BOS Work Session 4Sep07

1. Request to Address the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Jeff Vaughan had requested an opportunity to speak to the Board regarding his pending appeal of the decision of the County Administrator to issue a Special Use Permit violation. Apparently the appeal must be filed within 30 days of being notified of the violation. However, Mr. Vaughan was not aware of how the appeal process worked. The county will start the 30 day clock once Mr. Vaughan is provided with information on how to proceed with the appeal process.

Mr. Vaughan did not appear to speak to the Board as he had requested.

2. Monthly Report from the Public Works Department.
Mr. Mikus gave his usual report on happenings with the Public Works Department. Of particular note was his report on the progress of the opening of Cell 9 at the landfill. The specs have been prepared to begin the process. The have to be approved by the USDA before an invitation for bids can be issued. Once approved, and the bidding process is completed and bids are received, the details of the pricing structure will also have to be approved by USDA. I got a little confused here. If I understood correctly, there will need to be a Public Hearing before a contract can be awarded.

Also, apparently there is a leak problem at the Stanley landfill. The lack of detailed information on how the landfill was initially set up had caused something of a problem in the initial attempts to fix the problem. The Public Works folks believe they have stopped the leak.

Mr. Mikus also noted that a house has been constructed near the landfill. While there was nothing wrong with construction of the house, apparently it does pose some problems for the county. Mr. Mikus would like to address this matter to prevent the creation of more problems. I presume somewhere in the land use or zoning process.

3. Review of VDOT Chapter 527 Legislation.Mr. Henry addressed the Board on new state legislation that would seem to require a review of road construction plans (?) by VDOT. Apparently the requirement is supposed to be included in the county’s Comprehensive Plan. I gathered that Page County is already pretty much in compliance with the requirement. Apparently, the requirement will affect the towns in Page County more than the county itself. The legislation is so new that there will be training on what it means.

4. Discussion of Opting Out of Voter’s Rights Act.
This issue is not as onerous as it may sound. A number of sister counties have already opted out of the Voter’s Rights Act. Apparently, the Federal government requires that any issue that is offered for vote to the people of the county must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice. This would include things that are offered to the voters by referendum like staggered terms for the School Board membership, the addition of an At-Large Chairman to the School Board, etc. All current issues that require the DOJ review have been blessed by DOJ.

There is already a requirement for receiving approval from the State before offering an issue to the voters as a referendum. The power to the Board flows from Richmond. It seems that the DOJ process is an unnecessary overlay to the State requirement.

The action will require that Page County apply to DOJ to do so. Apparently this requires the retention of a Washington, D. C. based attorney that specializes in this type of action. If I heard correctly, the action would result in a one-time cost somewhere between $5,000 and $15,000. It was suggested that the one-time cost would result in a long term savings to the county since there would be no need to process future requests of approval to DOJ.

This action seems to be in its early stages as is for the purpose of gathering additional information and not to spend money. Mr. Shanks was asking the Board for an O.K. to proceed with pursuit of the matter. I couldn’t quite make out what was being chatted about but it appeared that the Board gave Mr. Shanks the nod to go forward.

I suffered from the same difficulty as Mr. LaFrance (and probably all of the Board members). Legalese overload! I trust I have captured the essence of the discussion.

5. Drug Free Workplace Policy.
This is something of a puzzle. It would seem the overall county government’s policy on drug and alcohol use in the workplace is lacking. I also gather each constitutional entity has its own policy. Apparently Mr. Belton and Dr. Cardman have drafted a proposed policy document. The main concern with the document is with invasion of privacy issues regarding method of testing, with random testing suggested as the best solution.

However, due to concerns with safety in the workplace, there may be a need to deal with those county employees who operate heavy equipment differently than people who do clerical work.

The Board may want to look at the School Board’s policy rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

6. Illegal Immigrant Resolution.
Apparently there have been incidents where students who are illegal aliens are occupying available slots in State universities and paying in-state tuition. Supervisor Strickler wants to ensure that the resolution address the issue to ensure that Virginia residents receive equal or preferential treatment when they apply for acceptance to state institutions of higher learning.

Apparently there is a state law that if an education institution receives Federal funding, it can’t charge illegal aliens in-state tuition. I may have this a little wrong but Mr. Shanks also pointed to an existing law that prohibits illegal immigrants from being admitted to institutions of higher learning that receive government funding. The question is how would you know who is illegal and who isn’t. It was suggested that the immigration department would know.

This was a little muddled to me. Since laws already exist regarding the issue, I assume the intent here was to ensure the county’s resolution simply addressed the matter.

The Board moved to go into closed session to discuss various issues as permitted by Virginia Code.