15] are described
um as follows. Our current rate is $5
[0:20] per thousand, a project value with a
minimum fee of $25.
[0:24] The proposed rate is $6 per thousand or
a fraction thereof of project value with
[0:29] a minimum fee of $75. This is a rate
increase of 20%.
[0:35] The proposed additional flat fee of $75
or the proposed additional flat fee is
[0:41] $75 with no minimum. This is an increase
of 100% from um $0 previously.
[0:53] For example, for a project with a
proposed value of 400,000,
[0:58] the permanent fees are calculated um as
follows. The current fee structure um
[1:04] with the value based fee of $5 per 400
um would be $5 for each,000 and fraction
[1:10] thereof of propo proposed value would be
$2,000.
[1:14] With the proposed fee structure, there
would be a flat fee of $75.
[1:18] Then the value based fee um would be $6
time 400
[1:24] um which is $6 for each thousand and a
fraction thereof of proposed value for a
[1:29] total of $2,400.
And so the total permit fee in the
[1:34] proposed structure would be $2,475.
[1:41] This is an increase of 20% in value
based fee and 24% in total permit fee.
[1:48] pull up now.
There we go. This these are the examples
[1:52] I just ran through here.
[1:57] Okay. Um for trade permits, demolition
permits, signs, and display structures,
[2:02] the original fee is a $25 minimum when
when there's a permit required or $5 per
[2:08] thousand of work beyond the minimum. The
proposed fee here would be $75 flat fee
[2:13] plus $6 per,000 of work.
For manufactured homes, the original fee
[2:21] is $150 per single wide and $175 per
double wide. Proposed fee would be $75
[2:28] flat fee and again $6 per thousand of
project value plus any applicable trade
[2:34] permits.
[2:39] We also have reinspection fees and
special use permits when required by
[2:42] local or state statutes. The original
fees for this is $25 per additional
[2:48] inspection and $25 for special use
permit. Proposed fees would go to $75
[2:54] per additional inspection and also $75
for a special use permit.
[2:59] There is also language added to define
being ready for an inspection,
[3:03] expectations of inspectors, and access
being provided to sites for inspections.
[3:12] We have some new proposed fees. Um, we
propose a fee for stop work order of
[3:18] $100 plus $50 per site visit. Work
without a permit would be $250.
[3:25] A temporary co is $150 plus $150 per
month. Um, a plan amendment would be $50
[3:32] minimum and a canceled permit a $75
minimum.
[3:38] » [snorts]
[3:41] » Some projected revenue impacts of the
fees proposed for the building permit
[3:45] fees are shown here. The additional $75
flat fee proposal. Um the potential
[3:53] revenue there would be $49,125.
This is taking the $75 flat fee and
[4:00] multiplying it by the $655
annual average annual permits.
[4:06] The value base fee increase from $5 per
thousand to $6 per thousand would
[4:11] generate a fee rate increase of $71,600.
[4:16] The projected average annual revenue is
$478,725
[4:23] and currently the FY27 operating budget
is $433,366.
[4:30] Um this is noted to be prior to
inclusion of the 3 and a half% salary
[4:35] increase and benefits transfer.
[4:39] This um equates to a revenue operating
budget recovery rate of 110%.
[4:46] And again that's prior to the salary
increase being transferred into that
[4:50] departmental budget.
So in conclusion, um there's an
[4:56] estimated minimal impact to consumers
with these fee increases. The proposed
[5:01] fee adjustments move the department to
estimated full operational st
[5:05] sustainability.
Virginia law requires these funds to
[5:09] support building department functions.
Additional revenue supports code
[5:13] enforcement, staff retention, facility
maintenance, and long-term operational
[5:17] stability.
[5:20] So, next step is to answer any questions
you might have. Um, then conduct the
[5:25] public hearing and consider adoption of
the ordinance.
[5:28] » This is public hearing.
[5:32] » Yes, just one.
>> Yes. Public hearing number one.
[5:38] » I've got comments, but public hear.
But no questions for her for
[5:44] clarification.
Okay. Anybody have questions for Candy?
[5:51] All right, hearing none. Um, we're going
to open the public hearing for O2026-03
[5:59] amendment to chapter 4 buildings article
2 building code.
[6:04] All right, we have no one sign up.
I have a feeling we have a taker.
[6:13] Please state your name and address. Uh,
and if you are representing yourself,
[6:17] you get three minutes.
>> Yeah, I'm just my name is Phil Pervis
[6:21] [clears throat] 509 made land uh
shipment, Virginia. Um, I just hadn't
[6:27] really had a lot of time to read up on
this, but it seems like 150% increase in
[6:32] some of these fees is a little
excessive. I mean, we're dealing with uh
[6:37] extremely [clears throat] high building
cost as it is. We're trying to get make
[6:41] uh homes affordable for young people and
every time we turn around we're adding
[6:47] you know we're this adds no value just
adds cost to the house. It makes it
[6:52] difficult for younger people to uh you
know to to buy or or even think about
[6:59] it. I mean it's almost out of u range
for most young people uh today as it is.
[7:05] But I I think we really ought to take a
hard look at I mean I know that things
[7:10] are going up. I mean, labor costs are
are higher for the uh building officials
[7:15] and everything, but 150% increase on
some of these things, I think, is really
[7:21] [clears throat] excessive and it's just
creative hardship for uh not only I
[7:26] mean, the builder has to add uh cost to
build which is passed right on to the um
[7:34] to the uh whoever's purchasing or
whoever they're building for. And I
[7:38] think if we're trying to want to try to
make housing more affordable affordable
[7:43] for people here in Nelson County. We
need to take a hard look at some of
[7:46] these things and see if we can't trim it
back a little bit. I know that like I
[7:50] said, everybody's cost is going up and I
know uh certainly the building
[7:55] inspections have uh have, you know, the
raises and and uh everything. But I
[8:03] think you get my drift here. It's just
that just seems a little excessive. Uh I
[8:08] think for one, you know, going in and
some of us from zero to over 100% is
[8:14] just uh really high, but I think I'm
opposed to that for what it's worth.
[8:19] Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[8:22] So, no one else has signed up.
Any other takers?
[8:28] We're going to co close public hearing.
[8:34] All right. Any discussion questions?
>> Um, Candy real quick. So, in
[8:42] conversations with those the building
community, we do understand and we are
[8:45] very much interested in the retention of
our employees. So, some changes within
[8:51] the change of fees and how we're
structuring it is reasonable. Um,
[8:57] especially the ones where, you know,
he's getting called out because there's
[9:00] no permit. You know, yes, there needs to
be a fee there. the standard 75 makes
[9:04] sense. Uh TCO's that's a very reasonable
expectation. Um,
[9:10] I think one that I would probably bode
well amongst the builder community and
[9:16] the consumer would be having the uh
having the um
[9:22] instead of doing a the flat fee, just do
the minimum as 75 $75 and then increase
[9:30] it from five to six and then we keep the
rest of the language as is if that makes
[9:37] sense. Um, I I just think it's a little
bit
[9:41] unnecessary to add in a flat random $75
fee because certainly you might perceive
[9:47] that as a uh a small number in the whole
story. But let's I I think it should be
[9:52] a $75 minimum that takes it up to I
think it's essentially $10,000 worth of
[9:57] work. I think that is kind of like that
arbit not arbitrary number but that
[10:00] number would fit in. And then the
mechanicals I think that's reasonable to
[10:05] be 75. All that makes sense. I just
think we should do the five to six and
[10:10] just do the min a minimum of $75.
That's my only take.
[10:23] » It's almost semantics. It's the same
thing.
[10:26] » I mean, it's going to be 75.
>> No, it's not 75 if up to $10,000. After
[10:31] that, it goes if it's above that, then
you get to the $6 per thousand, which
[10:36] would be more than
[10:44] Yeah. The original fee is 20 $25 minimum
and then the $5 per thousand.
[10:49] » Yeah.
>> So, you're proposing to do $75 minimum,
[10:53] » $6 per thousand,
>> correct?
[11:00] I mean, how many building permits fall
into the minimum? I mean,
[11:07] » percentage.
>> Quite a few.
[11:10] [clears throat]
>> Can you come forward?
[11:16] » Sorry, wrong microphone.
>> I don't I don't have the exact number,
[11:18] but I believe it would be it would be
roughly.
[11:22] » She wants microphone. Go
>> the mic.
[11:25] I don't have the exact number of the
permits that would be that would fall
[11:29] into the minimum range. Uh but it would
be somewhere if I had to guess it would
[11:33] be
professional guess but somewhere in the
[11:38] 20%
mark. Uh the the $75 flat fee
[11:45] uh versus a $75 minimum. And you know
this is just rough math. Um the the $6
[11:54] th000 versus the $5 on a thousand would
increase by and again Kent just went
[11:58] over this but and I'm going off of
memory of this a month ago. I haven't
[12:03] looked at it since but uh that would
increase uh potentially
[12:09] increase based on the last four years of
averages um by 20%. Right. and uh and
[12:16] then that would get us
just under
[12:21] the 20% would get us just under
operating budget cost. So if we did not
[12:27] do a flat fee um
and I can pull these numbers up, I can
[12:33] go grab my iPad and pull these numbers
up. uh then it would it would bring us
[12:38] right just under operating budget
>> currently
[12:41] » current operating budget uh with the 20%
increase and and and with the $75 flat
[12:47] fee and the other fees included
hypothetically
[12:52] it could bring us to operating costs
that may be slightly over slightly under
[12:56] on an average
>> currently
[12:59] » currently. Yeah. Right. Uh the $75 flat
fee uh was
[13:07] was an option for the board to consider
to take us beyond
[13:13] » operating budget. Uh so so I would not
say again right it would be the board's
[13:20] decision uh the building department
myself the building code official we
[13:24] will do and work with whatever it is
that we need to work with we'll figure
[13:29] it out um but
we're tasked with
[13:36] giving you viable options and those are
the viable options.
[13:41] » Remind me again the last time that we
updated these
[13:45] It's um it's different depending on
which which um code sections you look
[13:50] at. Um I don't have this one in front of
me. I think some of them were early
[13:54] 2000s, some
>> so easily 20 years,
[13:57] » I think. So yeah.
>> Yeah.
[13:59] » Yeah. And then some that we'll
[clears throat] see here in a minute
[14:03] with ENS andor
>> Yeah. I'm using devices that maybe
[14:09] like
>> and I think kind of in response to that
[14:14] also what has increased exponentially is
the cost of building structures. So a
[14:19] house 20 years ago $5. Correct? Yes. So
that makes sense. But those structures
[14:24] are now double if not triple what they
once were able to build back in 2002. So
[14:29] you're getting that you're still getting
a lot of that value just on the
[14:33] inflationary factor of construction.
Um, we see that a lot with how we treat
[14:39] the real estate tax rate as well. We
live off of the inflation of it.
[14:42] Normally, we don't increase it. Um,
generally speaking, I mean, building
[14:48] departments don't normally run a surplus
in fees to operate. And that I can
[14:53] probably speak for most neighbors of the
localities around us. They don't operate
[14:57] on a surplus. It's very I don't know any
that do. Maybe some of the big guys are.
[15:03] Oh,
>> I'm just going to say based on that
[15:05] math, it could be in an hour where
they're not operating in a surplus.
[15:09] » It could be what?
>> If we go back to the potential of
[15:13] running into a surplus,
>> yeah,
[15:17] » salaries are changing all the time.
>> Sure.
[15:20] » One could change today.
>> One could change and then immediately
[15:22] send Yeah, I see. I
>> So that is not an argument because it's
[15:26] not a long it's not a large number.
>> The difference
[15:29] » the difference
>> and that's just the operating budget.
[15:31] there are a lot more costs that go
>> like they need a new building
[15:35] » towards you know
>> it's falling into a creek.
[15:39] » So So yeah so like so like the building
right we we we may not necessarily be
[15:46] or have planned to build a a brand new
building. Uh but there are things that
[15:51] we're looking into currently. Uh I've
requested um a specific amount of money
[15:56] in the CIP, the capital improvement
project fund. Uh that was given to us
[16:01] $115,000 towards u you know having
someone come out and look at the
[16:06] building and do a structural assessment.
It is believed that our building um was
[16:10] built on back fill unbeknownst to
anyone. Correct. U there have been some
[16:16] erosion lately based on weather events
and things of that nature, some cracks
[16:20] in the building and um we should
probably have it looked at. So, you
[16:24] know, that money, not not to mention
just the regular cost, you know, the
[16:29] people come service our HBAC, Southern
Air, uh when the maintenance department
[16:34] comes over and works on things and or
fixes things, the light bills, the the
[16:39] the personal property tech, you know
what I'm saying? Like, and then
[16:44] replacement costs. You know, those
things aren't taken into the annual
[16:48] budget. We have three vehicles. We need
three vehicles. Um the Ford Explorer
[16:53] that I have is currently, you know, on
it on its very last leg. We're doing all
[16:57] we can, but even at a $20,000 per
vehicle, if we, you know, we're buying
[17:03] them as cheap as we can get them off of
four fleet with all the discounts, uh
[17:07] that's still a three vehicle replacement
every five years. So you know those are
[17:11] additional things on the budget that
aren't taken into consideration for that
[17:16] number
>> right and how we treat those things
[17:20] obviously there's motor pool we kind of
try to source that that's kind of a
[17:23] though I understand it is related to the
building department you know we look at
[17:27] the grants of all the departments and
how we so I madam chair I don't know
[17:32] what the best mechanism you would like
to kind of get to a conclusion on that
[17:36] I'm generally supportive of all the fees
that have been proposed with those
[17:40] increases
I only have uh objections to the minimum
[17:45] to flat. I if to make it simpler um we
should just see if we have a consensus
[17:51] on that. We don't have to do a vote but
just generally get an idea because if I
[17:55] don't if there's no consensus then
there's no sense in having
[17:59] » I would like to also add I don't mean to
interject or make this work and I and I
[18:03] can talk Mr. Perves later about this but
there is nothing in there that is higher
[18:08] than a 20%
increase or right
[18:11] » a or a new fee. So the things that are
you know 100% increase that is there was
[18:18] never a fee to you know there was no
stop order fee now there is one so
[18:24] that's a that's a 100% increase
everything else is
[18:28] » nothing higher than
>> none of the existing fees are increasing
[18:31] 150%
>> none of the existing fees they never
[18:33] existed
>> it's it's just increasing um
[18:36] » you know from $5 to to $6 there is one
that is the um uhh there is one that has
[18:43] changed significantly that is the
manufactured homes
[18:48] » that one could
>> and that yeah that one needs that's
[18:51] that's a good one to change
>> but uh but right and that was a general
[18:54] consensus among neighboring localities
and all of the builders etc and all of
[18:59] these things were looked into so um I
just don't want Mr.
[19:04] or anyone listening to this to think
that somehow in here we're price gouging
[19:10] or some kind of this is literally just
trying to break even and and
[19:15] » anyway
>> so for me I you know whether $75 is the
[19:20] number or not that's debatable but
there is a cost of having to pull up the
[19:29] the the application or pull out the
piece of paper and fill it in and
[19:33] process it. And that doesn't matter if
it's a $10,000 job or a $400,000 job,
[19:39] you know, the initial cost. So a flat
fee to me for each application I support
[19:44] because the the amount of work for staff
um and then um now whether 75 is the
[19:50] right number or not I don't know but I I
do um see similarities in my work
[19:56] environment and and there are certain
set expenses to do a transaction um no
[20:03] matter how big or small the transaction
is
[20:05] » and that's that's why there's a minimum
fee as well because if you're only
[20:09] doing10 $10,000 of work, which can be
HVAC system. It could be some mechanical
[20:14] changes within a house. Yeah, I agree
with you. That's where that 75. I'm just
[20:19] saying that when you start getting into
projects that are hitting that three,
[20:22] four, five, yes, I understand it's
minimal, but at the same time, showing
[20:26] some level of a, hey, you're going to be
doing another $100,000. Well, six times
[20:30] another hundred, you know, it's a lot
more money. It's a lot of money. I mean,
[20:34] these permits are not cheap these days,
as people in the audience have
[20:38] indicated, and you start doing two
300,000. Yeah, you're right. 75 bucks
[20:43] seems like nothing, but you compound
that with the 8,000 things through the
[20:46] course of a job site for a client and
then change. Yeah, it does start adding
[20:51] up. Um, and again, Madam Chair, you can
just get a consensus and then we can
[20:56] exit this conversation. So,
>> what's the expectation for tonight? Are
[21:00] we expect are we voting on these um
ordinances tonight or are we taking
[21:04] these into consideration? What are we
doing?
[21:07] » I I felt that it was prudent that the
building community have enough time to
[21:13] know where we stand so they have time to
prepare by January.
[21:18] » That was the general consensus at the
last.
[21:20] » So the answer is both to
>> I would love that.
[21:22] » Yeah. Okay. [laughter] I got it. Um,
and you know, I wouldn't be opposed to
[21:28] making the minimum
$100 and not having a flat fee.
[21:33] » I can do that.
>> You know, that's
[21:35] » um
>> 100 bucks.
[21:37] » Again, we have to understand that
there's a certain amount of work that
[21:40] that office has to do. No matter whether
the job is a $10,000 job or 100,000 or
[21:45] 500, there's some initial startup work
that has to be done. It it would be
[21:50] better to have the minimum at 100 to 150
bucks than to throw that flat rate
[21:55] because I think 20%.
>> How about we ease into 100 as a minimum
[22:00] and do away with flat
>> 25.
[22:01] » Yeah. Okay.
So 100 minimum.
[22:05] » All right. Anyone else? There's two
>> five of us at this thing. Anybody else
[22:09] at 100?
>> 100 minimum.
[22:10] » All right. Consensus at 100. Thoughts.
Ernie
[22:13] » going once. Going twice.
>> Um
[22:16] and that's basically two 10 grand. Yeah,
>> I I haven't done I haven't done the
[22:20] math, but it's going to alter those
numbers significantly. If you guys are
[22:23] thinking about, you know, things that
you'll be thinking about some other
[22:27] time.
>> If if you're thinking about changing
[22:29] what's on here, we should not take
action tonight until we have some
[22:33] numbers to compare. And I think that's
true.
[22:36] » Um um which is why which is why not
>> No. So, um, but you know, it's it it's
[22:45] one thing to focus on building costs and
contractors and such. It's another thing
[22:49] to focus on our department. And, um, and
I think that this does value to both of
[22:55] them. I mean, if it's been 20 years
since anything's increased, that's, you
[22:58] know, 1% a year over 20 years or less
than that, less than 1% a year. I mean,
[23:03] that's that's, you know, infantestimal
in my, you know, negligible, you know,
[23:07] as far as I'm concerned. But um but you
know being able to you know retain our
[23:13] staff and give them the support that
they need to do the job they have. Um
[23:17] you know I I kind of weigh in on that
side. I I would like to add that a that
[23:22] a significant amount of time and effort
was put into
[23:27] into this and I I do realize that you
know job costs are high and things of
[23:31] that nature but the the operating costs
and again if we're operate to break even
[23:39] this is this is where we are right like
if we don't want to do that that's fine
[23:44] but uh you know the $75 flat fee it was
taken into consideration okay How long
[23:49] does it take to process a permit? What
does it go through? How much paperwork's
[23:53] involved? How much involved? How much
personnel power is involved? And how
[23:57] many inspections on average per this?
Uh, you know, because if somebody says,
[24:02] "Okay, well, I mean, people come in all
the time and they say, "Oh, well, my
[24:06] project's only $3,000."
>> Okay, well,
[24:10] » that's a h 100 bucks.
>> Yeah. But if they come in and say it's,
[24:15] you know, $9,000 and then we've got to
go out there and do three inspections
[24:20] and process a permit, then someone has
to handle that permit processing for an
[24:26] hour and a half. And then we've got to
drive out there at an hourly rate of,
[24:30] you know, however long it takes one
person to go out there, three separate
[24:33] times.
>> Yeah.
[24:34] » I I'm just saying like those things were
taken into consideration before the flat
[24:38] fees and the 600 bel. And I I think and
I I completely understand whether
[24:43] whether it's the objective of this board
to have a surplus base building
[24:47] department or net neutral whatever it
may be. I don't know at this point I
[24:54] most people see the building department
in its in its you know uh not
[24:58] necessarily invention but really it was
to have a safe affordable mechanism for
[25:02] people to build structures and have safe
quality housing. Right? It's the same
[25:06] thing with the health department. We all
know the health department does not
[25:09] operate on a break even or a surplus
which both of those I guarantee you are
[25:14] you know of some level important of
equal importance.
[25:20] » Um you know I I really do think we would
be the minimum is a great number if
[25:24] we're doing 100 bucks is a minimum. I
think it's very reasonable. U most
[25:30] » Am I done talking?
>> Yes. [laughter]
[25:33] » Whatever the board decides Yeah.
>> We'll make work. And I I think we can
[25:37] also address the retention needs of this
building department as well as we do
[25:41] this.
>> Yeah. So, um if if you're going to be
[25:45] changing anything here, I'd just like to
see the numbers first.
[25:47] » Well, it How does everyone else feel
about that? That's one person's opinion.
[25:52] » I think so. We do know one solid number
and that's going from five to six, which
[25:56] is a $71,000 increase. So, that's I
don't know. These are
[26:03] » There you go. So going from five to six
creates another a new $71,000.
[26:09] Okay. Now that is is that including the
additional $75 flat fee number or is
[26:15] that just the five to six?
>> Just the five to6.
[26:18] » So just the five to six. Okay. And then
in addition to that flat fee is
[26:24] producing 49. Now, we're not taking that
$49,000
[26:29] and making it uh zero because as and I'm
not using the number that Mr. Mars has
[26:36] used. He said 20% of those permits are
hitting the minimum.
[26:39] » Right.
>> Right. So, out of that 655
[26:42] 100 times
20 time 6 is about 30. I mean, you know,
[26:47] you're still getting another five $6,000
right on top of that 71. So the so just
[26:53] interjecting
[clears throat] the current annual
[26:57] operating cost based on four years of
um four years of averages is $432,000.
[27:05] That's the annual operating cost. The
current average annual revenue based on
[27:11] those same four years is $358,000.
[27:15] If you bring in the permit fee of 61,000
just that it could potentially uh based
[27:24] on averages bring us up to 4296
>> which would still fall short from the
[27:31] 432.
>> That's not counting the minimum of 100
[27:35] though
>> and the three and a half. Well,
[27:39] » I mean I mean based on that we we
currently have a minimum of 25 up to
[27:46] 5,000. So if we did a minimum of 100 up
to a th00and, I couldn't do the math off
[27:52] the top of my head, but I mean I feel
like that would increase by another, you
[27:56] know, four or 5%, which is, you know,
maybe maybe four four or five% versus
[28:03] the
>> So about 16 more grand.
[28:06] » Yeah.
>> So that would put us in a surface at
[28:08] that point.
>> It would it would put us in a surplus.
[28:10] the the additional $75 fee would
fix.
[28:15] » Yeah, it would it would add an
additional
[28:21] » 716 which I think was about 14%.
Another 14%. Yeah. [snorts]
[28:29] » I have a question.
If we're thinking about going up from 75
[28:35] to 100, do we have to have another
public hearing?
[28:39] » Maybe.
[28:43] It could
>> because it's higher than what was
[28:46] posted.
>> That is correct.
[28:49] » Yeah.
>> I mean, it's correct that it's higher
[28:52] than it was posted. Um,
yeah, I would have to check to see on
[28:56] that because that does apply for taxes,
but I'm not sure it applies to fees.
[29:05] » That's a valid question. [snorts]
[29:11] All right. Well, based on not knowing
that, I guess we have to defer vote if
[29:16] the consensus is 100 flat fee.
>> No, it was a consensus of 100 minimum
[29:21] and no flat fee is was I was
[29:29] » thoughts. It's fine.
[29:35] » I'm just going to put it out there. I'm
disgruntled. We're not voting on this
[29:37] tonight. [clears throat]
>> Yes, you are. [laughter] But that being
[29:41] said, I don't think that we're up
against a hard enough deadline that
[29:46] voting in September is a problem.
>> We we have also announced to the home
[29:50] builders association that it is
underway. So, it's not [snorts] as if
[29:55] the homebuilders aren't expecting
something to happen.
[29:57] » All right, we're deferring vote. We'll
move on to ordinance 02026-04
[30:03] amendments chapter 6 licenses permits
business regulations article one in the
[30:07] general.
>> So just to be clear um in preparation
[30:11] for next month um you'd like to see some
numbers on what the $100 minimum
[30:17] » minimum yes
>> would generate.
[30:19] » Yeah.
>> And whether we need
[30:22] » another public hearing or not.
>> Okay. We will.
[30:34] All right. We'll move on to second
public hearing tonight on ordinance
[30:39] 2026-4.
[30:44] Okay. And this has to do with licenses,
permits, and business regulations um
[30:50] related to fees for inspection of
amusement devices and permits.
[30:57] Okay. So, for amusement device fees, um,
nonprofit organizations remain exempt
[31:03] from the fee schedule. So, the original
fees are shown on the left, proposed
[31:08] fees shown on the right. The kitty fee
would go from $15 to $55.
[31:15] A the major ride from $25 would um be
more broken out into a circular flat
[31:23] ride of less than 20 ft would be $75.
Spectacular ride would go from $45 to
[31:30] $100. Um there's a new zipline fee of
$150 each. A new coaster greater than 30
[31:38] ft of $200. a new coaster greater than
60 feet to $400.
[31:44] There would be an annual permit um fee
that would go from $25 per device. Um
[31:53] the annual permit would be $0. We would
remove that and then add a new
[31:58] reinspection fee of half the regular
inspection fee for each.
[32:05] And then we also added the state code
definition of a movement device.
[32:12] And those are pretty much all of those
changes. So happy to answer any
[32:16] questions before you conduct the public
hearing.
[32:19] » Are we expecting a roller coaster
anytime soon?
[32:22] » Massiey's million.
>> So that's my my seriously though my
[32:27] question is where do we see these fees
being implement? I mean, what's an
[32:32] example of where this might come into
play?
[32:34] » That I can't answer because the only one
I know of is the mass
[32:37] » and that's nonpro can answer that
question.
[32:44] » Did you go back to the
>> Yeah. So, so
[32:50] » yeah. So,
annual permit.
[32:58] I mean, I could see a zip line up the
winter green, you know, one them putting
[33:02] in a zip line or something like that,
maybe.
[33:04] » Yeah. Is that for your backyard, too,
though?
[33:06] » There's actually some new language about
that to where we're not going to be
[33:10] going to
um
[33:14] wintergreen for their snow tube and
things of that nature because they are
[33:18] um exempt from the amusement device
regulation. It's going to save our
[33:22] department quite a bit of liability and
time and personnel.
[33:27] etc. And they will be um through because
of you know through the Virginia music
[33:33] device regulations uh they will simply
just have their inspections done by
[33:38] their insurance company like every other
snowing device. That said, there are
[33:43] things up there such as the rock
climbing wall, um the Ninja Warrior
[33:48] course, and some other things uh that
fall into this. So, uh, really the new
[33:53] zip line, the new coaster, and the new
coaster, while they seem kind of comical
[33:57] right now while we're looking at them,
it really just kind of lines us up for
[34:01] anything that may happen in the future.
These are fees that are um kind of I
[34:06] mean, they are typical in these types of
fees. Uh, they fall
[34:14] this list falls directly from the uh
Virginia Ausement Device Regulation FE
[34:18] chart. Those numbers are the numbers
that can be charged uh from that chart.
[34:25] And really all I'm attempting to do is
update this section of our fee addendum
[34:32] to match current 2026 law so that in
2036 we will still not be behind the
[34:39] power curve 26 years 20 30 probably 30
some years like we are uh right now.
[34:46] There's even some language change in
here that had to be changed from the old
[34:51] regulations to the new regulations. Uh
but again, this is right in line with
[34:57] all of the other localities. I want to
make sure that like Candy said, the
[35:02] nonprofits will not be affected. Uh so
our annual um
[35:09] uh Routin Club and Rockfish Valley Fire
Department are both nonprofits. They're
[35:14] not going to be affected by this. Uh
this is more along the lines of if new
[35:19] people come in or some type of business
that we are unaware of. I mean, we are
[35:25] we are in some I don't say weird times,
but we're in some fast-paced growing
[35:30] people have the knowledge in their
pocket, the world's knowledge in their
[35:34] pocket, AI, they can I mean people are
coming up with all kinds of things and
[35:38] people have come into my office, Sony's
office, and even said, "Hey, I'm
[35:44] proposing I'm just thinking about an
amusement park. I'm thinking about this.
[35:47] I'm thinking about that." And you know
those kind of things to me go oh my gosh
[35:52] like we don't want to be behind the
power curve if somebody comes in here
[35:55] and actually does fill out an SVP or
something for fill in the blank. Right.
[36:00] The building department wants to be
prepared for those things.
[36:04] » Okay. Any other questions?
All right. We're going to open up a
[36:08] public hearing for ordinance 02026-04.
[36:15] We have no one signed up. Is there
anyone that just has a burning desire?
[36:21] All right. Hearing none, we're closing
public hearing for ordinance 0206-04.
[36:29] Any discussion?
>> That's good out. It's ramping you up.
[36:34] » I will entertain a motion.
>> Madam Chair, I move that we approve
[36:37] ordinance 02026-4
[36:42] as presented.
Second.
[36:45] » All right. I have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
[36:49] Candy, would you like to do a roll call
vote?
[36:51] » Yes. Mr. Bar?
>> Yes.
[36:53] » Mr. Reed?
>> Yes.
[36:54] » Mr. Rutherford?
>> Yes.
[36:55] » Mr. Lahan?
>> No.
[36:57] » Dr. Lincoln?
>> Yes.
[37:01] » You know, you joke about the coaster
thing, but didn't mass not a roller
[37:06] coaster, but one of those. It's almost
like you sit down on a thing and you're
[37:09] on a track. One of those type of
coasters.
[37:11] » A mountain coaster.
>> Yeah, a mountain coaster.
[37:13] » I'd ride that. I think I think they just
put open one more maybe.
[37:18] Anyway,
>> uh ordinance 2026-05
[37:21] amendments chapter 9 appendix A fees.
Okay,
[37:27] this ordinance is pertaining to a
version of sediment control and land
[37:31] disturbance.
Um the original fees um
[37:37] were based on complaints and special
site visits. Um well these these were
[37:42] not addressed. proposed fee would impose
a new $75 per substantiated complaint
[37:48] driven or unscheduled site visit that
resulted in necessary permitting. So
[37:53] that's a new fee.
[37:58] This chart is pertaining to land
disturbance inspection fees. The
[38:02] original fee um at the beginning and end
of project was $35.
[38:07] Proposed fee uh at the beginning and end
is $100.
[38:11] um inspections once every eight weeks
would be $100. Once every eight weeks um
[38:17] is proposed to go to $200. The once
every four weeks inspection would be is
[38:23] $225 and then it's proposed to go to
$325.
[38:28] There's no change to inspection fees for
once every two weeks at $450.
[38:36] And those are all the changes proposed
there.
[38:40] Happy to answer questions on these
before the public hearing.
[38:49] » Any questions?
>> All right. Um, you want to do that after
[38:53] the public hearing?
>> Okay. Thank you.
[38:58] » All right. We're going to open up the
public hearing for uh ordinance
[39:02] 02026-05.
[39:07] No one has signed up.
But Mr. Pervvis has something to say.
[39:15] » Just for the record, state your name and
address again. [snorts]
[39:18] » Pervis 509
shipment, Virginia. And I guess uh my
[39:26] what's spinning in my head here, you
know, I know that that we're we're
[39:29] raising uh fees and everything, but
we've got these guys employed. We're
[39:34] paying them a salary for whatever it is
for eight hours a day. And if they're if
[39:40] if that's part of their job and they're
going out and doing doing these
[39:44] inspections, if they're not doing these
inspections, they're they're sitting at
[39:48] the office. And I know we have expenses
in getting to and from a job. I
[39:53] understand that. But on all of not just
the the land disturbance but on the
[39:58] other permits that I commented on
before. Um you know there there is
[40:03] paperwork that has to be done but
they're they're they're in the you know
[40:07] they they're in the office for eight
hours a day and that's kind of their job
[40:12] is somebody has got to pull paperwork.
That is somebody's job. So my question
[40:18] is and I understand that there you know
here again you know salaries and and
[40:24] vehicles and all this other things but I
but at the same time you know we're
[40:30] paying each of these guys a salary for
for the work that they're doing and then
[40:35] we're charging that's already there and
then we want to add additional fees on
[40:41] top of of that to substantiate other
things. I that just doesn't quite sit
[40:48] real well with me. And I know, like I
said, I know that everybody has cost
[40:52] increase. I mean, if you're in any kind
of business, things go up. Gas is more
[40:57] expensive and everything, but when it
comes to pulling paperwork and, you
[41:02] know, doing fees, we've got we've got
some they've got somebody in there that
[41:06] that takes the permit fee and you fill
out the form, you hand it to them, and
[41:11] that's their job. So, I just wonder why
why do we need to increase the fees?
[41:18] Do y'all get my drift on what I'm
saying? On top of of I mean, we've
[41:23] already paying them a salary. They've
got to be doing they they've been
[41:26] operating under those guidelines for all
these years. And now we're just adding
[41:32] more and more uh fees, which here again
is is passed right on down the line. And
[41:40] it's uh you know it affects it affects
everything. Affects anybody that's in
[41:45] business as a builder. He's got to add
those fees into his cost of building
[41:50] which is transferred right to the buyer
which you know we want you know we're
[41:54] trying to the big push for affordable
housing. Well every time we raise a fee
[41:59] it makes it that much more unaffordable.
That's basically
[42:03] » Thank you.
[42:08] » Anyone else?
I'm going to close public hearing.
[42:16] Candy, remind me again what sort of
deficit we're in
[42:23] » with the building department.
[42:34] The FY27 operational budget is 433 366
>> and we brought in 300 something.
[42:41] » Current average annual revenue is 358.
[42:47] » We're almost there. Going to six and
then all these roller coasters.
[42:51] » Oh no, we didn't vote on that. We're
still at five.
[42:54] » We'll probably six.
[42:59] Yeah. The the other thing I'd like to
say about this is that there there was
[43:02] mention
at the earlier on in the earlier
[43:05] proposal to maybe you know do something
incremental and look at it again. Um I
[43:11] don't think that does a service to
anybody to have to come back when you
[43:17] know we know cost of living and and
inflation are going to happen. We know
[43:20] we need to be prepared for that. We
don't want to have to come back and try
[43:23] to make it up which is the position
we're in now. And um and you want the
[43:28] building community to know what to
expect. you know, you don't want to be,
[43:32] you know, sitting here again every, you
know, two, three years to to increase
[43:38] fees that, you know, on the one hand,
you know, they're significant. They
[43:44] aren't substantial. And, uh, you know,
the costs of,
[43:49] um, you know, of of keeping a quality
building department, having them be
[43:53] where they need to be when they need to
be there, and showing them the level of
[43:57] support that they certainly deserve. Um,
I'm certainly in favor of that. And the
[44:03] other thing is is that if we don't have
enough money to cover what happens in
[44:06] building inspections, where do we end
up?
[44:09] » We end up looking at the biggest, you
know, uh, expense that we have is the
[44:13] schools
>> and we end up, you know, doing what we
[44:17] can based on what we have proposed in
terms of taxes to be able to get the
[44:21] schools what they want. But if we don't
have a sustainable, you know, economic
[44:26] situation with our other departments,
then you're always looking at,
[44:32] you know, the schools looking like the
bad guy in terms of revenues when it's
[44:36] actually built into other places. Kind
of defers that.
[44:40] » All right.
Anybody have any comments on the land
[44:45] disturbance ordinance?
>> U Madam Chair?
[44:49] » Yes. Um I I have no protest with this
change in fees. Uh generally this is a
[44:54] good good change. Yeah 100 bucks it's
reasonable. Um you still have the uh I
[45:00] guess you have the agreements in lie of
ENS plans of course and this just allows
[45:04] for the typical inspections to be done.
I think this will probably and do we
[45:08] have a number of how much this will
increase because this should apply to at
[45:11] least 50% of our 655
permits.
[45:16] » Yes. So
>> that's that's a pretty big jump.
[45:20] » Yeah. So while while it does appear to
be while it does appear to be a
[45:25] significant increase, land service
permits only make up about
[45:29] I'd say 5% of our permits or less. And
uh so I mean we're and and they fall
[45:36] into low uh
I say low maintenance and high
[45:42] maintenance but essentially what I mean
is uh you know some of them Renaissance
[45:47] Ridge up mountain some things like that
um there's no way we'll ever break even
[45:53] on those is you know the personnel power
that goes into just consistent
[45:59] nonstop all week long talking to people
every day for your requests, site
[46:05] visits, complaints, just non-stop. And
then uh but your typical but your
[46:10] typical one falls into these categories,
right? Uh your typical one is uh you
[46:15] know like if it falls in we have a
scoring chart and if it falls into this
[46:20] specific scoring chart where the land's
super flat, no roadways, no property
[46:24] lines, uh no um waterways etc. uh
vertical slope etc. you know, it's just
[46:31] it falls into a scoring category where
it's wants to begin, wants to end super
[46:35] low.
Um,
[46:40] problematic.
U so you know that $100 really takes
[46:45] into account the taking in of the uh
permit applications and then the
[46:51] processing of the permit applications
and then the review of the uh
[46:58] well you know there's there's a lot of
administrative parts but this portion of
[47:02] it is more along the lines of the
associated fee that where an inspector
[47:06] is going to have to go out um you know
essentially just man cow personnel hours
[47:11] averaged from You know, it it may be in
shipment and that would be great, but it
[47:16] also may be at the top of Spyro Yakap
where we currently have two or three or
[47:21] on Chicken Hollow where it takes
literally almost an hour just to get to
[47:26] that location to do the inspection and
then turn around and and go to a
[47:31] different location. I would also like to
address
[47:35] comment earlier. Uh there is no one
sitting in our office doing nothing.
[47:40] Everyone's I didn't just I I didn't mean
to imply he did. I just want to make
[47:45] sure that I go on record saying that
these cars are moving non-stop. These
[47:50] inspectors are inspecting non-stop
there. There's a serious workload in the
[47:55] building department. I just want to make
sure that that is conveyed to everyone.
[48:00] » Am I wrong in assuming that there's also
classes DEQ dealing with DEEQ things
[48:06] like that when you're dealing with
sediment and all that jazz? So it takes
[48:10] another exceptional level of knowledge
to deal with this particular issue.
[48:15] » Therefore, it costs more money.
>> You have to be certified as an
[48:19] inspector. You have to be certified as a
plans examiner. You have to be certified
[48:22] as a program administrator.
>> All right. Any more questions?
[48:27] » Yes. On the complaint driven, is there a
limit? Like can somebody call in every
[48:33] day for that $75 fee?
>> Yeah. No. if it's substantiated and
[48:37] you've already been out there, you've
already talked to the person. So, let's
[48:39] say John Smith is doing something that
is um you know that would require a land
[48:45] disturbance permit whether they're doing
it egregiously or they just didn't know
[48:50] regardless of their neighbor calls and
they say, "Hey, my neighbor John Smith,
[48:54] I think they need a fill in the blank."
Okay, we go out there. If they don't,
[48:59] then there's no fee involved. Hey John,
you're doing you're well within the
[49:03] boundaries and guidelines parameters of
not needing this. These are the
[49:07] parameters. Please don't go outside of
them. Also, you know, talk to them about
[49:11] the neighbor, the waterway, the
everything. Uh but if they don't fall
[49:16] into those regulations, then they don't
need it. But now, let's say they do need
[49:19] it. Okay. Well, it's substantiated.
We're going to talk to John Smith and
[49:24] John Smith's going to stop what he's
doing or come in immediately following
[49:29] the next day, etc. We're going to work
it out. We're going to stop
[49:34] unless it's something really bad. It's
it's an amicable agreement between us
[49:38] and John Smith. John Smith comes in,
gets all this permitting,
[49:42] and then we move forward with the
process. Let's say
[49:46] six people call in. It's still just one.
It's one fee. It's one visit to John.
[49:52] Now, let's say John doesn't come in.
Let's say John Smith is like, "Yeah, I
[49:56] got you, buddy." And then just keeps on
doing what he's doing. And then, okay,
[50:01] well, John didn't show up today. Now, I
got to go back out there. Well, now
[50:04] that's another substantiated cycism,
right? Hey, John, what happened? Where
[50:08] you coming? You said you were going to
come in again. And then, oh, I'll come
[50:11] in tomorrow. And then they don't come in
again.
[50:14] » And then they won't answer phone calls.
>> And now it's another substantiated site.
[50:18] You see what I'm saying? Like it's it's
personnel power going back and forth.
[50:21] » It encourages people to do what they're
supposed to do.
[50:24] » Right. Right. We don't want to use it
for bad, but we also don't want to
[50:28] continue to have to
>> go out there and spend the taxpayer
[50:33] dollars because John Smith doesn't want
to do what he wants to do.
[50:36] » There there does come at one point it
does become a misdemeanor charge.
[50:40] » Yeah. That that would be about the
second or third visit. We don't want to
[50:44] go out there and just start slapping
those down. But if But if anyone at All
[50:49] Smith doesn't want to cooperate, there
are legal avenues to to go. We we
[50:54] haven't
>> we haven't had to do that. We are we're
[50:57] a very good building department. We're
filled with really good uh people who
[51:01] know how to communicate. So, you know,
we're pretty solid right now.
[51:04] » Any other questions for Jeremy? [snorts]
>> No. All right. I'll [clears throat]
[51:09] » entertain a motion.
>> Uh Madam Chair, I move we approve
[51:12] ordinance 02026-05
as presented.
[51:15] » Okay.
>> Second. I have a motion and a second.
[51:18] Any discussion?
Would you like to roll call vote?
[51:24] » Candy.
>> Mr. Lan.
[51:26] » Yeah.
>> Mr. Rifford.
[51:27] » Yes.
>> Mr. Reed.
[51:28] » Yes.
>> Mr. Parr.
[51:29] » Yes. Dr.
>> Yes.
[51:32] [clears throat]
>> All right. Amendment of the FI2026 2027
[51:38] budget that exceeds the statutory limit
of the 1%
[51:41] R2026-71.
[52:01] » [sighs]
[52:06] » This is our FY27 budget amendment
hearing.
[52:13] Just a little background,
we have three items. Item one, on June
[52:19] 9th, 2026, the board of supervisors
voted to approve resolution R2650
[52:25] ratifying the pre-auction property
purchase contract for acquisition of 683
[52:30] acres in Livingston, Virginia property
for a total purchase price of 8,925,000.
[52:38] Item two, the ban 2022 bond anticipation
note principal balance of $2,600,000
[52:47] is due in August 2027 for the other
piece of park and property purchased in
[52:51] 2022. This amount may be refinanced in
conjunction with financing of item one.
[52:58] Item number three. During the joint
meeting with the Nelson County Service
[53:02] Authority on June 30th, 2026, the board
of supervisors agreed by consensus to
[53:07] provide a loan to NCSA for Wintergreen
Wastewater Treatment Plant DEEQ consent
[53:12] order costs in the amount of $3,100,000.
The 3.1 million is a maximum figure and
[53:19] the actual final amount may be less.
These funds remain as part of the
[53:23] general fund balance until they are
expended and will be dispersed to NCSA
[53:28] on an as needed requested basis.
[53:36] We are holding a public hearing tonight
on the proposed FY27 budget amendment
[53:40] for state code section 15.2-2507
-2507
[53:44] which says that any budget amendment
which exceeds 1% of the total
[53:48] expenditure shown in the currently
adopted budget must be accomplished by
[53:52] publishing a notice of the meeting and a
public hearing in accordance with
[53:56] section 15.2-1427
1427 and the board may adopt the
[54:00] amendment at the advertised meeting
following conduct of public hearing.
[54:10] On July 14th, 2026, the board of
supervisors authorized a public hearing
[54:15] pursuant to state code section 15.2-2507
via adoption of resolution R2026-563.
[54:24] Budget amendment public hearing notice
was published in July 23rd, 2026 and
[54:29] July 30th, 2026 editions of the Nelson
County Times. 20 days and 13 days notice
[54:35] prior to the BOS public hearing date.
Total expenditures shown in the
[54:39] currently adopted budget are 87,445,150.
[54:46] This is the total excluding transfers.
So 1% of the total expenditures is
[54:51] $874,451.50.
[54:56] Total general fund budget amendment
request is 12,25,000
[55:01] comprised of the 2026 property purchase
and the NCSA loan. This total debt
[55:08] service fund budget amendment request is
$2,600,000
[55:12] for the optional refinancing of the 2022
property purchase.
[55:21] The general fund appropriations will hit
fund balance on the revenue side and
[55:25] capital outlay and non-epal
side. The debt service appropriation
[55:31] will hit a bond bond proceeds account on
the revenue side and bond principal
[55:36] account on the expenditure side.
[55:43] So next steps be to conduct the public
hearing obtain input from staff if
[55:48] desire consider adoption of resolution
R26-71
[55:55] and staff recommends consideration of
this budget.
[56:02] » Okay. Any clarifying questions for her
before we do public?
[56:07] » Uh, now we could defer a decision on the
3.1 and the 2.6 million. Correct.
[56:14] » Correct.
>> And what is the time frame needing to
[56:16] make a decision on those? Well, one of
those we don't know quite yet.
[56:21] » Such as the winter waste water treatment
facility. What about the refinance? So
[56:27] refinancing, you should have a decision
on that at the September meeting once
[56:30] the financing options are presented to
you when you decide what course of
[56:34] action you want to take.
>> Um but um
[56:39] I think Mr. Payne said earlier that
typically deferral would be up to a year
[56:44] » to make a decision but doesn't sound
like we'll need that much time.
[56:48] » I was just that would be my only
suggestion.
[56:51] » We are going to perform. Yes.
[56:57] Thank you.
>> So on the 2.6 we would be deferring
[57:00] paying interest only on the 2.6.
>> No, we're deferring
[57:03] » the whole thing essentially
>> on the whole thing
[57:06] » until we get our financing.
>> Yes.
[57:08] » Okay. Yes.
>> This is part of the process.
[57:12] » Okay. Um we are going to open the public
hearing for resolution R2026-71
[57:19] amendment of the FI26
27 budget.
[57:24] Mr. Bane
[57:30] [clears throat]
[57:37] Steven Bane [clears throat] Steven Bane
624 Nellis Ford. This has been a very
[57:44] difficult budget for FY27.
And now there is the question of whether
[57:49] to amend the FY27 budget in August or
maybe later [clears throat] with three
[57:55] transactions totaling $14.6 million.
In terms of amending the budget
[58:03] in terms of financial management, it
would be better to leave the
[58:06] transactions as variances since that is
what they are. The bigger issue is
[58:12] [clears throat] the discussion of the
transactions themselves.
[58:16] The service authorities short-term stop
gap plan totaling $4.1 million is a
[58:23] terrible expenditure for Nelson County.
It is a waste of money due to unforced
[58:28] errors. The county has been painted into
the corner and that must be addressed.
[58:34] Nelson County now owns 1,000 acres of
Larkin property at a price of $12
[58:40] million. There's no plan plan for the
land and the county paid more than
[58:45] $12,000 per acre. I believe it is
mistake for a government entity to be a
[58:51] land owner. Period. As evidenced by the
earlier purchase of the 300 acres, the
[58:57] county has the record of kicking the can
down the road. The county been paying
[59:03] interest only, I believe, on the 300
acre purchase since 2022.
[59:09] That is not sound f uh financial
management. Again, the county is painted
[59:16] into the corner. With the 683 acre
property purchase, the unassigned fund
[59:23] balance for Nelson County will drop to
12.5 million
[59:29] from the February 25th report from
Davenport. This is so much slower than
[59:35] anything we've seen in the last several
years, if not longer. Assuming financing
[59:42] of [clears throat] the 683 acre property
purchase, Nelson County's debt will
[59:47] spike to $50 million. That should be a
cause for concern. Nelson County is
[59:55] depleting cash and then printing money
with more debt.
[1:00:00] This should be a wakeup call. I heard
recently that it's a good thing that
[1:00:06] Nelson County has plenty of debt
capacity available. For the board
[1:00:12] majority, please don't buy into that
center. I heard recently that the county
[1:00:17] taxes are too low, attracting people
from neighboring counties and the taxes
[1:00:22] should be increased. Please don't buy
into that sentiment.
[1:00:27] What I'm seeing is is is really not
fiscal stewardship for Nelson County.
[1:00:33] I'm concerned that Nelson County is
losing its way. For the board majority,
[1:00:39] please use this as a wakeup call on
behalf of your constituents. Thank you.
[1:00:46] [clears throat]
[1:00:54] That's the end of our signup list. Is
there anyone else that would like to
[1:00:57] speak?
All right, hearing none. Just going to
[1:01:00] end the public hearing for resolution
2026-71.
[1:01:08] Um it was I did speak to Mr. Payne um
and it it was a suggestion to defer
[1:01:16] um until we knew more information at
least on on two of these
[1:01:22] um amendments. So,
>> and this does not impact the transaction
[1:01:26] itself, correct?
>> On the purchase of property?
[1:01:30] » No, I mean we would ask a board to
approve the $8,925,000
[1:01:36] piece,
>> right?
[1:01:37] » And that that would
um ensure that the transaction would not
[1:01:43] be.
>> Got it. So, we just need to approve that
[1:01:45] portion and then the other two defer
uh in terms of the
[1:01:54] In if I was reading the resolution, uh,
it would amend it to reflect the
[1:02:02] purchase of the Larkin property and
deferring the refinance of the 2.6
[1:02:07] million and the loan of the Nelson
County Service Authority for winter
[1:02:10] grade of the 3.1 million.
[1:02:20] » That's a motion. If that was you, if
you're ready for that,
[1:02:22] » I'm ready for that.
>> Madame Chair.
[1:02:24] » Yes.
>> I move that we approve the following
[1:02:27] amended resolution of R2026-63
to reflect uh deferring the refinancing
[1:02:36] of the 2022 Larkin Property Purchase in
the amount of 2.6 million and deferring
[1:02:41] the Nelson County Service Authority loan
of 3.1 million for the Wintergreen
[1:02:45] Wastewater Treatment Plant.
>> Second.
[1:02:50] Is that clean enough to go?
>> He did the correct resolution number.
[1:02:55] » R2026-63.
No, 71.
[1:02:58] » It's 71.
>> That one.
[1:03:02] That's authorizing the public hearing.
>> All right. Um, so
[1:03:16] yeah, there we go. All right, that's
easy. That's way easier than what I
[1:03:19] believe. Uh, Madam Chair, I amend my
motion.
[1:03:22] » Okay.
>> Uh, Madam Chair, I move we approve
[1:03:26] resolution R2026-71
uh with just the 8.9 million uh
[1:03:35] $8,925,000
for the purchase of the Len property and
[1:03:39] deferring the 3.1 million and the 2.6 6
million to uh next month or at a later
[1:03:47] date. Second
at a later date mean let us know.
[1:03:53] » All right. I have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
[1:03:56] » Um just just one clarification. Um we
don't have to include the 2.6
[1:04:02] million in this because that's already
current and already being and and we're
[1:04:07] already paying on that.
>> Yes, that would be an optional
[1:04:10] refinancing because that doesn't until
>> Okay. So, we can do that at the same
[1:04:16] time.
>> Yeah.
[1:04:18] » Okay. Just checking. Thank you.
[1:04:23] » All right. You want to roll call vote,
Candy?
[1:04:33] » I'm sorry. I'm not used to doing it.
[laughter] I did it earlier. Mr. Par.
[1:04:38] » Yes.
>> Mr. Yes.
[1:04:39] » Mr. Yes.
>> Mr. Reed. Yes.
[1:04:42] » Yes.
[1:04:45] » Can I just clarify one thing? Just want
um
[1:04:50] 8,925,000
while is coming out of fund balance will
[1:04:55] be returned to fund balance once the
financing is complete. Yes.
[1:04:59] » So it's a wash in terms of our fund
balance.
[1:05:03] » Yeah.
[1:05:13] We need to
>> before the close session, I guess I need
[1:05:16] to publicly announce that we are adding
a resolution in other business after the
[1:05:20] close session um on changing the
September meeting just so everybody is
[1:05:24] aware.
>> After Okay. Yes.
[1:05:26] » Um because it's in other business.
>> We can do it now if you want.
[1:05:29] » You can do it now.
>> Okay. All right. Well, uh I'll entertain
[1:05:33] a motion on resol resolution 2026-72
then. Madam Chair, I move we adopt
[1:05:40] resolution R202672, Nelson County Board
of Supervisors rescheduling of the
[1:05:44] September 2026 regular meeting from
Tuesday, September 8th to September
[1:05:52] 15th.
>> Okay, I have a motion
[1:05:55] » second
>> and a second. Any discussion?
[1:05:59] Hearing none. All those in favor say I.
I.
[1:06:02] » All those opposed. Excellent. All right.
Um,
[1:06:08] » do you want to take a break before close
session?
[1:06:11] » Probably.
>> Probably.
[1:06:13] » Yeah, [laughter]
>> cuz that might be a long one.
[1:06:16] » How long?