At a regular meeting of the Southampton County Board of ...
At a regular meeting of the Southampton County Board of Supervisors held in the Board Room of the Southampton County Office Center, 26022 Administrative Center Drive, Courtland, Virginia on June 22, 2009 at 8:30 AM.
SUPERVISORS PRESENT
Dallas O. Jones, Chairman (Drewryville)
Walter L. Young, Jr., Vice-Chairman (Franklin)
Walter D. Brown, III (Newsoms)
Anita T. Felts (Jerusalem)
Moses Wyche (Capron)
SUPERVISORS ABSENT
Carl J. Faison (Boykins-Branchville)
Ronald M. West (Berlin-Ivor)
OTHERS PRESENT
Michael W. Johnson, County Administrator (Clerk)
James A. Randolph, Assistant County Administrator
Julia G. Williams, Finance Director
Robert L. Barnett, Director of Community Development
Julien W. Johnson, Jr. Public Utilities Director
Richard E. Railey, Jr., County Attorney
Susan H. Wright, Administrative Secretary
Chairman Jones called the meeting to order, and after the Pledge of Allegiance, Vice-Chairman Young gave the invocation.
Chairman Jones sought approval of the minutes of the May 18, 2009 Budget Public Hearing, May 26, 2009 Regular Session, and June 15, 2009 Continued Meeting. They were approved as presented, as there were no additions or corrections.
Regarding highway matters, Chairman Jones recognized Mr. Joe Lomax, Residency Administrator of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Franklin Residency.
Mr. Lomax advised that the issues raised by the Board last month had been addressed or were in the process of being addressed – particularly, Supervisor West’s concerns regarding Doles Road (the property across from Ron Ries and Mildred McClenney flooded in a bottom between the two homes), and Supervisor Felts’ concerns regarding Drake Road (ditch needed cleaning out).
Mr. Lomax stated that there were concerns and problems with silt from fields running into the roadway on Tann Road and Clarksbury Road in Supervisor Faison’s magisterial district (Boykins-Branchville). They met with the USDA – one of the property owners attended, but one of the farmers did not. The USDA was in the process of putting together a plan of action for the landowner. VDOT would be included and could perhaps do some work on the pipes to help with the silt that washed out of some of those fields into the road. He remarked that they had to go out and clean every time it rained because one gentleman residing on Tann Road could not get out onto the road because of the silt.
Mr. Lomax informed that all districts were now on the grass cutting cycle.
Mr. Lomax welcomed any concerns from the Board.
Vice-Chairman Young advised that he had received calls county-wide concerning grass. He asked when the first clipping would be? Mr. Lomax replied that it had already started. They normally started mid or late April. This year, since there would only be 2 cuts on the secondary roads, they pushed it back to try and wait until after the rainy season and do one cut in June and another in August or September. He noted that they had already started the June cycle.
Vice-Chairman Young stated that Benny Necessary, VDOT Superintendent, had indicated that he thought Mr. Jerry Kee, Assistant Residency Administrator, had ordered a “Watch For Turning Vehicles” sign that he had requested some time ago to be placed on the road near his home (due to farm equipment traffic). He asked Mr. Kee if the sign had been ordered? Mr. Kee replied that he thought so, but would check on it.
Supervisor Brown advised that he appreciated them starting on the grass cutting. He asked what was the projected completion date for the first cut? Mr. Lomax replied that it usually took about 1 month to do a cycle, but since they were not doing the ditches and back slopes, he thought it should take about 3 weeks.
Mr. Michael Johnson, County Administrator, advised that they may recall receiving a presentation from Mr. Kee several months ago recommending redesign of the Route 58 interchange improvements (Alternative B) to provide for an at-grade intersection with a traffic signal and turn lanes as opposed to a grade-separated interchange. The recommendation was based primarily upon VDOT’s current fiscal constraints and the likelihood that none of us would ever live long enough to see a grade-separated interchange built there. In addition, highway safety had improved substantially since the traffic signal was installed in 2007, making some question the added value of an interchange. Accordingly, Mr. Lomax had asked the Board to consider taking official action on the project redesign, requesting VDOT to proceed in accordance with Alternative B as outlined in their March 23, 2009 presentation.
Mr. Jay Randolph, Assistant County Administrator, asked if the project would include the streetlamps? Mr. Kee replied that VDOT could request that they be included.
Supervisor Brown stated that coming from the courthouse to the current intersection on Route 58 where the stoplight is now, just before you get to that light, there was a side street on the right. Would the project redesign follow the route of that side street? Mr. Johnson and Mr. Lomax replied no – the intersection would stay at the same location, but there would be a right turn in and right turn out at that side street.
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Wyche, to proceed with design and construction of alternative intersection improvements (Alternative B) in lieu of a grade-separated interchange at an estimated cost of $5,558,982. All were in favor.
Mr. Johnson informed that Mr. Kee would be sharing some recommendations from the VDOT staff to reduce the scope of work and associated cost on the last section of Route 671 (Delaware Road to Hercules) in order to accomplish the construction with available funds.
Mr. Kee advised that included in the agenda were two sketches – one showed a 2-lane highway with shoulders and the other showed a 2-lane highway with a center turn lane. Both would have wider shoulders and wider pavements. The lanes out there now were only 10 ft. The new lanes would be 12 ft. which was the standard for such a project funded with Federal funds. They would pave and widen the shoulders so it would accommodate larger vehicles. They would put the center turn lane in front of the existing businesses on Route 671 in order to keep the flow of traffic moving. These recommendations would reduce the cost of this project by about 40% and it would still meet the criteria. He noted that the original job that was built with 5 lanes would handle the traffic into the new industrial park. The reason for these recommendations was that the Federal Officials thought this project was a little bit of overkill for a secondary road, and asked them to look at some alternatives. In order to change the scope of work, the Board of Supervisors needed to approve one of the alternatives as presented or as may be amended.
Supervisor Brown stated that development would likely increase on that corridor in the next 10-12 years. As a result, he thought it would be more advantageous to go with 3 lanes instead of 2 (2-lane highway and center turn lane).
Mr. Kee noted that by eliminating the outside 2 lanes, they would also eliminate putting in curb and gutter and reduce the size of the stormwater retention pond, which was a substantial cost savings.
Supervisor Felts asked wouldn’t having a turn lane be better than just having a 2-lane highway in terms of safety? Mr. Kee replied yes – they were looking at constructing a turn lane at least in front of the existing businesses. He noted that in some localities, any new business would be responsible for upgrading the roads – that would be up to the Board.
Vice-Chairman Young stated that if they could finish the project with less money, that was great.
Mr. Kee noted that the money saved from this project would be moved to the next Federal project on the list, which was Governor Darden Road.
It was consensus of the Board to go with 3 lanes (2-lane highway and center turn lane).
In regards to the highway abandonment of a portion of Route 622 near Zuni, Supervisor West, who was not present this morning, had asked that this item remain on the agenda pending resolution of right-of-way acquisition matters between the church and affected private property owners.
Regarding reports, various reports were received and provided in the agenda. They were Financial, Sheriff’s Office (Communication Center Activities, EMS and Fire Department Activities, Traffic Tickets, and Civil Papers), Animal Control, Litter Control, and Building Permits. Also, New Housing Starts, Treasurer’s Report, Delinquent Tax Collection, Solid Waste Quantities, and Personnel.
In regards to the personnel report, Mr. Johnson advised that Christopher D. Ray was hired in the Sheriff’s Office effective 06/01/09 at an annual salary of $29,843. Jesse A. Wills hired in the Sheriff’s Office effective 06/01/09 at an annual salary of $29,843. He stated that William C. Vinson, Jr. resigned from the Sheriff’s Office effective 06/01/09. He informed that J. Michael Blythe of the Sheriff’s Office remained on active military leave effective 07/09/08.
Moving to financial matters, Mr. Johnson announced that included in the agenda was a resolution with a total appropriation of $545,893.86. The appropriation was related to the General Fund and consisted of a myriad of expenditure refunds, insurance reimbursements, grants and donations, and carry-over funds from previous fiscal years. Of the total appropriation, $7,548.84 would come from the unappropriated general fund reserve, since the associated expenses were not anticipated in the FY 09 annual budget but were subsequently approved by the Board. A full breakdown of the items was included in the agenda. Otherwise, the balance of $538,345.02 had been received from the sources indicated and was available for the itemized expenditures upon order of the Board.
The appropriations resolution is as follows:
|APPROPRIATIONS - JUNE 22, 2009 | |
| | | |
|NEW MONEY REQUIRED FOR JUNE 30, 2009 APPROPRIATION |
| | | |
| | | |
|GENERAL FUND | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|213.44 | |Board of Supervisors/Volunteer Fire & Rescue Banquet Frames |
|1,000.00 | |Board of Supervisors/Cheroenhaka Indian Tribal Heritage Foundation |
|1,000.00 | |Board of Supervisors/Courtland Baseball/Softball League |
|1,000.00 | |Board of Supervisors/Newsoms Athletic Association |
|1,000.00 | |Board of Supervisors/Capron Drewryville Athletic Association |
|1,850.40 | |Clerk of the Circuit Court/Photograph Court Records |
|1,485.00 | |Sheriff/Indigent Funeral |
| __________ | |
|7,548.84 | |TOTAL NEW MONEY/GENERAL FUND |
| | | |
| | | |
|GENERAL FUND - CARRY-OVER FUNDS | |
| | | |
|175.89 | |COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY/COST COLLECTIONS |
| __________ | | |
|175.89 | |TOTAL CARRY-OVER/GENERAL FUND |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|APPROPRIATIONS - JUNE 22, 2009 | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|11010 BOARD OF | |(1) Funds approved by Board for frames for Volunteer |
| SUPERVISORS | |Fire & Rescue members ($213.44) New Money |
| | |(2) Funds approved by Board for the Cheroenhaka |
| | |Indian Tribal Heritage Foundation ($1,000) New Money |
| | |(3) Contribution approved by Board for Courtland Baseball/ |
| | |Softball League ($1,000) New Money |
| | |(4) Contribution approved by Board for the Newsoms |
| | |Athletic Association ($1,000) New Money |
| | |(5) Contribution approved by Board for Capron Drewryville |
| | |Athletic Association ($1,000) New Money |
| | | |
|12310 COMMISSIONER OF | |Funds received for sale of maps ($1,385) |
| THE REVENUE | | |
| | | |
|12410 TREASURER | |(1) Reimbursement received from towns for decals and |
| | |license certificates ($1,923.98 ) |
| | |(2) Transfer of funds from Dues & Membership to Travel |
| | |as requested by Treasurer ($-0-) |
| | | |
|12550 INSURANCE/COUNTY | |(1) Reimbursement received from retirees for |
| CODE | |BCBS ($24,255) |
| | | |
|21100 CIRCUIT COURT | |State reimbursement received for jurors & witnesses |
| | |($1,837.74) |
| | | |
|21600 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT | |Funds previously approved by the Board to photograph |
| COURT | |certain court records ($1,850.40) New Money |
| | | |
|22100 COMMONWEALTH | |(1) State vacancy savings funds transferred from salaries |
| ATTORNEY | |to office expenses ($-0-) |
| | |(2) Transfer of available local salaries & health insurance |
| | |to sick leave line ($-0-) |
| | |(3) Carry-over funds received for Commonwealth |
| | |Attorney Delinquent Collection on Criminal Cases |
| | |for training/meals ($175.89) Carry-Over Funds |
| | |(4) Refund received from Quill ($116.40) |
| | | |
|31200 SHERIFF-LAW | |(1) Transfer of funds from county dispatcher position to |
| ENFORCEMENT | |part-time salaries/dispatcher ($-0-) |
| | |(2) State vacancy savings funds received for temporary |
| | |salaries ($9,930.54) |
| | |(3) Reimbursement received from Southampton High |
| | |School for basketball & prom security ($936.55) |
| | |(4) Grant received from DMV for equipment for selective |
| | |enforcement ($18,094.68) |
| | |(5) Cost for indigent funeral ($1,485) New Money |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |(6) Reimbursement received from Selective Insurance for |
| | |comprehensive & collision claims ($2,997.93) |
| | | |
| | |(7) Return premium from insurance company for vehicles |
| | |transferred to School Board ($381.63) |
| | |(8) Reimbursement received for extradition of inmates |
| | |($3,825.77) |
| | |(9) Refund received from Quill ($14.31) |
| | |(10) Refund received from Cabela's ($19.09) |
| | | |
|32200 VOL FIRE DEPTS | |Reimbursement received from Drewryville & Sedley Vol |
| | |Fire Depts for electrical costs ($2,035.56) |
| | | |
|35500 EMERGENCY SERVICE | |Office of Emergency Medical Service Grant received |
| & CIVIL DEFENSE | |for Capron Vol Fire & Rescue ($17,371.20) |
| | | |
|33100 SHERIFF-DETENTION | |(1) Reimbursement received from employee for uniforms |
| | |($18) |
| | |(2) Reimbursement received from employee for personal |
| | |telephone calls ($59.73) |
| | | |
|43000 BLDGS & GROUNDS | |(1) Reimbursement received from Selective Insurance |
| | |for water damage to Social Services ($29,411.91) |
| | |(2) Reimbursements rec'd from Dept of Social Services |
| | |and Health Dept for telecommunications ($2,620.38) |
| | |(3) Reimbursement from Ivor Furniture for disposal cost |
| | |for carpet & tile in Social Services ($525) |
| | | |
|82500 CHOWAN BASIN SOIL | |Reimbursement rec'd for all costs related to |
| & WATER CONSE | |payroll & fringes ($47,140.59) |
| | | |
|92000 HOME PROGRAM PROJ | |Reimbursement received from City of Suffolk for HOME |
| | |Consortium Program ($77,844) |
| | | |
| | | |
|SCHOOL BOARD | |(1) Reimbursements received for expenditure |
| | |refunds--see attached letters |
| | |(2) Reimbursements received for retirees health |
| | |insurance premiums |
| | |(3) Reimbursements received for Day Care and |
| | |School Activities Accounts--see attached letters |
| | |(4) Donations received--see attached letters |
| | |(5) Increases in state funds--see attached letter |
| | |(6) Increases & decreases in Federal Funds--see |
| | |attached letters |
| | |(7) Transfer of Federal Funds between lines--see |
| | |attached letter |
|At a meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County, | |
|Virginia on Monday, June 22, 2009 | | | |
| | | RESOLUTION | | |
| | |
|BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County, | |
|Virginia that the following appropriations be and hereby are made | |
|from the Fund to the Fund for the period of July 1, 2008 through | | |
|June 30, 2009 for the function and purpose indicated: | | |
| | | | | |
|From the General Fund to the | | | |
|General Operating Fund to be | | | |
|expended only on order of the | | | |
|Board of Supervisors: | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|4-100-11010-5671 | |Banquet-Vol Fire & Rescue | |213.44 |
| 11010-5720 | |Cheroenhaka Indian Tribal Heritage |1,000.00 |
| 11010-5775 | |Youth Activities/Courtland Baseball/Softball League |1,000.00 |
| 11010-5775 | |Youth Activities/Newsoms Athletic Association |1,000.00 |
| 11010-5775 | |Youth Activities/Capron Drewryville Athletic |1,000.00 |
| 12310-1300 | |Part-Time Salaries | |992.50 |
| 12310-6014 | |Mapping Expenses | |392.50 |
| 12410-5500 | |Travel Convention, Education |175.00 |
| 12410-5810 | |Dues & Membership | |(175.00) |
| 12410-6001 | |Office Supplies | |1,233.98 |
| 12410-6021 | |County License Tags | |690.00 |
| 12550-2300 | |Hospital Plan | |24,255.00 |
| 21100-3848 | |Jurors & Witnesses-State | |1,627.74 |
| 21100-3848 | |Jurors & Witnesses-State | |210.00 |
| 21600-3325 | |Contractual Services/Photo Court Records |1,850.40 |
| 22100-1100 | |Salaries & Wages Regular | |(23,723.00) |
| 22100-1100 | |Salaries & Wages Regular | |(2,880.00) |
| 22100-1325 | |Sick Leave | |2,880.00 |
| 22100-1325 | |Sick Leave | |2,120.00 |
| 22100-2300 | |Hospital Plan | |(2,120.00) |
| 22100-5835 | |Cost Collection Carry-Over Funds |175.89 |
| 22100-6001 | |Office Supplies | |23,723.00 |
| 22100-6001 | |Office Supplies | |116.40 |
| 31200-1100 | |Salaries & Wages Regular | |(9,019.98) |
| 31200-1310 | |Part-Time Salaries/Dispatcher |9,019.98 |
| 31200-1400 | |Temporary Employment | |9,930.54 |
| 31200-1901 | |Part-Time/Southampton High School |620.00 |
| 31200-1901 | |Part-Time/Southampton High School |250.00 |
| 31200-1903 | |Grant-DMV-Selective Enf & Equip |18,094.68 |
| 31200-2100 | |FICA | |47.43 |
| 31200-2100 | |FICA | |19.12 |
| 31200-3195 | |Burial Expenses | |1,485.00 |
| 31200-3310 | |Repair & Maintenance | |1,438.43 |
| 31200-3310 | |Repair & Maintenance | |1,559.50 |
| 31200-5305 | |Motor Vehicle Insurance | |225.20 |
| 31200-5305 | |Motor Vehicle Insurance | |156.43 |
| 31200-5500 | |Travel Convention, Education |1,826.62 |
| 31200-5500 | |Travel Convention, Education |619.47 |
| 31200-5500 | |Travel Convention, Education |1,379.68 |
| 31200-6001 | |Office Supplies | |14.31 |
| 31200-6011 | |Uniforms & Apparel | |19.09 |
| 32200-5110 | |Electrical Services | |394.45 |
| 32200-5110 | |Electrical Services | |1,641.11 |
| 33100-5230 | |Telecommunications | |59.73 |
| 33100-6011 | |Uniforms & Apparel | |18.00 |
| 35500-8204 | |OEMS Consolidated Grants Program |17,371.20 |
| 43000-3310 | |Repair & Maintenance | |29,211.91 |
| 43000-3310 | |Repair & Maintenance | |525.00 |
| 43000-5241 | |Telecom-Soc Ser/Health | |1,341.69 |
| 43000-5241 | |Telecom-Soc Ser/Health | |1,278.69 |
| 43000-8105 | |County Buildings Repair | |200.00 |
| 82500-1100 | |Salaries & Wages Regular | |27,714.75 |
| 82500-1300 | |Part-Time Salaries | |7,582.90 |
| 82500-2100 | |FICA | |2,582.75 |
| 82500-2210 | |Retirement | |2,721.60 |
| 82500-2215 | |Retirement-Employee Share |1,385.75 |
| 82500-2300 | |Hospital Plan | |227.25 |
| 82500-2400 | |Group Insurance | |4,830.00 |
| 82500-2600 | |Unemployment Insurance | |95.59 |
| 92000-8201 | |HOME Rehabilitation | |77,844.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |250,469.72 |
| | | | | |
|From the General Fund to the School | | |
|Operating Fund to be expended only | | |
|on order of the Southampton County | | |
|School Board: | | | | |
| | | | | |
|4-205-61100-1120-002-1-100 |INSTRUCTIONAL SALARY - REG |100.00 |
| 61100-1120-002-1-100 |INSTRUCTIONAL SALARY - REG |276.05 |
| 61100-1140-002-1-100 |TECHNICAL SALARY-REG | |253.18 |
| 61100-1520-002-1-100 |SUBSTITUTE SAL - REG | |138.52 |
| 61100-3000-002-9-100 |OTHER INST COST - DISTRICT ELEM |(5,800.00) |
| 61100-3000-003-5-100 |OTHER INST COST - OTHER |2,260.00 |
| 61100-6001-003-1-100 |MATERIALS & SUPPLIES FRESH START |10.17 |
| 61100-6001-003-1-100 |MATERIALS & SUPPLIES FRESH START |29.28 |
| 61100-6001-003-1-100 |MATERIALS & SUPPLIES FRESH START |21.02 |
| 61100-6001-003-1-100 |MATERIALS & SUPPLIES FRESH START |14.46 |
| 61100-6001-003-1-100 |MATERIALS & SUPPLIES FRESH START |17.93 |
| 61100-6001-003-1-100 |MATERIALS & SUPPLIES FRESH START |9.10 |
| 62120-2350 | |RETIREE HEALTH INS PREMIUM |9,110.00 |
| 62120-2350 | |RETIREE HEALTH INS PREMIUM |10,217.00 |
| 62120-2350 | |RETIREE HEALTH INS PREMIUM |552.00 |
| 62120-2350 | |RETIREE HEALTH INS PREMIUM |9,110.00 |
| 62120-2350 | |RETIREE HEALTH INS PREMIUM |552.00 |
| 62120-2350 | |RETIREE HEALTH INS PREMIUM |8,005.00 |
| 62120-2350 | |RETIREE HEALTH INS PREMIUM |8,004.00 |
| 62120-2350 | |RETIREE HEALTH INS PREMIUM |8,670.00 |
| 62120-2350 | |RETIREE HEALTH INS PREMIUM |553.00 |
| 63200-6008 | |VEHICLE & POWERED EQUIP - FUELS |5,645.00 |
| 63200-6009 | |VEHICLE & POWERED EQUIP/SUPPLIES |350.00 |
| 63200-6009 | |VEHICLE & POWERED EQUIP/SUPPLIES |1,000.00 |
| 64200-2700 | |WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION |13,246.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |72,343.71 |
| | | | | |
|ACTIVITY REIMBURSEMENTS | | | |
|4-205-69002-1170 | |OPERATIVE SALARIES | |406.90 |
| 69003-1170 | |OPERATIVE SALARIES | |344.25 |
| 69003-2100 | |FICA BENEFITS | |23.80 |
| 69004-1170 | |OPERATIVE SALARIES | |301.50 |
| 69004-2100 | |FICA BENEFITS | |17.04 |
| 69005-1170 | |OPERATIVE SALARIES | |54.00 |
| 69005-2100 | |FICA BENEFITS | |4.13 |
| 69007-1170 | |OPERATIVE SALARIES | |126.00 |
| 69007-2100 | |FICA BENEFITS | |9.18 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |1,286.80 |
| | | | | |
|MEHERRIN DAY CARE, PROGRAM 220 | | |
|4-205-61100-1140-002-5-220 |TECHNICAL SALARY-DAY CARE |7,929.11 |
| 61100-2100-002- -220 |FICA BENEFITS | |578.68 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |8,507.79 |
| | | | | |
|CAPRON DAY CARE, PROGRAM 225 | | |
|4-205-61100-1140-002-5-225 |TECHNICAL SALARY-CAPRON DAY CARE |1,814.70 |
| 61100-2100-002- -225 |FICA BENEFITS | |132.94 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |1,947.64 |
| | | | | |
|NOTTOWAY DAY CARE, PROGRAM 226 | | |
|4-205-61100-1140-002-1-226 |TECHNICAL SALARIES | |422.48 |
| 61100-1140-002-1-226 |TECHNICAL SALARIES | |522.29 |
| 61100-1140-002-1-226 |TECHNICAL SALARIES | |534.80 |
| 61100-1140-002-1-226 |TECHNICAL SALARIES | |665.72 |
| 61100-1140-002-1-226 |TECHNICAL SALARIES | |685.90 |
| 61100-2100-002- -226 |FICA BENEFITS | |32.16 |
| 61100-2100-002- -226 |FICA BENEFITS | |38.89 |
| 61100-2100-002- -226 |FICA BENEFITS | |40.58 |
| 61100-2100-002- -226 |FICA BENEFITS | |50.93 |
| 61100-2100-002- -226 |FICA BENEFITS | |52.47 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |3,046.22 |
| | | | | |
|CAMP FOUNDATION GRANTS, PROGRAM 310 | | |
|4-205-61100-6004-002-1-310 |EARLY CHILDREN'S LITERACY |5,150.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |5,150.00 |
| | | | | |
|FRANKLIN SOUTHAMPTON CHARITIES, PROGRAM 320 | | |
|4-205-61100-1120-002-1-320 |TUTORIAL SALARIES - MEHERRIN |4,250.00 |
| 61100-1121-002-1-320 |TUTORIAL SALARIES - RIVERDALE |5,250.00 |
| 61100-1122-002-1-320 |TUTORIAL SALARIES - CAPRON |2,750.00 |
| 61100-1123-002-1-320 |TUTORIAL SALARIES - NOTTOWAY ELEM |1,750.00 |
| 61100-2100-002-1-320 |FICA BENEFITS | |250.00 |
| 61100-2100-002-1-320 |FICA BENEFITS | |250.00 |
| 61100-2100-002-1-320 |FICA BENEFITS | |250.00 |
| 61100-2100-002-1-320 |FICA BENEFITS | |250.00 |
| 61100-3000-002-5-320 |OTHER INST COST - LEVEL PLAYING FLD |9,600.00 |
| 61100-6000-002-5-320 |MAT'LS & SUP - LEVEL PLAYING FIELD |4,400.00 |
| 61100-8207-003-1-320 |SHS SMART BOARDS 08/09 |45,000.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |74,000.00 |
| | | | | |
|INTERNATIONAL PAPER GRANTS, PROGRAM 330 | | |
|4-205-61100-6008-002-1-330 |TIME FOR LEARNING BOOKS 08/09 |2,300.00 |
| 61100-6010-002-1-330 |MEHERRIN BOOKS FOR CPR PROG 08/09 |3,500.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |5,800.00 |
| | | | | |
|HUNTERDALE FAMILY PRESERVATION, PROGRAM 350 | | |
|4-205-61100-6000-002-1-350 |MATERIAL & SUPPLIES - REG |1,998.84 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |1,998.84 |
| | | | | |
|LOCAL DONATIONS, PROGRAM 360 | | |
|4-205-61100-6000-003-1-360 |MATERIAL & SUP - REG (MECH CORP) |34.45 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |34.45 |
|AT RISK - 4 YEAR OLDS, PROGRAM 400 | | |
|4-205-61100-1120-000-1-400 |INSTRUCTIONAL SAL - REG |45,773.00 |
| 61100-1140-000- -400 |TECHNICAL SALARIES | |15,656.00 |
| 61100-2100-000-1-400 |FICA | |6,000.00 |
| 61100-2210-000- -400 |VRS RETIREMENT | |5,900.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |73,329.00 |
| | | | | |
|TITLE I ELEMENTARY INSTRUCTION, PROGRAM 500 | | |
|4-205-61100-1120-002-1-500 |INSTRUCTIONAL SALARY - REG |39,573.00 |
| 61100-1620-002-1-500 |SUPPLEMENTAL SALARY - REG |25,523.24 |
| 61100-2210-002- -500 |VRS RET - PROF | |3,000.00 |
| 61100-6000-002-1-500 |INSTRUCTIONAL & EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL |13,676.00 |
| 62120-1110-009- -500 |SUPERVISOR SALARY - REG |13,673.00 |
| 62120-1151-009- -500 |EVALUATION SECRETARY SALARY |700.00 |
| 62120-1151-009- -500 |EVALUATION SECRETARY SALARY |5,000.00 |
| 62120-6000-009-5-500 |MATERIALS & SUPPLIES - PARENT |4,000.00 |
| 64200-5203-009- -500 |TELECOMMUNICATIONS | |1,563.76 |
| 64200-6000-009- -500 |OFFICE SUPPLIES | |2,600.00 |
| 64400-5400-009- -500 |EQUIPMENT LEASE AND RENTAL |4,000.00 |
| 64400-5400-009- -500 |EQUIPMENT LEASE AND RENTAL |5,000.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |118,309.00 |
| | | | | |
|READING FIRST GRANT, PROGRAM 525 | | |
|4-205-61100-6000-002-1-525 |MATERIALS & SUPPLIES | |(10,286.00) |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |(10,286.00) |
| | | | | |
|TITLE VIB SP ED-FLOW THROUGH-ELEM, PROGRAM 550 | | |
|4-205-61100-1140-002-2-550 |TECHNICAL SALARY-SP | |8,816.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |8,816.00 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|TITLE IIA TRAINING & RECRUITING, PROGRAM 625 | | |
|4-205-61100-5500-002-1-625 |TRAVEL | |5,191.39 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |5,191.39 |
| | | | | |
|TITLE IID ED TECH, PROGRAM 630 | | |
|4-205-61100-3000-003-1-630 |PURCHASE SERVICES | |653.98 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |653.98 |
| | | | | |
|VOCATIONAL/SPECIAL EDUCATION, PROGRAM 800 | | |
|4-205-61100-3000-003-3-800 |PURCHASED SERVICE | |2,260.00 |
| 61100-5500-003-3-800 |TRAVEL (MILEAGE)-VOC | |883.40 |
| 61100-5800-003-3-800 |MISC EXPENDITURES | |1,260.00 |
| 61100-6000-003-3-800 |INSTRUCTIONAL & EDUC EQUIPMENT |(17,096.00) |
| 61100-6000-003-3-800 |INSTRUCTIONAL & EDUC EQUIPMENT |1,130.00 |
| 61100-8001-003-3-800 |EDUCATIONAL EQUIPMENT-VOC |4,017.01 |
| 61100-8001-003-3-800 |EDUCATIONAL EQUIPMENT-VOC |2,344.00 |
| 61100-8100-003-3-800 |CAPITAL OUTLAY/REPLACEMENT |10,102.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |4,900.41 |
| | | | | |
|OPPORTUNITY INC, PROGRAM 850 | | |
|4-205-61210-1120-003-3-850 |GUIDANCE SERVICES SALARY-VOC |(16,901.00) |
| 61210-2100-003- -850 |FICA BENEFITS | |(521.00) |
| 61210-2210-003- -850 |VRS RET-PROF | |(4,128.00) |
| 61210-2700-003- -850 |WORKER'S COMP | |(7.00) |
| 61210-3000-003-3-850 |PURCHASED SERVICES | |(7,000.00) |
| 61210-4000-003-3-850 |INTERNAL SERVICES | |(4,600.00) |
| 61210-5200-003-3-850 |COMMUNICATIONS | |(4,200.00) |
| 61210-5500-003-3-850 |TRAVEL | |(4,200.00) |
| 61210-6000-003-3-850 |INSTRUCTIONAL & EDU MATERIALS |(12,754.00) |
| 61210-8210-003-3-850 |CAPITAL OUTLAY-ADD'L HDWRE |(14,788.00) |
| 64200-1190- - -850 |SERVICE SALARIES | |(2,401.00) |
| 64200-4000- - -850 |STUDENT INCENTIVES | |(18,500.00) |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |(90,000.00) |
|PRE-SCHOOL INCENTIVE, PROGRAM 900 | | |
|4-205-61100-1120-002-2-900 |INSTRUCTIONAL SALARY-SP |5,094.91 |
| 61100-2100-002- -900 |FICA | |200.00 |
| 61100-6000-002-2-900 |INSTRUCTIONAL & EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL |5,100.00 |
| | | | | ________ |
| | | |TOTAL |10,394.91 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | |SCHOOL FUND |TOTAL |295,424.14 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | |TOTAL APPROPRIATION | |545,893.86 |
| | | | | ===========|
| | |
|REVENUE APPROPRIATION JUNE 22, 2009 | |
|(REVENUE RECEIVED FOR ABOVE EXPENDITURES) | |
| | | | |
|3-100-16040-0003 | |Reimbursements VFD-VRS |394.45 |
|3-100-16040-0003 | |Reimbursements VFD-VRS |1,641.11 |
|3-100-16090-0001 | |Health-Telephone/Custodial, etc. |1,278.69 |
|3-100-16110-0001 | |Soc Serv/Telephone, Custodial, etc |1,341.69 |
|3-100-16120-0001 | |Reimb-Soil & Water Salaries |47,140.59 |
|3-100-16160-0004 | |Sale of Maps & Printouts |775.00 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |610.00 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |14.31 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |1,923.98 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |667.43 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |116.40 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |59.73 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |525.00 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |269.12 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |19.09 |
|3-100-18030-0003 | |Expenditure Refund |18.00 |
|3-100-18030-0004 | |Insurance Claims |1,438.43 |
|3-100-18030-0004 | |Insurance Claims |29,211.91 |
|3-100-18030-0004 | |Insurance Claims |225.20 |
|3-100-18030-0004 | |Insurance Claims |1,559.50 |
|3-100-18030-0004 | |Insurance Claims |156.43 |
|3-100-18030-0004 | |Insurance Claims |200.00 |
|3-100-18030-0005 | |Blue Cross/Blue Shield |24,255.00 |
|3-100-18030-0095 | |Reimb HOME Program Funds |77,844.00 |
|3-100-23020-0001 | |Sheriff's Office Salaries |9,930.54 |
|3-100-23020-0007 | |Extradition Expenses |1,826.62 |
|3-100-23020-0007 | |Extradition Expenses |619.47 |
|3-100-23020-0007 | |Extradition Expenses |1,379.68 |
|3-100-24040-0014 | |Jurors & Witnesses |1,627.74 |
|3-100-24040-0014 | |Jurors & Witnesses |210.00 |
|3-100-24040-0022 | |Highway Safety Grant/DUI |18,094.68 |
|3-100-24040-0090 | |Office of Emergency Medical Service |17,371.20 |
|3-100-41050-0005 | |Transfer In-General Fund Reserve |213.44 |
|3-100-41050-0005 | |Transfer In-General Fund Reserve |1,000.00 |
|3-100-41050-0005 | |Transfer In-General Fund Reserve |1,000.00 |
|3-100-41050-0005 | |Transfer In-General Fund Reserve |1,000.00 |
|3-100-41050-0005 | |Transfer In-General Fund Reserve |1,485.00 |
|3-100-41050-0005 | |Transfer In-General Fund Reserve |1,000.00 |
|3-100-41050-0005 | |Transfer In-General Fund Reserve |175.89 |
|3-100-41050-0005 | |Transfer In-General Fund Reserve |1,850.40 |
| | | | __________ |
| | |REVENUE GENERAL FUND |250,469.72 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|3-205-16120-0010 | |DAY CARE CENTER |454.64 |
|3-205-16120-0010 | |DAY CARE CENTER |1,947.64 |
|3-205-16120-0010 | |DAY CARE CENTER |561.18 |
|3-205-16120-0010 | |DAY CARE CENTER |8,507.79 |
|3-205-16120-0010 | |DAY CARE CENTER |575.38 |
|3-205-16120-0010 | |DAY CARE CENTER |716.65 |
|3-205-16120-0010 | |DAY CARE CENTER |738.37 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |9,110.00 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |10,217.00 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |552.00 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |1,000.00 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |9,110.00 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |552.00 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |8,005.00 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |8,004.00 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |8,670.00 |
|3-205-18990-0032 | |INSURANCE CLAIMS & DIVIDENDS |553.00 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |248.69 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |29.28 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |5,995.00 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |276.05 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |21.02 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |34.45 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |14.46 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |13,246.00 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |271.11 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |9.10 |
|3-205-18990-0100 | |EXPENDITURE REFUNDS |2,260.00 |
|3-205-18990-0101 | |DONATIONS |1,998.84 |
|3-205-18990-0101 | |DONATIONS |74,000.00 |
|3-205-18990-0101 | |DONATIONS |5,150.00 |
|3-205-18990-0110 | |SCHOOL ACTIVITY REIMB |58.13 |
|3-205-18990-0110 | |SCHOOL ACTIVITY REIMB |503.23 |
|3-205-18990-0110 | |SCHOOL ACTIVITY REIMB |318.54 |
|3-205-18990-0110 | |SCHOOL ACTIVITY REIMB |406.90 |
|3-205-25020-0768 | |AT RISK 4 YEARS OLD (VPI) - 400 |73,329.00 |
|3-205-33020-0020 | |TITLE I - 500 & 501 |118,309.00 |
|3-205-33020-0025 | |READING FIRST NOTTOWAY SCH-PROG 525 |(10,286.00) |
|3-205-33020-0170 | |VOCATIONAL/SPEC ED PROJ - 800 |4,900.41 |
|3-205-33020-0190 | |TITLE VIB-FLOW THROUGH - 550 |8,816.00 |
|3-205-33020-0290 | |VIB PRE-SCHOOL INCENTIVE-900 |10,394.91 |
|3-205-33020-0320 | |TITLE IIA TRAIN & RECRUIT/P 625CSRI |5,191.39 |
|3-205-33020-0350 | |TITLE IID ED TECH - 630 |653.98 |
|3-205-33020-0360 | |OPPORTUNITY INC-850 |(90,000.00) |
| | | | ____________ |
| | |TOTAL SCHOOL FUND REVENUE |295,424.14 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS |545,893.86 |
| | | |============= |
| | | | |
|A copy teste: _________________________, Clerk | |
| Michael W. Johnson | | |
|Southampton County Board of Supervisors | |
|June 22, 2009 | | | |
Supervisor Brown moved, seconded by Supervisor Felts, to approve the appropriations resolution. All were in favor.
Mr. Johnson advised that included in the agenda was the semiannual appropriations resolution for the first half of FY 2010, with total appropriations of $29,419,523.
The semiannual appropriations resolution is as follows:
|At a meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County, | |
|Virginia held in the Board of Supervisors Room on Monday, | |
|June 22, 2009 | | | | | |
| | |RESOLUTION | |
| |
|BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County, |
|Virginia that the following appropriations be and hereby are made | |
|from the Fund to the Fund indicated for the period July 1, 2009 | |
|through June 30, 2010 for the function and purpose indicated: | |
| | | | |
|From the General Fund to the General | | | |
|Operating Fund to be expended only | | | |
|on order of the Board of Supervisors: | | | |
| |Board of Supervisors | | | 130,781 |
|11010 | | | | |
|12110 |County Administration | | | 167,327 |
|12310 |Commissioner of Revenue | | | 137,200 |
|12320 |Board of Assessors | | | |
| | | | |7,600 |
|12410 |Treasurer | | | | 138,258 |
|12415 |Delinquent Tax Collection | | | 10,000|
|12430 |Accounting | | | | 116,771 |
|12510 |Data Processing | | | 108,703 |
|12550 |Insurance/County Code | | | 168,300 |
|13200 |Registrar | | | | 75,705|
|21100 |Circuit Court | | | | 36,432|
|21200 |Combined District Courts | | | 12,433|
|21300 |Special Magistrates | | | |
| | | | |683 |
|21600 |Clerk of the Circuit Court | | | 234,636 |
|21700 |Sheriff - Bailiff | | | | 215,278 |
|21750 |Courthouse Security | | | 34,504|
|22100 |Commonwealth's Attorney | | | 254,790 |
|22200 |Victim Witness | | | | 34,077|
|31200 |Sheriff | | | | 832,841 |
|31400 |Enhanced 911 | | | | 77,756|
|31500 |PSAP Wireless E-911 | | | 22,187|
|31750 |School Resource Officer | | | 24,241|
|32200 |Volunteer Fire Departments | | | 293,413 |
|32300 |Volunteer Rescue Squads | | | 920,879 |
|32400 |State Forestry Service | | | 23,367|
|33100 |Detention | | | | 1,333,968 |
|33300 |Probation | | | | 52,807|
|34000 |Building Inspections | | | 60,419|
|35100 |Animal Control | | | | 49,285|
|35300 |Medical Examiner | | | |
| | | | |250 |
|35500 |Emergency Service/Civil Defense | | 46,561|
|41320 |Street Lights | | | | 22,993|
|41500 |Assign-A-Highway Program | | | 26,707|
|42300 |Refuse Collection | | | 365,405 |
|42400 |Refuse Disposal | | | 832,781 |
|43000 |Buildings & Grounds | | | 235,474 |
|51100 |Local Health Department | | | 158,303 |
|52000 |Mental Health Services | | | 76,605|
|53220 |State/Local Hospitalization | | | |
| | | | |- |
|53240 |Sr Services of Southeastern | | | 13,825|
|53500 |Comprehensive Services Act | | | 40,441|
|53600 |STOP Organization | | | |
| | | | |1,621 |
|72000 |Community Concert Series | | | |
| | | | |5,700 |
|72200 |Rawls Museum Arts | | | 14,250|
|72500 |Historical Society | | | 28,500|
|73200 |Walter Cecil Rawls Library | | | 126,716 |
|81100 |Planning/Zoning | | | 139,688 |
|81500 |Economic Development | | | 150,000 |
|82400 |Soil & Water Conservation District | | |
| | | |9,766 |
|83500 |Cooperative Extension Service | | | 26,469|
|91400 |Non-Departmental Operating | | | 36,000|
| | | | | | ________ |
| | | | |TOTAL | 7,932,696 |
| | | | | | |
|From the General Fund to the Enterprise | | | |
|Fund to be expended only on order of the | | | |
|Board of Supervisors: | | | | |
| |Enterprise Fund Water | | | 320,732 |
|89600 | | | | |
|89500 |Enterprise Fund Sewer | | | 1,272,835 |
| | | | | | ________ |
| | | | |TOTAL | 1,593,567 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|From the General Fund to the Building | | | |
|Fund to be expended only on order of | | | |
|the Board of Supervisors: | | | | |
| |Building Fund | | | | 2,098,817 |
|94000 | | | | | |
| | | | | | ________ |
| | | | |TOTAL | 2,098,817 |
| | | | | | |
|From the General Fund to the School Operating | | | |
|Fund to be expended only on order of the | | | |
|Southampton County School Board: | | | |
| |Instruction | | | | 9,325,458 |
|61000 | | | | | |
|62000 |Administration | | | | 657,208 |
|63000 |Other Direction & Management | | | 1,372,525 |
|64000 |Operation & Maintenance Services | | 1,718,666 |
|68000 |School Food Service | | | 58,796|
|66000 |Facilities | | | | 204,026 |
|67000 |Debt Service | | | | 1,309,077 |
|68000 |Technology/School Operating | | | 211,687 |
|260 |Rental Textbook | | | |
| | | | |- |
|265 |Technology | | | | 103,000 |
|400 |At Risk 4-Year Olds | | | 69,024|
|450 |Early Reading Intervention | | | 26,187|
|500 |Title I | | | | 256,575 |
|525 |Reading First Grant | | | 83,331|
|550 |Title VIB Special Ed-Flow Through | | 322,418 |
|560 |21st Century Community Learning Center | 67,935|
|625 |Title II-A Training and Recruitment | | 73,229|
|630 |Title IID Ed Tech | | | |
| | | | |2,723 |
|650 |Substance & Drug Prevention | | | |
| | | | |6,154 |
|800 |Vocational Special Education | | | 24,798|
|850 |Opportunity Inc | | | 100,000 |
|900 |Pre-School Incentive | | | |
| | | | |6,926 |
| | | | | | ________ |
| | | | |TOTAL | 15,999,743 |
| | | | |
|From the General Fund to the School Operating | | | |
|Fund to be expended only on order of the | | | |
|Southampton County School Board: | | | |
| |School Food Service | | | 546,500 |
|65100 | | | | |
| | | | | | ________ |
| | | | |TOTAL | 546,500 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|From the Virginia Public Assistance Fund to the | | | |
|Virginia Public Assistance Operating Fund to be | | | |
|expended only on order of the Social Services | | | |
|Board of Southampton County: | | | | |
| |Welfare Administration (Eligibility) | | 483,375 |
| | | | |
|309 | | | |
|310 |Welfare Administration (Service) | | 368,125 |
|313 |Benefit Programs | | | 396,700 |
| | | | | | ________ |
| | | | |TOTAL | 1,248,200 |
| | | | | | ========= |
| | | | | | |
| |TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS | | | 29,419,523 |
| |
| |
|BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Treasurer of Southampton County |
|shall transfer to the accounts as indicated, the funds from time | |
|to time, as the need occurs and as funds become available. | |
| | |
|A copy teste: ___________________________________,Clerk | |
| | Michael W. Johnson | | | |
|Southampton County Board of Supervisors | | | |
|06/22/09 | | | | | |
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Wyche, to adopt the semiannual appropriations resolution. All were in favor.
Mr. Johnson informed that bills in the amount of $3,615,840.03 were received.
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisors Brown, that the bills in the amount of $3,615,840.03 be paid with check numbers 92612 through 93032. All were in favor.
Moving to appointments, Mr. Johnson announced that as they may recall, House Bill 1872 (included in the agenda) was approved by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor earlier this year and, among other things, provided that:
▪ Each locality shall nominate three potential directors who must “possess general business knowledge” and cannot be an elected official;
▪ The Governor shall appoint one director from each of the lists of nominees submitted by the member localities;
▪ Each locality is authorized to appoint an “ex officio” board member who must be a locality employee;
▪ Each “ex officio” member is selected by a majority vote of the locality’s governing body;
▪ Board members are appointed by the Governor for terms of 4 years. Vacancies for reasons other than expiration of a term are filled for remainder of unexpired term. Members are limited to two 4 year terms;
▪ According to SPSA’s General Counsel, a statute elsewhere in the Code of Virginia provided that “ex officio” members of the board have voting privileges;
▪ No term or term limits are prescribed for “ex officio” members.
SPSA had developed the following timeline for new Board appointments in order to provide for an orderly transition:
▪ ASAP: Localities begin the process for selecting 3 candidates for nomination to new board;
▪ August 2009: Localities submit 3 nominees to Governor for approval;
▪ September 2009: Governor Kaine selects new Board;
▪ September 2009: Member localities appoint “ex officio” members for service beginning January 1, 2010;
▪ October 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009: orientation and attendance at board meetings by new board members and “ex officio” members;
▪ January 1, 2010, new board begins serving.
Mr. Johnson informed that, accordingly, it was necessary for the Board to discuss and agree to the process for nominations. The sole statutory qualification was possession of “general business knowledge” which was vague. In his judgment, the best qualified candidates would have a strong background in at least one of the following areas: engineering (SPSA was in the steam and power business, among other things), accounting (not paying sufficient attention to numbers would get you in trouble), law (there were contracts and agreements to understand and consider), business management (understanding people and what motivated them was relevant), or finance (financing large capital projects could be complicated). They would also need to possess the art of diplomacy (working with eight member communities that often had competing interests was never easy).
Mr. Johnson stated that for an appointment of this magnitude, they may wish to solicit interested candidates, or the Board may simply exercise its own judgment in identifying and approaching prospective candidates. He was open to their direction.
Supervisor Brown asked for clarification regarding an “ex officio” member. He noted that he thought the purpose of an “ex officio” member was to maintain continuity. Mr. Johnson clarified that in the past, each locality had a board member and alternate on the SPSA Board. The board member was an elected official and had voting power. The alternate was a staff member and could only vote in the absence of the board member. An “ex officio” member would have voting power and could be a former board member or alternate, but also had to be a staff member of the locality.
Chairman Jones stated that it was in the County’s best interest for Mr. Johnson to be appointed as the “ex-officio” member for Southampton County. He had been an alternate for years, was very knowledgeable, and it was important to maintain continuity, as Supervisor Brown noted.
It was consensus of the Board to appoint Mr. Michael Johnson as the ex-officio member in September.
The Board discussed potential processes for seeking nominations for board members. After discussion, it was consensus of the Board to solicit names of interested candidates via an article in the Tidewater News, and for the Board to submit any names they may have.
Mr. Johnson advised that last month, the Board adopted a resolution which, among other things, established a Complete Count Committee in Southampton County, which was charged with working with the community and business organizations to encourage full participation in the 2010 census. It was necessary that the Committee be appointed soon to begin planning its activities. Members appointed should be representative of a cross section of the community, be willing and able to serve until the census was over, and help implement a creative outreach campaign in areas that may pose a challenge in 2010. Members might include persons from the areas of education, media, business, religion, and community groups.
Mr. Johnson stated that subject to the Board’s concurrence, he was recommending that each Board member consider appointing two committee members from his/her respective election district, beginning next month. The Board concurred with Mr. Johnson’s recommendations.
Moving forward, Mr. Johnson announced that LeAndra Watford, a senior Girl Scout with Boykins Girl Scout Group #5073 was here to share the Southampton Explore Patch in which she designed.
Chairman Jones recognized LeAndra Watford.
Ms. Watford advised that she had just completed 10 years of Girl Scouts and she was a rising junior at Southampton High School. Last spring, she began work designing a patch, known as the Southampton Explore Patch, that was intended to introduce Southampton County and Historic Courtland to other scouts throughout the region.
Ms. Watford stated that in order to qualify for the patch, scouts were required to participate in the following activities, in which she devised, to teach them about the history and culture of Southampton County and Courtland:
[pic]
Ms. Watford presented a plaque of the patch she designed to Mr. Michael Johnson, County Administrator, and Mrs. Kitty Futrell of the Southampton County Historical Society.
Supervisor Brown advised Ms. Watford that the original name of Southampton County was listed in the Southside of the James Attractions brochure. Most people thought the original name was Isle of Wight, but it was not. He thought she may be interested in that.
Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Futrell, and the Board commended Ms. Watford for an outstanding job.
Proceeding to the public hearings, Mr. Johnson announced that the first public hearing was to consider the following:
An ordinance amending Article II, Chapter 4, of the Southampton County Code, increasing
permit fees for building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits.
The ordinance amendment is as follows:
Section 4-26 to 4-34 – building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits.
BE IT Ordained by the Board of Supervisor of Southampton County, Virginia that the Southampton County Code be and hereby is amended as follows:
Article II Permit Fees
For state law as the authority of the county to levy permit fees, see the Code of Virginia, Section 36-105, Section 108 of the (U.S.B.C.) Uniform Statewide Building Code.
Section 4-26 Permit Not Issued Until Fees Paid, Minimum Fee
No permit to begin work for construction, alteration, removal, installation or other building operation that requires a permit shall be issued until the prescribed fee in this article shall have been paid to the Department of Community Development.
Section 4-27 The minimum permit fee for any permit shall be twenty ($20.00)
Proposed fee: $25.00
Section 4-28 Fees For Construction prior to the Application for Building Permits.
Fees for work started prior to the application for any permit shall be based on the administrative cost of a minimum fee of $50.00 and no more than 50% percent of the total cost of the required permit which ever is greater.
Section 4-29 DELETED
Section 4-30 Reinspection for any Permit Issued
Whenever the Codes Inspector shall determine that inspections, in addition to those required in this division, are necessary, due to the failure of a contractor to properly in stall work according to codes, correct faulty work, or when a contractor has requested an inspection before the work to be inspected has been completed to the degree required, or where the inspector can not obtain reasonable access to the work to be inspected, the inspector shall assess a service charge of twenty, ($20.00) dollars (Proposed Fee: $40.00) Such charge shall be chargeable to the holder of the permit covering such work and shall be paid to the County at the Department of Community Development of such work.
Section 4-31 Building Permit Fee Schedule
A. Minimum Permit Fee $20.00 Proposed Fee: $25.00
B. Reinspection Fee $20.00 Proposed Fee: $40.00
C. Demolition Permit Fee $20.00 Proposed Fee: $40.00
D. For Each Application for a $25.00 Proposed Fee: $50.00
Modification of the U.S.B.C.
E. The Building Official may authorize the refunding of any permit fee paid pursuant to this
chapter upon application by the person who paid such fee under the following provisions:
(1.) If an applicant requests in writing the cancellation of a permit prior to the start of construction or to requesting inspection, the permit fee, less a Service Charge of twenty ($20.00) (Proposed Fee:$40.00) and the review fee, if applicable, shall be refunded.
(2.) If an applicant requests in writing the cancellation of a permit after the work authorized by the permit has begun and inspections have been made, the permit fees less a $20.00 Service Charge (Proposed Fee: $40.00), and a $20.00 Service Charge (Proposed Fee:$40.00) for each inspection made and plans review fee if applicable shall be refunded.
(3.) The above provisions notwithstanding, no refund shall be made if six (6) months have expired since the issuance of the permit (s).
F. For each appeal to the Building Code Board of Appeals
the fee shall be. $100.00 Proposed Fee: $300.00
G. For plan review conducted by the local building
department for residential and accessory Structures $10.00 Proposed Fee: $50.00
All Non-Residential Reviews $25.00 Proposed Fee: $200.00
H. Certificate of Occupancy Issuance $10.00 Proposed Fee: $20.00
I. Permit renewal Fee $25.00 Proposed Fee: $50.00
J. Basic Permit Fee
1. Usable area under the roof, per building or structure finished or unfinished for new construction and for the construction of any building or addition thereto where the floor area is increased, the fee shall be based on the floor area to be constructed as computed from the exterior dimensions.
(a.) All building of any construction type for the first 40,000 square feet shall be computed at $0.09 (Proposed Fee: $0.12)
(b.) All buildings over 40,000 square feet shall be computed at $0.08 per square foot
(Proposed Fee: $0.09 per square foot.)
2. All other structures not under roof - for instance - decks, patios, ramps, loading docks, etc., shall be computed as $0.08 per square foot.
(Proposed Fee: $0.09 per square foot)
K. Alterations to shell buildings, unfinished attics, tenant spaces and garages to create finished space shall be computed at $0.08 per square foot. (Proposed Fee $0.09 per square foot)
L. All other structures as defined in the Uniform Statewide Building Code not included in the above fee schedule ( includes piers, trestles, bulkheads, reroofing, exterior siding, fire damage, general repairs, below ground swimming pools, towers, steeples and alterations to any previously finished spaces: Fee shall be $20.00 (Proposed Fee: $25.00), up to and including the first one thousand ($1,000.00) valuation. Above $1000.00 the fee shall be $20.00 (Proposed Fee $25.00) plus $6.00 (Proposed Fee: $8.00) per thousand or fraction thereof.
M. Structure Relocation Permit Fee
(a.) Relocating a structure to a location within the County - Same as Basic Permit Fee
J (A)
(b.) Relocating a structure to a location outside of the County - $25.00
(Proposed Fee:$50.00)
N. Modular Construction Permit Fee: Same as Basic Permit Fee - J (a)
O. Manufactured Home Permit Fees:
(Installation or Replacement)
(a.) Same as Basic Permit Fee: - J (a)
P. Tents or other Temporary Structure Permit Fee: $25.00 each. (Proposed Fee: $40.00
Q. Chimneys, Fireplaces, Wood and Coal Burning Stove and other Solid Fuel Burning Heaters Permit Fees:
Up to and including the first thousand dollars ($1,000.00) the fee shall be $20.00, (Proposed Fee: $ 25.00) plus $6.00 (Proposed Fee: $8.00 per thousand or fraction thereof.
R. Sign Permit Fee:
Base permit fee shall be $35.00 (Proposed Fee: $50.00
In addition to the main sign for the address, the base fee includes all signs with a square footage sign face area of ten square feet or less for each sign (includes entrance-exit and directional signs)
For erection and relocation of signs, fee is determined by base fee plus area fee.
Area shall be determined by total square footage area of all sign faces.
0 - 25 square feet $10.00 (Proposed Fee: $20.00)
25 – 49 square feet $11.00 (Proposed Fee: $21.00)
50 - 74 square feet $13.00 (Proposed Fee: $23.00)
75 - 99 s square feet $15.00 (Proposed Fee: $25.00)
100 - 299 square feet $25.00 (Proposed Fee: $35.00)
299 & Over square feet $50.00 (Proposed Fee: $60.00)
S. Review of Application For Permit Review: Fee: $20.00 (Proposed Fee: $25.00)
T. Zoning Permits for other than Residential Construction: Fee: $20.00 (Proposed Fee: $25.00)
Section 4-32 Electrical Permits
A. Temporary Service Permit Fee: $25.00 (Proposed Fee: $35.00)
B. Permit Renewal Fee: $25.00 Proposed Fee: $50.00)
C. Single Wide & Double Wide
Service Fee: $25.00 (Proposed Fee: $30.00)
D. Energy Conservation Devices
Provided by publicly owned utilities. $5.00 Each (Proposed Fee: $10.00 Each)
E. New Service Permit Fees: (New construction fees based on total ampacity of service equipment)
0 - 125 Amps $35.00 (Proposed Fee: $45.00)
126 - 150 Amps $40.00 (Proposed Fee: $50.00)
151 - 200 Amps $50.00 Proposed Fee: $60.00)
Over 200 Amps $50.00 Proposed Fee: $60.00, plus $10.00 (Proposed Fee: $15.00 per 50 amps or fraction thereof.
F. Relocation of Existing Services and Service Increases.
A. Relocate or replace existing meter
or service equipment. Fee: $20.00 (Proposed Fee: $30.00)
B. Service Increase (Service
and service equipment only)
Up to 200 Amp Increase. Fee: $50.00 (Proposed Fee: $60.00)
Over 200 Amp Increase. Fee: $50.00 (Proposed Fee: $60.00)
Plus $10.00 per 50 amps or fraction thereof over 200 amps.
(Proposed Fee: $15.00)
G. Installation of fire alarms, burglar alarms, swimming pool systems, electrical signs and sight lighting. $20.00,( Proposed Fee: $25.00) for the first one thousand ($1,000.00) valuation, plus $6.00,(Proposed Fee: $8.00) for each $1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
H. Fixed Appliance and Equipment Connections
A. Domestic $5.00 Each (Proposed Fee: $ 10.00)
B. Commercial $10.00 Each (Proposed Fee: $15.00)
I. Power Consuming Outlets (Receptacles & Lights)
Fee: $30.00 per structure (Proposed Fee: $50.00)
J. Electric Motor Installation or Replacements:
Up to and including 3/4 H.P. $8.00 (Proposed Fee: $10.00)
Over 3/4 H.P. to 10 H.P. $15.00 (Proposed Fee: $25.00)
10 H.P. to 25 H.P. $25.00 (Proposed Fee: $35.00)
25 H.P. to 50 H.P. $50.00 (Proposed Fee: $60.00)
50 H.P. to 75 H.P. $75.00 (Proposed Fee: $85.00)
75 H.P. to 100 H.P. $ 100.00 (Proposed Fee: $110.00)
Over 100 H.P. Fee plus $1.00 per $100.00 (Proposed Fee: $110.00)
H. P. over 100
K. Generators:
Up to 10,000 Watt Fee: $50.00 Proposed Fee: $100.00
Over 10,000 Watt Fee: $75.00 Proposed Fee: $150.00
Section 4-33 Plumbing Permit Fees:
A. Permit Renewal Fee: $ 25.00 (Proposed Fee: $50.00)
B. Single wide and Double wide water
service and DWV hookup. Fee: $20.00 Proposed Fee: $30.00)
C. Basic Permit Fee: Installation, Conversion Replacement)
1. For each fixture, floor trap, appliance or
Hose Bib: Fee: $5.00 (Proposed Fee: $10.00)
2. Water service and distribution
system. Fee: $ 8.00 (Proposed Fee: $10.00)
3. DWV System Fee: $ 10.00 (Proposed Fee: $15.00)
4. Sewers, storm or sanitary manholes
,area drains or devices. Fee: $10.00 (Proposed Fee: $15.00)
5. Backflow preventors or vacuum breakers.
1-5 Fee: $5.00 Proposed Fee: $10.00)
Over 5 Fee: $5.00, (Proposed Fee $10.00 plus $0.50 each (Proposed Fee: $1.00 each
Section 4-34 Mechanical Permit Fees:
A. Permit Renewal Fee. Fee: $25.00 (Proposed Fee: $50.00)
B. Fuel Piping Permit Fee:
1. L.P.G. (i.e. butane, propane, etc.)
Tanks and associated piping permit fee:
0 - 500 gallons Fee: $ 25.00 (Proposed Fee: $50.00)
501 - 2000 gallons Fee: $ 30.00 (Proposed Fee: $60.00)
Over 2000 gallons Fee: $ 40.00 (Proposed Fee: $80.00)
2. Tanks and associated piping for flammable liquids permit fee: (installation or
upgrading)
0 - 10,000 gallons Fee: $40.00 (Proposed Fee: $60.00)
10,001 - 20,000 gallons Fee: $50.00 (Proposed Fee: $70.00)
20,001 - 50,000 gallons Fee: $60.00 (Proposed Fee: $80.00)
Over 50, 000 gallons Fee: $70.00 (Proposed Fee: $90.00)
C. Fuel UST Corrective Action Permit Fee:
3. Removal of UST- Fee: $25.00 (Proposed Fee: $100.00)
4. Temporary Closure
of a UST. Fee:$15.00 (Proposed Fee: $25.00)
5. Permanent closure or change
in service. Fee: $25.00 for first tank (Proposed Fee: $100.00 plus $20.00 for each additional tank. Proposed Fee: $25.00
1. Fire Suppression System Fee:
Up to $1000.00 value the fee is: $20.00 (Proposed Fee: $25.00)
Over $1000.00 value the fee is : $20.00 (Proposed Fee: $25.00), plus $6.00 (Proposed Fee: $8.00 per thousand or fraction thereof.
2. Elevators, Dumbwaiters, moving stairways and Conveying Equipment Permit Fee:
$20.00 (Proposed Fee: $25.00 plus $6.00 (Proposed Fee: $8.00 or fraction thereof.
3. Mechanical System Permit Fees:
Air conditioning, gas heating, oil heating and heat pumps (fees do not include electrical or fuel piping permits)
Residential- Up to and including $1,000.00 valuation $ 25.00 proposed Fee: $35.00. Above $1000.00 valuation $25.00 (Proposed Fee: $35.00, plus $8.00 (proposed Fee: $9.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
Commercial- Up to and including $1000.00 valuation $40.00 (Proposed Fee: $80.00. Above $1000.00 valuation $40.00 (Proposed Fee: $80.00, plus $8.00 (Proposed Fee: $9.00 for each additional thousand or fraction thereof.
4. Commercial Range Hood Permits Fees:
Up to and including $1000.00 valuation $40.00(Proposed Fee: $80.00). Above $1,000.00 valuation $40.00 (Proposed Fee $80.00 plus $8.00 (Proposed Fee: $9.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof.
5. Amusement Device Permit Fee:
Kiddie Rides Fee: $15.00 Each (Proposed Fee: $25.00 each)
Major Rides Fee: $20.00 Each (Proposed Fee: $35.00 each)
Spectacular Rides Fee: $45.00 Each (Proposed Fee: $55.00 Each)
Chairman Jones opened the public hearing.
Mr. Glenn Updike asked Mr. Johnson if he could go over the proposed fee increases? Mr. Johnson replied that he could, but the ordinance was 6 pages long. Chairman Jones informed Mr. Updike that they would provide him a copy of the ordinance amendment.
Chairman Jones closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Brown, to adopt the ordinance. All were in favor.
Mr. Johnson announced that the second public hearing was to consider the following:
An ordinance amending Section 14-41 of the Southampton County Code, increasing the
fee for subdivision plat examinations.
The ordinance amendment is as follows:
Section 14-41 – subdivision plat examination and approval fees.
AN ORDINANCE INCREASING THE FEES FOR EXAMINATION AND
APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION PLATS
- - - - -
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County, Virginia that the Southampton County Code be, and hereby is, amended as follows:
Sec. 14-41. Fees for examination and approval.
There shall be a charge for the examination and approval or disapproval of every plat reviewed by the agent. At the time of filing the preliminary plat, the subdivider shall deposit with the agent checks payable to the treasurer in the amount of twenty five dollars ($25.00) one hundred dollars ($100.00) plus ten dollars ($10.00) per lot for plats containing up to five (5) lots and one hundred dollars ($100.00) three hundred dollars ($300.00) plus ten dollars ($10.00) per lot for plats containing more than five (5) lots.
A copy teste:_______________________, Clerk
Southampton County Board of Supervisors
Adopted :
Chairman Jones opened the public hearing. No members of the public wished to speak. Chairman Jones closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Brown moved, seconded by Supervisor Wyche, to adopt the ordinance. All were in favor.
Mr. Johnson advised that the third public hearing was to consider the following:
An ordinance amending Section 18-575 of the Southampton County Code, increasing the
fees associated with site plan review.
The ordinance amendment is as follows:
Section 18-575 – site plan review fees.
AN ORDINANCE INCREASING THE FEE FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
- - - - -
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County, Virginia that the Southampton County Code be, and hereby is, amended as follows:
Sec. 18-575. Site plan review required for certain uses.
For the purposes of assuring careful use of difficult topography and good arrangement, appearance, function, and harmony with surroundings and adjacent uses and the objectives of the comprehensive plan, and compliance with the requirements of these regulations, site plans for the following major uses shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the requirements and procedures of this article:
(1) Uses which require approval of a conditional use permit.
(2) Cluster subdivisions or subdivisions which average lot area or utilize flag lots.
(3) Planned housing developments.
(4) Manufactured home parks or subdivisions.
(5) Multiple-family dwellings, townhouses or attached two-family dwellings.
(6) Shopping centers.
(7) Business buildings, office buildings, commercial buildings, or industrial buildings, if such buildings are to contain more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of floor area and/or drive-in facilities, all types.
(8) Any parking lot or parking facility which is to contain more than ten (10) spaces.
(9) All uses which utilize common facilities such as entrances and exits, parking and loading facilities.
(10) Any use noted as subject to site plan review.
The fee for a site plan review is fifty dollars ($50.00) two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) plus ten dollars ($10.00) per acre; this does not apply to uses that require a conditional use permit.
A copy teste:_______________________, Clerk
Southampton County Board of Supervisors
Adopted :
Chairman Jones opened the public hearing. No members of the public wished to speak. Chairman Jones closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Wyche, to adopt the ordinance. All were in favor.
Mr. Johnson advised that the fourth and final public hearing was to consider the following:
An ordinance amending Section(s) 16-204, 16-213, and 16-214 of the Southampton
County Code, increasing the fees associated with utility deposits and water and sewer
facility fees.
The ordinance amendments are as follows:
Section 16-213 – utility deposits.
AN ORDINANCE INCREASING THE DEPOSIT FOR NEW UTILITY ACCOUNTS
- - - - -
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County, Virginia that the Southampton County Code be, and hereby is, amended as follows:
Sec. 16-213. Same—Rate schedule, deposit.
(b) An advance, noninterest bearing, deposit of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) one hundred twenty five dollars ($125.00) shall be made for all new accounts, for all accounts for which a different owner or tenant becomes responsible and for all accounts where water service is resumed after having been discontinued for nonpayment of sewage disposal charges. Such deposit shall be returned, upon written application of the customer, after not more than two (2) years of satisfactory credit have been established. Should an account become two (2) months delinquent, the deposit shall be forfeited in addition to other penalties described in section 16-215 herein below.
A copy teste:_______________________, Clerk
Southampton County Board of Supervisors
Adopted :
Section 16-204 – water facility fees and Section 16-214 – sewer facility fees.
AN ORDINANCE TO INCREASE WATER AND SEWER FACILITY FEES
- - - - -
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County, Virginia that the Southampton County Code be, and hereby is amended and reordained so as to amend Article V, Chapter 16, Section 16-204, et seq. and reading as follows:
CHAPTER 16
ARTICLE V
Fees; Service Charges
Sec. 16-204. Water charges generally.
(d) In addition to the connection fee set forth in subsection (a), (b) or (c) of this section, at the time a building permit is obtained from the county, each applicant shall pay a facility fee to reimburse the county for system capacity that is made available for the intended use, in accordance with the following schedule:
|USE |TYPE OF CONNECTION |FACILITY |
| | |FEE |
|Single family dwelling |5/8" or 3/4" water tap |$1,500.00 |
| | |$4,000.00 |
|Single family dwelling |1" water tap |$2,500.00 |
| | |$5,000.00 |
|Mobile homes |5/8" or 3/4" water tap |$1,500.00 |
| | |$4,000.00 |
|Duplex, townhouse or apartment |5/8" or 3/4" water tap |$1,500.00 per unit |
| | |$4,000 per unit |
|Duplex, townhouse or apartment |1" water tap |$2,500.00 per unit |
| | |$5,000.00 per unit |
|Motels and hotels |varies |$500 per unit |
| | |$1,200.00 per unit |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional |5/8" or 3/4" water tap |$1,500.00 |
| | |$4,000.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional |1" water tap |$2,500.00 |
| | |$5,000.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional |1 ½" water tap |$5,000.00 |
| | |$7,500.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional uses |2" water tap |$8,000.00 |
| | |$12,000.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional uses |3" water tap |$15,000.00 |
| | |$18,000.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional uses |4" water tap |$25,000.00 |
| | |$30,000.00 |
Sec. 16-214. Sewer charges generally.
(c) For residential subdivisions where sewerage collection lines have been installed at the expense of the developer in accordance with county standards, and such collection lines have been dedicated to and accepted by the county, the sewerage connection fee shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00) three hundred dollars ($300.00) per building lot.
(e) In addition to the connection fee set forth in subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section, at the time a building permit is obtained from the county, each applicant shall pay a facility fee to reimburse the county for sewer system capacity that is made available for the intended use, in accordance with the following schedule:
|USE |TYPE OF CONNECTION |FACILITY |
| | |FEE |
|Single family dwelling |5/8" or 3/4" water tap |$2,000.00 |
| | |$6,000.00 |
|Single family dwelling |1" water tap |$3,000.00 |
| | |$9,000.00 |
|Mobile homes |5/8" or 3/4" water tap |$2,000.00 |
| | |$6,000.00 |
|Duplex, townhouse or apartment |5/8" or 3/4" water tap |$2,000.00 per unit |
| | |$6,000 per unit |
|Duplex, townhouse or apartment |1" water tap |$3,000.00 per unit |
| | |$9,000.00 per unit |
|Motels and hotels |varies |$500 per unit |
| | |$1,200.00 per unit |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional |5/8" or 3/4" water tap |$2,000.00 |
| | |$6,000.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional |1" water tap |$3,000.00 |
| | |$9,000.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional |1 ½" water tap |$5,000.00 |
| | |$10,000.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional uses |2" water tap |$8,000.00 |
| | |$15,000.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional uses |3" water tap |$15,000.00 |
| | |$20,000.00 |
|Commercial, industrial or institutional uses |4" water tap |$25,000.00 |
| | |$30,000.00 |
Chairman Jones opened the public hearing.
Mr. Glenn Updike spoke. He stated that the County was putting in a new sewer line and certain residences were going to be forced to hook up to it at these rates. He thought it would be a burden to those people.
Chairman Jones closed the public hearing.
Mr. Johnson clarified that this ordinance would apply only to new construction. Mr. Johnson clarified for Supervisor Brown that those people would not be required to connect to the sewer line if they had a working septic system. However, if they chose to connect within a certain period of time, there would not be a fee to do so.
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Felts to adopt the ordinance. All were in favor.
Moving forward, Mr. Johnson announced that included in the agenda was a resolution declaring certain property owned by the county as surplus and ordering it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. The list consisted of six motor vehicles and two desks.
The resolution is as follows:
WHEREAS, § 15.2-951, Code of Virginia, provides broad authority for counties, cities and towns to acquire and dispose of personal property for the purpose of exercising their powers and duties; and
WHEREAS, the following listing of personal property items owned by Southampton County no longer serve any useful purpose.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County that the following items are hereby declared surplus property:
A. 1993 Dodge Pickup Truck D150 - 1B7HE16Y1PS205249
B. 2000 Dodge Ram - 1B7HC13Z8YJ140233
C. 1998 Jeep Cherokee - 1J4FJ2854WL230327
D. 2001 Jeep Cherokee – 1J4FF48S61L61905
E. 1986 Chevrolet Van – 1GCJP32M5G3324376
F. 1998 Ford Truck – 1FDKE37H5JKA33565
G. Two work desks
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator is directed to proceed with the sale of the aforementioned items by public auction or sealed bids, with notice of the date, time and place of the sale to be advertised, in advance, in The Tidewater News.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator is directed to dispose of any such property which may remain after the sale in the most cost-effective manner; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proceeds from the sale of this property shall be deposited in the county General Fund.
Adopted, this 22nd day of June, 2009.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
_________________________
Dallas O. Jones, Chairman
ATTEST:
_________________________
Michael W. Johnson, Clerk
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Felts, to adopt the resolution.
Supervisor Brown asked if the motion should to state how to dispose of the property (sealed bids or public auction?) Mr. Johnson clarified that adoption of the resolution would give him the authority to choose. He noted that they typically did a public auction. Supervisor Brown stated that he personally thought that sealed bids would bring in more money than a public auction.
Chairman Jones advised that they had always given the County Administrator the authority to use his discretion in how to get rid of surplus property.
All were in favor of the motion.
Moving forward, Mr. Johnson announced that included in the agenda was correspondence from Mrs. Judy English, Director of Southampton County Social Services, seeking the Board’s consideration in allowing her Department to retain a portion of their FY 2009 unspent local dollars in FY 2010. She estimated that they would have approximately $35,000 in unspent local funds at the close of the fiscal year on June 30, 2009. Generally speaking, unspent local funds typically reverted back the County General Fund. However, this year she was requesting to retain $20,000 of the anticipated balance, which she intended to use as leverage to draw down an additional $101,500 in state and federal dollars in FY 2010. Of the $20,000, she proposed to use $15,000 as leverage for in-home services for the elderly and disable, support services for clients seeking to enter or re-enter the workforce, and after-school tutoring and reading programs for at-risk children. The other $5,000 was proposed to be used to provide sufficient funding to cover a portion of the health insurance premium increases, which was erroneously omitted from their original submitted budget. He noted that Mrs. English had a scheduling conflict and was not able to attend this morning, but Mrs. Michelle Stivers, Assistant Director, was present.
Mrs. Stivers advised that if they were allowed to retain $20,000, they would use it as leverage to draw down additional state and federal funds so they could reinstate many important programs.
Vice-Chairman Young stated that demand at Social Services was much greater than it had been.
Supervisor Wyche moved, seconded by Vice-Chairman Young, to appropriate up to $20,000 of the Southampton County Department of Social Services’ unspent FY 2009 local funds in FY 2010, upon conclusion of the FY 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (Audit). All were in favor.
Moving forward, Mr. Johnson announced that Mr. Richard Simms, Director of the Franklin-Southampton Fair Foundation, was here this morning to request the Board’s consideration in financially assisting them with installation of air conditioning in the Exhibition Building at the Southampton County Fairgrounds.
Chairman Jones recognized Mr. Richard Simms.
Mr. Richard Simms advised that the Franklin-Southampton Fair Foundation was respectfully requesting the Board’s consideration in financially assisting them with installation of air conditioning in the Exhibition Building at the Southampton County Fairgrounds. A previous letter sent to Mr. Johnson indicated they were interested in having the County co-sign a loan. However, as he pursued the loan, he learned that the County had to originate the loan because it owned the land and buildings at the Fairgrounds. The County and Fair could reach an agreement on repayment of the loan. He read the following letter which he had given to the Board earlier today.
[pic]
Supervisor Wyche suggested that the Fair get additional bids. Mr. Simms advised that they got 3 bids on the heat and air. Supervisor Wyche suggested that they also get competitive bids on the financing.
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Wyche, to authorize the County Administrator to originate a loan on behalf of the Franklin-Southampton Fair Foundation for installation of air conditioning in the Exhibition Building at the Southampton County Fairgrounds. All were in favor.
Moving forward, Mr. Johnson announced that in 1982, the Drewryville Ruritan Center, Inc. acquired slightly less than 2 acres of property from the Southampton County School Board, which included the old Drewryville School (22487 Drewry Road). In addition to the old school building, there was a smaller structure on the rear of the property which was actively used by the Ruritans and the local Woman’s Club and a baseball/softball field on an adjacent 2-acre parcel (also owned by the Ruritans), used by the community at-large. Time had taken its toll on the old school building. It had deteriorated to the point of collapse (portions of the roof had already collapsed) and had become not only an eyesore, but a serious safety issue, particularly with young children and teenagers frequenting the ball field behind it on a regular basis.
Mr. Johnson advised that Chairman Jones was contacted by several club members lamenting the fact that their resources were insufficient to demolish the dilapidated structure and clear the debris. At their request and on their behalf, he (Mr. Johnson) obtained competitive estimates for the work, ranging from $25,200 to $67,500. A copy of the low bid, submitted by Crowder and White Contracting, was included in the agenda. After obtaining estimates, he and Chairman Jones met with officials of the Drewryville Ruritan Center, Inc. to discuss potential ways that the County might assist them, subject to approval of the full Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Johnson stated that he had developed a conceptual plan for their consideration this morning. The plan had 4 primary components:
1) Drewryville Ruritan Center, Inc. will enter into agreement with Southampton County authorizing Southampton County to accept the proposal of Crowder and White on its behalf and agreeing to assist Crowder and White as outlined in his proposal;
2) Upon completion of the work, Southampton County will pay Crowder & White $25,200 for services rendered on behalf of the Drewryville Ruritan Center, Inc. The agreement will provide that $10,000 of the $25,200 paid to Crowder and White shall be considered a grant to the Drewryville Ruritan Center, Inc. and the balance of $15,200 will be a 10-year loan, amortized at 0% and repaid to Southampton County by the Drewryville Ruritan Center, Inc. in annual installments of $1,520;
3) The agreement will further provide that that Drewryville Ruritan Center, Inc. will grant to Southampton County a Deed of Trust on parcels 1 and 2 of the property to secure the loan and further amortize Southampton County to fill a lien, if necessary, until such time as the $15,200 loan is fully repaid;
4) The agreement will further provide that Southampton County will release the Deed of Trust and lien, if any, when the $15,200 loan is fully repaid.
Mr. Johnson stated that if these terms were acceptable to the Board, they would need to adopt a motion. He noted that included in the agenda was a copy of the deed to the property and some recent photographs of the building.
Vice-Chairman Young remarked that Mr. Julien Johnson, Director of Public Utilities, did a great job with the fencing on the property.
Supervisor Brown moved, seconded by Vice-Chairman Young, to agree to the conceptual plan outlined herein, authorizing the County Attorney to prepare an appropriate agreement and Deed of Trust, and authorizing the Chairman to execute such instruments to effectuate the demolition of the old school. All were in favor.
Moving forward, Mr. Johnson announced that included in the agenda was a resolution endorsing and supporting Greenwood RRST LLC’s application for Industrial Access Railroad Funds. The Industrial Access Railroad Program was administered by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and was intended to be used as an incentive to encourage industrial or commercial development. New or expanding businesses and industries were eligible to apply directly to the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding to construct railroad tracks to access their respective industrial sites. Funds may be used for engineering, environmental mitigation, site preparation and track construction. He advised that according to Program Guidelines, no more than $300,000 of unmatched funds may be allocated to any one project in any fiscal year. Any funds in excess of $300,000 must be matched dollar-for-dollar by the recipient. Applications were competitive with the projected number of railroad car loads and added employment carrying significant weight in scoring. Program Guidelines also required each applicant to discuss their project with their respective local government and to secure a resolution of support from their Board or Council. Accordingly, following last month’s presentation with regard to issuance of their conditional use permit, Greenwood RRST LLC was seeking the Board’s favorable consideration of their request. They were seeking $105,000 in Industrial Access Rail Funding. He noted that there were already two rail spurs on the site, both constructed in 2001, serving Meherrin Ag & Chemical Company and Eastern Fuels, Inc. Each of those was also constructed with Industrial Access Railroad Funding.
The resolution is as follows:
RESOLUTION OF LOCAL SUPPORT FOR THE UTILIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL
ACCESS RAILROAD TRACK FUNDS
A RESOLUTION OF THE
SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
WHEREAS, Greenwood RRST, LLC has expressed its intent and desire to the Southampton County Board of Supervisors to locate its industrial operation in Southampton County; and
WHEREAS, Greenwood RRST, LLC and its operation will require rail access; and
WHEREAS, Greenwood RRST, LLC has reported to the county their intent to apply for Industrial Access Railroad Track Funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Department of Rail and Public Transportation in the amount of $105,000; and
WHEREAS, Greenwood RRST, LLC has requested that the Southampton County Board of Supervisors provide a resolution supporting its application for said funds which are administered by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Southampton County Board of Supervisors hereby makes known its desire and intent to assist industrial development in the Commonwealth of Virginia and to provide support for the location of industrial facilities in Southampton County.
Adopted: June 22, 2009
___________________________________
Dallas O. Jones, Chairman
Southampton County Board of Supervisors
A COPY TESTE:
___________________________________
Michael W. Johnson, Clerk
Supervisor Wyche moved, seconded by Supervisor Brown, to adopt the resolution. All were in favor.
Moving forward, Mr. Johnson announced that Mr. Jim Christian, P.E. (Timmons Group) and Mr. David Ervin (MidEastern Builders) were here this morning to present a current project status report regarding the Water Reclamation Facility (PPEA Project). Those who attended the cookout on May 28 got a first-hand look at construction at the Facility.
Chairman Jones recognized Mr. Jim Christian and Mr. David Ervin.
Mr. Christian and Mr. Ervin presented a “virtual tour” of the project via a PowerPoint presentation. They shared pictures of construction currently taking place on the site. The facility was still being designed as it was being built. They advised that the facility would ultimately have a total capacity of 3.75 MGD. The current phase would have a capacity of 1.25 MGD, and two future phases would each have a capacity of 1.25 MGD. The old system would not be demolished right now – they would cut it off and use it as emergency backup. When future phases of the project were built, the old system would have to be demolished at that time. The facility would be so advanced that the water quality would be such that, in the future, instead of discharging into the river, the water could be reused to water non-edible crops and ball fields. They advised that the project was about 6 months ahead of schedule. They were projecting to have the new facility up and running by the 1st quarter of 2010. Their goal of making this an award-winning facility included the staff that would operate it. They were showing off the project to everyone in the state. The facility would be a feature article in an upcoming edition of U.S. Infrastructure Magazine. They advised that they were using a web-based management tool known as Pro Core. At the end of the project, a 2-minute video would show the entire construction. All documents and infrastructure would be digitally available.
Mr. Christian clarified for Supervisor Brown that right now the water could not be used to water edible crops – only non-edible crops. However, they were making progress. A lot of the technology had come from Europe.
Supervisor Felts stated that she attended the cookout and was able to take a tour of the construction. The tour was wonderful and it helped her to understand a lot more about the project.
The Board thanked Mr. Christian and Mr. Ervin for the presentation and indicated that they were very pleased with the project.
Moving forward, Mr. Johnson announced that in accordance with their resolution last month, under separate cover, was a detailed proposal from Southampton Project Partners, LLC (a company jointly owned by Shamrock Environmental Corporation and Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC). Portions of the detailed proposal had been submitted in confidence, and the Offeror had requested that it be excluded from public disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act on the basis that: a) it contains trade secrets, b) it contains information which, if publicly disclosed, would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of both Southampton County and the Offeror, and c) it contains certain financial statements which are not generally available to the public through regulatory disclosure or otherwise.
Mr. Johnson advised that included in the agenda was a resolution which accomplished 4 things:
1) It documented their acceptance of the proposal;
2) It made a determination that certain parts of the proposal were protected from disclosure under FOIA;
3) It authorized the County Administrator to negotiate the terms and provisions of an interim or comprehensive agreement, subject to final approval by the Board; and
4) It designated the Southampton County Board of Supervisors as the appropriating body which, following execution of an agreement, shall be responsible for appropriating and authorizing funding for the project.
The resolution is as follows:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA
RESOLUTION 0609-14
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Southampton County, Virginia, held in the Southampton County Office Center, Board of Supervisors’ Meeting Room, 26022 Administration Center Drive, Courtland, Virginia on Monday, June 22, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
PRESENT
The Honorable Dallas O. Jones, Chairman
The Honorable Walter L. Young, Jr., Vice Chairman
The Honorable Walter D. Brown, III
The Honorable Carl J. Faison
The Honorable Anita T. Felts
The Honorable Ronald M. West
The Honorable Moses Wyche
IN RE: PROCUREMENT OF WETLAND AND STREAM MITIGATION BANKING ACTIVITIES UNDER THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT
Motion by Supervisor ______________________:
WHEREAS, Southampton County published a solicitation for conceptual phase proposals under the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 (PPEA) on March 25, 2009 for development, construction and operation of a compensatory wetland and stream mitigation bank located adjacent to the Turner Tract Industrial Park on Rose Valley Road; and
WHEREAS, Southampton County received one joint-response to its solicitation under the PPEA from Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC and Shamrock Environmental Corporation on April 24, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the proposal met the requirements of the Board’s adopted implementing procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors accepted the proposal for conceptual phase review at its regular session on April 27, 2009; and
WHEREAS, a technical review of the conceptual proposal by The Timmons Group, dated May 21, 2009 found the conceptual proposal to be technically adequate;
WHEREAS, upon receipt of the Timmons technical review, at its regular session on May 26, 2009, the Board of Supervisors resolved to invite Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC and Shamrock Environmental Corporation to submit a detailed proposal for additional review and consideration; and
WHEREAS, a detailed proposal for the aforementioned project was submitted on June 17, 2009 by Southampton Project Partners, a jointly-owned company formed by Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC and Shamrock Environmental Corporation LLC.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY, AS FOLLOWS:
(1) The Board accepts the detailed proposal of Southampton Project Partners, LLC as submitted on June 17, 2009;
(2) The Board has determined that the information contained in Items 6, 7, 13, and Appendix 2 of the detailed proposal shall be excluded from public disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act on the basis that: a) it contains trade secrets of Southampton Project Partners as defined in the uniform Trade Secrets Act, b) it contains information which, if publicly disclosed, would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of Southampton County and/or Southampton Project Partners, and c) it contains certain financial statements of Southampton Project Partners which are not generally available to the public through regulatory disclosure or otherwise;
(3) The Board authorizes and directs the County Administrator to proceed in negotiating the terms and provisions of an interim and/or comprehensive agreement, subject to final approval by the Board following a period for public review and comment; and
(4) The Board of Supervisors serves as the appropriating body which has been consulted and participated in the review process and shall be responsible for appropriating and authorizing funding for the project.
Seconded by Supervisor _________________________.
VOTING ON THE ITEM: YES –
NO –
A COPY TESTE:
_________________________________
Michael W. Johnson, County Administrator/
Clerk, Southampton County Board of Supervisors
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Wyche, to adopt the resolution. All were in favor.
Moving forward, Mr. Johnson announced that as they may be aware, High Street United Methodist Church was continuing to plan construction of new facilities on property it recently acquired on the south side of Camp Parkway, diagonally across from Riverdale Elementary School. As they knew from discussions last August, public water and sewer was paramount to their project. In a letter to the church last summer, after granting them authority to connect to the waterline along Camp Parkway, he indicated that we were also planning the sewer extension to Riverdale Elementary, but that the final alignment at that time had not been determined. His idea was that the Church would tap into the last manhole on the north side of Camp Parkway, in front of the school, bore beneath Camp Parkway at its expense and then extend the sewer line along the south side of the highway, eastward to their property. Mr. Johnson advised that after further evaluation, he now thought it make more sense to extend the gravity sewer farther along the north side of Camp Parkway than presently planned, beneath the Boulevard serving the school and then allow the Church to bore beneath the highway directly in front of their property. Because the main beneficiary of an extension along the north side of Camp Parkway was Hampton Roads Development, he recently contacted Mr. George Fiscella to see if he may be interested in a cost share for the extension. In their telephone conversation, he indicated that he would be interested in meeting with him once the plan was further developed and there were preliminary cost estimates. Mr. Johnson noted that he was not seeking any particular action from the Board – but before discussing the extension seriously with Mr. Fiscella, he wanted their blessing.
Mr. Johnson advised that Mrs. Lynn Rabil of High Street United Methodist church was present.
Chairman Jones recognized Mrs. Lynn Rabil.
Mrs. Rabil thanked the Board for their support and hoped they would give the Church favorable consideration.
Supervisor Brown asked what would be the additional cost in extending the gravity sewer farther along Camp Parkway? Mr. Johnson replied that he was unsure of the cost at this time, as he did not want to have further conversations with Mr. Fiscella without the Board’s blessing.
Supervisor Felts stated that the extension of the gravity sewer would result in less cost for the Church.
It was consensus of the Board to authorize Mr. Johnson to proceed with discussions with Mr. Fiscella.
Regarding miscellaneous issues, Mr. Johnson announced that included in the agenda were copies of the semiannual attendance and compensation reports for the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Johnson advised that included in the agenda was the abstract of votes for the June 9 Democratic primary as certified by the Southampton County Electoral Board.
Mr. Johnson informed that the following environmental notices were received:
1) From the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water, to the Town of Courtland, a Notice of Violation for exceeding the primary maximum contaminant level for total coliform bacteria in May 2009;
2) From the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, notice of a groundwater withdrawal application from New Kent County for 48,082 gallons per day from the Chickahominy Piney-Point Aquifer;
3) From the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, notice of a proposed permit renewal for Valley Proteins to land-apply their treated process wastewater.
Mr. Johnson stated that the following items of incoming correspondence were received:
1) From the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, notice of an opportunity to designate a new subrecipient for the Indoor Plumbing and Rehabilitation Program (response not required if you wish to continue to utilize the STOP Program);
2) From Richard E. Railey, Jr., a copy of the Order, entered by the Circuit Court on June 1, regarding your petition to conduct a referendum in November on the meals and beverage tax;
3) From Rowland L. Taylor to Selena Cuffee Glenn, a request from SPSA to the City of Suffolk seeking relief from a CUP requirement to construct two solid waste transfer stations in the City of Suffolk prior to constructing Cell VII at the regional landfill;
4) From the Virginia Retirement System, acknowledgement of receipt of last month’s Board resolution electing the increased retirement multiplier of 1.85% for hazardous duty employees;
5) From Gerald E. Connally, a response regarding your resolution seeking clean-up of the James River Ghost Fleet;
6) From Richard E. Railey, Jr., a copy of the Petition submitted to the Clerk of Court seeking to conduct a referendum in November on the meals and beverage tax; and
7) From Val Livingston, PhD, Executive Director of the Genieve Shelter, advising she expects to begin construction of C.J.’s Place in Suffolk later this summer.
Mr. Johnson advised that various items of outgoing correspondence were also included in the agenda.
Moving to late arriving matters, Mr. Johnson announced that at their places was a resolution for their consideration. They may recall last year adopting a plan to go ahead and fund Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB). This was in accordance with General Accounting Standard guidelines. The resolution was just received from our financial advisor on Friday, and it was important that the Board consider the resolution this morning.
The resolution is as follows:
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH TRUST FOR
OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
WHEREAS, in connection with the employment of the officers and other employees needed to carry out the functions of the County of Southampton, Virginia (the "County"), the County has established certain plans to provide post-employment benefits other than pensions ("Other Post-Employment Benefits"), as defined in Section 15.2-1545 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), to individuals who have terminated their service to the County and to the beneficiaries of such individuals; and
WHEREAS, Article 8, Chapter 15, Subtitle II of Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code (§§ 15.2-1544 et seq.) provides that a governing body of any county, city, or town may establish a trust for its active and former employees for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund Other Post-Employment Benefits and may fund such trust.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Southampton, Virginia that:
Section 1. The County authorizes and directs the establishment of a trust pursuant to Section 15.2-1544 of the Virginia Code for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund Other Post-Employment Benefits under the terms and conditions of a trust agreement between the County and the Trustee (as defined below).
Section 2. The County does hereby appoint the following individuals to the local finance board pursuant to Section 15.2-1547 of the Virginia Code to serve as the trustee (the "Trustee") with respect to the trust fund: the County Treasurer, the County Finance Director, and Michael W. Johnson, in his capacity as a citizen of the Commonwealth with proven integrity, business ability, and demonstrated experience in cash management and in investments. Mr. Johnson is appointed for a term of two years expiring on June 22, 2011.
Section 3. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, or either of them, are authorized to execute on behalf of the County the trust agreement, and, if required, the Clerk or Deputy or Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is authorized and directed to affix or to cause to be affixed the seal of the County to the trust agreement and to attest such seal. Such officers or their designees are authorized to execute and deliver on behalf of the County such instruments, documents or certificates, and to do and perform such things and acts, as they shall deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the transactions authorized by this resolution or contemplated by the trust agreement; and all of the foregoing, previously done or performed by such officers or agents of the County, are in all respects approved, ratified and confirmed.
Section 4. This resolution shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage.
Supervisor Brown moved, seconded by Supervisor Wyche, to adopt the resolution. All were in favor.
Supervisor Wyche recognized Officer Josh Wyche, of the Southampton County Sheriff’s Office, who was in the audience. Officer Wyche graduated from the FBI Academy on June 20. He (Supervisor Wyche) had the privilege to attend. There were 251 in the class, 7 of which were from the State of Virginia. Chairman Jones, Supervisor Wyche, and the other Board members congratulated Mr. Wyche.
Chairman Jones recognized Mr. Charles Turner, Division Superintendent of Southampton County Public Schools, who was in the audience.
Mr. Turner thanked the Board for their support. He thanked the Board and staff who came to the graduation. Over 2500 people attended the graduation. They were very proud to have 100% graduation. He noted that they also had 100% last year.
Vice-Chairman Young stated that the graduation was very nice and disciplined.
Chairman Jones stated that the Board was very proud of the schools.
The Board took a 5-minute recess.
Upon returning to open session, Mr. Johnson announced that it was necessary for the Board to conduct a closed meeting in accordance with the provisions set out in the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for the following purposes:
Section 2.2-3711 (A) (5) Discussion concerning prospective industries where no previous announcement has been made of the business’ or industry’s interest in locating its facilities in the community;
Section 2.2-3711 (A) (7) Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members related to actual litigation where such briefing in an open session would adversely affect the litigating posture of the public body;
Section 2.2-3711 (A) (1) Discussion of prospective candidates for employment; and
Section 2.2-3711 (A) (3) Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose (community water systems) where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body.
Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Wyche, to conduct a closed meeting for the purposes previously read.
Richard Railey, County Attorney, Jay Randolph, Assistant County Administrator, Julia Williams, Finance Director, Robert Barnett, Director of Community Development, and Julien Johnson, Public Utilities Director, were also present in the closed meeting.
Upon returning to open session, Vice-Chairman Young moved, seconded by Supervisor Wyche, to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF CLOSED MEETING
WHEREAS, the Southampton County Board of Supervisors had convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 (D) of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Southampton County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed and considered by the Southampton County Board of Supervisors.
Supervisors Voting Aye: Dallas O. Jones
Walter L. Young, Jr.
Walter D. Brown, III
Anita T. Felts
Moses Wyche
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Jones asked if there was anything else to come before this Board?
Supervisor Brown asked if Chairman Jones could prepare a proclamation, in which he did every year, for their Tribal Journal, The Waskahee? Chairman Jones replied that he would be glad to. Mr. Johnson, County Administrator, advised the he would put a proclamation together for Chairman Jones.
Vice-Chairman advised that we were losing our 4-H Agent, Erika Bonnett, on July 10 as she was leaving to take a job in Indiana where she would make $6,000 more a year and be able to go to school to get her Doctorate. The last time he talked to Lonnie Johnson, Southeast District Director for Virginia Cooperative Extension, he indicated that Erika’s position would not be filled due to the hiring freeze. We already did not have an extension agent and now we were losing our 4-H agent. Isle of Wight County did not have an extension or 4-H agent either. This put Southampton County in a serious situation. He thought Mr. Johnson should touch base with Lonnie Johnson.
Mr. Michael Johnson advised that we budgeted both the 4-H and extension agent positions in the budget. Perhaps they would put the budgeted amounts for each together and hire a 4-H agent or an extension agent, whichever was most important. Mr. Johnson indicated that he would be glad to contact Mr. Lonnie Johnson.
Supervisor Felts stated that Julien Johnson, Director of Public Utilities, represented the County well in the Womanless Beauty Pageant held in Sedley.
There being no further business, the meeting was recessed at 11:28 AM.
______________________________
Dallas O. Jones, Chairman
______________________________
Michael W. Johnson, Clerk
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- jackson county board of education alabama
- jackson madison county board of education
- jackson county board of education wv
- jackson madison county board of education tn
- jackson county board of education
- bergen county board of health
- jackson county board of education mckee ky
- shelby county board of education
- baltimore county board of education job
- jefferson county board of education jobs
- columbus county board of education
- richmond county board of education