Board reviews FY26 agency requests, discusses $3M radio upgrade, facility needs and agency funding follow-ups

County staff presented the board with FY26 capital-outlay and agency funding requests and highlighted several high-cost or high-priority proposals for further work. Staff said the total of items listed for FY26 — with a few quotes and outstanding price checks pending — is $1,093,006.89. Candy noted technology requests and other agency submissions had not been vetted and that some line items still awaited vendor quotes.

Emergency communications topped the discussion. Staff described a proposed radio-system replacement and trunking upgrade with an estimated $3,000,000 upgrade for the trunking system and an additional $1,500,000 estimate to secure and build a tower site (the tower-site estimate was discussed as a FY27 item). Staff said Motorola would be the vendor for the radio technology and that some preliminary site-survey work might be provided at low or no charge by the vendor. Board members asked about operational and lease costs; staff said recurring annual operations could include site leases and maintenance and that adding sites (for example a southern Nelson tower) would increase annual maintenance and operational costs. One board member summarized the long-term tradeoffs: “When you go to a trunk system, you can create talk groups… it would give us greater capacity to accommodate Wintergreen.” Another staff speaker noted the upgrade could increase annual operating costs materially and that a worst-case scenario might raise annual costs, while subscriber units and new sites were the primary drivers for maintenance increases.

The board also discussed shelter trailers and emergency sheltering: a county staff member explained that shelter trailers (equipment to set up human shelters) generally require companion-animal accommodations under federal guidance, saying, “Sheltering for companion animals is federally required when opening shelters.” That prompted board members to note grant opportunities for equipment but also that the county currently maintains emergency shelter locations and would need portable cots and related supplies to operate temporary or mobile shelters effectively.

Facilities and buildings drew extended discussion. Staff reported an agency worksheet and a backlog of repair requests (asphalt repair around the courthouse, roof repairs and convenience-center work) and noted certain requests are still awaiting quotes. A county facility study item for FY27 was discussed as a possible architectural/assessment contract; staff said a similar schools’ facility study had cost about $50,000. Board members discussed the building department property (McGinnis Building), which staff said shows settling and cracking because it was constructed on fill and lies in a flood plain. A staff speaker noted limitations on repair spending tied to flood-plain rules and reported a commonly referenced limit: “You can only do half the assessed value… because it’s in a flood plain.” Members asked staff to gather more information about options (repair, replacement, or relocation) and potential interim band-aid fixes.

Agency funding requests were reviewed line-by-line. Staff recommended leaving most agency funding at requested or flat levels while scheduling follow-up presentations for organizations with material changes or unclear program details. Among specific agency matters discussed: Blue Ridge Health Department’s local-share request increased to cover an additional year of rent and salary items; emergency services and fire departments added countywide expenses (ESR reporting, Knox Box fees, training and Active 911) that raised their request; Community Development Foundation requested additional support tied to a proposed high-school house project and asked the county to consider a separate $25,000 commitment for that effort; staff and the board agreed to ask the Community Development Foundation to present the $25,000 request separately so the board could evaluate scope and whether the request would be recurring or one time. Several small agencies’ requests were left at requested or zero-change levels.

Directives from the meeting included asking staff to confirm vendor costs and whether preliminary site analyses (Motorola or a consultant) could be obtained before the FY26 budget is finalized; to verify grant opportunities for shelter-trailer equipment; and to schedule agency presentations (Community Development Foundation and MACCO) at upcoming work sessions so the board can review program specifics before finalizing allocations.

No appropriations were adopted at the meeting; the discussion was an informational review and direction-setting step in advance of the scheduled March–June budget timeline.