Dec 17, 2024 Board of Supervisors

[Call to Order]

[00:00:03]

SUPERVISOR WHITE, WHO'S THE ONLY SUPERVISOR WITH THE ROLEX SAID, IT'S 6:00.

WELCOME TO THE DECEMBER 17TH, 2024 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING.

WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE HAVE EVERYBODY HERE, AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY HERE.

AND I SAY THAT THIS IS THE ONLY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT WHERE YOU CAN GET UP AND TALK, PROBABLY AND PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOU.

IT'S GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY HERE TO DO THAT.

FIRST THING IS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

WE HAVE SOMEBODY TO COME FORTH AND GIVE US AN INVOCATION.

THANK YOU. LET US PRAY.

HEAVENLY FATHER, WE'RE SO THANKFUL FOR YOUR LOVE AND FOR YOUR GUIDANCE.

AND WE'RE SO THANKFUL FOR YOUR SON, JESUS CHRIST THAT DIED FOR OUR SINS.

AND IF WE ADMIT OUR SINS, WE HAVE LIFE EVERLASTING.

WE ASK YOU NOW TO PLEASE GIVE THIS BOARD AND GIVE THIS GROUP HERE TODAY OR TONIGHT TO GIVE US WISDOM.

HELP US ALL TO MAKE DECISIONS.

HELP US ALL TO GIVE OUR THOUGHTS IN A PEACEFUL MANNER IN HIS NAME FOR HIS SAKE WE ASK IT.

AMEN. AMEN.

AMEN. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ONE CHANGE IN THE AGENDA.

WE MOVED THE CLOSED SESSION NUMBER ONE DOWN TO NUMBER 15 AT THE END OF THE PROGRAM TONIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. THE FIRST ONE ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZENS COMMENT PERIOD.

[2. Citizens Comment Period ]

AND THE ONLY STIPULATION IS YOU COME FORTH AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE FOR THE RECORD.

AND WE TRY TO HOLD EVERYBODY TO FIVE MINUTES, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO RING THE BELL IF YOU GO OVER A LITTLE BIT.

SO THEREFORE WE'LL OPEN THE CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. EDWARDS AND ALL THE OFFICIAL BOARD.

MY NAME IS CAROL WELLONS AND I'M A REPRESENTATIVE FROM BERLIN IVOR DISTRICT IN IVOR, VIRGINIA.

I'M HERE TO ASK THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY ALONG 460 IN IVOR.

I'M 77 YEARS OLD AND HAVE LIVED ON 460 MY ENTIRE LIFE.

THEN THE INCREASED TRAFFIC HAS MADE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY WITHOUT FEAR OR DANGERS.

IT'S TIME FOR THE COUNTY AND VDOT TO LOOK INTO THIS.

FOR THE MOST PART, WHEN I COME IN FROM WHEN I'M COMING FROM SUFFOLK TURNING IN MY DRIVEWAY, I HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO IVOR TO TURN AROUND AND GET IN MY DRIVEWAY.

MY DAUGHTER HAS BEEN ASKING OUR REPRESENTATIVES TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION FOR A YEAR.

IT WOULD BE FITTING IF THE BOARD FINALLY CONSIDERED THIS REQUEST BEFORE THE YEAR END.

ULTIMATELY, WE WANT SOME ACTION THAT WILL SLOW TRAFFIC FROM THE LIFE OF THE COUNTY LINE.

WE ALSO APPROACHED, WE HAVE ALREADY APPROACHED VDOT AND THEY ARE READY TO DO THE STUDY.

THEY ARE JUST WAITING ON YOU ALL TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. WHO'S NEXT? WELCOME. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THE JOB THAT YOU ALL DO.

I'VE GROWN TO APPRECIATE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE LATELY.

MY NAME IS CARLYN KINNEY.

I LIVE ON SHANDS DRIVE HERE IN COURTLAND, AND SOMETHING HAS RECENTLY COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT MAYBE YOU GUYS KNOW ABOUT, BUT I DIDN'T AND IT'S A CONCERN.

I RECENTLY DISCOVERED THE WEBSITE, THE CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES.

AND I WAS REALLY SURPRISED AT WHAT I FOUND.

THIS WAS UPDATED NOVEMBER 1ST OF 2024.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO READ EVERYTHING, BUT I WILL READ HIGHLIGHTS FROM IT.

THE SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS ARE LISTED BELOW.

THE CITIES, COUNTIES AND STATES HAVE LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, POLICIES, OR OTHER PRACTICES THAT OBSTRUCT IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND SHIELD CRIMINALS FROM ICE.

EITHER BY REFUSING TO OR PROHIBITING AGENCIES FROM COMPLYING WITH ICE DETAINERS, IMPOSING UNREASONABLE

[00:05:03]

THERE ARE TWO STATUSES, I GUESS, FOR THESE COUNTIES AND CITIES.

ONE IS NON-COOPERATIVE, WHICH IS NO NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO RELEASE AND NO ADEQUATE HOLD TIME TO ASSUME DHS CUSTODY.

THE SECOND IS LIMITED COOPERATION.

AND THAT MEANS, YES, THEY DO NOTIFY PRIOR TO RELEASE AND NO ADEQUATE HOLD TIME TO ASSUME DHS CUSTODY. AND AGAIN, I'M JUST READING HIGHLIGHTS.

SO IF YOU GO TO THIS WEBSITE, THERE IS A MAP THAT'S INTERACTIVE AND IT'S A MAP OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND IT HAS LITTLE SQUARES FOR EACH COUNTY OR CITY THAT IS SANCTUARY.

IT'S AMAZING THE CONCENTRATION IN EASTERN VIRGINIA TIDEWATER AREA.

AND SO I LOOKED AT THAT.

I PUT MY FINGER TRYING TO GET IT ON JUST ONE SQUARE.

AND I FINALLY DID COME UP WITH SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

AND IT SAYS DATE ENACTED, UNKNOWN.

POLICY DECISION MAKER IS THE COUNTY JAIL POLICY AND DETAINER POLICY IS NON-COOPERATIVE.

AND THE SOURCE IS SINCE JUNE OF 2024 AND AS THE ICE DETAINER ACCEPTANCE REPORT.

SO THEN LET ME SEE.

I FOUND, LIKE I SAID, HERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF MORE IN OUR AREA.

BUT THERE ARE QUITE A LIST ON HERE HAMPTON CITY JAIL, PORTSMOUTH CITY JAIL, RICHMOND CITY JAIL, SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY JAIL.

BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT EITHER.

HOWEVER, THIS IS THE REAL ALARMING PART TO ME.

I PRINTED OUT THE LIST OF SANCTUARY CITIES AND COUNTIES.

THERE ARE 13 STATES THAT ARE SANCTUARY STATES.

OF THE, THERE ARE 22 OTHER STATES THAT HAVE SANCTUARY COUNTIES AND CITIES IN THEM.

THE LOWEST NUMBER FOR ANY STATE WAS ONE.

THE HIGHEST NUMBER WAS 84 AND THAT'S VIRGINIA.

THE NEXT HIGHEST WAS NEW MEXICO WITH 26.

AND THEN NEW YORK WITH 18 AND PENNSYLVANIA WITH 13.

THAT'S AN ALARMING NUMBER TO ME.

SO LET ME SKIP OVER HERE.

I THINK THAT WAS ALL I WANTED TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

SO HERE ARE MY PROBLEMS. ONE IS THIS IS NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE FRANKLIN OR BY THE WAY, FRANKLIN IS ALSO A SANCTUARY CITY, BUT THEY HAVE THE SECOND STATUS, WHICH I FORGET WHAT THEY CALLED THAT; LIMITED COOPERATION.

SO FRANKLIN HAS LIMITED COOPERATION WHERE WE ARE NON-COOPERATIVE.

IT'S NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY VOTE, WHICH WAS OVERWHELMINGLY FOR TRUMP, WHICH ONE OF HIS MAJOR ISSUES WAS THE BORDER IN THIS ICE PROBLEM.

IT DOES NOT PROTECT OUR CITIZENRY.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT IT, IF ANYTHING.

DID YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH APPROVING THIS? YOUNGKIN AND TRUMP BOTH ARE TALKING ABOUT CUTTING FUNDING FOR ANYONE THAT DOES NOT COOPERATE WITH THIS.

AND WHO DETERMINES THE COUNTY JAIL POLICY? ANY OF YOU KNOW OR DO YOU NOT ANSWER AT THIS POINT? THINK IT'S CONCERNING TOO.

I DON'T KNOW ANYONE IN THIS AREA THAT WOULD THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF IT AND TELL YOU THAT THIS IS NOT YOU KNOW, I SAW YOUNGKIN THE OTHER DAY, AND HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING RELEASED ARE VIOLENT.

THEY ARE NOT TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS.

AND SO I FIND THIS VERY CONCERNING, AND I JUST WANTED YOU ALL TO KNOW IT.

[00:10:05]

IT'S CIS.ORG AND IT'S LET ME PUT MY GLASSES ON AGAIN.

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT STANDS FOR.

IT'S WHERE IS IT? CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES AND SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY JAIL IS LISTED ON THERE, SO THANK YOU. ANYBODY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

NEVER HEARD OF IT.

ALL RIGHT, WHO'S NEXT? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JAMIE LEE.

I LIVE AT 29206 FLAGGY RUN ROAD IN COURTLAND.

AND MY SUPERVISOR IS DR.

EDWARDS. AND THE REASON I WAS COMING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WAS SOMETHING THAT I READ IN THE PAPER AND A WEEK OR TWO AGO, AND IT'S CONCERNED ME.

AND I THINK IT'S A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IT AS WELL.

AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T PREPARE A SPEECH.

SO I'M GOING TO GO OFF THE CUFF AND DO THE BEST I CAN.

BUT FIRST OFF, THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTRY, I DON'T THINK THE MAJORITY OF THEM DON'T WANT TO PAY TAXES.

AND THEY THEY WANT TO THEY WANT TO PAY THEIR TAXES.

THEY WANT TO FEEL LIKE THEY CONTRIBUTE.

THEY WANT TO. THEY'RE PROUD OF IT.

YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THEY'RE TAXED FAIRLY AND THEY FEEL LIKE THEIR MONEY IS SPENT FRUGALLY.

BUT THE ARTICLE I SAW IN THE PAPER REALLY UPSET ME, AND SEVERAL WORDS CAME TO MIND.

I'D SAY MAD, AGGRAVATED YOU KNOW, CONCERNED, AND QUITE A FEW OTHERS.

BUT THE ARTICLE WAS ABOUT THE COUNTY HAD JUST PAID ALMOST $43,000 TO HAVE THE GRASS CUT ON THE KUTCHINS FARM OUT THERE, WHICH IS OWNED BY A CHINESE COMPANY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

AND CHINA IS AN ADVERSARY OF THE UNITED STATES.

IT IT PERTURBS ME TO, IN THE BEGINNING FOR THEM TO EVEN BE ABLE TO OWN PROPERTY IN THE UNITED STATES, TO BE ABLE TO OWN IT.

BUT BESIDES THE FACT, I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY SHOULD BE PAYING THEM, PAYING FOR THEIR GRASS TO BE CUT.

THAT'S RIDICULOUS.

I THINK IF ANYTHING, A LETTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENT TO THEM OR WHATEVER LEGAL ACTION COULD BE TAKEN.

I'M NOT WELL VERSED ON ANY OF THAT, BUT THAT RIGHT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN.

BUT ALMOST $43,000 TO CUT THEIR GRASS IS RIDICULOUS.

I'VE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING SO RIDICULOUS.

WISH I HAD HAD A CHANCE AT IT.

BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT I WAS DOING ON THE FARM, I COULD HAVE STOPPED AND GONE AND CUT THAT GRASS FOR $43,000 BECAUSE I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE $43,000 WHATEVER I WAS DOING.

AND I'M NOT WRONG WITH MR. DAVIS THAT DID THE JOB, BECAUSE IF YOU WERE GOING TO PAY ME TO DO IT, I'D HAVE DONE IT TOO.

BUT IT'S ABSURD.

OUR CITIZENS DESERVE BETTER THAN THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHO AUTHORIZED IT.

BUT THEY OUGHT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT.

IT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS AND I THINK THE CITIZENS ARE REALLY UPSET ABOUT IT.

EVERYONE I'VE TALKED TO IS AND I JUST I'M JUST KIND OF LOST FOR WORDS AT IT.

I'M JUST SO AGGRAVATED WITH IT.

BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

GOOD EVENING. I'M LARRY WHITLEY, AND I RESIDE AT 18508 ROSEMONT ROAD IN THE JERUSALEM DISTRICT.

AND DR. ALLEN IS, MY SUPERVISOR AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WHAT YOU ALL DO FOR THE COUNTY.

I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN HERE FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO, AND THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT.

NOT EVERY COUNTRY HAS THIS OPPORTUNITY.

BUT WHEN I PAID MY TAXES IN NOVEMBER, I WAS HOPING THAT ALL THAT MONEY WOULD GO TO THE COUNTY SALARIES FOR THE EMPLOYEES, FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, FOR THE SCHOOLS AND OTHER BUDGETED ITEMS. AND I THINK BACK, YOU ALL SPENT SO MUCH TIME ON THE BUDGET AND THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DID.

YOU GOT THE TAX RATE BACK TO $0.71, WHICH WAS GREAT.

YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE BUDGET, BUT THEN ALONG COMES THE GRASS CUTTING THAT MR. LEE JUST REFERRED TO.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

[00:15:01]

BUT I HOPE TONIGHT THAT I FIND OUT THAT THE COUNTY HAS BEEN PAID AND REIMBURSED IN FULL, AND IF SO, I'LL REST A WHOLE LOT BETTER TONIGHT.

AND I HOPE I HEAR THAT BEFORE I LEAVE HERE TONIGHT.

BUT ANYWAY, GOING FORWARD TO KEEP THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION IF YOU BEAR WITH ME.

ANYTIME AN EMPLOYEE OR DEPARTMENT HEAD OR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR HAVE PLANS TO SPEND MONEY THAT ARE NOT BUDGETED, ANY THINGS ALL BUDGETED, BUDGETED IS FINE.

BUT IF IT'S GOING TO BE BEYOND THE BUDGET OR IF IT'S GOING TO MAKE THIS LINE ITEM BUDGET GO OVER THE APPROVED AMOUNT, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING IN WRITING AND IT NEEDS TO BE APPLIED TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.

LET HIM REVIEW THE ITEM.

IF HE THINKS IT'S WORTHWHILE, HE CAN BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION IN YOUR MONTHLY MEETING.

AND I WOULD SUGGEST IT BE ON PAGE ONE, THE VERY FIRST PAGE YOU LOOK AT, BECAUSE THIS WILL BE SOMETHING ABNORMAL.

IT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T COME THROUGH YOUR REGULAR MONTHLY TRANSACTION.

NOW, IF HE IF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR LOOKS AT IT AND SAYS, WELL, IT'S NOT WORTH THE TIME, HE CAN THROW IT IN THE TRASH TO SAVE YOU SOME TIME.

BUT I DO THINK EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF IT.

SO THIS WAY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WILL BE MADE AWARE OF ANY EXTRA FUNDS BEING SPENT.

YOU ALL WILL BE MADE AWARE OF IT, AND THAT WAY YOU CAN STAY IN LINE WITH YOUR BUDGET A LOT BETTER.

SO THAT WAY WHEN YOU ALL RECEIVE IT AND LIKE I SAY, I SUGGEST THAT THIS WOULD BE YOUR FIRST PAGE THAT YOU LOOK AT IN YOUR MONTHLY MATERIAL.

THAT WAY YOU CAN APPROVE IT OR DENY IT.

NOW 30 DAYS, YOU ALL MEET EVERY 30 DAYS.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S ANYTHING UNBEARABLE TO HAVE THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SPEND THESE EXTRA FUNDS.

THEY WOULD HAVE IT DUE BY THE 5TH OF DECEMBER, THE 10TH OF DECEMBER, WHATEVER Y'ALL CHOOSE.

GIVE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PLENTY OF TIME TO REVIEW IT.

THEN HE WOULD PRESENT IT TO Y'ALL.

Y'ALL REVIEWED IT AT YOUR MEETING.

VOTE YES OR NO.

AND THIS IS A DONE DEAL.

NOW THESE WEEDS OUT HERE BEEN GROWING ALL YEAR LONG, SO I DON'T THINK THEY HAD TO BE CUT THAT PARTICULAR TIME.

I THINK THEY COULD HAVE WAITED 30 DAYS, LET YOU ALL APPROVE IT OR DENY IT, AND IT WOULD'VE BEEN A LOT MORE EFFICIENT.

BUT WHEN YOU GOT TOO MANY PEOPLE WRITING CHECKS, YOUR CHECKBOOK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT ANYBODY DOES.

WHATEVER BUSINESS THEY'RE IN, WHATEVER THE ORGANIZATION IS, MANNING THE CHECKBOOK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU DO.

BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT A SUGGESTION.

BUT I DO THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING, AND I HOPE YOU ALL ADDRESS THIS ISSUE SOMETHING SOME WAY SO THAT IT WILL NOT COME UP AGAIN.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WHO'S NEXT UP? THIS ISSUE IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSED AGAIN PROBLEM NUMBER 14 AT THE END OF YOUR AGENDA.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF TIME.

ALL RIGHT, LAST CALL.

WE'LL THEREFORE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT. NUMBER THREE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

[3. Approval of Minutes ]

ANYBODY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS? I HAVE A CORRECTION.

I THINK IT'S PAGE SEVEN.

IT SAID I VOTED NAY AFTER I MADE THE MOTION TO HAVE THE SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY.

AND YOU VOTED YES.

CORRECT. OKAY.

MAKE THAT CORRECTION, PLEASE.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY MOTION TO PASS THEM HAS CORRECTED.

SO MOVED. A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED LIKEWISE.

OKAY. THAT PASSED AS CORRECTED.

NUMBER FOUR, VDOT MATTERS.

[4. VDOT Matters ]

[00:20:02]

I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT IF NOBODY'S HERE FROM VDOT.

I'D LIKE TO THANK [INAUDIBLE] FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK ON THAT MATTER.

SO MUCH MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I PROBABLY COULD TO SPEAK FIRSTHAND ON THE ISSUES THAT THEY'RE HAVING OUT THERE WITH THE TRAFFIC.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR SOME, SOME TIME NOW.

BRIAN HAS SPOKEN WITH VDOT DIRECTLY.

THERE'S LOTS OF EMAILS GOING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE ISSUES AND HOW BEST TO RESOLVE IT, AND I THINK WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH IS WHAT I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU ALL TONIGHT, AND HOPEFULLY A RESOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEM IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US WE NEED TO DO, MUCH LIKE WE'VE DONE MOST RECENTLY WITH SOME OTHER ROAD AND HIGHWAY PROJECTS, IS THAT WE NEED TO PASS ONE TO HAVE THEM OR DIRECT THEM.

WE NEED TO DIRECT BRIAN TO CRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR OUR JANUARY MEETING, SUCH THAT WE CAN VOTE ON IT, TO DIRECT VDOT TO CONDUCT A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THAT CORRIDOR FROM IVOR TO ZUNI, AND THEN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AT THAT JUNCTURE WHAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO FROM THERE? THAT WOULD BE SUPERVISOR CORNWELL IS CORRECT.

THAT WOULD BE THE PROPER AVENUE TO PURSUE THAT.

IF THE BOARD IS INCLINED I COULD BRING THAT BACK TO THE JANUARY MEETING RESOLUTION, AS Y'ALL HAVE PREVIOUSLY DONE, WITH OTHER SPEED AND TRAFFIC MATTERS.

AND ASK THEM AFTER YOU ALL APPROVE IT, ASK VDOT TO INITIATE A STUDY FOR THAT AREA.

ULTIMATELY, WE WERE ABLE TO DISCERN ALSO FROM THEM THAT IT IS THEIR ROADWAY.

OF COURSE, WE ALL KNEW THAT, BUT IT IS ULTIMATELY UP TO THEM WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS FOR THAT PARTICULAR SECTION OF ROADWAY.

SO IT WILL DEPEND ON WHAT THEY FIND OUT THROUGH THEIR TRAFFIC STUDY AS TO WHAT FURTHER ACTION THEY WILL TAKE REGARDING THE SPEED FROM IVOR TO ZUNI IN THAT CORRIDOR, BUT WE'LL JUST SEE WHAT THEY COME BACK WITH AS A RESULT OF THEIR STUDY.

BUT WE'LL LOOK FOR THAT IN JANUARY, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU GUYS.

OKAY. WE'LL BRING THAT BACK IN JANUARY IF THAT'S IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S GENERAL DIRECTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

DO YOU NEED A MOTION? ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY.

I'M GOOD.

IF IF Y'ALL WANT TO, YOU CAN.

IF NOT, YOU CAN.

YOU CAN VOTE THE RESOLUTION DOWN OR UP AT THAT TIME.

THAT'S THAT'S FINE.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY CONCERNS? WELL, WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO IT IN JANUARY.

YES, SIR. ON THE JANUARY SCHEDULE? YEAH, I'M JUST WAITING FOR FEBRUARY.

OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY ROAD CONCERNS BEFORE WE GO ON TO NUMBER FIVE MONTHLY REPORTS? THE THAT CIS DO WE NEED TO TAKE A STAND ON THAT ABOUT BEING A SANCTUARY CITY OR NOT? WELL, ONE OF MY FAVORITE PEOPLE IS TOM HOMAN.

SO YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL.

WELL, IT'S I DON'T KNOW HOW THE POLICY READS.

I'VE NOT READ IT, BUT I KNOW THE GOVERNOR HAD A PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK TO COVER IT.

IT WAS ON THE FIRST FRONT PAGE OF THE RICHMOND TIMES DISPATCH FOR ALL ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO LOOK IT UP, THE INFORMATION.

AND IF WE REMAIN IN THAT STATUS, IT WILL AFFECT THE BUDGET.

AND IT'S IT'S GOING TO AFFECT IT IN LARGE MANNER, I WOULD ASSUME.

SO I SUPPOSE THE AGENCY WILL BE ABLE TO COME IN LINE WITH THE NEW ADMINISTRATION AND THE GOVERNOR, AS WELL AS THE PRESIDENT'S INITIATIVE TO HELP US WITH OUR SECURITY, WHICH WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR FOR FOUR YEARS, SO.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.

AND I KNOW A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S OTHER ARTICLES IN THE PAPER RECENTLY ABOUT RELEASED ILLEGALS THAT WERE CONVICTED OF OR CHARGED WITH NOT CONVICTED BECAUSE THEY HADN'T BEEN CAUGHT, BUT CERTAINLY WERE CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES.

AND I'M SURE MOST PEOPLE IN HERE HAVE READ ABOUT THAT OR SEEN ABOUT IT.

[00:25:02]

AND THAT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE ARTICLE THAT WAS IN THE RICHMOND PAPER THIS WEEK, THIS PAST WEEK.

SO MAYBE WE CAN HAVE AN UPDATE FROM THE POLICY MAKERS OF THAT PARTICULAR SECURITY ISSUE IN OUR COUNTY.

BRING US A REPORT IN JANUARY, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO NEED IT IN PREPARATION FOR THE BUDGET.

GOOD IDEA.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THE CITY OF CHICAGO, WHAT'S GOING ON THERE THEY SPENT $537 MILLION ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS LAST YEAR, AND THEY'RE RAISING THE TAXES OF THE HARDWORKING CITIZENS THERE TO PAY FOR IT.

THE SAME THING CAN HAPPEN HERE.

WE HAVE ANOTHER 150 TO PUT IN THE SCHOOLS.

OKAY. SO EVERYONE NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT THAT AND COME TO THE NEXT MEETING AND GIVE YOUR INPUT AND HEAR WHAT WE WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE JANUARY MEETING. OKAY.

ANYBODY ELSE? WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE MONTHLY REPORTS.

[5. Monthly Reports ]

YES. HONORABLE BOARD MEMBERS.

JUST A FEW HIGHLIGHTS ON DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

THE COURTHOUSE PROJECT, WE'VE BASICALLY FINISHED THE COURTHOUSE ACROSS THE STREET.

STILL WRAPPING UP A FEW ODDS AND ENDS THERE, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED.

GLAVE AND HOLMES IN HARTLAND HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE RENOVATION OF HUNTERDALE.

WE ACTUALLY DID A WALKTHROUGH TODAY WITH HARTLAND.

AND IT LOOKS GOOD.

SCHOOL SYSTEM SEEMS SATISFIED WITH THE WORK THEY'VE DONE, SO WE'RE HOPEFULLY MOVING ON FROM THE HUNTERDALE RENOVATION AT THIS TIME.

THE TRAILER AT THE FRANKLIN COURTS COMPLEX HAS ALSO BEEN REMOVED.

SO WE'VE BEEN COORDINATING THAT OVER THE LAST MONTH.

THE NEWSOM CDBG PROJECT.

WE, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MONTHLY PROJECT MEETINGS ON THAT WITH THE MANAGEMENT TEAM.

RIGHT NOW, WE'RE IN THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PORTION OF THE PROJECT, AND WE'RE STILL ON TRACK.

THAT SHOULD BE COMPLETED LATER THIS MONTH OR EARLY JANUARY WITH KHC CONSULTING OR KHC CONTRACTING.

THE RADIO PROJECT.

LONG STORY SHORT, WE'RE STILL ON TRACK WITH THAT.

WE HAVE MONTHLY MEETINGS WITH JVC KENWOOD, THE CITY OF FRANKLIN AND COUNTY STAFF REGARDING THAT PROJECT.

AND THAT PROJECT EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF JANUARY, END OF DECEMBER OF 2026 OR EARLY 2027.

HUMAN RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL.

WE DID HAVE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR INTERVIEWS THIS PAST THURSDAY, PRETTY MUCH ALL DAY.

WE DID HAVE DIRECTOR OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS INTERVIEWS YESTERDAY.

AND WE'VE ALSO HIRED A CUSTODIAN, JENNIFER BODMER.

SHE'S ACTUALLY STARTED PART TIME FOR US IN THE COURTHOUSE, AND WE APPRECIATE HER COMING ON BOARD PART TIME.

AND SHE WILL START FULL TIME ON DECEMBER 23RD.

SO WE WELCOME JENNIFER TO THE COUNTY STAFF.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CARL AND THE TEAM WORKED TOGETHER ON A LOT OF ISSUES AND A LOT OF NEW BUSINESSES COMING IN.

WE GOT A LOT GOING ON.

AND AS YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY WAS AWARDED WE'VE MENTIONED THIS A FEW TIMES.

THE BUSINESS VIRGINIA BUSINESS READY SITES GRANT FROM VDP, $223,000.

OUR MATCH WAS THE LAND PURCHASE THAT WE PREVIOUSLY MADE, AND THE GOAL IS TO INCREASE THAT FROM A TIER TWO CATEGORY SITE TO A TIER FOUR CATEGORY SITE, PER THE VDP SITE SELECTION CRITERIA.

WE'LL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH AWARDING THAT CONTRACT TO A FIRM SOON SO THEY CAN START THAT WORK.

FAIRGROUNDS WIND DAMAGE.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE FAIR BOARD AND OUR INSURANCE CARRIER THE LAST FEW MONTHS ON THAT, AND ACTUALLY DID GET A CHECK.

I THINK IT WAS $217,000, FRIDAY BROUGHT IT BACK FOR OUR PAYMENT FOR THAT.

THAT DAMAGE THAT WILL BE USED TO MOVE FORWARD AND GO FORWARD ON SOME OF THE RENOVATIONS WE'VE MADE OVER THERE WITH THE FAIR BOARD.

SOLID WASTE DUMP SITES.

I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR HART, TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS.

[00:30:01]

SOME OF THE TRASH IS PICKED UP AT SOME OF THE SITES THAT SOME OF Y'ALL HAVE HAD CONCERNS ON.

I'VE PERSONALLY SEEN SOME IMPROVEMENT IN SOME OF THE DUMPSITE AREAS.

WE'RE TRYING TO FIX SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT Y'ALL HAVE IDENTIFIED WITH THE DRIVEWAYS.

WE'VE PAINTED. ALSO PAINTED WITH OUR VRSA GRANT FUNDS.

WE'VE RECEIVED THE PERIMETERS OF THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE SAFETY MEASURE TO TRY TO AT LEAST PREVENT, AS BEST WE CAN, PEOPLE FROM FALLING INTO THE DUMPSTERS AS SOME FOLKS HAVE.

SO THAT WAS THE VRSA SAFETY GRANT THAT WE DID RECEIVE TO OFFSET THOSE COSTS.

WE DID HAVE A STAFF STRATEGIC WORK PLANNING AND TEAM BUILDING SESSION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12TH AND 13TH AT THE FRANKLIN BUSINESS CENTER.

AND THE THE GOAL WAS TO TRY TO OBVIOUSLY DO SOME TEAM BUILDING AND ALSO WORK TOGETHER TO PUT A PLAN TOGETHER OF HOW TO IMPLEMENT YOUR VISION AND PRIORITIES, AND THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED WITH YOU ALL AT YOUR JANUARY 8TH WORK SESSION COMING UP IN A FEW WEEKS.

SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

THOSE ARE A FEW COUPLE OF PICTURES OF OUR WORK SESSION I THOUGHT WE HAD A VERY GOOD SESSION, GOT GOOD PARTICIPATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS THAT ATTENDED. SO I APPRECIATE STAFF PARTICIPATING IN THAT.

ERIC AND I, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, TALKED SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK, IF NOT EVERY DAY, ABOUT VARIOUS LEGAL MATTERS THAT GO ON.

SO YEAH ERIC AND I DO A LOT OF WORK ON VARIOUS MATTERS THAT REQUIRE OUR ATTENTION.

AND I'VE ALSO LISTED VARIOUS MEETINGS THAT I'VE ATTENDED THE LAST MONTH FROM NOVEMBER 14TH THROUGH DECEMBER 12TH.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. YOU'VE GOT PERSONNEL REPORT THAT OUR STAFF DOES AS WELL AS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? I GOT A COMMENT OR MAYBE A QUESTION, RATHER A QUESTION.

WITH REGARD TO THE DUMP SITES AND THE POTHOLES THAT ARE THERE, COULD WE HAVE PUBLIC WORKS LOOK INTO GETTING SOME OF THIS CRUSHED ASPHALT THAT VDOT HAULS AND DUMPS AND IF WE CAN FIND SOMEWHERE TO PUT IT AND USE THAT TO PATCH THOSE ENTRANCE AREAS TO OUR DUMP SITES.

I'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF LOTS THAT SOME OF THE LOCAL BUSINESSES HAVE USED IT FOR, AND ONCE THEY PUT IT DOWN, IT'S ALMOST LIKE ASPHALT ITSELF.

AND I'D LIKE FOR THEM TO LOOK INTO THAT AND BUY IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARRANGEMENT COULD BE WORKED OUT WITH VDOT.

YES SIR. WE CAN, WE CAN CHECK WITH SAVE US SOME MONEY. YEAH I FORGET WHICH COMPANY, BUT WE CAN LOOK IN TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME FOR FREE FROM VDOT IF THEY HAVE SOME AVAILABLE.

WELL, I'D LIKE FOR THEM TO LOOK INTO THAT BECAUSE THAT.

IN MY ESTIMATION, IS A LOT BETTER THAN CRUSHING A RUN.

WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE ON THE DUMP SITES? THAT'S THAT'S A PUBLIC WORKS FUNCTION UNDER, UNDER HART COUNCIL.

SO WE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE ENTRANCE WAYS.

AND IF HE HAS A HARD TIME GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THEM I'LL GET THE INFORMATION FOR THEM.

BECAUSE IT'S BEING MOVED NOW AND STOCKPILED.

SO ALL WE NEED, WE NEED SOMEWHERE TO PUT IT AND IT CAN BE USED AS WE NEED IT.

OKAY. WELL, WE'LL MOVE ON THEN.

FINANCIAL REPORT.

[6. Financial Matters ]

IN NOVEMBER OF 2024, WE HAVE EXPENDITURES OF 43.24%, AND IN NOVEMBER OF 23 IT WAS 42.78% SPENT OF OUR BUDGET.

SO WE ARE IN LINE FOR OUR BUDGET AT THIS TIME OF YEAR.

[00:35:01]

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.

I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU THE UPDATES ON OUR COLLECTIONS.

IN NOVEMBER, REAL ESTATE WAS AT 99.79%.

THIS MONTH, IT'S AT 99.81%.

WE HAVE AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF $380,814.28.

ON PERSONAL PROPERTY IN NOVEMBER, WE WERE AT 97.31%.

WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 97.45%.

WE HAVE AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF $1,480,342.37.

ON THE SOLID WASTE IN NOVEMBER, WE WERE AT 81.35%.

WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 81.8%, WITH AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF $688,067.38.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS, MISS EDWARDS? WE CAN'T SEEM TO BREAK THAT 80% BRACKET ON SOLID WASTE, CAN WE? NO. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE SOLID WASTE.

OKAY. YEP.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

ALL RIGHT. GOING TO RUN DOWN THE LIST.

STOP ME IF YOU'VE GOT ANYTHING.

ANIMAL CONTROL.

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

BLACKWATER REGIONAL LIBRARY.

SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES.

OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER SIX.

FINANCIAL MATTERS.

FIRST IS THE BILLS LIST.

I'VE GOT A QUESTION.

WHAT DID WE PAY BERKELEY FOR THIS MONTH? I THOUGHT WE HAD GOTTEN RID OF THEM.

SO THE NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CAME IN ON OCTOBER OCTOBER 11TH. AND SO BART KNUCKLES WAS HERE FROM OCTOBER 1ST, AND I BELIEVE HE SPENT THE VERY FIRST DAY WITH MR. RANDOLPH. SO THAT PAYMENT IS FOR THE LAST BIT OF TIME THAT MR. KNUCKLES WAS HERE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO B THEN.

FIRST RESOLUTION, SEMIANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS TOTAL OF $37,323,730.09.

EXCUSE ME. $739.

THE FIRST SEMIANNUAL APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION FOR WHICH WAS APPROVED IN OUR JUNE BUDGET MEETING.

I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? NEED A MOTION FOR THAT.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OKAY. THAT RESOLUTION PASSES.

C IS THE RESOLUTION CARRYOVER APPROPRIATION.

I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT, MISS LOWE.

SURE. WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM AND WHERE IS IT GOING ESSENTIALLY? OKAY. SO CARRYOVER MONEY HAS TO DO WITH EITHER FUNDS THAT WERE RECEIVED IN THE YEAR OR POSSIBLY A GRANT THAT WE ARE WORKING ON A PROJECT WITH, AND WE HAVE TO APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS BEFORE WE SPEND THEM.

AND WITH GRANTS OR PROJECTS WE NORMALLY APPROPRIATE, THE AMOUNT OF THE WORK THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE WITHIN THAT YEAR. SO YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THE NEWSOM'S DRAINAGE PROJECT, PHASE ONE, I AM ASKING FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $700,000, AND ALL OF THAT MONEY WILL BE COMING FROM A GRANT AFTER WE SPEND THE MONEY AND ASK FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS YOU SEE THE OPIOID FUNDS UP THERE, THAT'S $64,199.72, AND THAT IS FOR MONEY THAT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE SETTLEMENTS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY EARMARKED BY SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY FOR TO SUPPORT THE DRUG COURT IN REHABILITATING INDIVIDUALS.

AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS COLLECTED IN FISCAL YEAR 24 THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN REMITTED WAS THAT AMOUNT.

AND SO WHEN THE FISCAL YEAR CLOSES, ALL OF THAT MONEY DUMPS INTO FUND BALANCE.

AND IN ORDER TO USE IT IN THE NEW YEAR, YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT'S CALLED A CARRYOVER RESOLUTION, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS.

AND SO THAT MONEY IS SPECIFIC TO DRUG COURT.

THE OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU SEE ON HERE, YOU SEE DISCRETIONARY FUND, CRIME PREVENTION, DARE, SENIOR CITIZEN AWARENESS PROGRAM, SHERIFFS, COMMUNITY EVENTS, SHERIFF'S OFFICE, MEMORIAL FUNDS AND THOSE ITEMS LET ME SEE EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES.

[00:40:08]

AND SO THIS CARRYOVER APPROPRIATION PULLS IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS DOING.

LET'S SEE HERE.

YOU ALSO SEE WHERE THERE WAS DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND LITTER CONTROL GRANT.

AND THOSE ARE MONIES THAT WERE RECEIVED THROUGH GRANTS NOT SPENT IN FISCAL YEAR 24 THAT ARE EARMARKED FOR THOSE PROGRAMS AND AVAILABLE FOR USE IN FISCAL YEAR 25.

IF THAT DOES NOT ANSWER, PLEASE ASK ME MORE.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT RESOLUTION? IF NOT, I NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE IT.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OKAY.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO D RESOLUTION DEFERRED REVENUE APPROPRIATION APPROXIMATELY $3,461,829.84 IN DEFERRED REVENUE FROM EXPENDITURES, REFUNDS, AND VARIOUS DONATIONS TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? I MOVE, WE ADOPT IT.

ALL RIGHT IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. OKAY. WE ADOPT THAT RESOLUTION.

OKAY. NUMBER SEVEN APPOINTMENTS.

[7. Appointments ]

IS THAT RIGHT? HE DOES.

YES. I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE HIM.

SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE.

AYE. MUST HAVE BEEN THE HIGH SALARY THEY GET.

OKAY. WESTERN TIDEWATER COMMUNITY SERVICE BOARD.

CINDY EDWARDS TERM WILL EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31ST, 2024.

AND SHE DOES WISH TO SERVE AGAIN.

WE THANK YOU.

IT'S GOING TO BE A HARD VOTE, YOU KNOW.

IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT TEN PEOPLE RUNNING FOR THE VOTE.

ANYBODY IS THERE A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THANK YOU CINDY.

ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC HEARING.

TAX TAXATION EXEMPTION REQUEST BY THE CAPRON DREWRYVILLE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.

[8. Public Hearing - Taxation Exemption - Request by the Capron-Drewryville Athletic Association ]

I'LL GIVE AN INTRODUCTION IF IT'S OKAY BY THE BOARD.

YEAH. IF YOU REMEMBER FROM YOUR LAST MEETING, THEY HAD REQUESTED THAT YOU EXEMPT THEIR ORGANIZATION FROM REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AS ALLOWED BY STATE CODE, YOU HAVE THE STATE CODE SECTION ATTACHED.

YOU DID AUTHORIZE CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS REQUEST AT TONIGHT'S MEETING PER STATE CODE SECTION 58.1-3651, LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES BY ORDINANCE MAY EXEMPT NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE CDAA FROM REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO DOING SO.

THE SAYS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL COLLECT THE COST OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ADVERTISEMENT REQUESTING SUCH EXEMPTION BEFORE ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE GRANTING EXEMPTION STATUS.

THE GOVERNING BODY SHALL CONSIDER THE EIGHT QUESTIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE STATE CODE.

IF YOU READ THE LETTER, REQUEST LETTER AND STATE CODE, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THEY MEET THE CRITERIA TO BE GRANTED AN EXEMPTION.

AND THEIR TOTAL REAL ESTATE TAX DUE FOR 2024 IS $1,153.75.

YOU DO HAVE THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING AN EXEMPTION.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALL RIGHT. THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS TAXATION EXEMPTION REQUEST.

ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK FOR A SECOND ON THIS ISSUE.

IF NOT, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.

[00:45:04]

AND THEY PROVIDE A BIG SERVICE TO THE COUNTY FOR THE YOUTH IN OUR COUNTY.

IF YOU CARE TO AND I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM GO TO THOSE FUNCTIONS PARTICULARLY DURING THE GOOD WEATHER MONTHS, THEY START EARLY, USUALLY IN THE LATTER PART OF MARCH AND RUN ON THROUGH THE FALL, EVEN SOME OF THE FOOTBALL, SOCCER AND SO FORTH.

BUT IT DOES...

IT'S A BIG SAVINGS TO THE TAXPAYERS.

AND IN LIEU OF BUDGETED MONEY FOR YOUTH ACTIVITIES, THEY PUT A LOT OF WORK IN IT.

THERE'S SOME OF THE GOLLY DAY I'M TELLING MY AGE, BUT WHEN I WAS PLAYING LITTLE LEAGUE BALL GOOD LORD, YOU'D GET KILLED OUT THERE SOMETIME.

I KNOW WHEN I WHEN I GOT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL, WE HAD A LITTLE COUNTY TEAM.

WE WENT TO ROANOKE RAPIDS AND WE PLAYED ONE GAME IN A PASTURE.

AND YOU TRY FIELDING A BALL OUT THERE IN A PASTURE.

IT'S COMICAL. BUT ANYWAY, THE FACILITIES ARE TREMENDOUS.

AND IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THEM, RIDE AROUND SOME THIS SPRING AND SUMMER AND TAKE A LOOK AT THEM, I DO KNOW THAT WHAT DO YOU CALL THESE? A DEFIB, DEFIBRILLATORS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY NON-PROFITS AND PLACED IN EVERY CONCESSION STAND IN THE COUNTY IN SUSSEX AND EVEN ISLE OF WIGHT.

AND THAT EXPENDITURE WAS NOT A SMALL MATTER.

EVEN WENT INTO THE ACADEMIES IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS.

SO A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE PICKED UP THE SLACK FROM THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS COUNTY TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES FOR THESE YOUTHS TO PLAY BALL.

I WISH, I WISHED IF THEY'D HAVE BEEN THERE WHEN I WAS COMING ALONG, BUT WE HAD A BURLAP SACK WITH THE BATS IN IT AND THE CATCHER'S GEAR IN IT, AND IF WE HAD A BASEBALL, IT WASN'T LOPSIDED.

SOMETIMES WE HAD ONE OF THOSE, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE'VE COME A LONG WAY.

YOU PLAYED BALL WITH TY COBB, DIDN'T YOU? I THINK SO.

I PLAYED BALL WITH I WON'T MENTION HIS NAME, BUT HE'S NOTORIOUS.

JOHNNY RAY.

YEAH, THAT WAS A THAT WAS WORTH THE ADMISSION TO COME AND SEE THAT.

BUT ANYWAY, MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.

THIS DOES SERVE A TERRIFIC SOCIAL AND ATHLETIC NEED.

AND KEEP THESE KIDS SOMETHING TO DO AND GET THEM OFF THE STREETS AND KEEP THEM OUT OF TROUBLE.

AND, AND AN ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION FOR THIS COUNTY WOULD COST A LOT OF MONEY.

JUST ABOUT EVERY LITTLE TOWN IN THIS COUNTY HAS ONE.

THEY DO AN EXCELLENT JOB.

RECOMMENDATION THAT WE APPROVE THIS.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OKAY.

NUMBER NINE.

PUBLIC HEARING.

[9. Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Request by Robert E. Miller ]

OUR PLANNER, JAY RANDOLPH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE THIS AND GO THROUGH THE PARTICULARS WITH US, PLEASE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, YOU DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED THIS EVENING TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF MR. ROBERT E MILLER FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FROM ITS CURRENT DESIGNATION OF AGRICULTURAL FOREST OPEN SPACE AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO INDUSTRIAL.

THIS APPLICATION INVOLVES APPROXIMATELY 271 ACRES AND IS CONSIDERED A MAJOR AMENDMENT DUE TO THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE REQUEST.

AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EARLIER THIS YEAR IN APRIL, AFTER CONSIDERABLE EFFORT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.

THE PLAN IS BROAD IN NATURE AND SEEKS TO PROVIDE AN ORDERLY DIRECTION FOR FUTURE LAND USE MANAGEMENT AND OTHER OBJECTIVES.

INCLUDING AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, THE ECONOMY, TRANSPORTATION, THE ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND EDUCATION.

ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TO PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK AND VISION FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND USE IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY.

[00:50:08]

HOWEVER, IT SERVES AS A PRIMARY INDICATOR OF WHAT THE DESIRED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY SHOULD BE.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY AND GOALS OF THE PLAN.

THIS APPLICATION WAS THE SUBJECT OF A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 10TH OF THIS YEAR.

AFTER DISCUSSING THE MATTER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION 7 TO 1.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I'M AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE.

MR. RANDOLPH, COULD YOU GO THROUGH THE MAJOR REASONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 7 TO 1 TO DENY THIS, PLEASE? SOME OF THE PRIMARY REASONS WITH THIS IS THIS IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT.

THIS IS 271 ACRES BEING RECOMMENDED OR REQUESTED TO BE CHANGED FROM, YOU KNOW, OUR AGRICULTURAL FOREST OPEN SPACE CATEGORY TO INDUSTRIAL. THE APPLICANT LET ME BACKTRACK A LITTLE BIT.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE CURRENT ADOPTED PLAN WAS DEVELOPED OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS DURING THE PANDEMIC AND SO FORTH.

THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE PUBLIC OUTREACH INVOLVED TO GET THE PUBLIC'S THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS AND CONCERNS ADDRESSED INTO THE UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION FROM THE APPLICANTS AT THAT TIME TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROCESS TO HELP GET THEIR PROPERTY DESIGNATED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE PLAN.

WE DID ALSO HAVE A CITIZEN CONCERN.

THIS IS REGARDING THERE'S AN EIGHT ACRE PARCEL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE REQUESTED PARCEL.

THE PROPERTY OWNER SPOKE WITH ME EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THEIR OPPOSITION TO THAT, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WISH TO BE ENVELOPED BY INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE FUTURE. THEY'VE FOUND THEIR SLICE OF HEAVEN HERE IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, AND THEY'D LIKE IT TO REMAIN IN THAT FOREST, OPEN SPACE AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL CATEGORY VERSUS POTENTIALLY BEING DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.

ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE THE PLAN WAS JUST ADOPTED IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR THE THOUGHT WAS A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THIS CATEGORY IS JUST A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH, TOO SOON.

THE INK IS ONLY DRYING ON THE PAPER HERE.

SO TO DO A MAJOR AMENDMENT WOULD JUST BE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER AT THIS TIME.

THOSE WERE SOME OF THE THOUGHTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.

ANY QUESTIONS MR. RANDOLPH? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. WE WILL THEREFORE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS SUBJECT.

CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE 271 ACRES.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS SHERRY STODDARD.

I LIVE AND OWN 28303 SMITHS FERRY ROAD.

I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT MR. RANDOLPH REFERRED TO.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP I'M ASSUMING YOU HAVE WHAT WAS ON THE WEBSITE.

THIS IS MY EIGHT ACRES.

I'M SURROUNDED.

I WOULD BE SURROUNDED ON ALL THREE SIDES BY 271 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL, WITH THE FOUR SIDE BEING SMITHS FERRY ROAD.

I HAVE HORSES.

I ENJOY THE RURAL LIFE.

I'VE LIVED OUT HERE FOR 17 YEARS.

THIS WOULD AFFECT MY QUALITY OF LIFE ON MY PROPERTY, AS WELL AS MY ABILITY TO RESELL IT IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS TO EITHER REQUEST REZONING OF MY PROPERTY, ETCETERA.

I HEREBY REALLY HOPE THAT YOU DECIDE NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT AT THIS TIME.

PLUS, THERE IS A LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

YOU ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF AREA THAT'S ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CLOSER TO 258, BUT WE HAVE NO INFRASTRUCTURE.

THERE'S NO PUBLIC UTILITIES, NO WATER, NO ELECTRIC.

THERE'D BE NO FIRE HYDRANTS.

ALL THESE ARE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE BEING THOSE ZONING CHANGES ARE MADE AND THE DEVELOPMENT COULD HAPPEN.

BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS TALKING TO MR. RANDOLPH IS IF YOU AGREE TO MAKE THIS CHANGE TONIGHT, HE COULD, MR. MILLER COULD GO AHEAD AND APPLY TO CHANGE THE ZONING AND GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS RIGHT AWAY.

THAT'S CONCERNING TO ME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE?

[00:55:10]

MY BROTHER AND I OWNED A PARCEL THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AMENDING THE PLAN FOR.

WE HAVE BEEN APPROACHED IN THE PAST YEARS BUT A COUPLE OF INDUSTRIES.

ONE TIME WE WERE BEING COURTED BY INDUSTRY THAT WAS BEING PROMOTED THROUGH THE CITY OF FRANKLIN.

YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LADY FROM THE CITY THAT LOOKED AT WANTING US TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IT TO A, A MANUFACTURER. AND ABOUT 12 MONTHS AGO, WE WERE APPROACHED AGAIN BY A DIFFERENT TYPE OF INDUSTRY AS TO THE RAW MATERIALS UNDER OUR PIECE OF LAND, WHICH WOULD HAVE ALSO CALLED FOR A PLAN AMENDMENT HAD ANY OF THIS GONE THROUGH AND THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJOINING OUR PARCEL, WHICH IS IN BETWEEN FRANKLIN AND WHERE WE ARE AT SURROUNDING 28303 SMITHS FERRY ROAD. AND HOW THE PARCEL, OUR TOTAL PARCEL ON THE EAST SIDE OF 258 IS 424 ACRES, AND THE 271 IS IN FRONT IN BETWEEN THE OTHER ACREAGE AND THE HIGHWAY.

AND IF SUCH AN INDUSTRY CAME, YOU WOULD NOT KNOW WHETHER THEY WOULD WANT IT ALL OR WHETHER THEY WOULD WANT JUST PART OF IT.

BUT WE WOULD LIKE THE OPTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND OUR PARCEL ALSO HAS AN ATTRACTION TO INDUSTRY, WHICH IS WATER.

WE HAVE PERMITTED WELLS THAT CAN PUMP 1,200 GALLONS A MINUTE, AND SOME OF THESE INDUSTRIES ARE NEEDING WATER IF THEY NEED POWER AND THEY NEED WATER.

BUT IT'S JUST ADDING TO WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT APPROVED AS INDUSTRIAL, AND WE ALREADY HAVE SOME IN THAT CORRIDOR WE JUST WANT IT TO COME TO THE HIGHWAY, IS WHAT WE'RE AFTER.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR THE GENTLEMAN? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I HAD ONE MORE THING TO ADD.

YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD A WHILE BACK, IT WAS GROUPED IN WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL AND SOME OTHER STUFF, AND IT WAS ACCORDING TO PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE IT COULD NOT BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY.

THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD, IT WAS ALL GROUPED TOGETHER IN ONE LUMP, AND ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD ASKED IF IT COULD BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY, BUT WITH THE RULES OF THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE OF THAT MEETING, IT COULD NOT BE HANDLED SEPARATELY.

THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL AND THIS PARTICULAR MATTER.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS ISSUE? PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN.

GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

MY NAME IS TROY BRINKLEY.

MY BUSINESS ADDRESS IS 2212 LASKIN ROAD IN VIRGINIA BEACH.

AND I OWN A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE COMPANY CALLED IMPERA COMMERCIAL AND LAND.

MR. MILLER HIRED ME ABOUT A YEAR AGO TO CHECK INTEREST IN HIS PROPERTY WITH SOME OF THE INDUSTRIAL PROSPECTS THAT I HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH.

WE HAD CONSIDERABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND THE ANSWERS THAT CAME BACK WERE ALL THE SAME.

ABOUT HALF OF HIS PROPERTY HAS AN INDUSTRIAL LINE GOING THROUGH IT AND THE ROAD FRONTAGE DOES NOT.

AND SO THE ANSWER BACK WAS YOU NEED TO COME BACK IF YOU'RE ABLE TO GET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE AND THEN WE COULD CONSIDER THE PROPERTY FOR THE USE.

WE REALIZED THAT ANYTHING THAT WE WOULD COME BEFORE YOU AS AN INDUSTRIAL PROSPECT, WE'D HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU, WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE SAME

[01:00:01]

BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'VE GOT THE LANDOWNER WHO'S GOT BASICALLY HALF OF HIS PROPERTY THAT IS SAID TO BE INDUSTRIAL UNDER THE COMP PLAN, AND THE OTHER HALF IS NOT. SO IT'S ALMOST USELESS TO HIM TO HAVE HALF OF IT AND NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE ROAD FRONTAGE.

SO WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT THAT LINE BE DRAWN DOWN TO THE ROAD TO ALLOW US TO MAKE PROSPECTS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES A POSSIBILITY WITH YOU AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE? ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? LAST CALL. OKAY.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ISSUE.

I'M THE BOARD'S LIAISON ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WE VOTED AGAINST THAT 7 TO 1.

AND THERE WERE A LOT OF I FELT GOOD REASONS TO DO SO.

WE SPENT A LONG TIME PUTTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TOGETHER, AND I THINK IF WE START TEARING IT APART PIECEMEAL, WE MIGHT AS WELL THROW THE PLAN IN THE TRASH CAN.

THEREFORE, I AM ADAMANTLY AGAINST CHANGING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON THIS ON THIS AREA.

I AGREE WE NEED TO SUPPORT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WELL, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT HOUSES.

HE'S GOT TO REALIZE THAT FOR EVERY TAX DOLLAR THAT A HOUSE PAYS THE LOCALITY OR A COUNTY PAYS COSTA COUNTY $1.62.

HOUSES DON'T MAKE GOOD REVENUE SOURCES, THEY'RE LOSERS.

HOUSES COME WHEN THE INDUSTRY AND THE JOBS COME HERE, AND THEN THE HOUSES FOLLOW.

I THINK WE'RE DOING IT WRONG HERE, WE'RE PUTTING THE HOUSES FIRST, AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE A BEDROOM COMMUNITY FOR SUFFOLK OR WHEREVER ELSE, SO.

THAT WAS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN THIS SUBMISSION, AND THE ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT FOUND IT STILL CORRECTLY, IS THAT THIS ONE WITHDREW THE HIGHEST PROPOSAL FROM THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CHAIN.

SO THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL PLANS IN THIS PARTICULAR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY.

OKAY. OKAY.

ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME NUMBER OF ACREAGE AS WHEN YOU CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION? BEFORE WHEN WE WERE REPRESENTED IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WAS STATED AS 424 ACRES ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD AND THEN.

BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY RESIDENTIAL.

SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS 271 ACRES ADDED TO WHAT IS ALREADY INDUSTRIAL. NO RESIDENTIAL WHATSOEVER INVOLVED IN THIS SITUATION, BUT WE WERE JUST LOOKING TO GET IT TO THE HIGHWAY.

SO THIS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SO THIS IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THIS IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

YEAH. THIS IS A AND IT WAS GROUPED TOGETHER IN THE SUPERVISORS AND NOT IN THE PLANNING BOARD PLANNING MEETING.

IT WAS GROUPED TOGETHER WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AND VOTED ON IN ONE SINGLE RESOLUTION.

AND WE THOUGHT IF IT WAS BROKEN OUT AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INDUSTRY COMES INTO THE COUNTY AND INDUSTRIAL GROWTH, THAT THAT COULD THAT COULD BE APPROVED SEPARATELY BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL RESIDENT REQUEST.

AND A MOMENT AGO THE LADY SPOKE ABOUT HOW IT IMPACTS HER.

WOULD THIS BRING LESSER IMPACT TO TO ANYONE LIVING THERE? IT WAS OUR PROPERTY SURROUNDS HERS.

AND ACTUALLY, WHEN WE BOUGHT THAT FARM FROM WORCESTER COUNTY, WE SOLD THE HOUSE AND THE PROPERTY THAT SHE

[01:05:02]

AND THEY'RE GOOD, THEY'RE GOOD FRIENDS WITH US.

AND YOU KNOW, SHE DOESN'T WANT INDUSTRY AROUND HER HOUSE.

AND BECAUSE AND WE FOLLOWED THEM AROUND THE HOUSE AND WE GOT EQUIPMENT PARKED BEHIND THE HOUSE AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FRIENDS WITH THEM AND EVERYBODY.

AND IF AN INDUSTRY COMES, WHO WOULD SAY THEY EVEN WANT TO BUY THAT FAR? YOU KNOW, THAT INDUSTRY MIGHT JUST WANT 600 ACRES FROM THE SUBSTATION OUT TO THE SOUTH.

YOU DON'T YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD WANT, BUT THEY MAY WANT THE WATER.

THEY MAY WANT TO.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD WANT, BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPTION TO, YOU KNOW, TO ENTERTAIN AN INDUSTRIAL OFFER.

AND I'M QUITE SURE IF A LUCRATIVE INDUSTRY CAME AND OFFERED TO PURCHASE THEIR PIECE OF LAND FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT IT MAY CHANGE YOUR OPINION, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

SHE LOVED THE PLACE SHE LIVED AND SHE LIVES IN A GREAT PLACE.

AND IF I DIDN'T HAVE TO SELL IT TO GET A DOWN PAYMENT FOR THE FARM, I MIGHT HAVE LIVED IT OUT.

BUT WE WHEN MY BROTHER AND I BOUGHT THE FARM, WE SOLD THAT HOUSE AND LOT SO THAT WE COULD AFFORD TO KEEP THE FARM. WELL, THIS SOUNDS LIKE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

THIS IS A DIFFERENT CREATURE THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

YES, SIR. AND IT YOU KNOW, IT GOT GROUPED INTO IT, AND IT'S I DON'T I DON'T LIKE SPEAKING ILL OF PEOPLE BUT MR. KNUCKLES DIDN'T REPRESENT IT RIGHT WHEN IT WAS RUNNING THE PAPER INITIALLY, OR WHEN IT WAS PUT IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND IT WAS A MESS.

IT WAS A MESS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TO TRY TO REQUEST TO GET THE POTENTIAL FOR INDUSTRIAL ON THAT PIECE OF LAND.

SO IF SOMEBODY ACTUALLY TALK SERIOUS, WE CAN TALK SERIOUS BACK TO THEM AND AND GET SOME INDUSTRY INTO THE AREA.

DOES IT HAVE TO GO BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF IT'S DIFFERENT? IF Y'ALL IF IT'S ANYTHING BUT INDUSTRIAL, IT WILL HAVE TO GO BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND IF WE'RE WERE VOTED DOWN AT THIS JUNCTURE, WITH IT BEING INDUSTRIAL, WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH JUST THE INDUSTRIAL REQUESTS, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE US FILLING OUT THE APPLICATIONS AGAIN, RUNNING THE ADS AND OF COURSE, ANOTHER THOUSAND BUCKS, BECAUSE WE HAD TO SPEND $1,000 TO GET THE ADS RUN AND GET ON THESE DOCKETS. AND, YOU KNOW, IF Y'ALL VOTED DOWN, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT THE INDUSTRIAL THING. BUT THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S Y'ALL DECISION.

Y'ALL ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, MR. RANDOLPH DON'T WE HAVE APPLES AND ORANGES HERE? AREN'T THESE TWO ISSUES NOT DIFFERENT ISSUE FROM WHAT WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

THIS IS AN AMENDMENT. WELL, THEN, IF IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, IT SEEMS LIKE BY LAW, IT HAS TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

I MEAN, WE'RE GETTING PRESENTED SOMETHING HERE TONIGHT, WHICH IS NOT WHAT WAS THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOOKED AT? THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDES POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE WHEN WE GET APPLICATIONS, ACTUAL REZONING APPLICATIONS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE LOOK AT IS THAT LAND USE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR.

SO IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME FORWARD AND SAY, I WANT TO DO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, NOT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD LOOK AT THE MAP AND SAY, IS IT DESIGNATED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR OTHERWISE? SO IT'S KIND OF A PRECURSOR TO ZONING APPLICATIONS ACTUALLY COMING FORWARD.

SHOULD THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THIS AREA AND THAT'S THE PARCEL THEY'RE SHOWING TO AN INDUSTRIAL STATUS,

[01:10:04]

WHAT THAT REQUEST WOULD INVOLVE, WE DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE FORTHCOMING FROM FROM THE APPLICANT.

SO THAT INDUSTRIAL USE COULD TAKE A MYRIAD OF DIFFERENT THINGS, WHETHER IT'S HEAVY MANUFACTURING OR OTHERWISE TYPE OF THINGS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT INDUSTRIAL PLANNING, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SOME OF THE COMPONENTS THAT MAKE THAT A REALITY ARE TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC UTILITIES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

IT HAS ACCESS ON ROUTE 258.

SO CERTAINLY THAT'S A GOOD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO PUBLIC UTILITIES AVAILABLE ON THIS SITE.

SO I WOULD JUST CAUTION YOU WITH AN A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THIS SIZE THAT IF IF THAT WERE TO BE SHADED TO RED FOR FUTURE INDUSTRIAL USE, WHY NOT JUST KEEP GOING? WHY NOT JUST SHADE THE WHOLE CORRIDOR OF 258 RIGHT TO THE CAROLINA BORDER AND CALL IT ALL FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.

THIS IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT.

THIS WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 271 ACRES.

ALL OF THE PROPERTIES NORTH OF HERE ARE ALREADY DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE INDUSTRIAL USE IN THE PLAN, UP TO THE SOUTHAMPTON PARKWAY AND INTERCHANGE THERE AT 258.

SO I WOULD JUST CAUTION YOU, BEFORE MAKING ANY DRASTIC MOVES, WE'RE GOING TO GET APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

YOU HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THIS ONE FOR A SMALLER 12 ACRE.

THE SMALLER ONES ARE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO REVIEW, THIS IS A LARGER REQUEST.

AND JUST I WOULD JUST CAUTION YOU TO JUST BE VERY CAREFUL AND CONSIDERATE OF MAKING MAJOR AMENDMENTS WITHOUT REALLY KNOWING WHAT THAT'S GOING TO INVOLVE DOWN IN THE FUTURE.

BECAUSE IF THIS IS AMENDED TO BE INCLUDED AS INDUSTRIAL WE WOULD CERTAINLY EXPECT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THAT A REZONING APPLICATION WOULD BE COMING IN.

AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, THEY WOULD BE MARKETING THIS TO POTENTIAL PEOPLE HEY, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOW CALLS FOR THIS TO BE INDUSTRIAL, AND SO IT REALLY OPENS THE DOOR MUCH WIDER.

THERE'S CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE JUST NORTH ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY DESIGNATED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO OKAY.

AND THAT AREA DOES NOT HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

THERE'S NO PUBLIC WATER SOURCES.

THERE ARE NO PUBLIC SEWER SOURCES.

SO UNDER THIS PRESENT CONDITIONS, THEN IT'S REALLY NOT CONDUCIVE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO COME IN RIGHT AWAY.

CORRECT, CORRECT.

YEAH. IT WOULD, IT WOULDN'T REALLY BE, WELL, MARKETABLE FOR AN INDUSTRIAL USE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.

YEAH. IT WOULD IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO GET AN INDUSTRIAL USER, OTHER THAN USING PRIVATE WATER THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE ON THE SITE, AS THE GENTLEMAN HAD SPOKE EARLIER TO.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO TAKE ANOTHER CRACK AT YOUR QUESTION, IF I MAY.

I'LL REPHRASE IT IN ANOTHER WAY SO THAT I HAVE CLARITY AS IT PERTAINS TO NOT THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION, BUT THE PROCESS, IF YOU WILL, AND HOW IT GETS TO US. BUT SOMEBODY SUBMITS AN APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IT'S SHOT DOWN, IT'S AMENDED DRASTICALLY AND THEN BROUGHT DIRECTLY TO US. DOES IT NEED TO GO BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BEFORE IT COMES TO US, I BELIEVE IS WHAT DR.

EDWARDS WAS ASKING.

DOES THIS NEED TO GO BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BEFORE WE TAKE ANY ACTION ON IT, GIVEN THE THE MAJOR AMENDMENT THAT TOOK PLACE WITH IT? THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A NEW APPLICATION THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION ON IT, OR CAN WE TAKE ACTION ON IT AS A PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT'S ALREADY ACTED ON IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU CAN TAKE ACTION ON THIS APPLICATION THIS EVENING IF YOU WISH TO REFER IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THAT'S CERTAINLY THE DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE.

SO WE CAN TREAT IT AS THE APPLICATION THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ALREADY ACTED ON.

CORRECT. IT'S BEEN DRASTICALLY AMENDED SINCE THE APPLICATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD THIS APPLICATION, THE COMMERCIAL APPLICATION, THE SMALLER AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, AND THEY WERE ALL ESSENTIALLY BUNDLED IN TOGETHER AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL.

GOTCHA. PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, WE HAVE SPLIT THEM APART FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT THE BOARD LEVEL.

VERY GOOD. I UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WELL THANK YOU.

AM I WRONG? IT SEEMS LIKE WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE TONIGHT.

I THINK IT SHOULD GO BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YEAH. WELL, WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO WOULD BE TO NOT DENY THE THIS.

ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I THINK AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME MR.

[01:15:05]

YEAH. WELL, ANOTHER THING, TOO, IF I MAY ADDRESS THAT.

YEAH. GO AHEAD. WITH PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE UP TO 12 MONTHS TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION.

IF YOU WISH TO DENY THE APPLICATION, IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR BOUNDS TO DO SO.

WHICH WOULD SEND THE APPLICATION THE APPLICATION COULD NOT BE RECONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS UNLESS IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.

WELL, THIS IS DIFFERENT, ISN'T IT? CORRECT. OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH. I WAS JUST GOING TO BRING UP MAYBE IF THEY HAD SOMEBODY ALREADY, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY WANTED TO USE IT FOR IF WE KNEW, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ALREADY HAD A I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

BUT WITH THE SITUATION OF THE SURROUNDING LANDOWNER, IF YOU HAD AN APPLICANT THAT WANTED TO COME IN AND OR AN INDUSTRY THAT WOULDN'T AFFECT HER AND YOU COULD PUT BUFFER STRIPS AROUND IT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WE COULD WORK AROUND, I THINK.

BUT WITHOUT KNOWING WELL, WE'RE NOT REZONING IT EITHER.

YEAH, I KNOW WE'RE NOT VOTING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE STILL GET LOTS OF OPPORTUNITIES TO CONTROL WHAT GOES THERE AND WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO LET IT GO THERE OR NOT.

YEAH, I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR THE LANDOWNER, THE LADY WITH THE HORSE FARM, IF YOU COULD PUT SOME KIND OF STIPULATION ON WHOEVER DOES IF YOU DID GET IT DEVELOPED, PUT A BUFFER STRIP AROUND IT OR WHATEVER YOU KNOW, TO GIVE THEM SOME BUFFER THAT WOULD COME FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND I KNOW IT WOULD SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK? I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE IT'S SO DIFFERENT.

I AGREE I WOULDN'T WANT TO DENY IT AND REQUIRE IT TO BE 12 MONTHS.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE A QUESTION. IF WE TAKE THAT ACTION, THIS LEVEL OF BUREAUCRACY IS GOING TO COST THEM THAT MUCH TIME AND ANOTHER THOUSAND DOLLARS.

IN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

IF YOU DENY TONIGHT THEY HAVE TO WAIT 12 MONTHS.

THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE THAT YOU TAKE NO ACTION AND JUST SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION.

MR. RANDOLPH IS CORRECT.

I THINK YOU WOULD IF YOU FORMALLY DENY IT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO WAIT AT LEAST 12 MONTHS FOR THEM TO REAPPLY.

WELL CAN WE JUST SEND IT BACK WITHOUT DENYING IT? AND THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING AGAIN, RIGHT? WELL, IS THAT RIGHT? CAN WE NOT? I THINK WE HAVE TO DENY IT, DON'T WE? THE REQUEST WOULD DO THIS SO WHAT? IN THE MEANWHILE, HE'S PAYING TAXES ON 200 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL LAND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY USELESS TO HIM BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE ON IT, AND NOBODY WILL EVEN ENTERTAIN DOING ANYTHING WITH.

YEAH, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT LINE GOT DRAWN WHERE IT IS RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF HIS PROPERTY.

I'M NOT QUITE SURE. LINE WAS DRAWN BY PRIOR OWNERSHIP.

THERE WAS A PROPERTY LINE OF SEPARATE PROPERTY.

THERE WAS A PROPERTY LINE THAT SEPARATED WHAT WE BOUGHT FROM MR. CAMP AND WHAT WE BOUGHT FROM THE AND, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WE BOUGHT THE WE BOUGHT THE PIECE THAT'S BEHIND IT FROM THE BRADSHAW FAMILY AND THE PIECE ON THE FRONT WE BOUGHT FROM WORCESTER COUNTY.

BUT IT'S THE LINES ARE FROM PRIOR OLD PROPERTY LINES.

GOTCHA. BUT CAN WE SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITHOUT DENYING IT? THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

YES. THIS CAN CERTAINLY BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YOU HAVE 12 MONTHS FROM TODAY TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION, IF YOU WISH, FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN YOUR REALM AND RIGHT TO DO SO TO REFER IT BACK FOR FURTHER REVIEW OR LET THEM TAKE A CRACK AT IT IN JANUARY.

IT COMES BACK TO US IN FEBRUARY.

SO WE'RE TAKING NO ACTION ON IT AS FAR AS ACCEPTING OR DENYING IT AND WE'RE SENDING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? SAY AYE.

AYE. VERY GOOD.

OKAY. THEN THERE'S THE OTHER PUBLIC HEARING.

[10. Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Request by Robert E. Miller ]

[01:20:10]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD YOU HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR A 12 ACRE REQUEST OUT OF A 36 ACRE PARCEL. WE CONSIDER THIS A MINOR AMENDMENT DUE TO THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE REQUEST.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED RIGHT NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 258 SMITHS FERRY ROAD AND ROUTE 189 SOUTH KEY ROAD.

THIS AREA IS DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE AGRICULTURAL FOREST, OPEN SPACE AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL USE.

THE APPLICATION SEEKS TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 12 ACRES TO ALLOW FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE REZONING TO A COMMERCIAL NATURE AS DISCUSSED BEFORE ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT'S KIND OF OUR LONG RANGE GUIDE.

WITH THESE SMALLER REQUESTS DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN, WE DON'T LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE CROSSROADS OUT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE AS TO THIS COULD BE A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A COMMERCIAL SITE OR SO FORTH.

ON THESE SMALLER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUESTS WHAT IS TRADITIONALLY DONE IS AN ACTUAL REZONING IS FILED TO CHANGE IT FROM, SAY, THE A1 ZONING TO B1 BUSINESS, AND AN APPLICATION IS ALSO FILED TO AMEND THE PLAN.

SO THEY'RE BASICALLY DONE CONCURRENTLY AT THE SAME TIME THAT WAY THE REZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR.

SO WITH THESE SMALLER REQUESTS, AND THESE WOULD BE MORE TYPICAL OF THE TYPE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS WE WOULD RECEIVE.

AGAIN, IT'S YOUR DISCRETION TO CONSIDER THAT THIS THIS EVENING, IF YOU WISH TO AMEND THAT SMALL PORTION TO A COMMERCIAL AREA, THEN WE WOULD EXPECT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THAT A B1 ZONING REQUEST WOULD BE MADE.

HOWEVER, JUST KEEP IN MIND AGAIN THIS THIS SITE DOES NOT HAVE PUBLIC UTILITIES.

THERE'S A DUCK THRU CONVENIENCE STORE RIGHT NEXT TO THAT THAT'S ON WELL AND SEPTIC.

THERE ARE NO PUBLIC UTILITIES, SO SHOULD THE PLAN BE AMENDED EITHER TONIGHT OR AT A FUTURE ZONING REQUEST ANY TYPE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THAT AREA WOULD PROBABLY BE VERY LIMITED IN SIZE AND SCOPE, JUST DUE TO THE LACK OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.

YOU WOULDN'T BE GETTING A CAR WASH THERE OR ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT.

SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE PLEASED TO ADDRESS THEM.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. RANDOLPH? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS SECOND ISSUE ABOUT THE CHANGE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

MIC] WE BOUGHT THIS CORNER NEXT TO THE DUCK THRU INTERSECTION 189 /258, WE BOUGHT IT FROM THE WIGGINS FAMILY.

WE WORKED THE FARM, AND THEY OFFERED US THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUY IT.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE FAMILY BUSINESS AS TO WHY THEY SOLD IT TO US, BUT ANYWAY, THEY THEY SOLD US THIRD, YOU SAID 36, 39 ACRES 36, 36.

THEY SOLD US 36 ACRES IN THAT WEDGE.

IT HAS EQUAL ROAD FRONT, YOU KNOW, ON 189 AND ON 258.

AND LIKE HE SAID, THERE ARE NO PUBLIC UTILITIES.

SO IT WOULD BE A IT WOULDN'T BE A BIG THING.

BUT IF THERE WAS A COMMERCIAL INTEREST, THEY WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING NEAR THAT INTERSECTION AND NEAR THAT INTERCHANGE.

WE FEEL LIKE IT COULD BE A GOOD THING FOR US AND THE COMMUNITY.

BUT THEN AGAIN, HE STRESSED THAT WE HE USUALLY GETS A REZONING REQUEST AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AT THE SAME TIME FOR THE MINOR ONES.

BUT WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE BY MR. KNUCKLES THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BEFORE YOU WENT FOR REZONING OF ANY TYPE.

AND IT WAS MY IT WAS OUR IGNORANCE AND MAYBE MISS LIZ IN THAT RESPECT.

AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT, THAT'LL BE GREAT.

AND IF YOU DON'T, WE'LL JUST HAVE TO START AGAIN.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHERE IS THIS IN RELATION TO THE LADY THAT WAS THAT IS PROBABLY A MILE FROM HER HOUSE, OR MORE.

[01:25:06]

[INAUDIBLE] AND EVERY NOW AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE TO PICK YOU UP WHEN YOU MOVE A TRACTOR.

AND YOU GOT TO WALK BACK TO GET YOUR PICKUP.

SO IT'S A RIGHT GOOD WALK.

ANYWAY. I'M SORRY.

THERE ARE FIVE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS LISTED IN ANY OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS HERE TONIGHT.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS.

I THINK WE WOULD.

I APOLOGIZE, I'M NOT A VERY GOOD PUBLIC SPEAKER AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE MAP LOOKS LIKE AS AS TO IT ADJOINING MY PROPERTY.

THE ONE THING I DO KNOW IS MY BACKYARD BUTTS UP TO A FIELD.

I'M ASSUMING IT'S THE FIELD IN REFERENCE OR ONE OF THE FIELDS IN REFERENCE.

SO THE THOUGHT OF HAVING A PARKING LOT BACK THERE.

I HAVE DOGS AND ANIMALS.

I DON'T HAVE HORSES LIKE THE OTHER YOUNG LADY, BUT I DO HAVE DOGS AND GRANDCHILDREN AND STUFF THAT ENJOY THE BACKYARD, AND I'D REALLY RATHER LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS.

THAT'S WHY I MOVED OUT HERE.

I MOVED FROM NORFOLK TO FRANKLIN TO BE OUT IN THE COUNTRY SO THAT MY GRANDKIDS COULD PLAY.

NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TRAFFIC OR PARKING LOTS OR, YOU KNOW, MY DOGS AREN'T GOING CRAZY BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS ARE OUTSIDE.

EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY. I'M NERVOUS.

BUT THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY FOREVER HOME WHERE I GROW OLD, MY HUSBAND GROWS OLD, MY GRANDCHILDREN COME FOR THE HOLIDAYS.

WE SPEND OUR TIME OUTSIDE DURING THE SUMMER IN THE POOL AND ENJOY THAT.

AND I THINK THAT HAVING A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS RIGHT THERE WOULD DISTURB OUR PEACE AND OUR WAY OF LIFE.

WERE YOU NOTIFIED OF THIS APPLICATION? I RECEIVED SOMETHING IN THE MAIL LAST WEEK ABOUT THIS MEETING TONIGHT.

YOU WEREN'T NOTIFIED BY A LETTER OR.

NO, SIR THIS WAS THE FIRST I'D HEARD OF IT.

THAT'S A PROBLEM TO ME.

I HAD A FEELING THAT THESE PEOPLE WERE NOT ADEQUATELY NOTIFIED OF THIS.

IN RELATION TO THE DOCTOR WHERE'S YOUR HOUSE AT? IT'S CATTY CORNER.

THERE'S A THERE'S A HOUSE THAT HAS A GENTLEMAN DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

MINE IS RIGHT NEXT TO HIS.

THE FIELD GOES BEHIND HIS HOUSE AND BUTTS UP AGAINST MY BACKYARD.

I'M SORRY. I LIVE AT 29430.

29430. YES, SIR.

OKAY, SO IS THAT ACROSS THE ROAD? YEAH, THAT'S ACROSS THE ROAD FROM THE DOCTOR.

CORRECT. YOU DON'T ACTUALLY, YOU'RE NOT ABUTTED TO THE PROPERTY.

I'M NOT. SEE, I DON'T I HAVEN'T SEEN A MAP, I DON'T KNOW.

OKAY. YEAH.

IF THERE'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, IT'S STILL.

YEAH. I MEAN, THIS IS RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE DOCTOR.

THAT'S NOT THE FIELD.

THAT'S. YEAH, THAT'S NOT THE FIELD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

OKAY. BUT STILL, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.

OH YEAH. AND YOU KNOW BASICALLY IN THE FRONT YARD EVEN THOUGH IT'S ACROSS THE STREET.

WHAT DID YOU SAY YOUR ADDRESS IS? 29430 SMITHS FERRY ROAD.

SHE'S ACROSS THE ROAD FROM THE DUCK FERRY RIGHT THERE.

OKAY. YOU SEE IT? BUT THIS IS THE FIRST THAT I HAD HEARD OF IT WHEN I RECEIVED THE LETTER LAST WEEK.

OKAY. WITH DUCK THRU BEING AN EXISTING BUSINESS, HOW IS THAT AS FAR AS YOUR PROPERTY IS CONCERNED? IT'S INTERESTING.

WITH ALL THE NOISE AND THE THUMPING FROM THE RADIOS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, FROM PEOPLE GETTING THEIR GAS AND NOT TURNING THEIR CARS OFF AND WHATNOT.

AND THE OF COURSE THERE'S TRACTOR TRAILER TRAFFIC BECAUSE THEY HAD TO HAVE DIESEL THERE AS WELL.

SO WE KNEW THAT WAS AN EXISTING THING.

BUT WHAT WE ENJOYED WAS THE FIELDS AROUND US AND THE OPENNESS AND THE WILDLIFE AND, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTRY LIFE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NOW, WHEN DID YOU ALL BUY YOUR PROPERTY?

[01:30:03]

OKAY. GOTCHA.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE WHILE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN? IF NOT, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SEEMS TO ME THE BEST THING WOULD BE TO SEND THEM BOTH BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BRING THEM BACK.

WELL, THIS IS A WONDERFUL THING ABOUT BEING ELECTED TO THE BOARD.

I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO SEND THIS ONE BACK.

IT IS ACROSS THE STREET, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT NOT ADJACENT TO IT AND WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO THIS MORE AND MORE AND MORE.

THESE KINDS OF ISSUES DOWN THE ROAD.

THIS ONE TO ME SEEMS IN ORDER TO APPROVE IT.

YEAH, I THINK BEING THAT IT IS NEXT DOOR TO THE DUCK THRU I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO HAVE TO REHASH IT OUT.

RIGHT. ALSO, THE SIZE HERE GIVES LIMITATIONS.

YEAH, IT'S NOT LIKE YOU GO INTO SOME 50 ACRE PARCEL HE'S TRYING TO DO.

IT'S A VERY SMALL PARCEL, SO I THINK WE COULD AMEND IT.

YEAH. WAS IT, WHAT, 13 ACRES? IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I READ IN THE APPLICATION.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK? IS I DON'T THINK THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED.

SO IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO DO THAT WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNERS, OKAY, WE CAN DO THAT TONIGHT.

WAS THIS PART OF THE FIRST APPLICATION? WELL, I THINK THERE'S NOTHING REALLY TO FIGURE OUT ON THIS ONE.

I THINK THIS ONE'S PRETTY CUT AND DRY IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.

I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND HER CONCERNS.

AND I THINK WE ADDRESSED YOUR CONCERNS, DIDN'T WE? YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE PUTTING IT IN THE FIELD BEHIND YOUR HOUSE, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY ACROSS THE ROAD FROM OUR HOUSE.

SO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW THE DOCTORS ALREADY.

THAT'S A VERY BUSY DUCK THRU.

SO, YEAH, I DON'T SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT THE SURROUNDING LANDOWNERS ANY MORE THAN WHAT THAT DUCK THRU DOES.

BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT LOOKING AT IT, BUT I THINK I FEEL LIKE THEY WOULD PROBABLY APPROVE IT.

WELL, I THINK WE CAN JUST SAVE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE ROAD BY APPROVING IT.

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY? I WAS HOPING SOMEBODY WOULD WANT TO PURCHASE IT AND PUT SOMETHING THERE.

I DO NOT HAVE A REAL PLAN AT THE MOMENT.

AND IF I DO [INAUDIBLE] IF I HAVE A PLAN, IT'LL BE PRESENTED WHEN WE WHEN WE IF WE REQUEST YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ZONED ANYWAY.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ZONED.

YEAH. BUT.

SO I THINK WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS.

THIS WILL TAKE THIS OFF THE TABLE AND DO AWAY WITH ANY MORE CONFUSION WITH Y'ALL'S APPLICATIONS.

SO WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK? SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT A LOT OF CONFUSION.

I DON'T THINK THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED HERE, AND THEY NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

[01:35:01]

WELL, THERE'S FIVE OF THEM LISTED HERE.

YEAH, BUT THEY'RE NOT ADJACENT.

WELL, THEY'RE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS.

YEAH I UNDERSTAND. OKAY.

BUT THEY'RE ACROSS THE STREET, IS WHAT? OKAY. IF THEY WEREN'T NOTIFIED.

I MEAN, ISN'T IT NORMAL POLICY TO NOTIFY THEM.

SO MAY I SPEAK FOR ONE MOMENT, PLEASE? SO THE NOTICES GO OUT.

THEY COME UP THROUGH OUR OFFICE, AND MISS TINA TAKES THOSE TO THE OFFICE.

AND I BELIEVE SHE REMEMBERS WHEN THEY WENT OUT BECAUSE THEY GO OUT BEFORE OURS GO OUT.

TINA, AM I SPEAKING CORRECTLY? SO JUST TO CLARIFY THE WAY, THE WAY THIS WORKS, THE YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU HAVE TO FOR PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THEN WHEN IT GETS TO THE GOVERNING BODY, YOU HAVE TO, BY STATE CODE, SEND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER NOTICES AND ADVERTISE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

NOW, THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD ABOUT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS NOT BEING, AT LEAST ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION SIDE, BEING NOTIFIED.

LYNETTE IS CORRECT.

WHEN IT COMES TO OUR OFFICE, WE GET THE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESSES AND PEOPLE FROM THEIR OFFICE, AND TINA SENDS OUT THE LETTERS TO THE ADJACENT FOLKS THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO BY LAW.

NOW, I CAN'T SAY EITHER WAY IN TERMS OF THE WHAT WAS DONE PRIOR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

WELL, PROPER, PROPER FORM PROPER FORM WAS NOT EXERCISED HERE BEFORE MR. RANDOLPH CAME ON.

AND THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION ABOUT A LOT OF THESE APPLICATIONS.

THIS GENTLEMAN WAS UNPREPARED.

SO, I MEAN, I GOT TO SPEAK UP FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.

I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE FIRST CONSIDERATION.

Y'ALL FEEL DIFFERENT.

OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM THAT'S GOING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

HAVE THEM NOTIFIED PROPERLY.

HAVE THEM GET THEIR SAY AND COME BACK.

WE TAKE CARE OF IT.

IF THERE'S BEEN SOME OVERSIGHT OF PEOPLE NOT BEING NOTIFIED.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU IF THAT'S THE SITUATION.

AND THEY ALL MIGHT SAY IT'S FINE.

I'M CONFUSED. WERE THEY NOTIFIED OR WEREN'T THEY? THE LETTERS GO OUT.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING ABOUT THIS.

SO YOU'RE. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF PEOPLE NOT BEING NOTIFIED, SO I DEFER TO JAY IF HE'S GOT ANY INFORMATION.

YES. AS MENTIONED, PER STATE CODE, WE'RE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ALL THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

I KNOW I HAD TO REDO THE LIST FOR I PROVIDE THAT LIST TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATION SO THEY CAN SEND OUT THE NOTICES.

PER THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I ALWAYS GO ABOVE AND BEYOND, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT BE AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

ANYBODY THAT'S IN RELATIVELY CLOSE PROXIMITY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS I TRY TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND IN PROVIDING THAT LIST.

AS TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER LIST THAT WAS PROVIDED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL.

I CAN'T SPEAK AS TO HOW THAT ACTUALLY, I KNOW THERE WERE MANY ERRORS MADE PRIOR WITH THE PRIOR INTERIM DIRECTOR BEING ON BOARD WITH THAT. CERTAINLY WITH SOMETHING AS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE'S ANY REZONING APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD BE PENDING OR WAITING ON A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WERE TIME SENSITIVE.

THEREFORE, IT MAY BE PRUDENT JUST TO REFER THIS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SO THEY HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.

AGAIN, THE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS, THERE WERE THIS ONE, THE PRIOR INDUSTRIAL ONE AND A SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT THAT WERE ALL KIND OF LUMPED TOGETHER.

SO THERE WERE A LOT OF ERRORS MADE AT THAT.

SO CERTAINLY TO MAINTAIN THE GOOD COMMUNICATION AND RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT THAT MAY BE A PRUDENT THING TO DO.

COULD THIS BE LEGALLY CHALLENGED IF THEY WEREN'T NOTIFIED? NO. ANYTHING PER THE STATE CODE THAT'S NOT MET CERTAINLY COULD MERIT POTENTIAL FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE LETTERS THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SENT OUT REGARDING THIS? I CANNOT SPEAK FOR PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT WHEN, AS MR. RANDOLPH SPOKE YES, HE WILL SEND OVER THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, IF THERE ARE ANY, AND THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SO FORTH.

MR. THROWER AND MYSELF WILL UPDATE THAT INFORMATION SO THAT IT REFLECTS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARINGS.

I SEND OUT THE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

IT GOES OUT NO FURTHER THAN 21 DAYS AND NO SOONER THAN 7 DAYS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[01:40:07]

WHEN I SEND OUT THOSE LETTERS I HAVE THE LETTER.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING.

A COPY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT I HAVE SENT TO.

AND IT IS ON A FORM AND AFFIDAVIT, AND I WILL HAVE THAT NOTARIZED THE SAME DAY THAT I MAIL IT BY SOMEONE IN OUR OFFICE.

SO YOU DID SEND LETTERS OUT FOR THIS HEARING? YES.

AFFIDAVIT WAS SENT OUT NOTARIZED FOR THIS FOR OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT.

I CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

YEAH, BUT YOU SENT LETTERS OUT FOR THIS AMENDMENT TONIGHT TO THIS HEARING, DIDN'T SEND THEM OUT FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT WE THINK OF.

RIGHT. I DO NOT SEND THEM OUT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION.

I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, SO I CANNOT SPEAK ON.

SO ALL ADJACENT LANDOWNERS WERE NOTIFIED OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. OKAY.

SO TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

WHAT IS SOMETHING IN PLACE? WELL, IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED.

PRECIATE IT. YEAH.

HE'LL HAVE IT STRAIGHT FOR THE NEXT ONE.

FROM WHAT I HEARD, I THINK THE QUESTION THAT THIS HAS BEEN THE COUNTY'S PROCESS FOR PROBABLY YEARS.

SO I THINK THE QUESTION LIKE ANY OF THESE ARE THE PROPER ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, BECAUSE THE APPLICATION SEEMS TO HAVE EVOLVED IN SOME FASHION.

YES. WERE THEY WERE THEY WERE THE PROPER ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRED BY LAW NOTIFIED? NO, THAT'S THAT'S THE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL AND SENT NOTICE.

SO YES.

GOOD. WERE ALL THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS WERE NOTIFIED OF THIS HEARING TONIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO.

OKAY. YES.

ALL RIGHT. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE AMENDMENT.

WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I MEAN, WHAT ELSE IS THERE? WE'RE BEATING THIS THING TO DEATH, MAN.

IS THERE A SECOND? YEAH, SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? NO.

OKAY. I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN DONE RIGHT.

OKAY. MAJORITY OF ONE.

MOTION PASSES. MOTION PASSES.

THIS COMES BACK TO BITE US IN COURT SOMETIME BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T NOTIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION THEN THAT'S I'VE ALREADY SAID THAT.

OKAY. NUMBER 11 THE BUDGET YEAR 24 AUDIT PRESENTATION BY CREEDLE JONES

[11. FY24 Audit Presentation - Creedle, Jones & Associates, PC - Request to Accept ]

SHE'S GOING TO BE BEHIND YOU VIRTUALLY.

AND I'D LIKE TO SAY I WAS SENT THIS TO THE BOARD LAST NIGHT.

YEAH. AND VERY GOOD AUDIT.

EXCELLENT AUDIT. I APPRECIATE LYNETTE'S AND DEPARTMENT HEADS WORK ON THIS.

YOU CAN'T GET ANY BETTER AUDIT THAN THIS.

WE'VE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FUND BALANCE.

NO MATERIAL WEAKNESSES.

EVERYTHING'S DONE IN PROPER ORDER.

SO THANK LYNETTE AND THANK OUR STAFF AND DEPARTMENT HEADS AND CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.

THANKS TO EVERYBODY.

BUT, LYNETTE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING.

OKAY. OKAY.

SO WE'LL HAND IT OVER TO YOU KIM.

GOOD EVENING. OKAY.

GOOD EVENING. THE FINANCIAL SECTION IS THE FIRST PART OF THE AUDIT REPORT AND INCLUDES THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT, WHICH STATES THE AUDIT WAS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE AUDITING STANDARDS.

AND BASED ON OUR AUDIT PROCEDURES THAT WE PERFORMED, AN UNMODIFIED OPINION OR CLEAN OPINION WAS ISSUED FOR THE FY 24 AUDIT.

PAGES ONE THROUGH NINE ARE YOUR MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS, WHICH SUMMARIZE THE FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR IN A CONDENSED FORMAT.

PAGE TEN STARTS YOUR FULL ACCRUAL BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES, WHICH INCLUDES YOUR PENSION AND OPEB ACTUARIALLY DETERMINED LIABILITIES AND OR ASSETS, YOUR FIXED ASSETS, AND YOUR LONG TERM DEBT.

PAGE 12 IS THE BALANCE SHEET THAT YOU'RE MOST FAMILIAR WITH WORKING WITH AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, WHICH IS THE MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE THE DEBT

[01:45:05]

THE MAIN OPERATING FUND OF THE COUNTY IS THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH HAS AN INCREASE IN FUND BALANCE OF APPROXIMATELY $4.2 MILLION FOR FY 24.

THE COUNTY'S TOTAL GENERAL FUND UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE WAS $14.9 MILLION AT 630, WHICH ARE THE COUNTY'S FUNDS THAT ARE NOT EARMARKED FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS.

TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES INCREASED APPROXIMATELY $1.3 MILLION FROM THE PRIOR YEAR, WITH THE COUNTY'S LARGEST REVENUE SOURCE IS PROPERTY TAXES, AT 61%, AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES REPRESENT THE SECOND LARGEST AT 22% OF TOTAL REVENUES.

PROPERTY TAXES INCREASED APPROXIMATELY $2 MILLION FROM THE PRIOR YEAR, WHICH THE TOTAL TAX LEVY INCREASED $3.5 MILLION, WHICH THE TEN YEAR TREND IS SHOWN ON TABLE FOUR OR PAGE 161, IN THE BACK OF THE FINANCIALS WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT INFORMATION.

THE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ALSO INCREASED $1.8 MILLION, WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HAVING THE LARGEST INCREASE.

THEN AFTER THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS, YOU HAVE THE PROPRIETARY FUNDS ON PAGES 16 AND 17 WITH THE ENTERPRISE FUND, TOTAL NET POSITION DECREASED APPROXIMATELY $500,000. HOWEVER, DEPRECIATION REPRESENTS $1.2 MILLION OF EXPENDITURES WHICH IS A NON CREDIT CASH TRANSACTION.

SO WITHOUT DEPRECIATION NET POSITION WOULD HAVE INCREASED $650,000.

PAGES 19 AND 20 ARE THE FIDUCIARY FUND STATEMENTS WHICH INCLUDE THE OPEB TRUST SPECIAL WELFARE ESCROW FUNDS AND THE BLACKWATER REGIONAL LIBRARY.

YOUR DETAILED SCHEDULE OF LONG TERM DEBT CAN BE FOUND BEGINNING ON PAGE 45 OR FOOTNOTE 11, AND PAGES 48 THROUGH 51 ARE FOOTNOTES RELATED TO LEASES, AS WELL AS SUBSCRIPTION BASED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARRANGEMENTS, WHICH WERE NEW REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PHASED IN OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. PAGE 54 OR FOOTNOTE 11 SHOWS THE COUNTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGAL DEBT MARGIN AT YEAR END.

PAGES 55 THROUGH 145 FOR THE VAST MAJORITY REPRESENTS YOUR PENSION AND OPEB REQUIRED FOOTNOTE DISCLOSURES AND RELATED ACTUARIAL TABLES. THE COUNTY COMPONENT UNIT SCHOOL BOARD FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BEGIN ON PAGE 150 WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD'S BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE, FOLLOWED BY THEIR BUDGET ACTUAL SCHEDULES.

THE COUNTY CONTRIBUTED $12.6 MILLION TO THE SCHOOL BOARD DURING FY 24.

THE FINAL SECTION OF THE FINANCIALS IS THE COMPLIANCE SECTION INCLUDES THE AUDITOR REPORTS AND OPINIONS ON INTERNAL CONTROL, COMPLIANCE OVER MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA LAWS, REGULATIONS, CONTRACTS AND GRANTS.

WITH RELATION TO ALL OF THESE WE ONLY HAVE ONE FINDING WHICH WAS A COMPLIANCE IN REGARD TO SOCIAL SERVICE, ONE SOCIAL SERVICE EMPLOYEE ACCESS WAS NOT TIMELY REMOVED PER THE STATE SPECIFICATIONS.

IN PAGE ONE.

72 IS THE COUNTY'S SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS THAT REPORTS ALL FEDERAL FUNDS EXPENDED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR, FOLLOWED BY THE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COST, THE COUNTY RECEIVED AN UNMODIFIED OR CLEAN OPINION IN RELATION TO MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS WITH ZERO MATERIAL WEAKNESSES OR SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES REPORTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR.

SO OVERALL, THE COUNTY INCREASED THE FUND BALANCE, HAD NO FINDINGS OR SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES OR MATERIAL WEAKNESSES, AND RECEIVED CLEAN OPINION FOR BOTH THE FINANCIALS AND THE CFA FOR THE YEAR.

THANK YOU KIM.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? I KNOW IT'S A LOT.

ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS COMMENTS? WHAT PERCENT OF THE BUDGET IS REVIEWED FOR AN AUDIT? WHAT PERCENT OF THE BUDGET IS REVIEWED? WELL, KIM, MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THAT OF HOW SAMPLES ARE DONE.

OKAY. SO EACH FUND MATERIALITY IS DONE ON A FUND BASIS.

AND THEN SAMPLES ARE CHOSEN AND SELECTED BASED ON THE MATERIAL ACCOUNTS, WHICH IS BASED ON A CALCULATION PUT OUT BY THE GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD.

AND THEN FROM THOSE MATERIAL ACCOUNTS SAMPLES ARE SELECTED, AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT'S AN UNPREDICTABILITY TEST WHERE WE CAN SELECT JUST SAMPLES FROM VARIOUS ACCOUNTS, AND WE SWITCH THOSE UP YEAR TO YEAR JUST TO KEEP IT FRESH.

SO IT'S NOT REALLY A SPECIFIC AMOUNT.

EACH FUND IS DIFFERENT BASED ON ITS ASSETS OR REVENUES.

[01:50:05]

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU KIM.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

WELL WE THANK YOU THE USE I BELIEVE USUALLY THE GOVERNING BODY ACCEPTS MAKES A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AUDIT, IF YOU'RE INCLINED. ALL RIGHT.

MOVE TO ACCEPT.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. WHEN DID WE.

THIS WAS JUST GIVEN US TO US TONIGHT, RIGHT? LAST NIGHT IT WAS EMAILED TO YOU BY MR. THROWER, ALONG WITH A SYNOPSIS OF THE AUDIT.

SO WE HAVE NOBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT UNTIL TONIGHT.

IS THAT RIGHT? RIGHT. SO YOU MAY LOOK AT IT AND ASK US QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME.

OR IF YOU WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING YOU WANT TO EMAIL ME QUESTIONS AND THEN WE GO OVER THEM AT THE MEETING.

THAT'S FINE. OKAY.

MOVE ON NUMBER 12, BOYKIN SEWER REHAB PROJECT.

[12. Boykins Sewer Rehab Project - Appropriation Resolution _ Request to Approve ]

GOOD EVENING SIR. WELCOME.

GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS.

THANKS AGAIN FOR HAVING ME BACK.

I THINK WHAT WAS IT SEPTEMBER OCTOBER WE MET LAST TIME TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SEWER, AND WE HAD AN EXCITING TIME OVER AT THE RALLS ART MUSEUM RIGHT AFTER A GOOD MEAL.

SO THANKS AGAIN FOR HAVING ME BACK.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPDATE OF WHERE THINGS ARE AND, AND A REQUEST OR SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, SOMETHING TO CONSIDER TONIGHT.

AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU REMEMBER, WE HAD WE HAD COVERED THE BALANCE OF $2.4 MILLION THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED IN ARPA MONEY.

YOU ALSO RECEIVED JUST OVER $200,000 IN INTEREST FROM THAT MONEY OUT OF THE ACCOUNT THAT IT'S PLACED IN.

AND SO YOU'RE DEALING WITH ROUGHLY AROUND $2.6 MILLION.

AND OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE'VE DWINDLED THAT DOWN WITH PROJECTS RELATED TO WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS WHAT THE GRANT MONEY WAS GIVEN FOR.

AND WE'RE NEAR THE END OF THE ARPA OBLIGATION FUND YEAR, WHERE WE HAVE TO OBLIGATE THE REMAINING FUNDS AND BASED ON WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, BY THE END OF THIS MONTH, BY THE END OF, YOU KNOW, TWO WEEKS FROM NOW, WE HAVE TO OBLIGATE AN ADDITIONAL ROUGHLY $380,000 TOWARDS SEWER WORK.

THE GOOD NEWS IS, IS YOU HAVE A LOT MORE NEEDS THAN JUST $380,000.

SO WE'RE ABLE TO OBLIGATE THE REMAINING ARPA FUNDS, MEET THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENT, AND THEN WE HAVE TO SPEND IT ALL BY THE END OF NEXT YEAR.

SO WE'RE IN NO PROBLEM OF BEING ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID, AND I MENTIONED THIS AT THE LAST TIME WE WERE TOGETHER, IS WE HAD WE HAD TRI STATE, OUR, OUR CONTRACTOR, GO OUT AND INSPECT THE GRAVITY SEWERS IN BOYKINS, MAIN STREET, AND [INAUDIBLE] AVENUE.

AND THEY ACCOMPLISHED THAT AND FINISHED THAT SHORTLY AFTER THE LAST TIME WE MET.

AND THEY GAVE US ALL OF THE DIFFERENT CLOSED CIRCUIT TV INSPECTION REPORTS AND VIDEOS THAT WE WATCHED THROUGH AND REVIEWED.

AND THERE WERE QUITE A FEW QUITE A FEW ISSUES WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED.

THERE WERE SEVERAL POINT REPAIRS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.

THERE WERE SEVERAL MANHOLES THAT NEEDED TO BE REHABILITATED.

THERE'S ONE AREA WHERE THERE WAS NO MANHOLE, JUST TWO PIPES COMING TOGETHER THAT WE NEED TO PUT A MANHOLE IN.

AND THEN THERE'S ADDITIONAL LINING WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THE GRAVITY SEWER MAINS THERE TO REDUCE THE INFLOW AND INFILTRATION, AND ALSO GIVE YOU A SYSTEM THAT WILL LAST YOU ANOTHER 50 TO 75 YEARS.

THEY GAVE US A PROPOSAL TO DO THOSE REPAIRS.

THE TOTAL COST FOR ALL OF THAT, INCLUDING TRAFFIC CONTROL, EXCAVATION, ROAD REPAIRS, SEWER REPLACEMENT, SEWER REPAIRS, AND REHAB IS ROUGHLY $700,000.

AND AGAIN, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER I SAID WE HAVE ABOUT $380 LEFT THAT WE HAVE TO SPEND.

SO THE GOOD NEWS IS WE'VE GOT ENOUGH WORK TO TO OBLIGATE THE REST OF THE FUNDS TO SPEND IT.

THE BAD NEWS IS IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO DO EVERYTHING.

NOW, WE HAD TRI STATE BREAK THEIR PROPOSAL UP INTO TWO DIFFERENT PHASES SO THAT WE COULD AT LEAST OBLIGATE WHAT WE NEEDED TO OBLIGATE BY THE END OF THIS MONTH. AND THEN WE HAVE THE SECOND PHASE SITTING THERE.

SO WE BROKE IT UP INTO TWO PHASES.

AND I WON'T GO INTO GREAT DETAIL UNLESS YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT ROUGHLY, THE FIRST PHASE IS GOING IN AND DOING THE EXCAVATION AND THE POINT REPAIRS, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LINE THE SEWERS AND REHAB IT UNTIL YOU DO THE POINT REPAIRS.

AND SO THAT FIRST PHASE IS ROUGHLY AROUND $315,000.

THE SECOND PHASE THAT WE HAD THEM GIVE US WAS THE REHABILITATION OF THE LINES, THE LINING OF THE LINES, THE REHABILITATION OF THE MANHOLES AND AND THE

[01:55:01]

SO ROUGHLY, IF YOU ADD BOTH OF THOSE TOGETHER, IT COMES CLOSE TO $700,000, WHICH IS THE TOTAL COST.

WE HAD THEM BREAK IT UP SO THAT WE COULD, AT LEAST AGAIN, PROCEED WITH PHASE ONE AND SPEND THE REST OF THE MONEY THAT WE NEEDED TO OBLIGATE FOR THIS YEAR.

AND THEN WE COULD LOOK AT PHASE TWO WHEN FUNDING BECAME AVAILABLE.

ONE OF THE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED YOU TO CONSIDER TONIGHT IS, IS GOING AHEAD AND DOING BOTH PHASES NOW.

AND THERE'S A REASON WHY ONE IS MAINLY EFFICIENCY.

ONE MOBILIZATION, ONE ROAD SHUTDOWN AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.

AND ONE LESS TIME TO HAVE TO REROUTE TRAFFIC AND DISRUPT PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND WORK AND PLAY IN THE AREA.

THE OTHER REASON IS JUST THE THE MANNER THAT WE'VE SEEN INFLATION INCREASE JUST OVER THE LAST YEAR.

I THINK YOU ALL HAVE WITNESSED THAT YOURSELF.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE PRICE IS NOT GOING TO GET ANY LOWER BY WAITING AND DOING THIS AT ANOTHER TIME.

WE'VE SEEN JUST OVER THE LAST EIGHT MONTHS, COSTS GO UP 30 TO 40% FOR INFRASTRUCTURE WORK.

SO IF YOU YOU KNOW, IF YOU EXECUTE NOW AND DO IT ALL NOW, IT WILL BE CHEAPER TO DO IT NOW THAN TO WAIT 6 TO 8 MONTHS OR EVEN A YEAR OR TWO WHERE INFLATIONARY COSTS COULD INCREASE.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THE PROPOSAL.

WE'RE GOOD EITHER WAY.

WE WE'VE GOT IT BROKEN OUT WHERE WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET PHASE ONE DONE AND MEET THE ARPA OBLIGATION FUNDS.

BUT IF YOU DID DECIDE YOU WANTED TO DO BOTH.

WE'RE REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL $350,000 TO COVER THAT GAP IN ORDER TO GO AHEAD AND BE DONE AND GET THE BOYKIN SEWER PROJECT COMPLETED AND BE OUT OF THERE AND NOT HAVE TO GO BACK IN THERE AGAIN.

SO THAT'S ON THE TABLE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

AND MR. HOWELL, YOUR PUBLIC UTILITIES DIRECTOR, IS HERE AS WELL IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

WHERE WOULD THE $350,000 COME FROM GENERAL FUND.

IT WOULD COME FROM YOUR GENERAL FUND RESERVE.

YES, MA'AM.

YEAH. AND IT HAS BEEN QUITE SOME TIME.

I MEAN, THE LINES IN BOYKINS ARE VERY OLD.

THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.

YOU'VE GOTTEN YOUR MONEY'S WORTH OUT OF THEM, RIGHT.

AND IF WE DON'T DO THIS RIGHT NOW, WE'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE TO BE DOING IT WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR.

AND IF WE WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT BUDGET SEASON, WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING MORE BECAUSE TRAFFIC CONTROL COSTS THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT. IT'S JUST VARIOUS COSTS.

WE LOOKED AT EVERYTHING BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR MONEY, BUT IT'S A PROJECT THAT HAS TO BE DONE.

AND IF WE COULD GO IN AND COMPLETE EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW, IT IS THE THE BEST CHOICE AS OPPOSED TO DEALING WITH IT ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS LATER.

TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL ALONE FOR THIS PROJECT, JUST TO REROUTE THE TRUCKS THROUGH NORTH CAROLINA AND REROUTE DETOUR EVERYBODY AROUND IS $70,000.

SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, YOU'LL BE SPENDING THAT TWICE OR EVEN MORE IF YOU PUSH IT DOWN THE ROAD, WHICH WE CAN DO.

BUT IT'S SOMETHING TO JUST CONSIDER AND THINK ABOUT.

BUT REGARDLESS OF WHEN WE DO IT, THE MONEY COMES FROM THE COUNTY.

YES, SIR.

YEAH. AGAIN, THERE'S THE ARPA MONEY.

WE'RE NEARING THE END.

WE HAVE TO OBLIGATE EVERYTHING BY THE END OF THIS MONTH.

AND SO WE'VE GOT A PROJECT TO BASICALLY STICK THE LANDING.

WE'RE GOING TO HIT HIT YOUR ARPA MONEY EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

YOU KNOW THE GRANT MONEY THAT YOU GOT WITH AT LEAST PHASE ONE.

IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE REST OF THE BOYKIN SEWER WHILE WE'VE GOT A CONSTRUCTION CREW THERE, IT'LL BE CHEAPER TO DO THAT NOW THAN TO DO IT DOWN THE ROAD.

SO WE WANT TO GIVE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY, THAT OPTION TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

AND ALSO WHILE WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS UNDER CONTRACT.

SO WE DID AN RFP TO HAVE KIMLEY-HORN, AS YOU KNOW, TO TO OVERSEE THIS PROJECT.

SO RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT THEM.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO OUT LATER AND AFTER HIS CONTRACT EXPIRES AND DO ANOTHER RFP BECAUSE THAT'S JUST MORE MONEY.

AND THEN TRI-STATE, THEY ARE, WE'VE GOT THEM UNDER A COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT.

THEY WERE A LOW BIDDER IN THE HAMPTON ROADS AREA FOR THIS TYPE OF WORK.

AND SO WE'RE PIGGYBACKING ON ANOTHER CITY'S CONTRACT, WHICH SAVED YOU MONEY FROM HAVING TO PUT OUT A BID FOR THEM SPECIFICALLY SO THEIR UNIT PRICES ARE FIXED.

SO AGAIN WE'VE GOT THAT.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF THINGS SET UP AND READY.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF DO YOU WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY NOW TO DO THE FINISH IT, OR DO YOU WANT TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND WHERE IT WILL LIKELY COST MORE LATER.

BUT YOU CAN DO THAT.

IT'S JUST A IT'S REALLY YOUR YOUR YOUR CHOICE.

I THINK IT WILL SAVE US MONEY IN THE LONG RUN TO GO AHEAD WITH BOTH ASPECTS.

[02:00:04]

I MEAN, IT WOULD COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO KICK IT DOWN THE ROAD.

SO THAT'S THAT'S A NO BRAINER.

WITH WITH THIS THE BOYKIN SEWER SYSTEMS WERE GOOD TO GO.

I MEAN THESE ARE YOUR MAIN YOUR MAIN TWO LINES.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S THERE'S SMALLER LINES WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTIONS, BUT THIS IS BEATON AVENUE AND MAIN STREET, YOU KNOW DONE.

AND THESE ARE THE MAIN AREAS THAT WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

THEY FOUND, I THINK THEY FOUND.

WHAT WAS IT, DAVID 3 OR 4 AREAS OF POINT REPAIR.

AGAIN, A PLACE WHERE THERE WAS NO MANHOLE.

THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MANHOLE.

AND THEN SIGNIFICANT.

JUST DETERIORATION OF THESE, YOU KNOW, 70 TO 80 YEAR OLD VITRIFIED CLAY GRAVITY SEWER LINES.

SO THEY'VE REACHED THE END OF THEIR USEFUL LIFE, AND THEY RUN RIGHT DOWN THE MAIN DRAG, RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.

SO IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT AN EASY REPAIR.

THAT'S WHY I SAY IT'S A BIG TRAFFIC CONTROL PROJECT WITH A LITTLE BIT OF PIPE WORK UNFORTUNATELY.

IF I COULD ADD TRI-STATE HAS BEEN REALLY GOOD ABOUT RELINING PIPE.

THAT'S IN PRETTY BAD SHAPE.

I MEAN, THEY REALLY DID AN IMPRESSIVE JOB IN EDGEHILL.

THESE POINT REPAIRS THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHERE WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY DIG DOWN TO THE PIPE AND REPAIR IT.

THEY'RE POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC COLLAPSES.

YEAH. AND THAT'S THE PART WE'RE GOING TO DO EASILY COLLAPSE.

AND THEN YOU HAVE TO CALL A CONTRACTOR, RIGHT? THEN COME OUT AND REPAIR IT RIGHT THEN.

AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY ANYWHERE BETWEEN 80 AND $100,000 PER POINT REPAIR YEAH.

TO DO IT ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS LIKE THAT.

YEAH. AND WE PUT THAT IN THE FIRST PHASE.

OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE HIGH PROBABILITY CATASTROPHES FIRST WITH THE ARPA MONEY.

THE SECOND PHASE THOUGH, WOULD ENSURE YOU OF NOT HAVING FUTURE POINT REPAIRS LIKE THAT APPEAR BY LINING THE PIPE WITH A CAST IN PLACE LINER.

YOU WOULD PROBABLY EXTEND THE LIFE OF THAT AN EASY 50 YEARS.

YEAH. AND A LOT OF THAT PIPE IS 100 YEARS OLD.

I'VE GOT THE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS OF 1927.

YEAH. THEY ARE. YEAH.

JUST LIKE 90, 80, 90, 100 YEARS OLD.

IT'S, IT'S IT'S DONE REALLY WELL FOR THAT LONG, ESPECIALLY WITH THE TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT'S THROUGH THERE AND A LOT OF VIBRATION AND WEIGHT ON THAT ROADWAY.

SO IT'S A PRETTY PRETTY IMPORTANT CORRIDOR.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD.

SO YOU NEED A MOTION FOR THIS? YEAH. THIS IS FOR ALL THE REASONS LISTED, IT MAKES ALL KINDS OF SENSE FOR US TO APPROVE THIS TONIGHT.

SO I RECOMMEND THAT WE PROCEED WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. IT'S UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

NUMBER 13 FIREWORKS PERMIT FROM [INAUDIBLE] CLUB.

[13. Fireworks Permit Application - Newsoms Ruritan Club - Request to Approve ]

GOOD EVENING.

YEAH, YEAH, I'M BRANT ABRAMS, REPRESENTING NEWSOM ROAD CLUB.

I RESIDE AT 33443 SUNBEAM ROAD.

WE'VE DONE THIS PERMIT LAST YEAR.

I SEEM LIKE WE MIGHT HAVE HAD SOME CONFUSION THIS YEAR TRYING TO RE PERMIT, RESUBMIT AND GET ANOTHER PERMIT, BUT WE APPRECIATE THE COUNTY WOULD APPROVE WHAT WE CAN DO THIS THIS COMING UP SATURDAY NIGHT.

AND WE'LL BE DONE [INAUDIBLE] AND WE HAVE ADJACENT LAND HAS BEEN GIVEN TO US TEN MORE ACRES AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IN.

NEWSOM FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL BE THERE [INAUDIBLE] IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG, THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ACQUIRED AND WE GOT A PROFESSIONAL THAT'S GOING TO BE DOING THE FIREWORKS AND WE INVITE EVERYBODY TO COME.

YEP. [INAUDIBLE] IT'S ALL GOING TO BE DONE FREE.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE COUNTY FOR NOTHING. JUST GIVE US THE GO AHEAD AND GET THIS PERMIT DONE.

AND HAVE THE FIREWORKS FOR THE FRIENDS AND FAMILIES WILL BE COMING OUT TO THIS EVENT.

AND SANTA CLAUS IS GOING TO BE THERE AND HOT DOGS AND CHIPS.

THANK YOU ALL.

RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? PROBABLY WON'T REQUIRE A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION, BUT ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO...

I WOULD. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL RIGHT.

A LOT TO MATCH.

OKAY. NUMBER 14 GRASS CUTTING EXPENSE.

[14. Grass Cutting Expense - Request by Chairman Edwards ]

THAT'S USUALLY BY A PUBLIC COMPLAINT THAT COMES TO THE ADMINISTRATION OR COMES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

[02:05:03]

IN THIS CASE, I DON'T THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE EMERGENCY THAT OCCURRED THAT THIS 390 ACRES OF CHINESE LAND HAD TO BE CUT.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT AUTHORIZATION CAME FROM.

THE BOARD DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, AND THE BOARD DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT $43,000 WORTH OF MONEY THAT WENT OUT.

THAT'S NEW MONEY.

THE BOARD SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ALL THE NEW MONEY THAT GOES OUT.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS BECAUSE WE WERE WE WERE BLINDSIDED BY THIS.

AND I'M EXTREMELY ANGRY ABOUT THIS.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE CHINESE HAVE A 600 SHIP NAVY WE HAVE A 300 SHIP NAVY.

THEY HAVE TWICE AS MANY PEOPLE IN UNIFORM AS WE DO.

YOU THINK THAT TO PROTECT CHINA FROM GETTING INVADED? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

SO THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS I HAVE AS TO WHERE THIS CAME FROM.

AND MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE BLINDSIDED BY IT IF I'M STILL HERE.

I THINK IN THE PAST WE HAD A LIMIT.

WHAT WAS IT, 15,000? YES, WE DID.

DON'T SAY WE DID. AND WE DID.

I KNOW BECAUSE I CHECKED WITH THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATOR.

WE DID HAVE A LIMIT ON WHAT WENT ON WHAT NEW MONEY THAT WENT OUT OF HERE.

OKAY. AND I ASKED PRIOR PEOPLE, WHAT ABOUT NEW MONEY? AND THEY SAID ALL NEW MONEY SHOULD COME THROUGH THE BOARD BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER CHECKS ARE GOING TO BE WRITTEN HERE.

ANOTHER $50,000 FOR SOMETHING.

THIS IS TAXPAYERS MONEY AND WE'RE ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT.

WE'RE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS.

ALL NEW MONEY IS APPROVED BY THE BOARD, BUT NEW MONEY MEANS ANYTHING ABOVE A DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET.

THIS WENT THROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

IT WAS HANDLED BY THAT OFFICE.

THEY SELECTED THE VENDOR, THEY AUTHORIZED THE GRASS CUTTING.

AND THEN THE BILL CAME TO FINANCE TO PAY.

OKAY, WELL, WHAT WAS THE EMERGENCY THAT HAPPENED HERE THAT THIS HAD TO BE DONE? YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY AUTHORIZED EVERYTHING.

THAT WAS APART OF KNUCKLES, RIGHT? YEAH.

AND IT SHOULD HAVE. YEAH, THAT IS THE PROCESS.

YEAH, IT DID NOT.

BUT WE DID NOT CONTROL THAT IT WAS NOT FORWARDED PROPERLY.

WHO OKAYED IT? WHO WROTE THE CHECK? WHEN A VENDOR PROVIDES SERVICES AND IT IS THE INVOICE WAS SUBMITTED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BASED ON MR. KNUCKLES. ANSWER MY QUESTION.

WHO OKAYED THE CHECK? ALL CHECKS.

THERE ARE ONLY CERTAIN SIGNATORIES ON EVERY CHECK, BUT WHEN WE RECEIVE AN INVOICE FROM A VENDOR THAT HAS PERFORMED DUTIES UNDER THE THOUGHT THAT THEY ARE PERFORMING, THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY REQUESTED.

THE VENDOR DOES NOT HAVE A WAY OF KNOWING.

ALL RIGHT, WELL, I DON'T, SINCE WE'VE GOT JAY IN PLACE, I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD HAVE.

YOU WOULD APPROVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT WITHOUT COMING TO TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, RIGHT? CORRECT. I'M WELL VERSED IN GENERAL COUNTY GOVERNMENT POLICIES.

YEAH. EVEN IF IT'S MONEY BUDGETED WITHIN THE BUDGET.

[02:10:27]

RIGHT. YES, SIR.

AND IF IT WERE A SMALL AMOUNT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY PROBLEM.

RIGHT? CORRECT. IT'S BEEN.

IT'S BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BY THESE GRASS CUTTERS.

NO. CORRECTION.

I SHOULDN'T SAY IT'S BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.

I MEAN, THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN. THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE.

YEAH. CORRECT. CORRECT.

YEAH. THE ISSUE IS THE AMOUNT.

YEAH. OKAY.

WELL, WE HAVE A POLICY THOUGH, RIGHT? YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT IF THERE'S AN UNSIGHTLY PLACE, THE COUNTY CAN CUT IT, AND THEN THE PERSON CUTS IT, IT'S PAID BY THE COUNTY.

RIGHT. THE ISSUE HERE IS THE SIZE OF IT.

SO THEN THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE LANDOWNER THE CHINESE WERE NOT ASKED TO CUT IT.

YES THEY WERE. THEY WERE? YES THEY WERE. THERE WERE NOTIFICATIONS SENT OUT.

YES. WHAT WAS THEIR ANSWER? DID THEY? I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY GOT AN ANSWER.

BUT THAT'S PAPERWORK ALSO.

THAT WOULD BE WITHIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. NOW, THIS WAS A LARGE PIECE OF LAND.

OKAY. BUT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED, IT APPEARS.

BUT BECAUSE IT WAS LARGE AND THIS GREAT BIG AMOUNT OF EXPENSE APPEARED, IT BROUGHT ON THE EXCITEMENT.

OKAY. HAD IT BEEN A SMALL AMOUNT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO ISSUE AT ALL.

RIGHT. SO THEN.

SO THEN MY POINT IS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? OKAY. THE POLICY WAS FOLLOWED.

IF IT WERE 5 ACRES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF HUNDRED DOLLARS, BUT IT WAS ALMOST 500 ACRES.

AND THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THE LARGE AMOUNT.

AND THE FACT THAT IT'S OWNED BY A, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY THAT WE AREN'T PARTICULARLY PLEASED WITH.

OKAY. I'M SURE THAT'S AN ISSUE.

BUT IF WE HAVE A POLICY AND THE POLICY IS FOLLOWED, WE RUN INTO THESE TYPE OF THINGS.

OKAY.

WORKS IN LOCALITIES, YOU THE COUNTY HAS AN ORDINANCE LIKE MOST OTHER LOCALITIES, YOU HAVE TO SEND THE PROPERTY OWNER A LETTER GIVING THEM X NUMBER OF DAYS TO COMPLY.

IF THEY DON'T, THE LOCALITY, JUST LIKE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT THE COUNTY TAKES CARE OF, GOES FORWARD AND HIRE SOMEBODY TO CUT THE GRASS.

YOU SEND THE BILL BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THEM TO PAY.

AND YES, THIS WAS A LARGE EXPENSE BECAUSE THIS 440 ACRES.

AND IF THEY DON'T PAY, THEN WE HAVE WAYS OF COLLECTING THE MONEY.

TURN IT OVER TO THE TREASURER AND SHE OR HE PUTS THE.

AND Y'ALL HAVE BILLED THEM.

CORRECT.

IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THEY DID NOT ACCEPT THE CERTIFIED MAIL.

IT WAS RETURNED BACK TO THE COUNTY.

THE PREVIOUS INTERIM DIRECTOR MADE THE DECISION TO GO AHEAD AND JUST AUTHORIZE THAT WITHOUT GETTING ANY QUOTES OR ANY CONCERN AS TO WHAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT MIGHT END UP BEING.

KNOWING THAT IT'S SEVERAL HUNDRED ACRES, ONE WOULD ENVISION THAT, AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE A VERY LARGE EXPENSE, AND YOU PROBABLY SHOULD GET MULTIPLE QUOTES.

AND IT WAS. PRIOR NONE OF THAT WAS DONE.

THIS WAS ALL PRIOR TO ME BEING APPOINTED AS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.

SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER BIG MESS FOR FOR THE COUNTY TO FIND ITSELF IN.

WITH THAT GOING FORWARD I CERTAINLY KNOW TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, IN OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET, WE'RE THE COUNTY IS NOT IN THE GRASS CUTTING BUSINESS.

THIS IS A LAST RESORT FOR HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUES, PROPERTIES THAT ARE NON-COMPLIANT.

[02:15:04]

CUTTING THE GRASS IS ALWAYS OUR LAST RESORT.

TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA WE HAVE $8,000 FOR MAINTENANCE SERVICE CONTRACTS IN OUR BUDGET.

THAT ALSO COVERS OUR PEST CONTROL AT THE BUILDING AND OTHER SERVICE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE WITH ENTITIES AND ANY REMAINING FUNDS THAT WE WOULD USE THAT FOR CUTTING SMALL LOTS.

SERVICE CONTRACT LINE ITEM IS $8,000.

THIS WAS CREDITED TOWARDS THAT ITEM.

PRETTY BIG PROJECT.

HOW MANY BIDS DID WE GET BACK.

IS THIS A HIGH BID OR A LOW BID? WELL, MR. RANGEL JUST STATED THAT HE DID NOT SEE ANY BIDS IN THE FILE.

CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE WERE THERE WAS NO OUTREACH TO SOLICIT BIDS OR REQUESTS FROM DIFFERENT GRASS CUTTERS, LANDSCAPERS ON THAT PROJECT OR ON THAT PROPOSAL.

IT WAS JUST SIMPLY AUTHORIZING THAT PARTICULAR VENDOR TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT.

WELL, I'M CERTAINLY CONFIDENT THAT IT LOOKS LIKE GOING FORWARD, WE HAVE IT UNDER CONTROL.

WELL, I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE SO.

I THINK I CAN MAKE A BETTER, MORE SOUND DECISIONS THAN THE PREVIOUS DIRECTOR.

AND I THINK MR. RANDALL WILL BACK ME UP ON THIS AS SOON AS WE FIGURED OUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED.

I SPOKE WITH MR. THROWER, AND I IMMEDIATELY SENT EVERYONE WITHIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, THE ONES THAT MAKE THE DECISIONS AND THE ONES THAT DON'T GUIDELINES AS TO WHAT HAD ALWAYS BEEN FOLLOWED BEFORE AND WHAT IS TO BE FOLLOWED GOING FORWARD.

SO THEY ALL HAVE THE RULES NOW IN CASE THEY OVERHEAR SOMETHING HAPPENING THAT SHOULDN'T.

WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT IT THAT STARTED THE WHOLE THING.

THAT'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

YOU WILL HAVE TO ASK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING A CITIZEN CALLED IN, WE WERE IN A FLEX OF CHANGING POSITIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO A TEMP IS THE BEST WAY I CAN SAY IT FROM A FIRM THAT HAS EXPERTISE IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

OBVIOUSLY MORE RELATED TO LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS AND NOT RURAL COUNTIES THE GENTLEMAN CHOSE TO TAKE IT AND FOLLOW THE POLICY AND GET IT DONE AND SEND THE BILL TO THE COUNTY.

THAT'S WHERE ALL OF THIS RAN OFF THE RAILS.

AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT WAS DONE BACK IN THIS LATE SUMMER DURING THIS TIME FRAME.

SO ANYBODY IN THIS COUNTY WOULD KNOW BETTER.

I WOULD THINK IN THIS CASE, THE GENTLEMAN WASN'T FROM THIS COUNTY.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE LIVES, BUT HE'S OBVIOUSLY WORKED FOR AREAS LARGER THAN THIS TO WHERE A BILL LIKE THIS WAS SEEMED NORMAL TO HIM.

I HAVEN'T TALKED TO HIM.

I DON'T KNOW HIM.

I MET HIM ONCE OR TWICE, BUT IT WAS A TIME FRAME BETWEEN MISS LEWIS LEAVING US, HAVING AN INTERIM WORKING IN HER STEAD UNTIL WE FILL THE POSITION WITH MR. RANDALL AND RANDOLPH.

I'M SORRY. AND HERE WE ARE.

SO THEY'VE BEEN NOTIFIED I ASSUME A LOT HAS GONE OUT.

YES, SIR. THEY HAVE.

THEY'VE BEEN NOTIFIED.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY IT.

EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM KNOWS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY IT.

SO A LIEN WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY, IN MY OPINION.

MY PROBLEM IS I WANT TO SET FORTH A PLAN BEFORE GRASS BEGINS TO GROW.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME THING COME UP THIS YEAR.

CITIZENS ARE GOING TO CALL DEMANDING THAT IT BE CUT.

WE'VE GOT TO DECIDE HOW WE'RE GOING TO MANAGE THIS.

AND THAT'S OUR JOB.

AND I INTEND TO DISCUSS THIS WITH OUR ATTORNEY, TO ADVISE HOW TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM AND GIVE THEM

[02:20:05]

SURE HE WOULD, BUT IT MIGHT JUST BE THAT WE DON'T TOUCH IT.

IT JUST GROWS INTO A CUT OVER.

AND MAYBE HUNTER, YOU CAN RENT IT TO HUNT BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE A WONDERFUL HABITAT FOR WILDLIFE.

AND THAT'S A GOOD AND I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE HAPPENING.

THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION FOR THE 398.

BUT I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT.

BUT IT WELL, YOU MIGHT NOT WANT A BUNCH OF CHINESE OUT THERE HUNTING.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE IN THEIR COURT TO LET IT GROW OR TO FUND WHAT IT TAKES TO KEEP THE WEEDS AND GRASS DOWN. THAT'S.

I'D LIKE TO SEE IT.

THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE WE ARE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER OPTIONS NOW.

THE OTHER SOMETHING THAT COULD CHANGE IT IS THE ACTION AT THE PENTAGON AND THEIR CONCLUSION OF THE INFORMATION GATHERING OF THE CURRENT OWNER.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A PART IN THAT EITHER.

THAT'S IN THEIR HANDS.

THE LAST INFORMATION I COULD ADD, BUT I TALKED WITH THEM TWO WEEKS AGO, WAS THAT IT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WELL, I WAS TOLD.

SO THERE WE ARE.

SO IT MIGHT BE, IF WE'RE SUCCESSFUL WITH SOME DOCUMENTATION GOING TO THE CURRENT OWNERS, AND THEY AGREED TO A PLAN TO TAKE CARE OF THIS GROWTH, WE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM, BUT IT'S NOT SOLVING THE PROBLEM THAT HAPPENED DURING THIS TIME INTERMITTENT TIME FRAME BETWEEN A HIRING A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND USING THE SERVICES OF A TEMP AGENCY.

BUT WE CAN'T UNDO DONE THINGS.

[INAUDIBLE] I THINK WE NEED TO REACTIVATE THE POLICY OF ANYTHING OVER $15,000 HAS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD.

THE EXPENSES OUT OF THE ORDINARY.

WE HAVE TO BRING THAT UP FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO WITHOUT THAT.

I THINK WE'VE ALREADY GOT THAT IN PLACE.

I MEAN, AFTER TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, Y'ALL KNOW THAT IF YOU COME UP WITH SOMETHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY, THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW.

WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF OUT OF THE ORDINARY? THIS WAS OUT OF THE ORDINARY TO ME.

EXACTLY. SO IT CERTAINLY DIDN'T WHEN IT CAME ACROSS HIS DESK, HE DIDN'T SEE IT AS OUT OF THE ORDINARY.

PROBABLY HE'D BEEN WORKING IN, I DON'T KNOW WHERE MAYBE NORTHERN VIRGINIA.

I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT.

BUT OBVIOUSLY IT DID NOT STRIKE HIM AS ABNORMAL.

IS THERE A REQUIREMENT FOR BIDS FOR SERVICE GREATER THAN, LET'S SAY, $5,000 TO REQUIRE MULTIPLE BIDS BEFORE THEY'RE $30,000? SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, LIKE I'VE EXPLAINED TO SEVERAL OF Y'ALL THE COUNTY'S PROCUREMENT POLICY, I BELIEVE, IS FROM THE EARLY 90S. IT IS $30,000, WHICH IS VERY MUCH BELOW WHAT THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC, WE COMPLY WITH THE STATE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ACT, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE.

BUT WHAT I INTENDED TO DO AT YOUR JANUARY 8TH WORK SESSION IS REVIEW A SOME REVISIONS TO OUR PURCHASE POLICY, AND WE CAN DISCUSS THE PROPOSED PURCHASE POLICY GOING FORWARD AND HOW THAT GOES IN LINE WITH YOUR ADOPTED FINANCIAL POLICY GUIDELINES TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT LEVEL OF AUTHORITY, WHO'S GOT TO DO WHAT FOR, WHAT LEVEL OF PURCHASE.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE TIME TO DISCUSS ALL THAT, IF THE BOARD'S INCLINED TO DO SO.

ALL RIGHT. THINK ABOUT IT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

FIGURE IT OUT. IN THIS SITUATION, NOBODY GETS ANY SATISFACTION.

NO, EXCEPT THE CHINESE.

YOU GOT IT. YOU GOT TO PAY FOR IT.

WE'LL GET IT.

GOOD LUCK. ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY OUT THERE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? DON'T OPEN THAT CAN OF WORMS.

[02:25:10]

WE NEED TO HAVE A CLOSED MEETING.

[1. Closed Session ]

WE DO HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS TO DISCUSS IN CLOSED SESSION.

A MOTION IS REQUIRED TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.23711 A-1 PERSONNEL MATTERS REGARDING THE PERFORMANCE OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER AND THE APPOINTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR.

TWO IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.23711 A-3 ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE PERTAINING TO THE NEWSOM CDBG DRAINAGE PROJECT.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.23711 A-5 DISCUSSION WITH STAFF FROM FRANKLIN SOUTHAMPTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED CONCERNING A PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY, OR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY WHERE NO PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT HAS BEEN MADE OF THE BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY'S INTEREST IN LOCATING OR EXPANDING ITS FACILITIES IN SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY.

AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.23711 A-7 CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING LITIGATION PERTAINING TO THE NEWSOM CDBG PROJECT DRAINAGE PROJECT. AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2.23711 A-8 CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF LEGAL ADVICE PERTAINING TO THE SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, WHICH IS THE INVESTIGATION BY OUR LEGAL FIRM AND EMERGENCY SERVICES CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF FRANKLIN. YOU HAVING A HOT FLASH? ALL RIGHT. WE NEED A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL RIGHT WE'LL MEET YOU BACK.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.