Board of Supervisors - workshop

Let's have a quorum.

T-minus 60 seconds. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Pittsburgh County Board of Supervisors work session Tuesday, September 15th, 2026, 3.03 p.m. Board meeting room 39, Bank Street, Southeast Channel, Virginia, 24531. Madam Clerk, call the roll, please.

Yes, sir. Mr. Bowman. Here. Mr. Brown.

Here.

Mr. Dalton. Mr. Dudley. Mr. Whittle.

Here.

Mr. Ingram.

Here.

Mr. Tucker.

Here. Thank you. Are there any items to be added to the agenda? Any items?

Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. All right. Sure. I need to make a motion to amend agenda item 8A to include a general discussion of personnel matters.

OK. That will be 8D?

8A.

8A. So you're on the work session?

That's going to be in the work session.

So you're going to expand the discussion? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, let that be reflected. Someone give me some support on the motion, please.

All right.

I need a second on this, Mocha.

Yes, a second.

Who seconded it, or did I miss it?

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Whittle. All right, moving that second under 8A, we'll expand the discussion on person L. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, vote electronically, please. All right, motion passes unanimously. All right, any other additions to the agenda? What about a motion to approve the agenda?

I'll make a motion.

Thank you, Mr. Ingram. Second. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Move, second. We're going to approve the agenda as amended. Any discussions?

Hearing none, cast your votes electronically.

All right, motion passes unanimously. all right for the citizens convenience all work session and committee meetings are now being recorded and can be viewed on the county facebook on the county's facebook and the same youtube location as the board of supervisors business meetings please remember that the board's work session is designed for internal board and county staff communication discussion and work it is not a question and answer session with the audience Accordingly, during the work session, no questions or comments from the audience will be entertained. Respectfully, any outbursts or disorderly conduct from the audience will not be tolerated and may result in the offended person's removal from the work session. As a reminder, all county citizens and other appropriate parties as designated by the board's bylaws are permitted to make comments under the hearing of the citizens session of tonight's business meeting. That moves us to Agenda Item 5, Presentations. We have Fire and Rescue Association, Mr. Fowler. Good afternoon and welcome, sir.

Bless you.

I'll be very brief. On behalf of Fire and Rescue, we've got two committees working at this time. One's working on a training program. Hopefully I'll have the data and a proposal at the meeting tomorrow night to move forward and a training schedule for the rest of the year be put in place so that we can get that started. And then we have a committee working with the staff and proposal that you all talked about, and they're collecting data and collecting data from surrounding areas to see what they've done in this matter, and hopefully have some information for you at a later date.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Any questions, discussion from the board? Mr. Bowman.

Mr. Chairman, what time is the meeting tomorrow?

7 p.m., Chatham Fire Department. Okay. Thank you. Any others?

Mr. Fowler, while you're standing there, let me commend you and say congratulations publicly to you and the Blair's Fire Department on a 50-year anniversary. I was at the celebration, and it was a wonderful event. And as I said in my remarks, that's not a milestone, that's a legacy. So thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, may I add to that?

Yes, sir. I was going to save this for later, so I'll say it twice, but thank you. You and your staff, you all do a fabulous job, and you have so much to be proud of, and not only the support that you have, the equipment, everything you guys have worked for. So I'm very grateful. I wish you was in my district, but thank you so much. Appreciate you.

Thank you, sir. He's close enough in mine.

And he is in mine.

All right. Let's see. That moves us down to agenda item six, staff committee and or constitutional officers report. Water service expansion project, Mr. Adcock. Good afternoon and welcome, sir.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. So we have been discussing for the last several years one of our projects, the R&L Smith Road Water Line Extension Project. And we are kind of to the point where we either need to bid it or we need to... There's been some discussion of some other projects that may be of interest. So I kind of wanted to give a brief update or go back through some of the projects that we've looked at in the past so the board can be updated on those and we can make some decisions going forward as to what the board desires to move forward on. So the Ornella Smith Road water line extension, the engineering was approved by the board in October of 2024. The design was completed by our engineer in February of 26, and that project is ready to bid. The engineer's estimate is about $5.5 million, and that includes a $500,000 – How much?

I'm sorry. Chris, how much was that?

$5.5 million. $5.5 million. Yes, sir. I was speaking to you. Oh, is this not on? Okay. And that includes a $500,000 contingency and a $500,000 booster station upgrade to our existing 41 water booster station that feeds the Mount Hermon system. But it would be done in conjunction with this project because that booster station is about 40-plus years old and needs some improvements. So part of this... Part of this extension was originally identified at our 1991 comprehensive water and sewer plan. And what it said is it was the State Road 863 loop is an improvement to enhance the PCSA water system by connecting the four systems located on or near Route 863, which Ardell Smith Road is part of 863. The loop will connect the U.S. Route 29 North system and the Mount Hermon system to the proposed Mount Cross system, which it was proposed at the time. The existing City Westover system and the U.S. Route 58 Browseville system. And at the time that was considered about 57,000 feet of eight inch transmission main. So this project was also included in our 2022 water and sewer master plan as a short term capital improvement project, meaning we wanted to go ahead and get on with it because we had been talking about some of these projects for a while and just have not moved on anything. So why did we want to do this project? This project will improve our system resiliency, increase operational flexibility, and increases the service pressure in parts of the Mount Hermon service area. Right around the Tuscarora Country Club, that area has been historically a low pressure area because of the height of the storage tank there. We were kind of restricted at the time. That was installed by the property owner's request not to not to be visible above the trees, so it limits our pressure. You may have actually received some complaints from people in that area about the low pressure. So this would allow us to increase the pressure in the northern Mount Hermon area. It merges the 29 North into Mount Hermon service areas. It allows us to use effective storage from our 29 North tank to be utilized in the Mount Hermon area by back feeding. And I also talked some in the past about all of our systems, as they come off the city of Danville, they're all kind of like fingers off the city of Danville. So we've got one point that feeds all of those systems. for each system. So if we were to lose, have a blowout on a pipe close to the city of Danville, we would lose all of our customers all the way out that whole length of the system because we don't have a back feed. So the way this is designed, the 29 North system would come and back feed the Mount Hermon system. So if we did have a break, we could isolate it with valves, go in and fix it, and hopefully there would only be a few services out of water for a period of time instead of everybody. So back in August of 2019, we came to the board as the service authority. This was prior to the merger of the service authority with the general county departments. And we had a project that was going to do this connection that was talked about in the 1991 master plan. And you can see in the red here, This would come out from our existing Whispering Pines Road system, goes out Stony Mill School Road, gets on Stony Mill Road, goes up, would pick up both Tunstall High and Tunstall Middle Schools, and then come down Mount Cross Road and then go up Golf Club Road to our Mount Hermon system. So basically that would interconnect the 58 West system, the Mount Cross system, and the Mount Hermon system. And also in the upper part of that, we were going to do the upper right corner. We were also going to do that R&L Smith portion of that. We had proposed to do all of this at that time. And this kind of follows the 1991 plan, except the routing changed a little bit. There's a couple different ways you can get from 58 West up to Mount Cross. I think at the time, they were looking at Lanier's Mill Road going up that way. We looked at Stony Mill, Stony Mill School. One reason we looked at Stony Mill School Road was to also pick up Stony Mill Elementary School in that routing. But those things can vary somewhat. We may can go out just to pick up Stony Mill School with just a stub and then actually go back down Stony Mill Road to 58 to tie in that way, which may limit the footage a little bit. So... Going back to the benefits of this, well, that routing, as I mentioned, is varied somewhat from the 1991 comprehensive plan, but that can still be tweaked somewhat depending on who's along the route, who needs service. But looking at the benefits and the reason we selected this alignment, the redundancy. Systems are identified for the project are fed from one direction only. A break on a main line near the master meter would cause water loss for a large number of customers. And then adding a feed on either end provides greater reliability to those systems. So that connection coming from 58 West would allow it to be served from our supply that comes from Henry County, which is at a much higher pressure level than our other systems. So we could boost the pressure in a lot of those areas coming from that system as well. Some things to point out. At the time, DEQ had reached out to us and were going to provide us about $300,000 to $500,000 at the time due to some contaminated wells that were at the intersection of Stony Mill Road and Mount Crossroad. I think there was about four or five residents there that were on a special well water treatment system that DEQ was paying for due to a fuel spill in that area. And they were willing to put some money towards the project in order to get these customers off of that treatment system, because that treatment system was very costly to them. And of course, it's not a long-term solution. We also, at the time, we had a school commitment. We had a school commitment from the school board in May of 2019 that they had unanimously approved connecting the Stony Mill Elementary School, the Tunstall Middle, and the Tunstall High to that system. And then we also looked at future development potential. As I mentioned before, the current hydraulic conditions prevent further expansion on the northern Mount Hermon system and also on the northern going out Mount Cross Road any further than we are now just due to the elevations and the lack of pressure out that way. So connection through the Henry County supply would provide higher pressures allowing future development in this desirable residential area, which the Mount Hermon area seems to be the more desirable area. The Twin Springs school area would allow us to have some better water pressure and supply out that way. So at the time, and this kind of highlights some of the concern with delaying projects when they've been identified. At the time, The survey and design was about 850,000 in 2019. That's about 1.2 million now. The construction phase, 10 to 12 million for that whole project in 2019. That's 14 to 17 million in 2026 dollars. And some things we looked at, potential new customers, we looked at about 600 residences along this route. And that did not include any potential future subdivision expansion, which we would expect to get in the future by having water available. We knew the Berry Hill project was there. We knew that had some interest at the time, so we thought there may be some potential to get some new subdivisions in that area. At the time, the cost, this was a question that came up from the board at the time, was the cost per customer. The cost per customer was around 20 grand per customer for that water line. But I wanted to highlight that in water system expansions, The value is beyond the balance sheet. We can't just look at whether it's going to pay itself back. So the financial reality is that residential connection fees and standard water bills do not generate enough revenue to offset the high upfront capital costs of waterman extensions. And a good example of that is that robbery and court project we just finished. That project was about $950,000. I think it was about 8,500 linear feet. If you take our monthly rate that we charge customers for water, we would have to have about 116 services on that road to pay that back in a 20-year time span. And if you look at 116 services along that 8,500 feet of line, you would have a house every 150 feet. That's getting into city density, and we just don't have it out there. But the true return on the investment of your utility infrastructure is we're delivering a safe, stable, highly reliable water system directly to our citizens, eliminating reliance on vulnerable private wells. And everybody knows now with the drought we're going through that people are starting to experience some well issues. And I don't have a well, never had a well, but I can imagine that's got to be pretty stressful when you see your well starting to dry up and you don't have any other options. This also establishes the foundational infrastructure required to unlock future commercial, industrial, and residential development along that corridor. And as you know, we've got plenty of things going on at Berry Hill, and in order to support that with residential development, a lot of these projects need to be looked at specifically for opening up land for potential residential development and commercial development. And it's a long-term asset. It shifts the valuation from a short-term financial expense to a 50-plus year investment in the community resilience and growth. So that's all I have on that issue. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. All right.

Questions, comments from the board? Yes, sir. Mr. Whittle.

Thank you. How much pressure do you all run on those lines just out of the blue?

It varies anywhere from 20 pounds, which is the minimum that VDH will allow you to have, up to over 100 pounds. It varies with the elevation. It depends on the tank levels and where you are in the system.

So the tank levels are pushing the pressure down on it, right? Right, yeah.

Is that what it is? The higher the overflow of the tank is, it's dependent on the pressure. So every 2.31 feet of water gives you one pound per square inch, basically. Okay, thank you.

All right. Ms. Dingham.

Chris, thank you for that presentation. So in listening to the particulars, and I appreciate the detail in which you went, it looks like you're leaning more toward the Roswell project than R&L Smith.

I'm just wanting to get some things accomplished. Okay. And that, the R&L Smith project, was one that could benefit our existing systems and help the pressures up there, and also being that the Mount Hermon pump station and things were aging, it was just one that I kind of wanted to push to the forefront. But I also wanted to just highlight the other projects that we looked at. But, yeah, that's for you guys to tell me what to do. But I just want to get some things moving forward.

Yeah, I was going to apologize and take the monkey off your back. You know where I stand on the project. And I collectively still make the argument that, you know, this 58, the Brazel project was on the table a long time ago, actually before the R&L Smith. And so with that going into much detail about that, you know, I still have to proclaim – regardless of the developments at 58 West, particularly Berry Hill, is that you have so many residents that would like to hook up. And you have three schools that we have to be mindful of. And now is a good time to talk about droughts and the potential of a well drying up. Thankfully, none of our three schools, being Stone and Mill, Tunstall Middle, Tunstall High, have had that problem. But I shudder to think if it did happen. So progressively, I would love to see us you know have enough money to do both of them at the same time it's not realistic but uh i'm going to continue to lobby for the bronzel project more so now than ever because of the development at berry hill and um you know i was out there this morning and micro force is already throwing up walls and so it's it's really important that uh that we keep up with the development and um and i appreciate your input chris so yes sir vote for bronzel thank you Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, Mr. Bowman, you're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris, thank you for the presentation. This is the first time I've seen it. So going from Arnell Smith all the way over to 58 is what, about 10 miles? Is that where we're looking at?

Yes, sir. I think it was, what, 57,000, yeah, about 10 miles, yes, sir.

Okay, about 10 miles. So the 863 Robinson Road area has always been the north bypass proposal for 29. Is that correct?

Correct. I haven't seen that route in a long time, so I'm not sure. Okay, I think it was.

I think it was. So anyway, that particular corridor there would complete the entire beltway, if you will, the 29 around Danville and southern Pennsylvania County there. 863 needs that water line, and I'll advocate for that. It's been on the books a lot longer than Brosville has. So just because there's been an announcement out there about a housing development does not mean that we go in that direction necessarily because you're already talking about an area that has population, they have businesses, they have schools, and they have a booster station, if memory serves me right, that needs to be upgraded and replaced. So I would say let's move from R&L Smith and move in that direction out toward the Bronzeville area because the land out there running from 29 over through R&L Smith is extremely valuable also and we need that water out there too. Just north of where I live, I won't be able to connect to it, the wells are drying up. They are going dry up there but you would have to run a line up 41 in order to service them and I know that's not in the books. So I'm a proponent for starting on the R&L Smith. Yeah, Brosville, they have a need. We have a need. But I think because we already have established neighborhoods and we have clients already there that we need to upgrade that and then move west on that. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir.

Just a quick follow-up. You don't get a follow-up. Watch me. You probably don't recall this because you weren't on the board at the time, but this project was on the table. And here comes the Horseshoe Road project. and got me politicized, to be blunt about it. And so that project preceded the one that I was lobbying for. I never heard of no R&L Smith project. But needless to say, I said, well, you know what? Those folks need water. I'm going to support that. And I thought I was going to get support in return for the Brazel project. But that didn't happen. And so here we are today. And listen, I appreciate Mr. Bowman going to bat for his folks because they do have a bit of a reduction in water pressure. But I'm still going to lobby for the number of residents in those three schools and let one of those schools go without water one day. And if you move with the R&L Spiff, I'll make sure all the parents get to call Mr. Bowman about that. Just kidding. But no kidding, I know it can be a very tough decision, but I can't say a lot more than what I've said. And like I said, it's been on the table for a long time. We have the need. And as far as the development at Berry Hill and potential development past that, I'm getting calls from realtors about housing developments, and you just have to decide if you're going to address the growth or water pressure. Thank you.

What would it take to go out for bid on this, just to see what the cost is?

Just doing the advertising.

Okay. And we get the bid proposals back?

Yeah.

And then we take a look at them?

Yeah. When you bid a job like that, if you go with the low bid, if it's not within your budget, you don't have to let the project. Sure. A couple things to consider, you know, is the engineers, like we did the VIR water line that we've been working with Halifax on. The engineer's estimate was over $6 million, and the bid price was about $4.3 million. You know, maybe that's a fluke, but if you get enough interest, you're going to have some good bids, so that may bring the cost down. And one thing with this R&L spent, although we do have a pretty good surplus right now, and that's what we looked at to cover the debt payment on this project, I think Kim and Garrett are both still a little bit concerned about our ability to cover that and stay. keep our other capital projects going. So we may want to just wait for a few months to see how this rate increase that we implemented, how that affects our bottom line. But with that being said, There's the two pump station projects. I may come back. I may end up pulling those out separately because I'm kind of wanting to move those ahead because they are some aging pump stations, and they're supplying our existing system. So I may pull those out and come back to you with a more reduced project in the interim while we still discuss these other extension projects.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr. Brown, Mr. Whittle, any input? You good?

You good?

Yeah, I'm good. Thank you so much, Mr. Adcock. Let me just kind of put my quarter in the meter here. Well, let me preface this by saying I appreciate the passion of my colleagues in different districts, and we know that the need is there. However, we have to be strategic in terms of how we approach this thing. And it's no secret, you know, I'm chairman of the Finance Committee, and I've had discussions with Ms. VandeHeide and her team and also Mr. Shorter. that we first off need to get a look at 12 months of, I guess, revenue after setting the rates this past year. And that way we can deal with real figures, because I'm not a fan of going out there borrowing $5, $5.5 million and not knowing whether or not we can make the payment. It's kind of like the landfill and then the water, even though previous boards didn't view them in terms of being enterprise funds or enterprise entities, they are indeed and they should be self-sufficient and self-sustained. In conjunction with that, we have right now the research going on for our comprehensive plan. And I think with that, I think we should wait 12 months and take a look at what we have and evaluate it so that we have a good plan. And then I think the staff should have a priority list based on where we can get the most bang for our buck, which community is going to be better served at that moment in time. The need exists throughout the county as far as water is concerned, but the deal is, are you going to spend $5.5 million to accommodate six residents, and we'll call it getting the pressure up. Or are we going to spend $4 million shining on additional residents that can possibly help pay, you know, the debt payments? Okay, so we're not spending out of... a whale here, and we don't have the deep pockets to be able to say, oh yeah, we can do that. But I'm just asking everyone to be a little patient. I just hate making decisions without data. And right now, your department and the finance department cannot come to this board and say, these are the revenues that are coming in. from the new rate hike and this should suffice because right now let's think about it the race could go up they could go down but you know we go out there borrowing five and a half million dollars not knowing how we're going to pay that back then you know there's going to be another need that arise and this county has to operate as one unit And we all have to work together as one team and realize that we're going to be staring down the barrel of borrowing money for a new courthouse. And that causes us to get our financial house in order. So we need to know what the answers to the questions are prior to just going out there borrowing money. And I hope and pray you all can appreciate that stance. But that's kind of where I am. Okay. Any comments? Any questions? All right. Thank you, Mr. Adcock. Yes, sir. I would say that, you know, get with county administrator, formulate a team, pick the brain of... The ones that are doing the comp plan where we can take a look at the most. When you spend the money, it's reasonable to say, hey, listen, we want as much value as we can get. from pulling the trigger spending that money uh but you know someone far wiser than myself um i'm not really concerned about the return on my dollar i'm really concerned about the return of the dollar you follow me so so uh let's let's approach it that way okay certainly okay thank you sure thank you anyone else all right thank you mr adcock All right. Mr. Hickok, you're up for 5, I'm sorry, 6B, which is Landfill Phase 3 Shell Deconstruction Administration and Quality Assurance Service Amendment.

Yes, sir. That's why I wasn't moving when you said thank you. I knew I was coming up again. I understand that. I'm one at a time. I think everyone's aware that our project, consulting engineering with the landfill. We have a contract, a term contract with Labella Engineering. And their annual services provide us with our groundwater compliance monitoring, our groundwater corrective action monitoring from phase one, which goes all the way back to the The 70s are when the landfill was open. They do our Phase II groundwater compliance monitoring. They do our landfill gas monitoring. They do our stormwater administration and reporting. They do our semi-annual drone and volume study. They also provide general environmental consulting on call, general engineering consulting when we need them, and some other things in their annual services contract. What they do not cover are special projects in this contract. So when they do have a special contract that comes up, or special project, they submit to us an addendum for that, which goes above and beyond the estimated fees they've given us for the annual services contract. So what I had presented in the agenda was their addendum to do, it was two tasks. Task one was construction documents and bid phase services, and task two was for the construction administration and quality assurance of our new landfill phase three and the partial closure of phase two. So the task one, basically, since we started the application for phase three probably about three years ago, and the requirement in that submittal was basically we had to do the construction plans with that submittal. That wasn't a separate, the DEQ wants to see those construction plans when we do the submittal. So this first task, $75,000, that basically has been billed and paid for over that three-year term, but it needed to be memorialized in an agreement. So this is what that is. So that's basically been paid for, but they wanted to include it. The task two, so what we have to do with our new phase and what we've had to do with the prior two cells is construction administration, which basically is looking at pay requests, looking at project submittals, coordinating questions from the contractor, technical questions from the contractor. that we can't get this kind of stone. Will this stone suffice? We can't get this type of line or material. Will this type of line or material work? They attend site visits to view the work progress. They interpret and clarify construction documents. They review applications for payment. And they do a substantial completion inspection for us towards the end of the project. And they also review and create final record drawings that we have to have in our files for years and years and years. And the construction quality assurance, and the majority of the estimated fee for this is $260,000. The majority of this, $225,000 of this, is a sub-consultant to do the quality assurance. So the quality assurance is required by DEQ. They produce a document at the end of construction that says everything has been done according to the plans and specifications. If we don't get that, DEQ does not let us open the cell. No questions asked. We have to have that document in order for DEQ to review it and approve it for us to get into that cell. So that is the majority of that. And then after they do, they come on site and do inspections throughout the construction, basically when we're doing the stone, the liner, the compaction. They look at all that. And then at the end of the construction, they do a quality assurance certification report. And that report is about this thick. And that's what's submitted to DEQ in order for us to get a permit to operate that phase. So this amendment is before you for approval so that we can keep moving forward with the construction and approval of phase three and the new cells in phase three. And it's a timely issue because we're running out of space in our current cell. And the timing is going to be very, very delicate. So we need to move forward with this. in order to keep this construction and quality assurance moving forward.

Mr. Adcock. Yes, sir. Thank you so much for approaching the board with this. I'm assuming that this is the contract that I have here, $335,000. Is that the addendum? Yes, sir. Okay.

So it's $260,000 for the QAQC and then the $75,000 that has already been paid.

Okay. My question, and I don't see anything that's going to be an issue here, but My question is just simply protocol. Has Mr. Evans taken a look at it? Yes, sir. Has Mr. Shorter got a look at it? Yes, sir. Ms. Vander Heide, you know where the money is coming from. Okay, I'll put my John Hancock on. All right, gentlemen, any other discussion?

Mr. Chairman, thank you. That was good to cover all that. I just noticed on the end under the contract, Chris, it talks about the presentations, progress reports, and things of that nature. Are they going to come to us, the Board of Supervisors, to give us that, or are they going to present to you, Mr. Shorter? How is that going to work?

They typically present just to the staff on the progress. I mean, if we want them to come to do a particular presentation on that, then I'm sure they would be more than happy to come to that and do that for you.

I don't want to add to the cost. I mean, I looked at this. I don't want to add hundreds of more dollars just because they've got to travel in and make a presentation. I just want to make sure that we're getting update information as it occurs according to the contract.

Yes, sir. Let me work with them on that, and we can see what the best way to present that to you. Maybe it would be just a document that we can provide in the weekly update or something like that instead of having them come here.

OK.

One thing I wanted to point out, and I thought it was a good thing to present to you guys. When we did this for cell C2, the QAQC budget was $140,000, but the invoiced amount was only $90,000. That's about two-thirds. So what they're giving us here in this document is worst-case scenario. What they bill us is only for the time spent doing it. So they are very strict about that. If they're not, it's not a fixed fee. It's time and materials. So they're going to only bill us for what's necessary to get the job done, and they've been very good about that over the years. Okay.

Is that not to exceed...

I don't think it says not to exceed, but I think they would tell you if they were here, they would say that's probably a not to exceed.

Thank you.

Good observation, Mr. Whitton. If everything is good with that, do we need to put that on the consent agenda? It is already on there as a placeholder. Yes, sir.

Thank you. All right. That's going to move us to 6C, land field equipment repairs.

Yes, sir. Mr. Adcock. We came to the board in early 2026 with some equipment requests, equipment repair requests, and one of those of importance was the wheels on our 836 compactor. I think you recall that presentation, I kind of got into some detail about the importance of the 836 compactor. It's probably the most important piece of equipment we have out in the landfill because it does the compaction of the trash. Every square foot that we build out there costs us X number of dollars. So the more trash that we can cram into that box, the more bang for the buck that we have out there. So this 836 is a big monster machine and it's It's running over the trash. But the wheels have about 20% life. And actually, when I came to you, I think it was in January, that was the estimate then, about 20%. So you know they're even worse now. At the time, we only had one price from car or cat. And that's because it's very hard sometimes to find contractors, local contractors, that do heavy, heavy equipment work. But we dug around, and I think Garrett might have been the one that found this. We found a contractor called BBS Equipment Repair, and it's a very slim and trim operation. It's one guy, the owner, and two or three helpers, and they come out to the landfill, and they've helped us with a couple other things, and they've been very, very budget friendly. So the Caterpillar price at the time was $87,968. Their proposed solution was to remove the teeth off the existing wheels and weld new teeth back on there. We talked to BBS Equipment Repair, and they came with a solution that they would actually get all new wheels, that the teeth are already on the wheel, the wheels are shipped to us. They come to the landfill itself, lift the machine up, block it up, take the old wheels off, put the new wheels on, and do a whole complete job. Their price was $73,650. We think that solution is a superior long-term repair, and it's also a shorter timeline because the wheels will be coming with the teeth already on them, and they don't have to take the old wheels off. You can imagine there's probably several hundred teeth on each wheel, and they've got to take each one off and weld it back on. So that's very time-consuming, and we don't want to have that 18. $836,000 down for that extended period of time. So this is a better. So with those two prices, we would like to request that we move ahead with the BBS equipment repair quote of $73,650 to repair those wheels and have a much more efficient compactor.

Let me ask a question. Just one second, Mr. Wood. You guys are a little slow to the draw. I normally let you go first. But I was going to ask, if we go the route of allowing this streamlined, nimble company, what kind of guaranteed warranty are they going to give you for that $75,000?

Um, I'd have to go. I think I've included the quote in the package that I didn't have. I didn't bring that with the quote itself with me, but it's in the package. I'll have to go back and look and see what the, uh, what the guarantee would be for that. But it's fairly straightforward. It's, it's not a piece of a, it's not a part, you know, that's going to break or something. It's pretty much just a circular welded wheel. And, and, and once it's put on, it should be fairly, uh, fairly resilient.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Whittle.

What do you all do with those old ones? They swap the old wheels out with those?

Yes, we'll swap them out, and then I guess we'll probably look at maybe either, I don't know if there's a resale value or whether we just sell it for scrap metal. That's a good question.

Send them to your Botex schools and let those kids learn how to weld on them. They can weld them things up and you have an extra set of wheels in a couple years.

We could definitely investigate that.

Good deal. Anyone else?

Chris, it looks like I like this, what you included in the packet with the images of what the BBS, to me that's much more aggressive than what we've seen.

Yeah, it does look like it would. have a deeper...

I mean the goal is to get the most compaction. I don't know if y'all are looking at the second set of pages, but that's a much different look than what we've currently got. Much more aggressive, I would say.

I'm good. Time is money and all of that stuff. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Adcock, if we approve this tonight, what's the time frame, turnaround time to get them shipped in here and get them put on? I...

I'm not sure if that was on there too, but I want to say it's about, I think the wheels are maybe already available, so maybe I want to say four weeks. I'll have to verify that. I'm sorry I didn't have that in front of me. That's fine.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the construction is probably a week, maybe a week and a half, but I don't know how much is the timeline to get them shipped here.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. All right. Let's see. Is it the consensus of the board to put it on the agenda for tonight? Mr. Evans?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's also on the consent agenda as a placeholder already, just in case.

Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Everyone good with leaving it on the agenda? Yeah.

I'm good. Everybody good? Good. Good.

All right. Thank you. All right. That takes us down to 6D, the Ringo Rail Trail Project update. Mr. Arnold.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Good afternoon.

Ms. Kazee is passing around hard copies of the presentation. And I've also got With us here today, we have two engineers with Dewberry, who are the project engineers on this bridge reconstruction project. One of the Dewberry staff is here, Joseph Sneed. And then we have the project manager with Hames Brothers, Kent Bishop, as well as our parks and rec director, Justin Price. So that way, hopefully, amongst the four of us, we can answer any questions that might arise. Let's get this. There we go. All right. So this is just pretty much for information purposes only. But I do want to make you all aware of how the project is progressing. And let's start with kind of recapping where we've come from. So this project has deep roots, temporally speaking. dating back to 2018 when Tropical Storm Michael rolled through the area and dumped a substantial amount of rainfall on us and there was severe flooding all across the county and it really affected Sandy Creek, which is the creek, the waterway that runs underneath the Ringgold Rail Trail Bridge. That damage to the rail trail resulted in three different projects. And in May of 21, FEMA awarded funds to the county in the name of disaster recovery. So the three projects that were required to restore the rail trail system to its previous state before tropical storm Michael and the subsequent damage. One was damage to the rail spur. The other was damage, there were some areas that washed in along the rail trail. And the third, the elevated water levels of Sandy Creek washed out a pier that had been part of the original Richmond-Danville railroad system dating back to the mid-1800s. In 2022, both the rail spur and the washed out areas of the rail trail were restored, leaving only the pedestrian bridge to be repaired or the pier reconstructed. The original disaster recovery funds awarded by FEMA were not sufficient to cover the rather costly expense of repairing the bridge, so there was a period of time where the bridge, we weren't able to move forward with reconstruction of that pier and its repair. However, in 2024, in November, The board agreed. We did receive additional funds through a budget amendment request. There still was a shortage in the requested funds versus the expected cost to repair the bridge, but we tried to mitigate that discrepancy with some letters of support from three local charity organizations in the event that FEMA does not approve another budget amendment request. So we, in November of 2024, the board agreed to award the bridge repair contract to Haynes Brothers and in January, the notice to proceed, in January of 25, the notice to proceed was issued. So even with the hard copy in front of you, and in fact the hard copy we had to do a little animation to get this timeline to display, I don't expect you all to break out your magnifying glass or strain your eyes to see it on screen. The main takeaway here is just to see the gap from the original event, the severe storm, the tropical storm in September of 2018, to when actually repairs started taking place. That was about a three year gap right there. Since then, the project has moved steadily along and there's been continued progress as you soon will see on the forthcoming slides related to the reconstruction of the bridge. So to date, Hames Brothers estimates that we are about 85% complete with reconstructing the pedestrian bridge. It's very encouraging from my perspective, considering all the time that's lapsed to get us to this point. And if all things continue to stay the course that they're on, and we don't have any unforeseen or unexpected delays. Substantial completion of the bridge repair can be obtained within two to five months or by the end of November is what we're hoping. FEMA has approved at least a timeline extension on the bridge repair project until March 26, 2027. So I'd say we're good to go there as far as, again, barring the unexpected with meeting the timeline expectations. As with many projects that are substantial in scope and also involve having an understanding of and designing the project, based upon historical documents and not using today's technology to uncover and have a full understanding of how the previous structure was constructed, change orders are almost inevitable. And so we already have one change order approved by FEMA. It was approved back in late 2025. during the demolition phase of the project when Hames Brothers found additional steel during the course of demolition. And that amounted to about an additional roughly $15,000 in project cost. So again, we submitted that in late October. And by mid-December, we got approval from FEMA on that change order. This year, back in May, the need for a second change order arose when one of the bridge spans, the actual field measurements measured a span of the bridge that was 11 inches longer than what the construction drawings indicated. And the construction drawings, again, were based upon, you know, original technical drawings were probably drafted back in around 100 plus years ago. So that dollar amount associated with that change order is just short of $90,000. We submitted that change order back in May of this year and we're still awaiting approval on it. Then Change order number three was submitted in June of this year, where the chamfer, which I'm not gonna try to technically explain exactly what we're talking about there, but if you all are interested, I'm very hopeful that either our construction project manager or Dewberry engineer can elaborate further on what that exactly is. But basically, if you look at like a cross-section of the bridge, and as you're looking to cross the bridge, the location of the chamfer will not line up with the location of the existing chamfer. And this is something that you really don't know about until you get underway with construction. And so there's additional costs there as well. I will say that The bridge span measurement discrepancy, as well as the chamfer, there was no observable or identifiable way around it, and so the construction contractor has gone ahead and made and pursued this work to keep the project moving along, and we are awaiting word from FEMA on the approval of those change orders. We don't know one way or another on that. And then lastly, and most recently, it's time to get to, you know, much closer to completion. So now we're no longer looking at just supporting the bridge and rebuilding the pier and all that that entails. We're actually more concerned with things on the bridge's surface. which is great. And this matter, this particular change order deals with handrails. So in the original scope, there was a cost estimated to replace just the portion of the handrails associated with the damaged pier. However, if you do that, it still is an option. There may be some structural integrity and therefore safety issues related to the performance of those handrails and also as well as with the aesthetics. And so as you can see in that picture on the screen, that shows a portion of the existing handrails and you see a gap. in that area. So just over the years and even with the construction, the various things that have gone on, those handrails are not as good as brand new. That's a pretty basic statement. So there's a change order that's also been submitted to FEMA to fund replacement of all handrails. And that's an additional $53,200. As you all may recall, going back to our conversations in October and November of 2024, and as I alluded to a few minutes ago, when we submitted a budget amendment request in September of 2023 and then it was approved a year later by FEMA, the amount requested by staff did not equate to the amount that was awarded or approved in the budget amendment by FEMA. It was about $472,000 difference there that was withheld. And the reason we got for that from FEMA personnel was that it was due to a miscalculation on their behalf. So we also at that time did not have the latest and greatest information available in the form of an actual construction bid or quote to reconstruct the bridge. So fast forward to December of 2025, we were advised by FEMA and VDEM to get underway with construction, show progress, and then submit another budget amendment request. And so last December, that was submitted to VEDM and FEMA for the amount of approximately $991,000. We are, just like the change orders, although the budget amendment request that I'm referring to, the most recent one, has an even greater amount. you know, latency period you might say associated with it or length of time, we're still waiting on a response from FEMA as far as whether or not that budget amendment request has been approved or will be approved. So we, based upon previous budget amendment requests and working with the project engineers, i.e. Dewberry Engineering, as with many construction projects, you're going to have a contingency. And so we have a contingency on this project as well. So these change order amounts that I'm referring to are covered within that contingency. But we don't have, however, all the money that was asked for. So that's part of the issue here. You may recall us talking about using the phrase a leap of faith, you know, from a couple years ago. I don't think it's any of our favorite concepts to be embracing. But nevertheless, we did take that. We did. We were hopeful it would all work out. But we realized the importance, or I believe the board realized the importance, in this outdoor recreation resource to our residents. And really, it also has a historical connection to the county as well. That leap of faith, until we hear back from FEMA and get approval on some of these things, that leap of faith remains. And you might say it's even further complicated, not to what I would say the grandest degree, but certainly with additional uncertainty with these change order amounts. We did get approval for that first change order, which was like $15,000. around about $160,000 additional is at stake with these outstanding change orders. Add that to the previous budget amendment request. There's also, you know, we don't fully know the cost associated with third-party inspections for the geotechnical and structural inspections that a company named Frolling and Robertson is doing, additional, you know, contracts. and construction administration costs by Dewberry. So even if we get approval for that original $990,000 budget amendment request, or I'll say original, the most recent one that was submitted December of last year, we still would need to get these change order requests approved. So in any event, I just wanted to give you all a heads up of where we stand on this project. There's a lot of, I'd say a lot of, Good news, hopefully in the update as far as the progress that's made. Yet we're never there until we're fully across the finish line. And I'm happy to answer any questions. And like I mentioned at the beginning, we've got additional experts that can handle other questions you all might have. So thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Questions? Comments? Yes, sir, Mr. Eamon.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dave, I see you brought you some backup. I did. And I like the reference to leap of faith. We do a lot of leaping here late. But my question, and you may have answered this, and I just missed it, but, you know, mistakes equal money or cost money. And the change order number two for close to $90,000, was it our mistake or just a mistake that was inevitable that nobody saw coming? Yeah.

I would say, I mean, it's, with the available information, it's nearly impossible to have a measurement that would not have a margin of error that would equate to that 11-inch amount. So it was, in a perfect world, there would have been a way to exactly know these dimensions and convey that in the construction drawings and in the bid packet and everything like that. But based upon my experience, this is somewhat commonplace. And a lot of times it's going to be of a greater degree and a higher percentage or margin of error than the 11 inches we're referring to right here.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir, Mr. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dave, thank you for the update. I appreciate it very much. So this amendment request to FEMA was sent in in December of last year, 2025. That's right. So after listening to Chris Adcock's presentation and cost factors, so we're relatively 12 months into this now after the request has gone in. So my question then would be, how much is this going to increase since December by our contractors? What's the cost going to add to this? Because we went in with a hard number, and you know it's probably going to go up. Is that right, guys? Just give me this, or you're going to be good with it. You think the cost is going to go up?

Let me make sure I understand your question.

Well, you asked for a specific amount from FEMA. You haven't gotten a reply back. Correct. Right. So we're still moving ahead with the construction to finish this up? That's correct. Okay. So are we going to have any other increases in the cost, and that won't be covered by the request we sent to FEMA? Right.

And I think the best person to answer that is probably Kent Bishop with Hames Brothers as far as any additional cost. But I will say we've continued to pursue the work as, you know, and Hames' cost for the construction of the bridge is within that scope, there's a set price. These change orders are expensive. over and above that set price. So there's no need to necessarily go back out to bid for something. It's just there's a delta right here. We would like to have, the way this is going to hopefully all shake out, FEMA is responsible for 75% of the project cost. VDEM is responsible for like 19% and the locality 6%. That's the breakdown on these disaster recovery projects. We want that to remain to be the breakdown and us not to cover anything more. But based upon what FEMA's previously approved, they haven't approved the latest and greatest total cost when you consider not only that budget amendment request from December, but also the those three change orders that I'm referring to.

Okay. So you said they're responsible, is that the word you used? They're responsible for this?

You say FEMA?

Yes. Okay, you're saying they're responsible.

Hold on. I'm saying yes to making sure I'm understanding.

Yeah, I want to make sure that we understand. And FEMA, they can pretty much arbitrarily say, hey, we can't fund this. We can't give you the money. It's based on a hurricane back in, when was that, 1990? 2018. Or 2018, I'm sorry. 2018, so eight years ago. And those funds, hypothetically, have just run out, let's say. They've run out. So who does this fall on now? Right. Who would it fall on?

You're referring to a worst-case scenario.

That's right.

And that would be, ultimately, we would hope that VDEM would still uphold. Right, right. VDEM's a separate entity from FEMA. I would hope that they would still fulfill their obligation to either based upon a previous project cost or an updated one. But then I would say ultimately at the end of the day, this is a county asset. It's a county amenity. It's on county property. And the cost, I would argue, is on the county.

Okay. That's all I want to know. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Bowman.

All right. Let me do a couple things here. Pretty active listener, okay? Before we get to the worst case scenario, you gave or you alluded to in your presentation that there were two charity organizations out there. And can you peel that onion back a little bit? Tell me about these charitable organizations that are willing to do what? Right.

So I don't have those letters of support in front of me, but they agreed, I guess, in concept, and there's actually three of them, to assist the county should FEMA not be able to ensure financial responsibility for the 75% of the actual project cost. Now, does that mean that They did not associate a dollar amount. They did not come forward and say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, we got you. But they gave a, in concept...

And I just wanted to clear that up because sometimes when we throw that out there, you know, we kind of assume that they're going to do a little more than they're actually alluding to. So I'm glad you cleared that up. Now, you also mentioned a contingency plan. I like contingency backup. What's the contingency plan? Because I'm trying to get this board to a certain confidence level that we can go ahead and wrap this thing up. Yes, sir. So tell me about your contingency plan, just in simple language. Yes, sir.

I'm going to ask Mr. Sneed, if you don't mind, with Dewberry, because they were the ones that helped us, I believe. And the bigger question is, was it a 10%? Was that what we agreed to with FEMA on this? And Mr. Price, you might have perspective. I think originally we were considering a 25% contingency, and I think FEMA was kind of like, whoa, whoa, whoa, you're going to have to throttle that back.

Do you recall the percentage? Too aggressive for FEMA.

Yeah. Go ahead.

Good evening. Welcome. Thank you, sir, for being here.

Thank you, sir. The original contingency was a dollar amount associated with potential changes in the price. So we completed an engineer's construction cost estimate and applied a certain percentage contingency on it that FEMA approved in the event of these other change orders, which we didn't know at the time what they would be, but just in case they popped up, that we would have a certain amount of money that we could go back and ask for as part of the approved amount that wasn't necessarily in the amount that was set aside at first.

Okay. Thank you. That's kind of what I needed to know. And Mr. Hames, can you come up real quick, please, sir? I've got a couple questions for you. And trust me, I get it. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes trying to quote something right now with the tariffs and all of that kind of stuff. But based on where you are right now with the tariffs and with supply chain issues, that sort of thing, and finishing this project up, kind of give me your comfort level. that once this board approves this thing that we can get through it nice and clean without any additional meetings like this where we have to scratch our heads and figure out whether or not we need to come up with more money.

Yes, sir. Thank you. No, sir, we don't foresee any tariffs or anything affecting the price right now. Two of those items have been completed, so the railing we've not purchased, but we don't think that the price will go up in the next 30 to 60 days, enough to matter. So I think we're good with keeping our price for that change order at the time.

Okay. All right. Any other questions? I'm good. Thank you, sir.

As far as the contingency, Mr. Price was able to look in his records and per an email exchange back in May of this year related to change order number two, that we informed VDEM was a 25% contingency and so that equates to just under a million dollars right there. That might – there was some discussion at some point, like, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's a bit much. Can you trim that back? But this is very commonplace, and this is why we have consultants guide us through this that understand the appropriate level that needs to be applied to kind of protect ourselves in the event of the unexpected.

Yeah, I think somewhere down the line – I think it was either a budget amendment or FEMA shortfall of $400 or something like that, and that got us kind of wonky on this.

Yeah, it was $470,000. Yes, sir, roughly $470,000. Yep. Thank you so much.

Ms. Vanderhaar, would you come up for just a second, please? Tell me your comfort level because you're tracking this and you're putting that money out there.

Well, this particular grant has been probably the most scariest we've ever had just because FEMA is taking their own sweet time in getting back with us.

Not the answer I was looking for.

And if you wait, you see what it does to cost, so you can't wait. I get it. But it's like, what are you going to do? Are you not going to repair the bridge? Well, we've got to complete it.

We're too far in now.

Exactly. So we took that leap of faith a year ago. And we're thankful that the board agreed to do that. And we have faith that FEMA will do what they're supposed to do. We've turned in all of our paperwork as we have needed to in a timely manner. We've done everything they've asked us to do. And originally, there was even no historical significance to this repair. So back in the day, it was just way less than what we were looking at when FEMA came down and said, wait a minute, this is historical. I mean, it wasn't us. It was them. So a lot of the waylaying has been based on what FEMA's done and how long it's taken them. And they have been up against, I don't want to say they sit back and do nothing, but they've had two government shutdowns. It's been a lot, a lot of natural disasters that have taken a lot of their time and resources. So, you know, we're very appreciative of the funding we've gotten from FEMA, but we do have faith But there is that possibility. I don't want to say, you know, yeah, definitely they're going to approve all of it. But thank goodness Mr. Arnold has talked to other maybe possibilities as far as it not coming all or falling all on us. And that makes me feel good. We do have a couple of grants. It's not a great deal of money. But there are some grants that are specific to recreation type things. that we can pull those funds in roughly about $50,000 to $55,000. So there are some other things, and we will certainly look under every rock before we dig back into our own pocketbook to finish this project.

Okay, perfect. Mr. Tucker, could I ask her a question while she's here? So when you said that, if we went ahead, and I'm just thinking outside right now, If we, as the county, went ahead and we said, okay, let's go ahead and finish this thing off. We take it out of, let's say, whatever fund balance or funds we have to pay for this. Would that impact anything that FEMA has hanging out there? For instance, if they say, you know, you've already paid for it, we're not going to approve this. So it wouldn't impact, right?

It is a drawdown situation anyway.

Okay.

And just so you all know, the state does not pay $1.00. We have gotten no state money. We have only gotten 75% so far on what we've drawn down. So we are quite in the hole when it comes to weighting on funds. But as soon as we finish that project, then we'll get our 19% from the state. We've already put in our 6% local share based on our original budget. And then we would have to come up definitely with the 6% on the $500,000-ish figure if everything goes as we hope it will and FEMA will come through.

So if I understand you correctly, which I think I do, we have to pay for it up front. And then they will backfill the money.

And that's the reason I brought that up, because there are some different opportunities out there to say that if you actually took the step to pay for something, there is a line in there that says we won't honor that.

And I will give kudos to Mr. Price. He's very on top of drawing funds as per the FEMA guidelines, and we are on top of that. So we have drawn all the money that we possibly can at this point.

Well, thank you so much, Ms. Van Hyde. And that's the key. We're kind of between the rock and the hard place. You know, we're behind with those resources coming in to make us whole. So we have to go ahead and complete this project so we can get the outstanding money, plus cross our fingers for the additional money that we've requested. Okay, so that's kind of where we are. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Evans, is that on the agenda? Do we need to add it to the agenda or any action? No action to be taken, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Well, let's make sure we get this done post-haste.

I'm trying to... Just to confirm, is everybody good with the full guardrail or handrail replacement, the additional 53,200 on that?

I was going to say, let's rock on.

That's a tall bridge. We do need that.

That's safety.

Let's rock on. Get it done.

Get it done. Thank you. We'll make it happen. Throttle up.

All right. Ms. Vanden Heide, you might as well stay. We're at 6E, finance updates. Ms. Vanden Heide, thank you for being here this evening, and thank you for stepping up and sharing insight for us.

Yes, so my financial update is we have several things on tonight's meeting, some of which are on consent agenda, and I just wanted to give you a high-level overview of what those items are. You do have reports in your packet. I did not print off this presentation just because you have the detail, the granular detail. I'm just going to pull out some things that I think that are important. I have since emailed you all this presentation so that you can look at it if you so choose. So the things that I want to talk about this afternoon, you will have two public hearings tonight. One is on the 2026 year-end budget adjustments, and then the second one is on the 2027 budget adjustments, and we'll go over those. And then we are going to go over all of your capital improvements. You have capital funds in three different capital improvements in three different funds, the capital improvements fund, in the water and sewer fund and as well as the solid waste enterprise fund. And then the last report is your economic development report. So our year-end budget adjustments, we do this every year. If you've been on the board in the past, you know that at the end of each fiscal year, I have to do a deep dive review of every department's budget to ensure that sufficient funds existed at year-end to cover their costs. And sometimes, you know, they run in the red. It's because of cost of living increases or bonuses. And if we cannot make those adjustments, a lot of times, you know, we take it from different departments that had amounts in the black. We are only allowed, and I say we, it's really Mr. Shorter is only allowed up to $25,000 that he can move from one department to the next without Board approval. So a lot of those things are on this report, as well as any unexpected revenues that came in that were not appropriated during the year. So we do that all at one time. If those amounts exceed 1% of your budget, you have to hold a public hearing. So that's the reason for this. So our total adjustments for year end for 2026 are $4,889,265. There is a spreadsheet that lays all of that out by department and the reason that they're being added. So for the general fund, we had unexpected revenue of $1,216,669.87. And there was some local money that will come from your unassigned fund balance for increased CSA expenditures. That is our Children's Services Act, which is a mandated program from the state. And those expenditures are very hard to estimate because a lot of those cases are either court ordered or they're foster children that come in unexpectedly. There's no way to really anticipate that. Then you had unexpected school revenue of $2,409,274.44. And all of our other unexpected revenue, which is in all of your minor funds, was $1,081,151.51. So that makes up the $4.8 million. Do you have any questions if you've had time to review the different things? But like I said, they're just bookkeeping. Your year has ended. It's really just a blessing on it because it's already done. If not, we'll go on to 2027 budget amendments. So now, of course, we're in the 2027 year. You all adopted a budget in May. We did not get a state budget until the end of June. So a lot of these things happen because of the lateness of the state budget. Other items are just things that cropped up. even after you have the ball rolling with your budget, but we do this every year, and the majority of these adjustments are due to carryover. What is carryover? Because I know that some people may not know what that is, but if a department had money remaining at the end of the year in their budget, they may request a carryover of those funds if needed for the following budget year. They are not monies A budget figure is only as good as the money that's behind it. If there is no revenue to substantiate the money that was left in a budget, there is no carryover. So I want to preface that by saying I don't blanket carryover money if there's not real dollar bills behind it. So your adjustments, and they look big, but not quite as big as last year. For 2027, it's $23.4 million, which sounds like a lot. Last year, it was over $40 million, a lot of which is the decrease in our school carryover. Last year, school carried over $15 million. This year, just eight. And I'll explain that, especially in terms of DSS and schools. At the end of the year, per your budget resolution, it requires that DSS and schools revert all of their money to the general fund. So they start with zero. The money that they have requested is pretty much how much they had left in their budget at year end, which was their money that they gave back to us. So they give it to us and then they ask for it back. This is only the second year that DSS has asked for carryover money, but DSS has a lot going on to try to make their building work for the amount of staff that they have. And so the majority of that money is for construction. You do have letters from Ms. Regina Barger from DSS as well as from Dr. Mayhew at the school board concerning their carryovers and what they're for. So you can see that list there. I won't read it. But just know that we basically have to double count the DSS carryover in schools. Because it's in our general fund, it's an expense to the general fund, and then it's given back to DSS in schools. So roughly $8.5 million is the transfer amount. So basically you could deduct it off of the $23 million since it's in there twice. Any questions on 2027 carryovers? And like I said, we have verified, we, finance, has verified that the money does exist for those carryovers. We'll move on to capital improvements. So as per your budget resolution, it also states at the end of each year that finance would provide a complete report of all your capital improvements, where they stand, And if a project closes out, that money will either revert back to the general fund or can be reappropriated to a different project in the capital fund. So as I mentioned earlier, there are three different funds that have capital included in them. This works very similarly to carry over these bunnies are carrying over. So if that money does not exist, it does not carry over. And I will not ever ask you for something to carry over if there's not money behind it. So this is your capital improvements fund and where it stands right now. It's at $12,443,716.30. $1.3 million of that money is the revenue bonds that we received last year for your critical county infrastructure needs. And then $1.5 million is the amount of contribution for new 2027 projects. So for the lease revenue bond projects, your Moses building renovations are complete. Beautiful building. Looks fantastic. Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, which is across from First Citizens Bank on Main Street, that is for property improvements, and that project is also complete. Your incomplete projects is the courthouse HVAC, and that's estimated to be completed next week. And the radio system upgrade is estimated to be done at the end of October. So basically those two projects are the remaining $1.3 million there. So the remaining funds, I did want, there was a, at the bottom of that, it talked about, oh, I've gone the wrong way. Really went the wrong way. At the end of this, it talked about the remaining funds. We had some local money in the Moses building and the Commonwealth Attorneys building. Those monies we are requesting to move to our courthouse construction and renovation line item to make sure. I know that's a priority of the board, but if you all choose to do something else, you can certainly move that however you like. And so moving along. Mr. Chairman. Yes.

If you don't mind, while you're still on that, because this is a lot of paper here, I want to, under the capital projects here, there are two items. It's under the 310. And one of them has buildings, grounds, courthouse renovations, $650,000. And then down below that, just a little ways, it's lease revenue bonds, courthouse improvements, $952,000. Can you help us explain that just a little bit? Yes. Because that first part there, the $650,000, and because the courthouse is a priority, how those funds are being applied? Are they local funds, state funds? I mean, just help us with that one.

So the $650,000, we had a little bit of money left from the last studies and things that we had from Moseley. And then the local money from the leftover funds that we had appropriated for the Moses Building renovation project, as well as the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office project, we are requesting that that be included as well to make the $650. So that's all local money. So you have plenty of money to pay for your study that's coming up. Not really a study, but design plans and things that we're... We've employed Dewberry to handle for us. That's already basically been taken care of with local funds. The other section of money, that is the money that we appropriated using lease revenue bonds, which is borrowed money, to do the HVAC at the courthouse. So that's the difference in those two line items. So we will spend all of that money here by the end of September. All of that money should be gone. So some key action, improvement actions for this year, the 2027 year, we only provided capital money this year for fire and rescue. And that's what makes up that $1,533,000. So career received $68,000. And then the volunteer side received $1,465,000. And then one item that's not included in your $12 million is your capital project fund contribution. That moves from the general fund over to a designated place that you all come up with. It has not been appropriated as of yet. But that will be at your October meeting where you will appropriate that also to the courthouse renovation and construction project. So we can start building that so we don't have to borrow as much money for that project. But another thing that I wanted to add before I move on to the others is that I requested early in August for our treasurer, Ms. Scarce, to move $8.3 million of this money into a money market account. And she did that. So these monies include the $2.8 million of project money and the $5.5 million roughly of broadband money. We know that those two things are going to take a little bit to get started. So if we can earn as much interest as possible on that, it would be wonderful. And just in that little bit of time that it's been in the money market, we earned $16,000. So I think it's very worth our while not to just let it sit there. Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund, they had capital of $4.2 million. And the breakdown of that is we had $614,000 in new projects for the year. $2.4 million is the EDA grant funds. And $1.1 million is carryover funds. And that new money breakdown, we've got money in there for Stony Mill Water Line project of $250,000. which I would assume would be for some engineering for that project. Wayside number two well system is $150,000. And so you see that water capital reserve. This is a little bit different than your solid waste enterprise fund in the fact that right now your water fund generates more revenue than expenditures. So when we have that issue, we put it in a capital reserve fund. So that's where Mr. Adcock was telling you that he had some reserves in there, and some of his carryover is also reserve money. So he has some monies. And then, of course, if you don't do any projects, you would have roughly $614,000 that you could use toward that at this point. But when you do a long-term water line, it's a 20-year commitment. So if you do one, it's hard to do another one, unless you do have large numbers of customers coming onto the line. So solid waste enterprise fund is, yes.

Kim, right here. Yes. Mr. Chairman, please, if you don't mind. Yes, sir. So looking at these real quick. So the ones you've got listed here on the capital outlay, For instance, Robin Court's on here, $82,000, and so on down. Those are actually forecasted right for this next year or not?

So their carryovers, so the $80,000 that we had left for Robin Court, and I'm glad you brought that up, we would like that to move down to the capital reserve because that project is completely finished. And we can move that down so you can continue to build your reserves for other borderlines. The other ones are ongoing projects. Right.

Okay. Good. Thank you.

Thank you for bringing that up. Solid waste enterprise fund is at $2.1 million, and that is made up. You do have some revenue bonds left from your 2021 borrowing from VRA of $497,000. And then you have carryover funds of $1.6 million. So there are some requests to move some money around. We're proposing to move $50,000 from new compactor site to compactor site improvements. If you'll remember your last meeting that we had, Solid Waste Committee, you saw a lot of those containers are coming apart at the seams. They need to buy some of those containers. But like I said, they have roughly about $270,000 currently in that new compactor site. And if we could move some to buy some compactors for the existing sites, that's what we would like to do. And then, of course, you heard the discussion from Mr. Adcock about the $260,000 Labella amount, and that's a maximum amount. We haven't actually moved those funds. There's about $92,000 left for engineering for that project. So since we don't really know, we do have... reserves for the landfill, and we also have some closure money since some of the engineering will be used for closure. And as we know a confirmed figure, we will move those funds at that time. But it's no sense in moving the whole amount when you're not sure how much it's going to be. Hopefully it will be less. Any questions on capital? I'm trying to go fast. The last item I have to talk about is your economic development fund. Currently it stands at $6.7 million. $2.2 million is the general fund 2027 contribution this year. $1.2 million are grants. It's actually a tobacco grant. And then we have carryover of $2.3 million. You may ask, what is spent out of economic development fund? This is not Matt Rowe's budget. He has his own operating budget in the general fund. This is to simply pay incentives to do grade work, to do things in your economic development, in any part that you have. So we run everything through there, our contributions to RIFA, our contributions to SR RIFA, Contributions for Virginia Southside Economic Development Partnership, we give money through that. So right now this looks pretty good, but some of those incentives are hefty. I know you see the LPAs and it says, you know, incentive for, you know, 70%. And so that's why it's so important when we are budgeting and we have our revenues for real estate, personal property, you have to earmark those incentives or you spend it. And then you go, wait a minute, we've got to pay this money back. So that's why we really need to make sure that that is appropriated each year. One thing that came up from the SRRiffa meeting yesterday, we will have to pay for the Grave Cemetery driveway and the purchase of that property out at the Hurt Park. And our share of that, because we have a 61% interest in that park, is $274,000. That is not previously budgeted. It will be moved from incentives, and I just wanted to make you all aware. This may be a fund that we'll have to look at mid-year to make sure sufficient funds do exist because, like I say, you know, it's nothing to we have to share our revenues with the city, with the town of Hurt, And that's the cost of doing business. If you want to bring business here, that's what we have to do.

You have to spend money to make money.

That's exactly right. So with that, they're all my reports. And so those reports will be on consent agenda, and then you'll have the two public hearings tonight.

Thank you, Ms. Vander Heide. Any questions, comments from Ms. Vander Heide? Pretty thorough.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to commend you. Very good report here. And Garrett, are you paying attention? You're watching her, right? Good. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you again. All right. Let's see here. This takes us down to Agenda Item 7, Business Meeting Discussions. I don't think we have anything there.

No, sir.

All right.

That means that we're ready for closed session. Would you read us in, please, Mr. Evans?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are three matters designated for closed session, which are first, discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body. Legal authority of Virginia Code Section 2.237-1181. Subject matter, DSS appointee and general personnel discussion. Purpose, review, and discussion, the same. Second, we have a consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to permit the closure of a meeting merely because an attorney representing the public body is in attendance or is consulted on a matter. Legal authority, Virginia Code, section 2.237.11a.8. Subject matter is River Street. landfill contract, courthouse purposes, discussion, sorry, consultation with legal counsel, legal advice and discussion regarding the same. And lastly, discussion concerning the perspective of business or industry or the expansion of existing business or industry Where no previous announcement has been made of the businesses or industries' interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the community, Legal Authority of Virginia Code Section 2.237-1185, subject matter, unannounced, prospective businesses and industries, purpose, general economic development projects, update. Mr. Chairman, it is now appropriate to entertain a motion, second, discussion, and vote regarding this closed session.

Thank you, Mr. Evans. I'll entertain that motion.

I'll make that motion.

Thank you, Mr. Bost. Second. Thank you. Was that Mr. Dalton?

No, Mr. Engel. Mr. Engel.

Thank you, sir. All right. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, let's vote electronically. All right, motion passes unanimously. We'll convene to closed session. Let's come to order.

Mr. Evans, would you read us in, please? Yes, sir. Be it resolved that the Pennsylvania County Board of Supervisors work session held on September the 15th, 2026, 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 board member believes there was a departure from the requirements of the act, he shall so state prior to the vote indicating the substance of the departure. This statement shall be recorded in the board's meeting minutes. We will now have a roll call vote regarding said certification of closed session. Mr. Dalton. Yes. Mr. Dudley, not present. Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Bowman. Yes. Mr. Whittle. Yes. Mr. Ingram. Yes. Mr. Tucker.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Tucker.

We stand adjourned. Let's take a 10-minute break.