The Front Royal Planning Commission at its regular meeting on September 15th tackled several development proposals that could affect town streets and neighborhoods. As a usual part of the commission’s meeting format, Chairman Douglas Jones asked if there were any citizen comments on matters not on the agenda, and there were none.
Turning to the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, the commission considered an application from Poe’s River Edge, LLC for a Special Exception requesting a new, non-dedicated private street for access to its Industrially Zoned (I-2) Property off the end of Kendrick Lane. This exception is required before an industrial subdivision can be approved. The applicant is not proposing any new public streets, instead of allowing for a privately maintained road to the property for future development.
At one time the 10-Acre property was fronted on old Kendrick Ford Road, which was abandoned by the town in 1944. Consequently, a special exception is being requested to provide access. The Director of Planning Lauren Kopishke explained in her presentation to the Commission that the applicants were proposing the conversion of a private right of way to a private road. William “BJ” Biggs, who is the Property Manager for a neighboring parcel, spoke during the Public Hearing. He told the Commission that there is currently not a maintenance agreement with the applicant for the road. He also said that the road under Norfolk Southern railroad overpass at the end of Kendrick Lane on the corner of the proposed access road is subject to severe drainage problems, and that could cut off the parcel completely since there is no other access.
The commissioners asked several clarifying questions of the applicants regarding the access road and the right of way. William Barnett spoke in favor of the proposal, as it facilitates development in that area which is ideal for the purpose. It is largely out of view – and hearing – of the public, far from a flood plain, and has been lying fallow for many years. Industrial property in the Town limits is very limited, so Mr. Barnett asserted that returning it to its intended use will mean increased tax revenues, possibly jobs, and in general a benefit to the community.
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the commissioners had an opportunity to query the applicants. Vice-Chairman Connie Marshner asked one of the earlier witnesses, Mr. Biggs, about the drainage problem he had mentioned in his comments. “Was it because of rain?” Chairman Jones asked if the drainage problems at the spot Mr. Biggs had referred to had been reported to the town. Answer: “Many times.” Commissioner Darryl Merchant commented that there was some uncertainty about the right of way as it was laid out alongside the Old Virginia building on the neighboring plot and although he was certainly in favor of approving this development, there needed to be some clarification about the maintenance responsibilities and the width of the right of way for the private road. He joined other commission members in being concerned with the access point to the property.
Vice-Chairman Marshner introduced a motion that forwards a recommendation of conditional approval to the town council, provided that the right of way be increased to 55 feet along the eastern edge of the parcel, and a turnaround for emergency vehicles be provided. Commissioner Gordon seconded and the commission voted unanimously to approve. The approval authority will be the Front Royal Town Council.
Holloway Construction private subdivision revisited
The second Special Exception application of the night was by Chris Holloway Construction for a new non-dedicated private street in the Steele Subdivision between Steele Avenue and Beeden Lane at the end of Carter Street. The unusual twist, in this case, is that Mr. Holloway is the sitting Mayor of Front Royal, leading to an uncomfortable position for the Planning Department, if not the Planning Commission itself. The proposed private street would service a series of 6 lots in that area for a block of new townhomes.
During the Public Hearing, two neighbors from Steele Avenue addressed the commission. Karen Tinkham testified that the construction on that site has resulted in substantial water and mudflow onto her property and brought photos to show the commission.
Another neighbor from Steele Ave, Christopher Settle, also reiterated the drainage problem and reported that the builder had installed some silt fence that may have slowed down some of the drainages, but did not stop it entirely, since the mud could come under the fence. The applicant, Chris Holloway, addressed the commission and acknowledged that heavy rains had caused some mudflow off the site and that his crew had installed a silt fence to stop the flow. He said it was possible that the wash could happen again given the topography of the site. He said the site had originally been lots, but that boundary adjustment had six lots to permit the construction of townhouses on the site, and that a street 20 feet wide was necessary to provide adequate space for the townhouse units on the lots with the required setbacks. Chairman Jones observed that a solution for the mud draining problem should be more permanent than a silt fence. Joe Brogan, who surveyed the property for the project, testified that when the units are completed, and the grassy areas are established. “Hopefully the natural drainage will solve the problem.”
Commissioner Merchant led off the commissioner’s comments by observing that the Subdivision Plat for this project had been signed on June 27 by the Town Manager, Interim Planning Director, and Finance Director. Since that time, the applicant was made aware that a Special Exception was required for “subdivisions on new non-dedicated private streets.” The subdivision plat was recorded at the courthouse on July 6 and was vacated on September 14. The request before the commission was to consider the private street and the proposed naming of that street. The problem arose because procedurally, the private street approval must be complete before a subdivision plat can be approved.
The applicant had requested that the new private street be named “Ryder Benson Court/Drive”. Commissioner Merchant expressed concern, as had the Planning Staff in a letter to the applicant, that the proposed street did not provide adequate access to emergency vehicles due to its width. The street would not meet the requirements that the town ordinance specifies. New public town streets must have a 50-foot right of way and have 37-feet of pavement. “Is there any reason we would modify our street standards for this development?” she asked.
One of the intents of the ordinance was to discourage private streets. Property owners on private streets may not have certain benefits that others enjoy – snow removal, trash pickup, or town road maintenance. Commissioners Gordon and Ingram addressed the issue of the process of approval. Planning Director Kopishke said that this request for a private street should be the first in the approval sequence, followed by the subdivision plat, site plan review, and approval, then building permits and inspections. In final remarks, commissioners concurred that the proposal was unworkable in its current form. On a motion by Commissioner Merchant, Seconded by Commissioner Gordon, the Commission then unanimously voted to recommend denial of the request.
Finally, the commission considered an application for a Special Use Permit by Allen Walters to construct a single-family dwelling on a nonconforming lot in the 1300 block of Warren Avenue. The lot is less than the minimum width and the minimum square footage according to the Town Code. The Planning Department review indicates the proposed dwelling will comply with the conditions established in the Town Code for a Special Use Permit. Before opening the Public Hearing, Commissioner Merchant told the commissioners that the case here was using a single 50-foot lot, unlike previous requests for combining several lots into one. The neighboring dwellings are built on 50-foot lots, and this proposal includes the required property line setbacks and the design of the structure as presented appears to meet the standards of the ordinance – it is what the ordinance was intended to do, it was observed.
Three citizens from the immediate area addressed the commission to oppose the building of a home on that lot. Neighbors to the north and south, Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Howard, both opposed the building because it was “too close” to their existing homes. Jackson provided some history of the lot and the subdivision itself. He recounted how the property was involved with his family for 50 years. He asserted that the property was given to his Aunt, but the problem was there was no deed. She knew that it was not big enough to build on, but since it adjoined her property, she assumed it as an extension of her own property. The family had been paying taxes and maintaining the property for 40 or 50 years.
Mr. Jackson said that when he eventually checked and discovered that there was no deed to the property and that he did not actually own it, he stopped paying taxes on it, and it went up for public auction. The applicant purchased the property and in conversation with Mr. Jackson, indicated he could possibly put a house on it. Mr. Jackson recalled he told the applicant that it was his understanding the lot was too small to put a house on. It emerged that the applicant does not intend to occupy the dwelling, and Mr. Jackson indicated that he was “basically giving up space” for it to be built.
Denice Howard, who occupies the property just north of the proposed site, was also opposed to its construction. Mrs. Howard addressed the commission to complain that the proposed dwelling would be too close to her house, and could impact the delivery of propane to her property. She was concerned about the loss of privacy and effects on her gas, water, and electricity with the new construction.
Lis Gonzales then addressed the commission to oppose the construction. Ms. Gonzales lives across the street from the proposed site. She said that many of her Spanish-speaking neighbors claimed not to have received the notification letter from the planning department and so could not attend the public hearing. She said that almost 100 percent of the houses on that block are homeowner occupied, and “We take pride” in the area. She also expressed concern about the potential for flooding. The new property, she asserted would be “almost on top of” the neighboring dwelling to the north.
Once the public hearing was closed, Vice Chairman Marshner expressed her sympathy for the neighbors’ plight, but the law says that a property owner has the right to use their property.
Commissioner Ingram concurred with the Vice Chairman’s comments, but the commission must be objective in applying the provisions of the ordinance. He was not comfortable with continuing a non-conformance. Chairman Jones also offered his sympathy for the witnesses and said that the decision must be balanced against the rights of the property owner. Commissioner Merchant reminded the witnesses that the commission only makes a recommendation to the Town Council, and there must still be a hearing there.
Following comments by the individual commissioners, the recommendation to approve the Special Use permit was unanimously passed. The permit application will now go to the town council for a public hearing and a vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
At least two supervisors willing to revisit continuation of coyote bounty program in more open forum
Seeing the continued awarding of $50 bounties for the random shooting of coyotes in Warren County following a November 10, 2020, work session presentation by County legal and animal control staff seeking an end to the practice as counterproductive to its intent of thinning coyote pack numbers, Royal Examiner recently sought information on the Board of Supervisors apparently unanimous decision to continue the bounty awards.
In early October this reporter emailed Board Chairman Cheryl Cullers with copies to the other four board members in case there was a divergent opinion on the matter that has not, to this reporter’s knowledge, been publicly discussed. The only initial reply was from the board chair: “… but there are those that don’t agree with that information,” Cullers replied of the information presented to the board on November 10, 2020, by Warren County Sheriff’s Office Animal Control Officer Laura Gomez and Assistant County Attorney Caitlin Jordan.
“That information” was addressed in Royal Examiner’s November 11, 2020, story “County headed to public hearings to end coyote bounty payments and expansion of loose dog prohibitions”. It included the following information: “The biggest issue with (coyote bounties) is we have documentation showing it’s not effective in any way. And removing the coyote bounty would not prevent people from still being able to protect their property and their livestock … And they’re showing in that letter that it has over a 150-year failure,” Animal Control Officer Gomez noted of the proposed ordinance amendment ending the bounty program.
“That letter” referenced by Gomez to the county supervisors on November 10, 2020, stated among other things that: “Coyote bounties have been tried throughout the United States for more than 150 years. There is not a single documented instance of a bounty
program temporarily or permanently reducing coyote populations or livestock depredation problems,” Michael L. Fies of VDGIF (Va. Department of Game and Inland Fisheries) wrote in response to a November 2016 inquiry by Bath County Animal Control officials included in Tuesday night’s agenda packet,” Royal Examiner reported at the time.
And it was not simply the abandonment of bounties, but the implementation of what was called more “successful targeted control” programs in place of bounties, suggested at the state level that was brought to the supervisors late last year:
“Since coyote bounties are ineffective, our Department has consistently recommended against these programs in favor of targeted control efforts around farms with a history of coyote damage. This approach has been successfully used by USDA Wildlife Services to reduce livestock losses in other portions of the state,” VDGIF’s Fies wrote in the above-referenced 2016 letter to Bath County officials presented to Warren County’s elected officials by animal control and legal staffs in late 2020.
It might be noted that this reporter’s headline on the referenced story on that November 10, 2020, presentation on coyote bounty programs contained one glaring inaccuracy – “County headed to public hearings to end coyote bounty payments (and a related animal control issue on dogs running loose in the county). For no public hearing was there to be, nor to this reporter’s knowledge, any open work session or meeting discussion by the board of the information it was presented with by county staff on November 10, 2020, nor of any expressed citizen disagreement with that information.
Rather, on January 5, 2021, coyote bounties were presented for continuation as part of the Consent Agenda for matters considered “routine business” not requiring public discussion or scrutiny by the board prior to a vote of approval. And while other Consent Agenda items were pulled for discussion that evening, continuing the coyote bounty program was not one of them.
But that could be poised to change. Contacted about the approval process, first Board Chairman Cullers expressed a willingness to revisit the issue. “I would be glad to have a future discussion on this issue. I understand the side that feels it is not effective, but there are those that don’t agree with that information. Again I will be glad to readdress the issue,” Cullers replied to this reporter’s emailed inquiry about the initial approval process.
And “readdress” would seem a wise course for this board majority. Because that initial approval process, essentially done out of the public eye, other than the vote to continue it without a public hearing or public discussion other than one meeting public comment favoring continuation of the bounties that Cullers cited, seems to run contrary to the process of a board majority carried into office over a year and a half ago on campaign promises of ending political “business as usual” out of the public eye – a process cited as contributing to the EDA financial scandal the county is still recovering from.
In fact, we reached out a second time to North River Supervisor Delores Oates following her comment at the October 5 Board of Supervisors meeting to County Administrator Ed Daley regarding the effectiveness of air purification machines the County is pondering the purchase of for use in county government buildings. – “We want facts, not opinions,” Oates told Daley of a final decision on the air purification device purchase for Warren County Government buildings.
And yes, facts, as they are available, would be valuable in ascertaining the effectiveness of the air purification machines in limiting the spread of contagious viral or other airborne illnesses. But why not the same standard of “facts, not opinions” in the decision to continue a coyote bounty program found locally, state-wide, and nationally to be counterproductive to its intent of thinning coyote packs anywhere over 150 years of experience?
And Oates too expressed a willingness to revisit the issue prior to publication.
“I would be happy to discuss. If memory serves me correctly, there were no alternatives offered to control the population of coyotes at that presentation. I believe we postponed a decision to learn more about what options were available to reduce the coyote population,” Oates responded to our email inquiry.
“I stand on my facts, not opinions statement,” she added, pointing to myriad other issues the County has faced in the past year: “On this topic, we didn’t revisit as I suspect many other issues have taken precedent. With COVID and the IT breach, the coyote topic didn’t seem urgent. I am not opposed to revisiting the alternatives to bounties in the near term,” Oates wrote Royal Examiner, adding, “Perhaps we needed to understand what targeted control meant. I will be honest it’s been almost a year since we heard the presentation. We wanted to understand what the cost was to farmers with a targeted control approach. I know there were lingering questions which is why we just didn’t eliminate the program.”
And with a perhaps building board consensus, it appears the county supervisors may be revisiting the coyote bounty issue, and exploring alternatives such as those referenced “targeted control efforts around farms with a history of coyote damage” that Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Michael L. Fies referenced in his 2016 letter on the subject to Bath County officials. As we told Supervisors Cullers and Oates during our discussion, it seems counterintuitive to continue to pay people in a bounty program cited by wildlife professionals as not only ineffective but achieving the opposite effect of often increasing coyote numbers, rather than reducing them.
And if there are citizens who disagree with those conclusions of wildlife professionals, it would be nice to publicly hear what facts, if any, those disagreements are based upon.
See the full November 10, 2020, presentation and discussion in the linked Warren County Work Session video Nov 10, 2020 Board of Supervisors Work Session – Warren County, VA (swagit.com):
County Planning Commission reviews Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan, also faces upsurge in permit activity
The Warren County Planning Commission met on October 13 in a work session to review a Capital Improvement Plan submission for 2021-2025 for the County Fire and Emergency Services Department. Chief James Bonzano told the Commission that calls for service for 2020, the last complete year, increased by over 3%, continuing a trend that began in 2013. This increase impacts response times, budget costs, and equipment availability, he explained. Calls were split between Fire, at 14%, and EMS (Emergency Medical Service), at 86%. EMS vehicles are called out more than 4 times as often as fire apparatus, have longer runs, and as a result, wear out that much sooner.
The National Standards for fire department equipment govern when it should be placed on the reserve list or removed from service. According to Chief Bonzano, the current fleet has 18 units of its 65 that are over 15 years old, and two over 25 years. In Warren County, there is currently no capacity to place vehicles in reserve. The chief also identified facility improvements needed, live-fire training, and firefighter cancer prevention as priorities in the submission. The Chief oversees a nearly $6 million annual combined budget.
Several commissioners suggested ways to extend budgets by alternative financing or leasing. The Chief acknowledged he is looking into these mechanisms but cautioned that many of them assume a fleet that allows for residual values when turning in a vehicle at the end of the lease. Much of the current fleet is far past the age where it would have any residual value as used equipment. The Fire/EMS Department is also pressed for volunteers – not only operational but associates – helpers of all kinds, including fundraisers. The Fire and Rescue Services capital investment submission will now be fed into the County’s budget process.
The regular Planning Commission meeting followed immediately after the work session, and the commission considered two Conditional Use permits (CUP) requests.
Terra Site Constructors, LLC, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a contractor storage yard at 6986 Winchester Road in the North River Magisterial District. The property is zoned Industrial (I). Planning Director Joe Petty reviewed the recommendations for approval of the request for the commission members. There were no public comments on the proposal, so Commission Chairman Robert Myers closed the public hearing. The site will primarily be used for the temporary storage of heavy equipment. After a brief discussion, the commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the permit. The request will now go to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Gordon Lee Birkhimer has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a short-term tourist rental for his property at 52 Forest View Drive, an Agriculturally zoned property in the Fork Magisterial District. Mr. Birkhimer is planning a sailboat trip around the world and expects to be absent for up to two years. He has engaged a professional management firm to oversee the rental activity, and a local citizen to do maintenance and upkeep.
When Chairman Jones opened the floor for public comment, Pamela Rhodes addressed the commissioners and outlined her opposition to the permit. As a 30-year resident of the neighborhood, she expressed the opinion that the applicant would have no control over what kind of people would be renting the property and as an absent property owner would not care. She was opposed to long or short-term rental for the property. In addition, one neighboring property owner, Phyllis Wright, had written to the planning department and opposed the permit being issued. Her concerns were for personal safety, fire danger, and the potential for crime.
Once the Public hearing was closed, Vice Chairman Hugh Henry commented that the community’s experience with short-term tourist rentals has been very good – an asset in a neighborhood, particularly since strict rules govern the issuance of a permit. Tourist rentals must be well maintained or guests won’t rent them. A long-term renter is a much greater risk, since a property owner can rent his property to anyone he chooses, and neighbors have no recourse. Management companies do generally perform background checks, and a written set of guidelines in the property management plan assure that guests know what the rules are.
Given the growing experience with the issuance of short-term tourist rental CUPs and the concerns of neighbors, Vice Chairman Henry asked the applicant if he would agree to two additional conditions: A prohibition against the use of ATVs on the property or roads around it, and a prohibition on discharging firearms. The applicant agreed. The commission then voted unanimously to recommend approval. The request will now go to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
The commission faces a steep climb at its November meeting with 10 CUP requests for a variety of uses, including short-term tourist rentals, a cluster housing development, an Outdoor Recreation Operation, two Rural Events Facilities, a gunsmithing service, and a campground, as well as two proposed Text Amendment changes to the Warren County Code Chapter 180. Commissioners approved authorizations to advertise all these requests.
Planning Director Joe Petty told the commission that the Comprehensive Plan review work sessions will resume in January, and he thanked the commissioners for their time and work so far on the new plan. Meantime, the Planning Department will be meeting with the contracting firm that is helping with the rewrite to prepare for the next steps.
Chairman Myers then adjourned the meeting.
County seeks Town to jointly explore regional water alliance
While the Front Royal Town Council was failing to gather a quorum to conduct its work session slated to follow a 6 p.m. Finance and Audit Committee meeting at Town Hall, across town at the Warren County Government Center several town officials including Assistant Town Manager Kathleen Leidich and Public Works Director Robbie Boyer, were present to hear a presentation by the Frederick Water Authority to a work session of the Warren County Board of Supervisors.
Board Chair Cheryl Cullers noted the invitation extended to, not only town staff, but its elected officials at last month’s Liaison Committee meeting, to hear the presentation on what appears to be a state-and-federal government promoted move toward regional water authorities.
“I’m not trying to tell the Town what to do – I want them to be a part of this,” Cullers said of a cooperative move into an altered water-sewer utility relationship that could be of mutual benefit to both municipalities, particularly over the long haul of future development on the county’s north side.
Cullers noted that several council members have stated the intention of watching the County video of the presentation in playing catch up. And what town officials did or will hear is very interesting as to long-range planning for regional growth and provision of cost-efficient water and sewer service. For while the Town of Front Royal has its own central water-sewer utility, it is dealing with what was termed “100-year-old infrastructure” in some areas and a limited and now oft-threatened by solid waste-fueled destructive algae blooms, water supply, the Shenandoah River. The Frederick Water Authority on the other hand is in the midst of creating new infrastructure for what appears to be a massive underground water source, while entertaining a change in its structural documentation to extend its reach beyond the boundaries of Frederick County and the City of Winchester to adjacent counties including Warren and Clarke.
Executive Director Eric Lawrence outlined the Frederick Water Authority’s existing parameters, structure and infrastructure. That structure includes independence from the Frederick County government, though it is a relationship that currently includes the Frederick County Supervisors appointing the water authority’s board of directors. Lawrence noted that like municipal utilities, the Frederick Water Authority is a non-profit operation with its fees going back into the supporting infrastructure. A cost-comparison showed favorable numbers on average residential charges in the region. And Lawrence noted that potential expansion into adjacent counties, further expanding the customer base would poise the operation to continue to offer excellent rates with a massive water supply with redundancy and backup within that water supply base.
However, Happy Creek Supervisor Tony Carter pointed to an old written aspect of the Route 522 North Corridor Agreement that saw the Town of Front Royal extend its central water-sewer utility into Warren County’s Route 340/522 North Corridor to facilitate industrial and commercial tax-base expansion in the county’s northside. That “Sanitation Authority” aspect of the Corridor Agreement could seem to legally prohibit shopping for better water-sewer utility rates by Warren County on its northside. However, were the Town to agree to throw into the regional water concept with Warren County, seeing benefits to its own future operations and expenses, such a legal blockage could evaporate.
North River Supervisor Delores Oates noted recent experience had shown that working at odds with each other was in neither the County, nor Town’s best interest.
“I’m just saying that it’s easier to say than to do,” Carter said of a joint move of the Town and County governments toward a regional water authority that could create a major realignment of how the Town’s water-sewer utility operates.
See details of the Frederick Water Authority operations and future potential in an expanding regional format, along with its implications on utility costs on both sides of the town-county line, in the first hour-and-six-minute power point presentation and Q&A in the County work session video.
Following that regional water authority presentation and discussion the board adjourned to Closed/Executive Session to discuss EDA litigation and related matters including recovery of EDA assets. And on the back end of that hour-and-fifteen-minute Closed Session, see a detailed presentation on the operations, costs and revenue streams of the County’s Parks and Recreation Department; followed by County Administrator Ed Daley’s summary of options on Compensation Board Bonus pay related to COVID pandemic operations and County payments to non-Comp Board covered employees.
EDA completes audits for 2018 and 2019; 2020 audit is next
The Board of Directors of the Front Royal and Warren County Economic Development Authority accepted its audited financial statements for fiscal years 2018 and 2019, today, October 5, 2021. The audit of the financial statements was conducted by the firm of Brown Edwards, CPAs of Harrisonburg, VA.
“We have received the final outside audits conducted for 2018 and 2019,” said EDA Board Chairman Jeff Browne. “This was a huge effort on the part of Brown Edwards, and they have done very good work in challenging circumstances. Getting these two financial audits completed is a major step forward in putting the EDA’s past difficulties behind us. Now we can better focus on economic development issues to benefit the community.”
“The auditors’ letter points to three areas for improvement of internal controls,” Browne said. “It was important to make each improvement recommended by the CPAs, and we have done just that. The Warren County staff now administer the check-writing duties, collection of rents, and have layers of approvals for expenses within EDA and the County administration that were not there three years ago.”
The audited financial statements show that, at the end of the fiscal year 2019, the EDA’s total net assets were $38,036,737, and its net liabilities were $44,575,435, resulting in a deficit net position of $6,538,698. The EDA will work with Warren County’s auditors starting with the fiscal year 2020, which audit can now be undertaken.
The EDA Board of Directors will have their next regular monthly board meeting via Zoom on Friday, October 29, 2021, at 9 a.m.
Outside agency, departmental updates dominate County Board’s attention
The Warren County Board of Supervisors had a light action agenda – a six-item Consent Agenda – but a full morning of outside and County agency operational and personnel updates before adjourning to a 10 a.m. Closed Session for information on Economic Development Authority litigation. Following that approximate half-hour Executive Session, the board got the bad news from County Fire Marshal Gerry Maiatico that the County was not a recipient of SAFER grant funding recently announced through the State.
Maiatico explained that perhaps already being the recipient of grant funding for the Rivermont Fire Station, being near the front of the line for additional grant funding might be a longshot at this point. However, he added that there appeared to be funds remaining under the recent SAFER grant umbrella, so the department hasn’t given up hope some additional funding might come the County’s way for coming operational needs or equipment needs.
Prior to the Closed Session County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Chris Ballenger gave a detailed update on the school system’s status into this 2021 semester in the second year of COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic precautions. The report was positive, with no system schools on the state “outbreak” list. Responding to a question, Ballenger explained that approximately 40 students on a quarantine list were a result of home exposures, and precautions to prevent those out-of-school exposures from being carried into the schools. Families were urged to do due diligence on potential home exposures, to help the system “Protect Instruction” as the semester progresses. The primary goal being to keep as many students as possible in school and safe from Coronavirus exposure, along with their instructors.
The system, like others, is dealing with a shortage of substitute or replacement instructors due to the evolving Coronavirus situation with the more contagious Delta-variant-fueled Phase 4 remaining an issue.
A presentation by People Inc. representatives tied into a follow up by Warren County Department of Social Services Director Jon Martz. Martz pointed out he had me with People Inc. reps the previous days to coordinate efforts moving forward as economic hardships are exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Martz made one of several new staff introductions to the board, from his department Job Developer Brooke McClung. However, he also noted the loss of DSS staffer Samantha Edwards to another jurisdiction closer to her home. Edwards is leaving her county position tomorrow to become the DSS Assistant Director in Rappahannock County.
Others staffers headed this way introduced to the board Tuesday morning included Human Resources Director Jane Meadows and Finance Director Matt Robertson. Kayla Darr was noted for her work filling gaps in Admin during this time of staffing transitions.
During his County Administrator’s Report, Ed Daley reminded town officials of next week’s 6 p.m., Tuesday, October 12, work session in which the County will receive a Regional Water initiative presentation by Frederick County officials. Town Council and key staff have been invited to consider potential advantages of both municipalities moving in a regional water provider direction.
See these discussions and other business, including the monthly VDOT update, and a work session presentation on operations and staffing at the County Public Works Department, in the County video.
County applies for broadband grant – seeking input from unserved locations
Warren County has applied for a state grant to achieve universal fiber-to-the-home broadband to unserved locations in the County.
These state grants will only be available to areas that are unserved by broadband. As part of the planning effort, a list of unserved areas was submitted to the state agency that determines whether broadband service is available.
Several providers, including Virginia Broadband, Shentel, and Century Link/Lumen, have challenged the list of unserved areas in Warren County by claiming they already offer broadband service within areas proposed for grant funding.
A survey is available now to verify these unserved areas in Warren County. Without adequate survey responses from these areas, they may be excluded from the broadband grant project.