Board of Supervisors September 25,2018 Sheet 1  September 25, 2018 Greene County, Virginia  THE GREENE COUNTY BOARD OFS SUPERVISORS MET ONTUESDAYSEPTEMBER3,  2018 BEGINNING AT 6:001 P.M. IN THE COUNTY MEETING ROOM.  Present were:  Michelle Flynn, Chair Bill Martin, Vice Chair David Cox, Member Marie Durrer, Member Dale Herring, Member  Staff present:  Brenda Garton, Interim County Administrator Kelley Kemp, County Attorney Patti Vogt, Deputy Clerk Jim Frydl, Director ofPlanning and Zoning  RE: CLOSED MEETING approved the following:  Upon motion by Bill Martin, second by Marie Durrer and unanimous vote, the Board WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Greene County desires to discuss in Closed Discussion of the performance and resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or WHEREAS, pursuant to $2.2-3711 (A)(1) of the Code of Virginia, such discussions may NOW,THEREFORE, BE: ITI RESOLVED that the Board ofSupervisors of Greene County  Meeting the following matter(s):  employees of any public body (former County Administrator)  occuri in Closed Meeting.  does hereby authorize discussions of the aforestated matters in Closed Meeting.  Recorded vote:  Michelle Flynn Bill Martin David Cox Marie Durrer Dale Herring  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried. returned to open meeting.  Upon motion by Dale Herring, second by Marie Durrer and unanimous vote, the Board    Board of Supervisors September 25,2018 Sheet 2  Recorded vote:  Michelle Flynn Bill Martin David Cox Marie Durrer Dale Herring  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried.  By unanimous vote, all members certified that only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirement and only such matters as identified by thei motion to  enter into closed meeting were discussed.  Recorded vote:  Michelle Flynn Bill Martin David Cox Marie Durrer Dalel Herring  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  RE: WORK SESSION WITH THE BERKLEY GROUP - COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Mr. James Stegmaier, Mr. Darren Coffey, Mr. Drew Williams and Mr. Kimball Payne, of The Berkley Group, were present to discuss the process for the recruitment of the new County Administrator. The Board was] provided with comments from 6 attendees at the community forum The Berkley Group staff cautioned the Board that citizen involvement in the interview of prospective candidates would not be advised. Many candidates are likely to be currently employed and very sensitive to their employers finding out that they are applicants until a certain point ini the process. It was noted that the County Administrator is appointed by thel Board of Supervisors. It Board members responded to questions in regards to the development of the recruitment profile. These questions covered topics such as: what is special about Greene County; what should prospective candidates know about the County and government; what are the priorities of the Board for the next 3 to 5 years; what issues, challenges, opportunities and projects might be upcoming; the Board's vision statement; what are the qualifications of the desired candidate in terms ofe education, experience, professional affiliations, or otherwise; leadership style; and desired There was discussion about the roles of the County Administrator. The County Administrator is the purchasing agent and clerk to the Board of Supervisors. It is unclear, at this The Berkley Group will draft a contract between the Board of Supervisors and the successful candidate that will be a written public document including: a clear statement that this is an at-will employment without term; compensation and benefits; severance package; professional development; use ofa a vehicle; paid time off; health and retirement benefits; deferred compensation; computer and telecommunication equipment; and annual performance review. A  RECRUITMENT  and two additional citizens who submitted written comments.  is not an elected position.  characteristics for prospective candidates.  time, what role the County Administrator would have during an emergency.  contract will prevent confusion on either side.    Board of Supervisors September: 25, 2018 Sheet 3  The Berkley Group representatives said that they would prefer toj provide a general idea of compensation based on qualifications and asked ift the Board has a range in mind. They will need to be able to respond when asked what the position pays. Mrs. Flynn said compensation information the Board has relates to similar size counties and it seems Greene is fairly low in comparison. It was the consensus of Board members to have the range between $125,000 to  $150,000.  Any inquiries received by the County will be referred to' The Berkley Group. The Berkley Group will have a draft position profile by the end ofnext week. They expect to meet with the Board again after telephone interviews are conducted in November. A full day Ms. Garton asked when the Board would be informed about the number of applications received. It was advised that it would be best to wait until the first deadline to provide that  ofinterviews would be anticipated in the first or second week ofl December.  information to the Board. RE: RECESS  The Chair called ai five-minute recess.  RE: OPENMEETING  The Chair opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of  silence.  RE: ADOPTION OF AGENDA adopted the agenda as presented. Recorded vote:  Upon motion by Bill Martin, second by Dale Herring and unanimous vote, the Board  Michelle Flynn Bill Martin David Cox Marie Durrer Dale Herring  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried. RE: CONSENT AGENDA  Upon motion by Bill Martin, second by Marie Durrer and unanimous vote, the Board  approved the following items on the consent agenda:  a. b. C.  Minutes of September 11,2018 meeting  Resolution to accept and appropriate $6,068 ofl highway safety project funds from the DMV Selective Enforcement Speed Grant for the Sheriff's Office (See Resolution to accept and appropriate $8,820 ofhighway safety project funds from the DMV Selective Enforcement Alcohol Grant for the Sheriff's Office (See  Attachment "A") Attachment "B")    Board of Supervisors September 25,2018 Sheet 4  Recorded vote:  Michelle Flynn Bill Martin David Cox Marie Durrer Dale Herring  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried. RE: RECOGNITION  The Board recognized Alun Ward and Norma Caron-Ward, oft the Blue Ridge Pottery and John Pluta and Holly Horan, of the Noon Whistle Pottery, for their efforts in the creation of, and  their continuing work with, the Virginia Clay Festival. RE: MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC  Mr. James Murphy thanked the Board for allowing The Berkley Group to hold a community forum for public input on the County Administrator search. He has learned that this is not a normal part of the process in other counties. We can set the example for other counties. Hei made suggestions about ai transparent process and unanimous vote by the Board.  RE: PUBLIC HEARING - REVISE ZONING ORDINANCE - COMMERCIAL KENNELS, Mr. Jim Frydl, Planning and Zoning Administrator, opened with the review oft the current regulations regarding kennels compared to the proposed changes which will expand business opportunities for people who want to operate a kennel. There has been misunderstanding and miscommunication about this] proposal. Current regulations prohibit kennels with less than 10 dogs but staff does not enforce, and is not interested in enforcing, this regulation. Animal kennel is defined as any establishment in which 5 or more canines, felines, orl hybrids of either are. kept for the purposes of breeding, hunting, training, renting, buying, boarding, selling or showing. A lot of those are not commercial activities. This means if a person has a kennel with 5 or more dogs and iti is not located in the B-2 zone with a Special Use Permit, thel kennel is not allowed. This will A commercial kennel is defined as aj place where 10 or more dogs (canines) of any age are kept fort the primary purpose ofsale or rental ori in connection with thel boarding, breeding, training The Board of Supervisors included the clarification and clean-up of this language in the Members discussed the definition of compensation". Pets are not considered as being kept for compensation even if puppies are sold. A commercial business would be for the sole Mr. Frydl said the proposed amendments are very clear in that they would not apply to hunting dogs or pets. The proposed amendments also increase the zoning districts in which the  ANIMAL SHELTERS AND ANIMAL KENNELS  stay the law of the land if the proposed changes are not approved. or care for which a fee is charged or any compensation is received. work agenda given to the Planning Department in 2015.  purpose ofc compensation (making money) by raising and selling dogs.  uses would be allowed.    Board of Supervisors September 25,2018 Sheet 5  Mrs. Flynn clarified that the proposed amendments would expand the districts in which this can occur. The only difference between small and large commercial kennels under the proposed definitions is the number of animals allowed. Under the current definition by law, enforced or not, the ordinance says any establishment that has 5 or more canines, and is not in the B-2 zone with a Special Use Permit, is not in compliance. Under the new ordinance, a kennel of hunting dogs, unless for the purpose of compensation, would be allowed because hunting dogs are Mr. Frydl said the Planning Department is a complaint driven agency and ifa complaint is Mrs. Durrer questioned the occasional boarding of animals for compensation. Mr. Frydl said that would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. He said boarding animals would be consider customary and incidental to a veterinarian business, which is required to have a The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following recommended Remove the last sentence relating to home litters from the definitions for small and large Revise thel language OfKENNEL, SMALL COMMERCIAL to read: An establishment in which fewer than five (5) canines, felines or hybrids of either are kept for compensation Revise the language of KENNEL, LARGE COMMERCIAL to read: An establishment where five (5) or more canines, felines, or hybrids of either are kept for compensation for Mike Gregory questioned why this is being brought up now. He did not know of any commercial kennels in the county. Ifpets and hunting dogs are excluded, why is it being brought up? Hunting dogs are not mentioned inj proposed changes. Who makes the decision about what a Frank Morris said he has problems and concerns with this as the language is not clear. He asked who will enforce this ordinance. The language needs to be clear SO anyone can understand Jeremy Taylor asked thel Board toi not approve the proposed changes. Ifit wasi not aj problem before, he can't see aj problem with it now. He asked how many commercial kennels have wanted Nancy Rodland said the proposal does not benefit the good of thei majority oft the residents who depend upon or enjoy the current allowances at hand. This proposal is too much government Craig Shifflett asked why has this been brought up and said he doesn'tunderstand some of Waylon Shifflett questioned number of hunting dogs allowed for small or large kennels.  not affected by the ordinance. received, it has tol bei investigated.  business license. revisions:  kennels.  for the purposes ofbreeding, training, renting, buying or boarding. the purposes ofbreeding, training, renting, buying or boarding. The Chair opened the floor for public comments.  hunting dogi is? He also felt compensation should be better defined. it. He suggested the ordinance remain as is, ifiti is not a concern.  tol locate here.  interference and affects all dog owners. She asked the Board to vote no.  the language himself. He is opposed to the changes.  He said there are too many city people moving in and trying to change laws.    Board of Supervisors September 25,2018 Sheet 6  Marshall Pace said he has been buying kennel tags since 1986. Everyone here is against the changes and it should be dropped for good. He runs dogs on the Cox farm and they do not Ronnie Morris said hel has had kennel tags for 32 years. Hei felt thei majority ofpeople don't know what hunting dogs are. Mr. Morris also felt young kids need something to do like hunting. Sam Jarrell said he couldn't understand some of the proposed language and felt hunting dog needs to be better defined. He suggested the Board change the language to exclude hunting Wayne Marshall said he agreed with previous speakers and didn'tsee anything wrong with what we have in the county. He suggested the Board include the exclusion of hunting dogs and Charles Morton said he did not understand some of the changes and was not in favor of Ryan Morris felt a lot oft the wording is a gray area. He said ownership of hunting dogs is Jerry Morris suggested thel language be cleaned up tol bei more precise. He urged the Board to vote no tonight. If we don't have a problem with the current regulations, why is a change  have anything against it.  He goes out-of-state to hunt. He was not in favor of thej proposed changes.  dogs or vote against the amendments.  pets. them.  al heritage and felt the county will lose a lot ofpeople ift this is passed.  needed? There is over-regulation nowi in a lot ofthings.  Earl Moyer said he has been told that ifs something smells fishy it usuallyis. Eric Hensley agreed with previous comments. Why is this being brought up ifit is not a problem? He asked the Board to vote no or at least get a public opinion from everybody before  voting for this or come November, we'll talk.  Randolph Shifflett deferred his turn to comment.  Adam Morris said virtually everything hel had to say has been said and asked the Board to Ronnie Morris did not agree with the proposed amendments saying hei felti it was an attempt Matt Hardin wondered where this idea came from. He wants to see the applications from people who were told they could not start al kennel business in the county. He questioned the truth ofthis statement by staff and suggested the County share the information to prove him wrong. He also said thej people do not trust this Board of Supervisors to dot thei right thing based on past actions and they don'tt trust the current Planning and Zoning Administrator to enforce regulations. Roman Morris said he did not agree with the proposed amendments.  vote no.  to get more money fromj people. He thought the Board should clean this mess up.  The public hearing was closed.  Mrs. Flynn noted ai noise ordinance is not being discussed and there is already an ordinance ine effect. This particular issue was brought up several years ago to put less restriction on the use. The amendments, as proposed, would place less restrictions on hunting dogs compared to current Mr. Frydl reiterated that, according to the current language, al kennel with: 5 or more canines to breed, hunt or train is not allowed unless iti is in the business district with a Special Use Permit  regulations.  This provision would have tol be enforced ifa complaint is received.    Board of Supervisors September 25,2018 Sheet 7  Mr. Herring noted the proposed amendments would actually expand the use by right. If Mrs. Flynn also pointed out that if the sole purpose of a kennel is compensation, then a business license would be required. She said the definition of hunting dog is irrelevant to this Mr. Frydl said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 17, 2017; a work session on. June 20, 2018; and aj public hearing again on August 15,2018 to consider the provisions Mr. Cox asked how many small or large commercial kennels are in the county. Mr. Frydl said he did not know ift there are any advertised right now but there have been some in the past. Staff did receive complaints about one in particular and when investigating was told by the owner they were closing down anyway. Mr. Frydl also said a person with fewer than 10 animals had Mr. Alan Yost said the request for a kennel Mr. Frydl is referring to was on Carpenter's Mill Road. This is not allowed by the current ordinance. Mr. Frydl said that complaint was Mr. Martin said again that enforcement is complaint driven. Staffwill not be going out to check dog pens unless there is a complaint. Mr. Herring said again that the original ordinance has Mrs. Durrer felt the wording about compensation is what most people are concerned about. Mr. Frydl felt the phrase "for compensation" has been taken out of context. The Planning Commission spent a great deal of time to clarify that it would be a commercial establishment for Mrs. Durrer felt the compensation component is what people don't understand. She said she also was bothered by that wording and noted she has listened to the recording of all the meetings the Planning Commission held on this issue. She, however, did not have suggested Ms. Kelley Kemp, Assistant County Attorney, suggested defining private kennels could clarify the intent oft the proposed amendments. Mrs. Durrer felt that would help. Ms. Kemp also said the State Code defines kennels as 5 or more dogs. The Zoning Ordinance allows home businesses int the C-1 and A-1 zones by right. She could provide different definitions. Mr. Frydl said the State Code defines commercial as "for the purpose ofreceiving a fee or Mrs. Flynn asked ifthe wording "for the purposes ofr receiving payment" would clarify this for Mrs. Durrer. Mr. Martin suggested the wording "for the purposes of operating a business Following additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to move forward with Kennel, Small Commercial: An establishment in which fewer than five (5) canines, felines or hybrids of either are kept for the purpose of operating a business for breeding, training, renting,  enforced, the original ordinance will have created unintended consequences.  provision.  for kennels. Unfortunately, no one attended the work session.  wanted to operate but it is not allowed under current regulations. resolved when the owner closed the business and moved. unintended consequences and needs to be clarified.  the purpose of compensation and not a hobby or pet activity.  wording to address her concerns at this time.  payment".  enterprise for compensation". the following:  buying or boarding.    Board of Supervisors September 25, 2018 Sheet 8  Kennel, Large Commercial: An establishment where five (5) orr more canines, felines, orl hybrids ofeither are kept for the purpose ofoperating a business for breeding, training, renting, buying or  boarding.  The proposal is to substitute "for the purpose of operating a business" for the phrase "for Mrs. Flynn also noted the proposed amendments are in keeping with the Comprehensive Upon motion by David Cox, second by Bill Martin and affirmative vote, the Board approved ordinance revisions OR#17-002 as submitted with the change to replace "for the purpose ofcompensation" with "for the purpose of operating a business" in eachi instance.  thej purpose of compensation".  Plan and are appropriate in the areas for which they are proposed.  Recorded vote:  Michelle Flynn Bill Martin David Cox Marie Durrer Dale Herring  Yes Yes Yes No Yes  Motion carried. RE: RECESS  The Chair called a tive-minute recess.  RE: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE TREASURER TO ISSUE TAX REFUNDS UP TO Mrs. Flynn said this request was presented to the Board as an information item at the last meeting and now approval is requested. Ms. Garton said the State Code allows the Board to authorize the' Treasurer to issue refunds for erroneous assessment that are under $2,500. Requests forr refunds more than $2,500 would have tol be submitted by the Commissioner of] Revenue to the Upon motion by Bill Martin, second by Dale Herring and unanimous vote, the Board approved the resolution authorizing the Treasurer toi issue refunds for erroneous assessments up to  $2,500  County Attorney and then to the Board of Supervisors for approval.  $2,500. (See Attachment "C") Recorded vote:  Michelle Flynn Bill Martin David Cox Marie Durrer Dale Herring  Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Motion carried.  RE: FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT  Mr. Frydl said this is the first phase ofthet two-phase project to assess conditions and needs of facilities. Mrs. Meador, Emergency Services Director, and Mr. Morris, Director of Fleet and Facilities Management, did most of the work in the initial phase. Mr. Byron Dunlap and Mr. Ray  Best, representatives of Cardno, were present.    Board of Supervisors September 25, 2018 Sheet 9  Mr. Dunlap said the facility condition assessment was conducted to provide a better understanding of county assets and to plan for future facility needs by defining the existing conditions of the facilities and determining the estimated useful life for building systems and components. The assessment also determined repair, renovation and replacement requirements of The report includes an assessment of the roof systems, building exterior elements, structural systems, and interior finishes as well as the mechanical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), electrical, plumbing and conveying systems for 19 county-owned facilities. Information includes the condition and description of each facility system and the identification of work items, along with a prioritized maintenance action plan for the deferred maintenance items The next step would be a needs analysis which would plan for future users and functional needs by conducting a space needs and site analysis to determine the existing functional spaces being used today and forecasting requirements for the future such as space, technology, code, etc. The analysis would prioritize user needs, review various space planning alternatives and Mr. Martin asked about next steps. Mr. Dunlap said the Board could look at what needs to be done over five years and follow prioritized projects iff funding is available. Adjustments would Mr. Herring felt this is a great start, noting projects could cost more in the future if we Mr. Frydl said this information is very useful for capital improvement planning purposes. Ms. Garton said there is money in thel budget for the next phase and this will be on the agenda for  building systems and components for selected facilities.  and forecast for maintenance, repair and renewal costs for 10 years.  recommend an implementation plan. be made based on funding available. don't take steps to address issues today. the October 9 meeting as an action item. RE: EDA BYLAWS  Mr. Alan Yos, Director ofl Economic Development and' Tourism, said the County Attorney has reviewed the proposed changes to the EDA bylaws which brings them into compliance with  the State code. This will be an action item on the next agenda. RE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SEARCH UPDATE  Ms. Garton said' The Berkley Group plans to developap profleincorporating input from the Board and community by the end of next week. The position will be advertised in October, applications will be reviewed in November, and The Berkley Group will tentatively set up  interviews with finalists for early December. RE: LIAISON REPORTS  Mrs. Durrer said the Central Virginia Regional Jail Board met last Thursday and has Mrs. Flynn said she attended a meeting oft the Jefferson Area Board for Aging yesterday.  reached an agreement with Dominion Service about relocating power lines. JABA'sI mobile insurance counseling unit will be in Greene County in the fall.    Board of Supervisors September 25,2018 Sheet 10 project.  Mr. Martin said he attended the groundbreaking ceremony for the Greene Commons  RE: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE Ms. Garton reported the following: did not impact this area as expected.  The Emergency Services Department was prepared for Hurricane Florence which, luckily, Appointment letters went out for recent appointments made by the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Garton met with Matt Hardin to discuss his request for at transfer from the contingency fund to his office for implementation ofr new discovery rules effective July 1, 2019. The Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) conference is in November. Members The resolution was forwarded to Rapidan Service Authority (RSA) requesting they schedule a public hearing to consider the proposed increase in the facility fee and change in the basis for billing of the facility fee. The Board held a work session on the Greene The County Attorney updated Board members on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Mr. Lacheney is proposing a change in his contract as county attorney, as the legal needs oft the county are greater than anticipated. There are sufficient funds in budget to cover the Repairs toi meet State regulations are underway at the Animal Shelter. Clean up and repairs Ms. Garton said it was reported to her that there was a post on Facebook regarding the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and the issue of dogs. After reviewing the post, which was mostly false information, she felt she should summarize what actually happened. She received a complaint about dogs in the Commonwealth's Attorney Office on a regular basis barking, disturbing others, being left alone, and sometimes making a mess in the office. In fact, two dogs were in the office the day she met with Mr. Hardin. Mr. Hardin bring his 2 dogs and his deputy brings her 2 dogs, SO on any given day there are 4 dogs in the office. Ms. Garton said she researched thei issue and found that dogs are: not allowed in countybuildings unless they are service animals. She also checked with Mr. Lacheneyi if this policy would apply to constitutional officers Ms. Garton discussed the complaint with Mr. Hardin when he came over to discuss his funding request. The post on Facebook said the Board of Supervisors told him to get the dogs out of the office and that he could not have guns in his office. Ms. Garton said she wanted to make it clear that the Board of Supervisors had nothing to do with it. She investigated the complaint and followed up on it. She informed the Board that she had received a complaint and the action she took after she did it. There was no mention of guns at any time. Mr. Hardin has met with Mr. Lacheney regarding the issue. Mr. Hardin said hel has moved closer to the office and will not be  should let staff know ift they plan to attend.  County Water Supply and' Treatment Project on September 18th.  during their September 18th work session.  increase and this will be an information item on the next agenda.  are also underway at the Courthouse.  under these circumstances and he agreed they do.    Board of Supervisors September 25, 2018 Sheet 11  bringing his dogs in. His assistant lives some distance away and will continue to bring her dogs Ms. Garton explained that, as ai retiree of the Virginia Retirement System, she is allowed to work as an interim or temporary County. Administrator for exactly 6r months. Itis not a foregone conclusion that she can automatically continue, as VRS would need to approve an extension on a month-by-month basis. Ms. Garton also said her mother is very ill and this could affect her availability as well. She will bel here as long as she can and hopes tol bel here until thei new County Mrs. Flynn asked how fari in advance an extension could be requested. Ms. Garton thought the request would need to be made prior to the end of the current approval. Mrs. Flynn felt we should have a plan and not wait until the last minute. She also asked ifai new approval would be required if the Board were to hire Ms. Garton as a consultant for a month when the new administrator comes on board. Ms. Garton said that VRS would have to make that determination.  into the office until such time as she moves closer.  Administrator is inj place.  RE: DEPARTMENT REPORTS RE: AJDOURN MEETING  Mrs. Flynn and Mr. Martin both said they appreciated receiving the department reports. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. The next scheduled meeting of the Board of  Supervisors will be on' Tuesday, October 9, 2018 in the county meeting room.  hhita  mlupa Greene County Board of Supervisors  Micnelle  Chair Flynn,  Brenda hukl  Garton, Clerk  Greene County Board of Supervisors    Board of Supervisors September 25, 2018 Attachment "A"  RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE SIX THOUSAND SIXTY-EIGHT DOLLARS FOR THE DMV SELECTIVE  ENFORCEMENT-SPEED GRANT  WHEREAS, the County of Greene could receive funding from the Department of Motor Vehicles for a DMV Selective Enforcement-Speed Grant;  and  WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of six thousand sixty-eight dollars ($6,068) need to be appropriated to the appropriate line item in the 2018-2019  budget of the County of Greene, Virginia.  NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors oft the County of Greene, Virginia that six thousand sixty-eight dollars ($6,068) be appropriated to the 2018-2019 budget of the County of Greene,  Virginia.  BEI IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator oft the County of Greene, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate accounting adjustments in the budget to do all things necessary to give this resolution effect.  Adopted this 25th day of September, 2018.  Mlle uypny  Chairman  Clerk    Board of Supervisors September 25, 2018 Attachment "B"  RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHTHUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS FOR THE DMV SELECTIVE  ENFORCEMENT-ALCOHOL GRANT  WHEREAS, the County of Greene could receive funding from the Department of Motor Vehicles for a DMV Selective Enforcement-Alcoho! Grant;  and  WHEREAS, the funds in the amount of eight thousand eight hundred twenty dollars ($8,820) need to be appropriated to the appropriate line item in the 2018-  2019 budget of the County of Greene, Virginia.  NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Greene, Virginia that eight thousand eight hundred twenty dollars ($8,820) be appropriated to the 2018-2019 budget of the County of  Greene, Virginia.  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator of the County of Greene, Virginia is authorized to make the appropriate accounting adjustments in the budget to do all things necessary to give this resolution effect.  Adopted this 25th day of September, 2018.  yille Chaitman  lupny    Board of Supervisors September 25, 2018 Attachment "C"  RESOLUTION OF' THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF GREENE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AUTHORIZINGTHE TREASURER TO ISSUE REFUNDS FOR  ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENTS UPTO $2,500  WHEREAS, Virginia Code $58.1-3981, Correction by commissioner or other official performing his duties, outlines the process whereby citizens are refunded payments for erroneous  assessments by the Commissioner ofthe Revenue; and  WHEREAS, the above-referenced Virginia Code Section provides that the Board of Supervisors shall authorize the Treasurer to issue such refunds for taxes paid by citizens for erroneous assessments, upon certification from the Commissioner ofthe Revenue with the consent oft the county attorney ofs such erroneous assessment and resulting payment by the citizen; and WHEREAS, the above-referenced Virginia Code Section also provides that thel Board may authorize the Treasurer to approve andi issue any such refund up to $2,500 resulting from payment oftaxes for an erroneous assessment, upon review oflike material submitted by the Commissioner  oft the Revenue; and  WHEREAS, the Greene County Board of Supervisors desires to expedite refunds to NOW,THEREFORE, BEI ITI RESOLVED, on this 25th day ofSeptember, 2018, that the Greene County Board of Supervisors, pursuant to Virginia Code $58.1-3981, does hereby authorize the Treasurer of Greene County to approve and issue any refund up to $2,500 resulting  taxpayers for such erroneous assessments in accordance with Virginia Code;  from payment made due to an erroneous assessment.  Motion: Bill Martin Second: Dale Herring  Votes: Flynn: Martin: Yes Cox: Durrer: Yes Herring: Yes  Yes Yes  ATTEST:  hub Brenda G. Garton, Clerk  Flynn, Chair  HhE  MBpu