june 2013 - buckingham county

Buckingham County Board of Supervisors June 10, 2013 Page 253

Buckingham County Board of Supervisors

Monthly Meeting June 10, 2013

At a regular monthly meeting of the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors held on Monday, June 10, 2013 at the Peter Francisco Auditorium of the Buckingham County Administration Complex, the following members were present: I. Monroe Snoddy, Chairman; Danny R. Allen, Vice Chairman; E.A. “Bill” Talbert; Joe N. Chambers, Jr.; Cassandra Stish; Donald E. Bryan; and John N. Staton. Also present were Rebecca S. Carter, County Administrator; Karl Carter, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca S. Cobb, Zoning Administrator and E.M. Wright, Jr., County Attorney. Re: Quorum Chairman Snoddy certified there was a quorum-seven members present. The meeting could continue. Re: Call to Order; Invocation; and Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Snoddy called the meeting to order. Supervisor Stish gave the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance was said by all who were in attendance. Re: Approval of Agenda Supervisor Talbert moved, Supervisor Stish seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to approve the agenda with the following addendum: Re: Approval of Minutes Supervisor Staton wanted to correct his statement from the May 20, 2013 work session. On Page 242 Paragraph 6, Supervisor Staton meant to state the following instead of what he had stated: 20-30 homes and the access road was not built to VDOT standards. Going to be politically untenable for any future Board to refuse to build it and County taxpayers will have to pay for this road. (This was in another county) The people who live in this subdivision can’t afford to do any better and they don’t have the money to fix the road to VDOT Standards. Supervisor Talbert moved, Supervisor Stish seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2013 and May 20, 2013 meetings as corrected.

Re: Approval of Claims Supervisor Talbert moved, Supervisor Stish seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to approve the claims as presented. Re: First Quarter Appropriations Supervisor Stish moved, Supervisor Chambers seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to approve the First Quarter Appropriations as presented:

$ General Fund 1,748,78

6

Water Fund 310,000 $ Sewer Fund 61,750 $

$ VPA Fund 715,182

$ **Courthouse Debt Service 549.030 $ ""Debt Service -Middle School 904,728 $ **Debt Service -Elementary School 2,113,18

1

Schools: 3,797,84

6 $ Instruction $ 287,895 Adm/Attn/Health

$ Transportation 494,764 $ Operations 514,095 $ 299,024 Cafeteria

$ Technology 256,773 Re: Announcements Talbert: If anyone is here tonight from my district are here tonight to speak on an issue that I don’t know how got started but anyway, I’ve got it down to know what I’m about to say is right, it got to me that we did not have a mutual agreement with the rescue squad in Prince Edward and that is not right. The chief, they have a chief on their side of the rescue squad and he said that it’s the same like it’s always been but they do need to work on it. They are meeting on the 25th

""'Actual Budget Numbers

Buckingham County Board of Supervisors June 10, 2013 54


and Mrs. Carter if you Sonny Gray on the next agenda, I’d appreciate it. He said he would come speak at the next meeting and explain what this is all about. That’s it. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Re: Presentation of Plaque of Appreciation Upon the Retirement of Tana Knott, Farmville Herald Carter: As some of you may or may not know, Tana Knott is going to be retiring so we are happy for her. She is going to be leaving doing our journalism. We are certainly going to miss the kindness she’s shown to our county. This plaque, the wording actually came from Tana to me describing how she tried to report our County. So Tana, the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors and Administrative staff…we feel like we have to include ourselves because we feel like we’ve kind of grown up together…appreciate your service as journalist reporting our county news by highlighting on the county’s history, the people and the sense of community. We wish you best wishes for your retirement. Tana received a standing ovation. Knott: Thank you all. Re: Public Comments There were none. Re: VDOT-Road Matters, Scot Shippee-Six Year Plan Procedures. Shippee: Good evening everyone. I’ll just give you a quick update on what we are doing. Our crews have been focusing mostly on mowing and clean up from the severe weather we’ve been having. The first round of mowing of the primaries have been complete. They are working on the paved secondaries. The way the things are going, by the time we get done with the secondaries, it will be time to hit the primaries again. So we are just trying to keep up. Over the next couple months, we will have contractors in the area doing surface treating on the roads that are currently on the maintenance schedule. That is scheduled for the last week in June. There will be plant mix overlay done on 636 from lot 15 at Shephards to a point west of 609. Not sure of the exact date of that work but it is upcoming. Rt. 700, Woodyard Road, Pearson Construction has communicated to us that they plan on beginning that work near the 1st of July. VDOT crews will be coordinating with them so that we can complete the rural rustic surface treatment for the remainder of Woodyard Road in conjunction with that intersection project. Other items, we submitted a traffic study request for signage that the Board requested at the last meeting at Buckingham Community Park. That is with the traffic department in Lynchburg and we will let you know something back on signage for that. Also, today was the first official day on the job for the new District Administrator, Chris Winsted. Hopefully once he gets settled in, he’ll have the opportunity to come out and meet everybody.


Last item I have is we need to schedule a public hearing for this years secondary six year plan. There were some unpaved road funds available for allocation this year for roads with a volume of over 200 vehicles per day. The only road in the county that met that criteria was 720 which is Georgia Creek Rd. on the north part of the county. That is the only addition to the plan. I know that normally you guys usually have a workshop prior to the public hearing on the plan but my understanding is that since there are no additional allocations available for this current year that we could distribute in the workshop so what I’d like to do is go ahead and wrap up the Six Year Plan for this year by holding a public hearing and focus on next year. That involves, in the winter, scheduling a workshop with you guys and discuss allocations from the transportation fund and how to best sort out funds and apply them to future projects. I think at that point we could have a more productive discussion of what roads we can add at that point. That’s all I have. Do you have any questions for me or anything I need to take a look at? Stish: Would you like this meeting in July? Shippee: If at all possible. From what I understand, it’s a little bit late getting this Six Year Plan process done this year because of waiting to see what was going to happen with transportation funds, so the quicker we can get this done the quicker we can move on to next years plan and actually getting something done. Supervisor Stish moved, Supervisor Allen seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to schedule a public hearing for July 8, 2013 at 7:15 p.m. for this year’s Secondary Six Year Plan. Staton: Scot, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the safety work at 658 and 659. I appreciate it. Shippee: I’ll pass it along. Talbert: Also, thank you for 636. The signs have really helped with the curves and things. As far as I know we haven’t had any accidents accept for a medical, a gentleman wrecked on a motorcycle but I think he was having a medical problem when it happened. Especially the big sign there at Shephards. Thank you so much. Bryan: I’ve got one concern. On 650 about 2 miles down the road when you get to the big field, they call it Long Bottom Field. There is water that stands in the road on the left hand side because it can’t make the ditch. Shippee: I’ll take a look at that. Stish: I just wanted to tell you thank you to Scot and his colleague Kevin came out to Yogaville to take a look at some concessions out there. We are working on those. Thank you.


Re: Introduction of 13-SUP-218 National Communications Tower Cobb: I have SUP request 13-SUP-218, applicant National Communications Tower applying for a Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications tower to be a 195’ monopole locate on Tax Map Sections 123, Parcels 3, Lot 0C, containing approximately 28 acres off of Rt. 631 Troublesome Creek Road in the Maysville Magisterial District. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 28, 2013. Curing that time we did hear comments from one person stating concerns of the tower falling onto his property. We also had a letter sent in opposing the tower for health reasons. The Planning Commission did recommend approval but did add a condition regarding the response of the adjacent landowners concerns. They are recommending approval with those conditions. 1) Tower shall be constructed to support a total of no less than six (6) wireless services providers of like antennas and feed lines. 2) The applicant attests that all feed lines and cables shall be installed within the monopole structure. 3) The applicant provides the County with the required NEPA and SHPO documentation 4) Monopole structure shall be maintained with all ports being sealed to prevent habitation of birds and other wildlife. 5) That all federal, state and local regulations, ordinances and laws be strictly adhered to. 6) In the event that anyone or more of the conditions is declared void for any reason whatever, such decision shall not affect the remaining portion of the permit, which shall remain in full force and effect, and for this purpose, the provisions of this are hereby declared to be severable 7) That any infraction of the above mentioned conditions could lead to a stop order and discontinuation of the special use permit, if it be the wishes of the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. 8) The County Zoning Administrator and one other County staff member, as appointed by the County Administrator, shall be allowed to enter the property at any time to check for compliance with the provisions of this permit. Upon entering the property the inspectors shall attempt to notify the landowner of their presence on the property. 9) If the building permit is not obtained within six (6) months from the date of approval then the Special Use Permit shall be null and void. 10) That the applicant (s) understands the conditions and agrees to the conditions. 11) Tower shall not be constructed until Ii tenant is ready to locate on the tower immediately after building. 12) The construction of the tower must be complete within 2 years from the date of approval or this permit will be null and void. 13) The tower shall be constructed to fall within the lease area upon failure. Upon seeking a building permit, the applicant must certify and provide construction plans showing


the break point technology. I ask tonight that you schedule a public hearing on this case. If you have any questions for the applicant, you can do that as well. Supervisor Stish moved, Supervisor Staton seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to schedule a public hearing for July 8, 2013 immediately following the previously scheduled public hearing to hear public comments regarding 13-SUP-218 National Communications Towers. Re: Rifle Hunting Ordinance and Regulations Carter: The purpose of this hearing is for the Board of Supervisors to hear public comment regarding: Rescinding the present Buckingham County Rifle Hunting Ordinance and approve the following language regarding Rifle Hunting in Buckingham County: There are no special ordinances on hunting game with firearms in Buckingham County, Virginia other than those set forth by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and any applicable federal laws. What are the differences? Regarding the use of a rifle while hunting? Presently Buckingham County Rifle Hunting Ordinance states that rifle hunting is only permitted from a tree stand. State regulations regarding rifles:

1. Rifles used for deer or bear must be .23 caliber or larger 2. Rifles (including air rifles) may be used for taking wild animals and wild birds except

migratory game birds and waterfowl, and where prohibited by local ordinance. 3. Rifles (including air rifles), pistols, and revolvers may be used for hunting crows, except

where prohibited by local ordinances. 4. Rifles (including air rifles), pistols, and revolvers may be used for hunting turkeys, except

where prohibited by local ordinances. 5. Pistols, revolvers, and muzzle loading pistols may be used for small game, except where

prohibited by local ordinances. 6. Pistols and revolvers are lawful for deer and bear hunting only in those counties where

deer and bear with rifles is lawful. Cartridges used must be .23 caliber or larger and have a manufacturer’s rating of 350 ft pounds muzzle energy or more.

7. Muzzle loading shotguns, muzzle loading rifles, or archery tackle may be used to hunt during the firearms seasons where not prohibited.


Before I turn this back over to the Chairman to open the public hearing, toward the end of last week, after I had done this presentation and today, I heard some comment regarding the ditch to ditch. The Board is not considering ditch to ditch this evening. That has been laid to rest by the County however; the State of Virginia can implement whatever they choose. So, but that is not an issue tonight. I will now turn this over to Chairman Snoddy for the public hearing. Snoddy: You’ve heard the regulations being talked about. Those who would like to speak, come up and speak. You will have three minutes to speak. Those who wish to speak can come and have your three minutes to let us know how you feel about the hunting. State your name and district that you come from. I declare the public hearing open. Jamie Oliver: I am Jamie Oliver and I’m from Mr. Snoddy’s district. Ladies and Gentleman of the Board, I’ve been a hunter in Buckingham for 41 years. I would like to say that the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has enough to do with the laws that we have to abide by. What you are trying to do tonight will give them all the say so of the county which they have enough…the county will have no say so in the laws. The county needs to keep the Game and Inland Fisheries out of Buckingham Business. We need to control our own laws. In my personal opinion, we shouldn’t change the laws we already have. If people don’t want to hunt from a tree stand with a rifle, then get on the ground and shoot a shotgun. You all are supposed to represent the people of Buckingham so let the people tonight show you what they want done. All the people opposed to this law, please stand up. (A majority of the public stood up. An official county was not taken) Thank you. The Dog Hunters of Buckingham. Sherry Ragland: Good afternoon. I am Sherry Ragland and I’m with Cassandra Stish’s district, #5. James River District. I think the only thing I want to make clear and understand is that we have a lot of people that when you are saying that you are rescinding, you are going to rescind the motion that you made last time that you are going to…explain to me what you meant by rescind. Stish: Rescind means to essentially repeal or revoke our existing ordinance and replace it with the State model which is what Becky read. Ragland: Currently, my understanding is that Buckingham has 12 and 60 as an exception of the local firearms ordinance. Is that right? Carter: What is 12 and 60? Ragland: Hunting with no larger than a…let me see…12 is the ditch to ditch. The 60 is it shall be unlawful to hunt with a rifle larger than a .22 rimfire or centerfire rifle with a larger caliber may be used to hunt from a stand 10 ft from the ground. That is one of the exceptions that’s currently…so when you are saying you are rescinding, you are going to revoke all of that and you are saying put the State ordinances and evidently not stating any exceptions except for what you read. Is that right?


Carter: They are not exceptions. That’s the state law. Ragland: There are 60 exceptions that you can… Stish: No exceptions. There will be no county ordinance so no exceptions. Ragland: So on behalf of Lynn buck Hunt Club, they are the ones that had me come up here, they are saying that they don’t want that. They want to leave it as because in fear of later on down the road, it’s going to eliminate dog hunting which a lot of people are trying to do that anyway. The other thing that I’m fearful for is when you start using rifles on the ground, I’m afraid it’s going to start going in people’s homes. You have careless people that don’t know the terrain of Buckingham County. Sometimes you have straight and sometimes you have curves when you shoot through the woods. That’s my 2¢. Thank you. Bobby Jones: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Administrator, my name is Bobby Jones. I live in District 1. What I have to say is this and please listen. I care not which way you vote tonight. Whether you vote for or you vote against. But please, this has been going around for so long and spending the taxpayers money on something that is as frivolous as this is. Please vote on something tonight. Thank you. Pete Kapuscinski: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, I couldn’t agree more whole heartedly. But I will tell you, I was born and raised in a state and at the time hunting from a stand was outlawed. There were hilly areas in that state where I hunted on flat land, some of the areas were more remotely populated and some county properties were considerably more populated…more like Farmville and the surrounding communities. When I hunted the hilly areas, I sought the highest, clearest point to hunt from and it helped me see game coming much more clearly and anything around the target that may have presented a danger when I planted my rifle. When I hunted, I tried to find a clear shooting range but in cases the job was considered more difficult. I feel fortunate to have been brought up in a family where those who tutored me cared more about safety and the law than killing an animal. But that isn’t always the case and even when it is there is can always be accidents. The trick is to do the right thing to avoid as much danger as possible in order the make the sport safe and enjoyable both for those that hunt and for the bystander that may or may not hunt. When I finally moved to a state where hunting from a stand was legal I found it to be a great advantage. It happened to be Texas, not only did I hunt flatland, but cutover pine was mostly where we found our deer. My son was a beginner hunter at the time and having gone through all the proper training I could afford to give him at the time, I was glad that he could also perch himself above the foliage and have a clear view of both the target and the surrounding possible impediments. For me, hunting from a stand was safer. Where I hunted was Michigan where it was outlawed, and Michigan’s hunting accident rate, some of you might find astounding. It was nothing to read about an accident on a daily basis. Some of those were terrible tragedies. I don’t know how much of that was attributed to hunting from the ground but having hunted for over 50 years in many different states, I can’t help believe that stand hunting with a rifle particularly in areas as populated a place as Buckingham would be much safer. I don’t know which way you are going to vote, but I will tell


you this. I can hunt from either side, but if you do decide to allow hunting from the ground, you may want to enforce rigorously not hunting from a moving vehicle and wearing hunter orange because it will be accidents in this county. Thank you. Wayne Sears: Good evening. I’m from District 5. The people who want to hunt with shotguns and dogs or whatever, hunting with rifles from the ground is not going to deprive them of what they want or what they want to do. We are not out there to stop anybody from doing the hunting that they’ve been doing. Furthermore, if rifles are so dangerous, how come shotguns sitting on the side of the road aren’t dangerous. People can get shot; I don’t care where you are at. If you’ve got them lined up on the side of the road, I’ve seen it myself. I’ve seen it. People lining up on the side of the road leaning on their truck waiting for a deer to cross the road. I’d rather be in the woods with a rifle. All I’m saying is that we are not trying to take away anything from those who want to hunt with shotguns. You can hunt with a water pistol as far as I care. Don’t take something away from us just because you want something you’ve got. Thank you. Doug Oliver: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Doug Oliver. I’m from District 6. My family has been hunting in District 1 and District 6 since 1970 with the hunting club my grandfather started. We get along just fine right now with hunting 10 feet elevated off the ground. If anybody shoots, if they have the adjacent land next to you, if you are above the ground at least you know you can’t see more than 30 or 40 yards in Buckingham County unless it’s across clear cut. So if they are shooting even if in your direction, it’s in a safe area. You know it’s going towards the ground. But what you are getting ready to adopt here is I can go quail hunting and shoot up in the air. I’m a firearms instructor for the Department of Criminal Justice Service and what goes up, will come down. It’s going to go through that crow and come down somewhere. It’s going to go through that turkey and it’s going to hit somewhere. Again, less velocity behind buckshot. It’s not going to travel as far. There are underlying things here. You asked to be elected. Nobody came to you and said you are representing this district. You asked. Well represent the majority of the people. There are underlying factors behind this. Go look at any hunting site found, and people from Richmond or east of Richmond are offering top dollar for land all the way up to Cumberland County. Call any of those numbers and ask them why they don’t want land in Buckingham. They will tell you because you can’t hunt with rifle from the ground. The people, all these guys behind me, from the hunting clubs who for years have struggled to keep the land that they have. Bring in rifles, and these guys dues will double. Our dues will go up 100%. What it costs us will go up 100%. They might not see it, but I see it. Because your job is not today. It’s tomorrow, it’s next year, it’s next month, it’s the next decade. Go look at the children that hunt in our hunt club. My daughter is one of them. Six years old. Tell her in ten years from now when she’s got half the land and paying the same amount of dues because we can’t get buy. That you did what was best for Buckingham County. That’s what you do. Because that’s what you’ve got to look at. That’s what you are bringing in. I’m a resident, life long Buckingham. Four generations live right here in this County. I’m looking out for me because people away from here are not going to look out for us. Those are the people who can afford more than we can afford. So that’s what you need to look at. Unlock the lot, crack the door open and they are going to kick it in on us. That is the underlying factor with this. You are asking for people to come in and bid more for our land and take it out from under us. Our dues will be the same and our land will be half or our dues will double to keep what we’ve got. If you don’t believe me, go on some hunting site forums tonight and call those phone numbers and ask


them why they don’t want land in Buckingham and it’s because you can’t hunt with rifle from the ground. Thank you and make the right choice for Buckingham today, tomorrow and in the future. Thank you. Bill McDaniel: I’m Bill McDaniel and I’m from the Glenmore District. I’d like to see rifle hunting from the ground mostly because a lot of us have medical problems and don’t need to be climbing up a tree. Older people don’t need to be climbing up a tree. You still haven’t addressed the issue where this thing originally arose from when they made the change back a few years ago about hunting with rifles from a tree, it took away the legal right of fireman to shoot from the ground with a centerfire rifle. Right there is where this thing originated from. As far as safety, rifles are…we had one guy here at a meeting that laid out some statistics that showed that rifle hunting from the ground was safer than buckshot. Like Mr. Sears said, we are not trying to infringe on the dog hunter, we just want the same privilege that they have. Thank you. Clarence Catlett: Good evening. My name is Clarence Catlett and I’m from Mr. Snoddy’s district. I’ve been a hunter for 62 years. 58 of those years, I’ve been hunting with a rifle starting out with a 22 and I’ve never had an accident and never shot nobody. That shows you that if people hunt safe like they should they won’t have to worry about shooting somebody out in the woods. If you are shooting at something, look at what you are going to shoot. 99% of the people who hunt out here with rifles have scopes on them and they can see a whole lot better than a man standing there with a shotgun can see down through the woods. That’s my thoughts on the rifle hunting. I’d like to see you pass it. Another thing I would like to make clear, Mr. Allen had this up with the ditch to ditch thing and it was voted down. If you get the game laws and read them, and I have them right here, and I’ll quote it, “Shooting from the road is illegal. Shooting at wildlife from a vehicle in or from or across from a public road is illegal.” What you brought up is already in effect. You didn’t need to vote on it. Thank you. Eddie Wood: Good evening Mr. Chairman. My name is Eddie Wood from District 1. I spoke to you a couple months ago at one of the other meetings when there were just as many people here supporting this as there is here tonight standing up opposing it. Some of the statistics I read that night and I’m not going to bore you with the details, but the facts are that in the last ten years, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, the facts are undisputed that you are 5 times more likely to get shot by a deer hunter in Virginia if that deer hunter is hunting with a shot gun than with a rifle. Of the 170 some shooting in Virginia in the past 10 years, there were 5 times more people that got shut by shotguns hunters and rifle hunters. That alone was an astonishing fact that surprised myself even though I was looking at those numbers. Some of the other things that have been brought up tonight, you’ve had a lot of emotion about renting land and such as that, I’m a land owner, I’m a farmer. I need and deserve as a citizen of this county the right to protect my cattle. The way it stands today, I’m limited to what I can and can not use to kill coyotes in my backyard if they happen to be attacking my cattle. That’s just not right. I’m the one that owns the land. I’m the one that pays taxes on the land. I deserve the right to use the rifle that I have to protect my livestock. Then again, you hear a lot of emotion from some of the speakers. I understand that. There is a lot of emotion on both sides but the facts are shotgun hunting is more dangerous than rifle hunting and the landowners deserve the right to protect their livestock. Thank you.


Perry Warner: Good evening Members of the Board. I’ll take a few minutes here. I understand what everyone is saying but if I’m going to be coming from Richmond or elsewhere and I’m looking to lease land to hunt and I’ve got money, I’m going to be looking for the top ten of the number of deer taken and the biggest bucks. Buckingham is not in the top 10. We are not. This whole thing about rifle and shotgun needs to come to an end. Ok. It does. The man told the truth just a minute ago. I’ve been all around the world. I’ve been all over the US and hunted with it all. Shotgun is more dangerous than a rifle. Not because of the weapon but because of the person behind it and the respect they put into it. That is a God’s honest fact. Shotguns are not looking 100 yards. They are looking right there. You are not shooting deer 30 yards with a rifle. You are shooting 200 yards on your farm. On your property. There is a lot of taxpayers in this county that own property. There is a lot of clubs out here that hunt. I’m a part of a club. We don’t use dogs. I don’t care if you do or don’t. That’s fine. But why I as a hunter not have the privilege to do what a majority of the state can do but I can’t do it in Buckingham County. I grew up in Buckingham. I went in the military and came home. How is that fair to me to pay taxes all these years and own the farms we have and can’t hunt with a rifle. I pay as much as everybody else. I lease land around me and pay as much as everybody else. They are not going to come in here from Richmond. They have to have permission to hunt. They’ve either have to hunt state land, or become a member of your club or you as a landowner have to give them permission. That’s the facts. But whatever the decision is, it does need to be done tonight. Thank you. Larry Baker: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Larry Baker. I own a home here in Buckingham County and hunted here for at least 45 years. The previous public hearing, Mrs. Stish had the designation of a certain location would not work. The situation that you have on here now, obviously would not work. Maybe a slight revenue source if someone violates the ordinance. The money won’t go to the state but the county but that’s negligible. The gentleman that quoted statistics are irrefutable. When the man says you can get killed more with a shotgun than a rifle, who are we to…he’s a statistician. He put it together. The other thing is to ask this gentleman, who just spoke, by the way I’m an avid dog hunter. I’ve had dogs since I was twelve and own a dog now, nothing wrong with hunting with dogs. I’m for it. But an 80 year man, to ask him to climb up in a stand to shoot a coyote or shoot anything else or to designate to him what kind of weapon he can shoot is totally foolish. The state experts with the laws that the state puts out, these are experts. They’ve been in the business for 70 or 80 years in law enforcement and game designation and what can be shot with what. The thing we don’t understand, Mr. Oliver, I applaud him for ethical hunting, but 4% of the people in the State of Virginia buy hunting license. That means 96% that do not buy a hunting license. I would say a lot of those are landowners but that 96% can vote hunting totally out in the state at any time. You say oh no, the law won’t allow it. All they’ve got to do is refuse to allow you to come on his land. Every hunter in Buckingham would be in the State Forest. How would that fair? We’ve got to learn to respect the landowner and the 80 year old man. As far as the statistics are concerned he’s wrong. You are going to die falling from a tree stand. That’s where the accidents are. Why do you suppose the guard that walks behind prisoners, why don’t he carry a 30 06. He carries a pump shotgun because it’s more dangerous to the guy running. If it were a hunter shooting a shotgun, it would be more dangerous for the hunters in the woods. It would be much safer for the prisoner if he shot him with a rifle. Much safer. You need to allow the hunter, the landowner, the 80 year


old man to hunt on the ground. Rely on the statistics, rely experts with the Game Commission and vote to put the man on the ground where he legally should be. I’m not sure you can force him to get up a tree. Supreme Court ruled he can carry a gun. I appreciate your openness in Government by the way. But I don’t think legally the Supreme Court would allow you to make that man climb a tree. I appreciate your time. Meade Garrett, Jr.: My name is Meade Garrett. I’m in Mr. Talbert’s district. I was late getting here and I was reading the Board about changing the ordinance. My concern is, I don’t care what you do with the rifle, but my concerns is that we are going to turn our firearms regulations to the Game and Inland Fisheries, it may be good or it may not. But what’s good in Chesterfield ain’t good in Buckingham. I’m not signaling anybody out. Yall are elected officials but if we let the Game and Inland Fisheries tell us what’s good in Buckingham, then we don’t need yall. Just put it point blank. Chairman Snoddy declared the public hearing closed. Allen: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to speak. I’m kind of the one who brought this back up because I wasn’t here last month for the meeting and I felt I let the people down that I said I was going to vote for it. My main objective was go get the people out of the trees because I’ve got two good friends that fell out of trees. One broke his back and was paralyzed and one that broke his back and was lucky enough to walk again and I didn’t want to see anybody else have to do that because of an ordinance that I had part of. So, listening to what everyone is saying it’s more to than what we have up here so by removing all of Buckingham control and giving it back to Game and Inland Fisheries, we are giving up too much control. We are giving up our rights, maybe. I don’t know if you all see where I’m going but we don’t want them to have all the control. So, I’ve got a different idea than what started it off. 1. To rescind my motion that says give up all of Buckingham’s ordinance. Then come back with an ordinance that will get people out of the trees and still be able to hunt. I’m not a good reader, can one of yall…Read the dark part. Stish: For the records, this is Supervisor Allen’s proposal: to hunt deer and bear from a stand elevated at least 10 feet from the ground or within a ten (10) foot perimeter from a stationary, pre-identified and marked point, such point having been established by an easily visible fixed marker, (such as but not limited to a ribbon around a tree or a pin placed in the ground with a ribbon or flag attached), with .23 or larger caliber. However, such rifles can only be loaded while the hunter is in the elevated tree stand, within the 10 feet of the stationary pre-identified and marked point, if ground hunting, or while attempting to recover wounded game within a 300 yard perimeter of the elevated stand from which the game was shot. This is an extension of where I was trying to go earlier in the process. Allen: What it does here is it gives you the option to go 10 feet up in the tree if you want to or you can sit down at the tree and be in a10 feet perimeter of the stand. Public: You are identifiable because you are wearing blaze orange.


Allen: No, the stand has to be identifiable. Not you. Staton: Order Mr. Chairman. Public: That’s what she was saying. You go out there and put a stand up and you have to be close to that. Talbert: Mr. Allen, what you are saying is that it will be legal to hunt with rifles from the ground. Allen: Yes, you can hunt with rifles on the ground. Stish: But with some qualification. Talbert: Everything’s got qualifications to it. I know the man he’s talking about, he spoke here once before. He said to please not let this happen to anybody else. This gentleman in my district, they don’t know if he had a heart attack or what but he fell out the stand and dead when he hit the ground. We don’t know about that. Allen: It’s giving you the option. If you don’t want to get up the tree that’s fine. Talbert: Is that in form of a motion? Allen: That is in form of a motion. Carter: We need clarification. Does this require a public hearing? Stish: We need clarification and I’m almost positive we would have to have another hearing. Allen: No. Mr. Wright wrote this up. Carter: I thought it was said that the language wasn’t enforceable. What is the difference between this language and what was determined before that wouldn’t be enforceable? Stish: It was said that it would be enforceable with changes, so I’m assuming these are the changes that make it enforceable where you would have the marker identifying the stand. Carter: Perhaps, that can be read again. Allen: Read it slowly. Stish: to hunt deer and bear from a stand elevated at least 10 feet from the ground or within a ten (10) foot perimeter from a stationary, pre-identified and marked point, such point having been established by an easily visible fixed marker, (such as but not limited to a ribbon around a


tree or a pin placed in the ground with a ribbon or flag attached), with .23 or larger caliber. However, such rifles can only be loaded while the hunter is in the elevated tree stand, within the 10 feet of the stationary pre-identified and marked point, if ground hunting, or while attempting to recover wounded game within a 300 yard perimeter of the elevated stand from which the game was shot. The intention, if I may, why we are trying to straddle this is not because of the lawful and mindful person. Why we are trying to straddle this is because of the people who may be coming into the county who may not know the terrain. Or who may be inclined to shoot from a vehicle or from a right of way even though they are not supposed to. If the law is not on the books, you have nothing to leverage against it. So, we are attempting to find something that works for everyone. Snoddy: Is that your motion? Talbert: Mr. Chairman, I’d just simply say, one of the statements, I forgot who made it, it’s not the gun that kills people, it’s the people that kills people. I used to hunt all the time back 40-45 years ago, I gave it up, if we pass this ordinance, I might start back because now I live to hunt groundhog and can’t even shoot one out the back door but the point of it is, a guy jumped off the tail gate of a pickup truck with a shotgun right below my house, they used to call it Percy Rucker’s Road, Buck Agee was living then and was on the rescue squad, when he jumped off, that gun went off and went into the windshield and hit that guy, Buck said you couldn’t imagined any closer to the center of his heart. Killed him immediately. Now that wasn’t the gun. That was the stupid guy that jumped off the truck. Call it accident. Call it what you want to call it. Supervisor Allen moved, Supervisor Talbert seconded to make the above change to what will be called the Stationary Rifle Hunting ordinance for Buckingham County. Bryan: So Mr. Chairman, what I see is a yes vote means to ignore all the people in this crowd. Snoddy: Yes. Bryan: To vote yes, means we go against what everyone in this room wants and that’s to not have rifle hunting in the county and leave it as it is. Talbert: May I respond to that Mr. Chairman? When we first started this, there were more people here that were for rifles than it is tonight. Bryan: I bet if we had another dozen hearings, Mr. Talbert, we would have equally as many people and waste just as much money. How many times are we going to vote on an ordinance when there is more people don’t want it? Talbert: Well, I don’t think it showed tonight makes that much difference. We’ve had three hearings, and there were just as many for it and it was against it. The fact of it is, the one’s that are here tonight, and I love dog hunting. You’ll never see me go against hunting with dogs. But


they are scared that somebody is going to come up with the idea to go against dogs. I don’t think in the next 20 years it’s going to happen. It may happen the next 20 years because they aren’t going to be able to afford to feed them. The public started shouting comments from the audience. Talbert: Mr. Chairman, you’ve had your opportunity to speak, please give the Board the courtesy to talk. Whether you are for the law or against the law, the fact of it is, when they said something about getting rid of the dogs, nobody is for getting rid of dogs. That’s not the issue here. It’s not the rifle, it’s the hunting with the dogs and that is a shame. The public started shouting comments again. Talbert: Mr. Chairman, can you get order out here so I can talk. The point of it is, we are not changing anything the Game Commission already has out there, we are just simply saying and I admire Mr. Allen for saying it but get the rifle out of the tree and quit paralyzing people. Staton: Mr. Chairman, a couple comments. We’ve kicked around a lot of figures and statistics at times; we don’t know what’s behind those statistics. I receive the Virginia State accidents reports every year. I’ll get the 2012 one after the first of July. Now, we hear that shotguns are more dangerous than rifles and vice-versa. The statistics in my view are skewered a little bit because it’s about 10 to 1 shotguns as there is rifles. (2) if anybody who has a medical problem or problem with a tree stand, the state provides an exemption. All you have to do is file for it. You can get that exemption if you have age, which was mentioned tonight. I see a gentleman in the back who is 80 years old and he still uses tree stands. Age is not necessarily a barrier. In those accident reports that I have read, 80% of them or more are operator error. I taught hunter safety for 28 years, the criteria was that you use a safety harness and the latest criteria is to use a parachute type harness. If you lose your tree stand, you can hang there all day in that thing and it’s not going to hurt you. At some point, whether it’s me or anybody in this audience, we are responsible for our own actions to a degree. Now the gentleman they are talking about, I don’t know the case history, but I think that in my opinion, I would like to see it stay the way it is. Stish: Since the others have had a chance to speak, I tell you it was a surprise to have Mr. Allen bring this this evening. It is essentially a more flushed out version of what I had initially brought forward as a compromise. I like it. Mainly because it keeps Buckingham control. It solves the problem of having aging hunters or young hunters, like a grandfather and young hunter, they don’t have to be in a tree stand, they can be in a blind. No necessarily along the roadways with a rifle. This is not going to compete with or impede the activity of the dog groups. This is the only way…it settles the concerns of my landowners. My non-hunting landowners who have called me. They don’t show up here but they are the silent majority who have let me know in no uncertain terms that they are deeply concerned and they know I’m going to do the right thing by looking out for their wellbeing and safety which is what I’m charged with. That is what we are all charged with up here. I never want to give up local control. It’s messy. We might have to have hearing after hearing to come together as a community. We are going to listen to each other. We will have difference of opinion but every time a locality gives up control and hands it


over to the state, we’ve sold out a little bit of ourselves. We need to stay true to Buckingham which means coming together like this and listening to each other. You may not get everything that you wanted. You may have to give up something once in a while but that’s ok. You just keep showing up. That’s how good communities are built. Be engaged. Keep showing up guys. I really appreciate it. I appreciate everyone showing up and sharing tonight. Staton: By this vote we are removing what was advertised, and supplementing it with Danny’s new motion. Snoddy: That’s what I understand. Talbert: This motion means that you are allowing rifle on the ground. Carter: Within 10 feet… Stish: Within 10 feet of a blind or fixed location. Supervisor Allen moved, Supervisor Talbert seconded to make the above change to what will be called the Stationary Rifle Hunting ordinance for Buckingham County. This motion passed with a 4-3 vote. Supervisors Allen, Stish, Chambers, and Talbert voting in favor. Supervisors Snoddy, Bryan and Staton opposing. Talbert: You put no up there, is that what you want to vote? Snoddy: Yes. I’ve got enough people here to catch me if I don’t. (The ordinance will be attached as a separate page to these minutes) Re: Buckingham County Library, Chip Davis, Library Building Chip Davis: Thank you very much. I’m Ivan “Chip” Davis. I’m here tonight on a different capacity than you normally see me. I’m here working with the Buckingham County Library. You have before you a letter sent to you by Pat Howe. I was volunteered to help the Library Board with the construction of the new library. I know some of you have been at events where they have been doing some fundraising to build a new library in the county. They have been very successful. They’ve hired an architect, Rosney Architect, Julie Dixon. I have just begun the phase of working with them in an advisory capacity as a volunteer. In starting they have a grant for site development to get plans and get things going. Off the bat, one of the first things we noticed when we looked at the site was that it was probably not the best site that the library could use for construction. In looking at it…I live downstream from the site, and the site is pretty much where the headwater of the creek begins. If any of you go up and look at the site, it’s very attractive. It’s a nice site. I think they are happy to get it. But in my opinion and Mrs. Dixon’s opinion and in working with the engineering firm that they hired, they will have to spend a lot of money in site development. It’s going to cost them a whole lot of money before they can even start building. Therefore, they would like to request that the Board of Supervisors


consider trading the land adjacent to them but closer to Main Street, I believe its 13815 Main Street or 1003 Main Street. It would be right there at the entrance to the Industrial Park. They are looking at a $3 million building. It’s a huge investment that will be done with private funds. It will be a public building. It will represent all of us. Everybody in the county will benefit from it and I think it would be a nice focal point to Main Street, Dillwyn in Buckingham. It’s right there at the intersection. It would be a much better location. We would like for you to consider this before we start test borings. We would appreciate it if the Board of Supervisors would entertain trading for the site next door. Talbert: I don’t have a problem with it Chip. I think the ideal place would be up there were Maynard Davis cleared off that land but I know that would be too expensive to buy the land. But I think that would be an ideal place for it. I voted for giving yall the land for the simple reason I don’t think any of want to go against the library. I think it’s a poor location too. Davis: I wasn’t involved when any of this happened. I just got involved in recent months and jut walking the site and looking at it with my farmers hat and all the other experiences I’ve had in my life, it just came to me that this was not the best place to build. Carter: They are actually asking for the site right in front of it. Stish: Where the current soccer is happening? Is there someplace else for the kids to play soccer? Carter: Right in front of Bullock Brothers. They are there temporary. They know that we market that site. We would need to find a new location. But you will have to have a public hearing regarding this matter. Bryan: How much land is on Dillwyn Primary? How far back does that go? Davis: Back to the wood. It’s a narrow strip across the road. Part of that that makes it attractive is that the site where the primary school is and the playgrounds over there, probably couldn’t be developed because Harold Davis has the land behind it and it’s a narrow strip kind of makes it an ideal park location which we are already using it for that. Staton: To answer your question, Mr. Bryan, if I remember correctly. It’s about 13-14 acres on that tract. Davis: Yes, it’s over 10 acres there. Supervisor Talbert moved, Supervisor Stish seconded and was unanimously carried by the board to schedule a public hearing to see what the public has to say about trading the properties as requested by the Library Board for July 8, 2013 immediately following the previously scheduled hearings.


Talbert: By the way, Chip. Thank you for your work on the school on Rt. 20. It’s a start of the art building and saved a lot of money on it. I appreciate it. Re: Social Services Board Request for Appointment From memo from Braxton Apperson: There will be a vacancy on the Social Services Board beginning July. Betty Toney will complete her second four year term on the Social Services Board at the end of June. She is not eligible for reappointment to a third term according to State code. She has been a good and faithful Board member and has chaired the Board the past six years. In the past the Board of Supervisors has been interested in receiving information in receiving information about who might have an interest in service on the Social Services Board. So, I pass along for the Board’s consideration, that I do know Linda Paige of Dillwyn is interested in serving on the Social Services Board. The term would be for four years beginning July 2013 extending through June 2017. Supervisor Talbert moved, Supervisor Chambers seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to appoint Linda Paige to the Social Services Board for a four year term beginning July 2013 and ending June 2017. Re: Commissioner of Revenue: Consider reimbursement of $1,102.30 in taxes paid in error Dwelling transferred to TM 78-15C1 from TM 78-15C in 2006 was entered by square foot not by sketch. Failed to delete manually when added to TM 78-15C1. Commissioner of the Revenue Midkiff respectfully requests that Dorothy M. Tinsley be reimbursed for the $1,102.20 taxes paid in error. Supervisor Stish moved, Supervisor Bryan seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to approve the reimbursement of $1,102.20 in taxes paid in error to Dorothy M. Tinsley. Re: Karl Carter: Fire Training Facility: Request for Gold Hill School Flag Pole Mr. Carter: The Buckingham County Burn Building Fire Training Committee would like to make a request to ask for the flag pole at the Gold Hill School. If the request is granted, the flag pole would be erected at the fire training facility. Members of the training committee will be responsible for the excavating and transportation of the flag pole to the site so there will be no costs to the County. They have been wanting to purchase a flag pole for a year or two now but


didn’t want to spend the funds so they thought this would be the better way to go, moving it from one County property to another. Supervisor Talbert moved, Supervisor Stish seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to approve for the Burn Building Training Facility Committee to move the flag pole from Gold Hill School to the Burn Building Facility. Re: Karl Carter, Piedmont Area Transit: Arvonia Trial Route Mr. Carter: It was the consensus of the Board to allow Piedmont Area Transit to do a six month trial bus route from Arvonia to Farmville to see how many people would take advantage of the services. The county agreed to pay an additional $2000 for the six month trial. I have talked with Piedmont Area Transit and they said that the ridership for the Arvonia route is significantly lower than expected. She said that the ridership is as low as 5 riders a month. Not many people are taking advantage of the service. They agreed to keep the route going until you make a decision of whether to continue the route or not. I am asking you do you want to continue the route or do another trial run? Chambers: Only five riders, I think we should discontinue it. Snoddy: I didn’t even know the bus was running. Stish: That’s what I was going to get to… Snoddy: I had talked to them about putting out some flyers and get it announced to the churches and business places so they could get some riders but nobody ever did mention it. Stish: Can we try it for another trial and try to get some word out? Carter: How many months do you want to try it? Snoddy: Well, if they are not going to advertise it and tell people where the stops are going to be and that sort of thing, you know, we don’t… Mr. Carter: I did see flyers. I don’t know where they were distributed but I did see that it was advertised. Bryan: When we first voted on that, it was based on ridership. With only 5 people, it’s not worth the money we’ve spent. I agree with Mr. Chambers to discontinue the route. Snoddy: I agree with you. Stish: I don’t think the words gone out.


Supervisor Bryan moved, Supervisor Allen seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to discontinue the Arvonia Route with Piedmont Area Transit due to lack of ridership. Re: School System Request to Adjust FY13-14 Budget Mr. Carter: As you recall during our budget sessions, the School Board had not received their final budget numbers from the state. The final numbers have been received and are attached. The numbers show a total school budget of $22,601,586 with a local appropriation of $6,047,678. The final state numbers reflect a small increase in ADM from 1975 to 1978.93. These final numbers also represent an increase in other state and federal funds of $78,696 from what the Board advertised in April. You should have the adopted sheets in your packet and I ask that you make a motion to accept this adjustment. Supervisor Stish moved, Supervisor Talbert seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to approve the schools adjustment to the state and federal numbers for the FY13-14 budget. Re: Treasurer’s Office Request for Carry-over of Funds From Memo: Treasurer’s Office budget had unspent money at the end of 2012. We are in need of computers, printers and training through the Treasurer Association of Virginia. I respectfully request your approval to carry over $10,000 so those needs can be met. Stish: Are they getting a battery backup in there? I’ve been in there twice and the computers have gone down and they didn’t have the battery backups. She was saying that Jamie was going to come down there and put some battery backups in there. Mr. Carter: I don’t know what they are going to purchase but we will make sure they do. Re: General Properties: Consider General Properties Maintenance Options Mrs. Carter: The General Properties has acquired two additional sites for mowing and weed eating. Tommy has advised that we do not have enough equipment or man power to handle the two additional sites. I have approved for him to purchase additional weed eaters however the larger expenses such as a new mower must be approved by the Board. We have discussed several options. The Dillwyn Primary maintenance of grounds obligation will end the middle of July when the Social Services will move back to the Administration Complex area. The County also has all of the solid waste sites to maintain along with the entrance markers of each county boundary entrance. We have discussed contracting out the Gold Hill as it is a large area. We have discussed hiring additional personnel. We have discussed purchasing another mower and using the Regional Jail Inmates on each Thursday to assist with the maintenance of grounds. Our mover is about 7 years old so regardless we soon


need to purchase a new mower. The Recreation Department has agreed to assist with the back part of the Dillwyn Primary School and the playground area of Gold Hill. It is my recommendation that the County purchases a new mower and use the Regional Jail Inmates to assist with the seasonal maintenance of grounds. The bids received for a mower are as follows: 1. Southworth Auto and Paving Equipment: Model MzT61- 61” deck, 30 HP. Three year engine warranty and 2 year Transmission $4,700.00 2. Dillwyn Power Service: Model MzT61- 61 “deck, 30 HP. Three year engine warranty and 2 years mower warranty. $5,349.00 3. Scottsville Power Equipment: Snapper Pro 28 HP Briggs and Stratton- 61 “deck 2 year warranty. $6,740.00 Talbert: Mrs. Carter, where is Southworth Auto and Paving located? Carter: Cumberland. Staton: What is the difference between the first two bids, Mrs. Carter? Carter: We couldn’t find any difference. Staton: No, I mean in price. Carter: $649 Staton: That’s what I had in my head. Talbert: I’d like to stick with local people. We can justify it by not having to take it all the way to Cumberland to get it worked on. Can we justify giving it to the next bid, $5,349 to keep business in the County? We’ve done it on other things. Carter: We’ve done it before, yes. Supervisor Talbert moved, Supervisor Stish seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to award the bid to Dillwyn Repair Service at a price of $5,349 for the 2013 lawn mower with the justification of buying it locally will save money on repairs being done locally. Re: Piedmont Senior Resources: Consider reappointment of Joyce Wilson Joyce Wilson has served many years as the County representative to the Piedmont Senior Resources and is eligible for reappointment.


Stish: Is there any issue with this? I got a call saying that this person had already served two terms and then they didn’t have appointments for a while and their Board wasn’t compliant with their bylaws and there was a bunch of rigamonroe over this. Did you get anything on this? Carter: There are some problems going on with that. They are working on their bylaws. What they are saying is that Joyce hadn’t been reappointed for years and years and found that most of their members hadn’t been reappointed. They are really trying to reorganize now. So the Board does have the option of reappointing her unless they change something in the bylaws. Stish: So at this point, they will be starting off with a fresh…some will be old people but it’s as if they were starting fresh. Carter: Some will be old people and some will not. Stish: Ok. She wishes to return? Carter: Yes. Stish: Ok. Thank you. Supervisor Chambers moved, Supervisor Talbert seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to reappoint Joyce Wilson as the County’s representative to the Piedmont Senior Resources. Re: Consider Submittal of a Letter of Interest in CDBG Communications Study Grant Mrs. Carter: Yes, we met with Mary Hickman and Community Development Block Grant people to look into any Planning Grants that might be available to help us do a study to implement a plan to better serve our Buckingham County residents with internet communications. What we found is possibly up to $25,000 per project may be available for telecommunication planning grants. They have experience that the maximum available for telecommunications planning grants is not sufficient to complete the activities. However, applicants are expected to show additional funding is available and committed prior to receiving a planning grant offer. However we can send a letter of interest and express and make application and then at that time decide if you want to move forward. It is my recommendation that you allow me to send a letter of interest on your behalf and move forward, and then at the time of award, we would have the decision to make if you chose to put up money to move forward with the plan. Supervisor Talbert moved, Supervisor Allen seconded and was unanimously carried by the board to accept the County Administrator’s recommendation and send a letter of interest for a Community Development Block Grant for a communications planning grant.


Re: Consider request from Diahn Simonini for “Caution Children Playing” signs for 604 Letter from Ms. Simonini: On behalf of the Yogaville Community Association, I would like to request the aid of the Board in procuring some signs for the safety of children along Route 604, the Woodland Church side of that route. We could use such signage as “Caution Children Playing”, “Please drive slowly, Children at Play”, “Drive Slowly, We Love our Children”. With the increased volume of visitors and their children (we lately have had between 100-200 extra weekend visitors), we are concerned with child safety-particularly in the segment of the road that parallels our main Visitor’s Center Parking Lot. There in that spot a high volume of traffic pulls out, turns in, and is distracted by looking for signage to the various registration sites. If there is anything you can do for us to protect both our own community children and the children of visitors coming to our county, we would be deeply appreciative. Stish: Mr. Chairman, I will quickly address this. This letter came about the same day that we had VDOT out at Yogaville looking at the site and talking about some comprehensive solutions and the VDOT Representatives toured this. But the “Children Playing” signs, those kinds of signs are in the Board’s…they are the Boards decision as to whether to put those up. Speed limit signs, Stop signs, and those sorts of things are VDOT. But we have the…this is in our house. Suddenly the number of children and guest walking across that section of 604, I would recommend that we get with VDOT and do this. Supervisor Stish moved, Supervisor Chambers seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to approve to contact VDOT regarding putting “Children at Play” signs on 604. Re: County Attorney Matters Response to inquiry regarding Volunteer Firefighter Incentives Mr. Wright: Mr. Chairman, you will find in your packets is a letter from me with advice to a concern for the Board of Supervisors to make cash payments to voluntary firefighters. I point out in there that Virginia is what’s known as a Dillon’s Rule state and as worthy as projects may be the authority of the locality derives from the legislature. The Code of Virginia defines ways that will allow the Board of Supervisors to make gifts or donations to voluntary firefighters and I point out to you that you can make an appropriation lawfully through the Code of Virginia to a volunteer fire department you can ask them to apply that money in certain ways but you cannot restrict them to doing it that way. So, in terms of the question that was asked last month, you are not in a position that you can make those requests. One other comment if I may take the liberty to do so, Mr. Chairman. I heard the crowd say tonight to put it on the ballot with regards to the firearms. I want to point out to the Board, democracy does work out that way sometimes with people voting. Again, Virginia is a Dillon State Rule. To put things on the ballot we have to have the blessing of the Virginia State Legislature to say that it is an item that you are allowed to put on the ballot. That is not one of


the items that is currently existing in law that allows Supervisors to request that based on the ballot to go with the consensus of the voters in the jurisdiction. Some years ago we actually had one piece of special legislation that was introduced to allow but it was not hunting it was another item. I have observed the General Assembly for many years since then and before then, the General Assembly has ruled with some caution and some reluctance to allow local voting on similar items. I simply make you aware of that because its probably going to be the buzz in the community that you should put it on the ballot. One other item for the ordinance that passed. As you recall during an earlier debate their was a deadline to when the Game of Inland Fisheries had to be notified. This ordinance does not go into effect this coming hunting season. It will be later than that. It will not be for the fall hunting season but for later after that. I just wanted to make you aware of that (unless we have another public hearing). Re: County Administrator’s Report Update regarding Economic Development Incentive Policy: The Board of Supervisors had directed me to look into developing an incentive package to enhance the consideration of economic development projects to locate in our county. In doing some research and meeting with representatives from the Virginia Department of Economic Development I provide you with advice regarding incentives from the Virginia Department of Economic Development. The VEDP Guidebook for Local Elected Officials has the following to say about incentives: Although very popular in the press and anecdotal conversations related to economic development, it is surprising to many to learn that incentives are generally not the reason a company locates. Instead, they are a “deal sweetener” or a “deal closer” that is negotiated only after all of the other critical factors related to the location decision have been investigated and found to meet the company’s business requirements. This, in the process of economic development, the incentive discussions should come only after many other issues have been settled. Incentives are not used to buy a project, but instead to tip the scales once basic consideration has been met. Fundamental to economic development marketing is a firm understanding that it is the County’s long-term, intrinsic advantages that will ultimately make the sale-not short –term incentives. Businesses must find Buckingham County attractive for a variety of reasons that can best be summarized as a “quality business climate”. Listed below are some factors that the State of Virginia states have lasting importance: 1. Reasonable regulatory and legal environment. 2. Stable tax structure, fair and equitable tax system. 3. Strategic tax exemptions. 4. Predictable government policies. 5. Reasonably low employment taxes. 6. Quality education system, especially higher education.


7. Overall acceptable cost structure. 8. Favorable geographic location. 9. Transportation infrastructure- roads, rail, air and ports. 10. History as a right-to-work state. 11. Proximity to Washington, DC and related power structure. 12. Proximity to major markets in the Northeast and South. 13. Quality of life-ease of recruiting personnel. In reviewing these 13 factors that the State feels has lasting importance I see many that relates to Buckingham County and I see several that we need to work on. It has been proven that factors such as these upon which most successful businesses will make their location decisions and which should weigh heavier in the selection process than discretionary incentives. Many of these factors are based on the priorities, policies and actions taken by the elected political leadership of the County. I think it is good policy for Buckingham to follow Virginia’s lead in guarding and enhancing natural advantages, but at the same time realize that specific economic development incentives are essential to ensure competitiveness. Businesses today, more than ever before, are seeking ways to minimize and ameliorate new location start-up costs, with a heavy emphasis on developing and maintaining a skilled workforce. If the market place is telling us anything, it is that the best incentives are the ones which help businesses throughout the start-up phases. An established and thoughtful incentive philosophy is essential to gain public and political support; it also aids in explaining the government’s position in negotiations with private sector investors. Public leadership needs to remain clear that governments conduct economic development activities to help pay for public services. Giving away all new revenue while claiming that incentives are used to further the public good is misleading. Clearly stated principles will go a long way in garnering support for the concept of economic development incentives. The VEDP recommends that the following concepts should be considered: 1. Incentives must make economic sense to all parties. 2. Incentives should be equally available to both new and existing employers. 3. Incentives should support the development goals of the entity. 4. Incentives should foster and enhance partnership between the public and private sector parties. 5. Incentives are ideally performance based. 6. Enforceable performance agreements with repayment provisions are required. The utilization of incentives is as much a financial discussion as it is a philosophical one. First the amount of incentives must be commensurate with the investment and job creation; but even smaller amounts are meaningful since they demonstrate a partnership relationship and send the message that business is valued. Second, only enough to close the deal should be put on the table; all projects do not deserve the full complement of incentives. Third, there is a need for flexibility. While there is the general prohibition for using incentives to move a business from


one locality to another, the law dos provide for some exceptions with a justifying reason, such as preserving jobs for Virginia versus losing them to another state. VDEP has advised that just as the Commonwealth has an incentive policy, localities need one as well. Incentives can stir considerable debate and the time to resolve any issues is before the prospect nears decision making time. Local economic development official must be able to communicate to the prospect what can be expected. You as a Board have agreed that incentive policy, procedures and practices must be established by the locality both to be competitive and to avoid time consuming controversy. I have provided you this information as back-ground information as I move forward with working on an incentive policy, procedures and practices that will be tailored for our County. We’ve met, and I believe Cassandra was there for that, with the people from the State is our water availability that we need to use by 2015. I asked for their help with preparing us to get ready for that. They really had some good questions. Do we have a plan? Do we have a plan in place to pull that water out? If a company comes here, can we say we will have that water to you in two years? We don’t have a design or anything. So that made us start thinking, well no, we don’t. We are not prepared to do that. So I pulled the contract regarding the water. The contract read either way. The company could do the work and have the plan in place but the county would pay or the county could do it. So I think that I’m asking you all to allow us to meet with the company and start the procedure and look for grant money to have the design in place. We won’t have to do the design but have a plan of design, to say if you want to come here it will take this many months to get that water to you. There are other options. The water company will transport it. They will do that. But we don’t know the ins and outs of it at all. We would like to meet with them to find out the ins and outs of the contract of who would do what. Supervisor Stish moved, Supervisor Allen seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to allow the County Administrator to flush out this deal. I am working closely with the VDEP using their assistance to provide you with proposed policies that will enable me to more effectively market our county and also be more effective when I am sitting at the table with a prospective client. We will also incorporate possible state incentives that projects may be eligible but will make it clear and upfront what would be expected of the locality if such state incentives are offered. Most of the State Programs do have strings attached such as the Governor’s Opportunity Fund which requires that the locality match the Governor’s Opportunity Fund dollar per dollar and the locality and the company must sign a performance agreement. It is project such as these that could cost the locality money if the company is not compliant. I will introduce the documents to the Industrial Development Authority and to the Board of Supervisors for your input to better the documents and final approval should be made by the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation from the Industrial Development Authority. This memorandum is to update you on this issue. As I have additional meetings with the VDEP and have this task in a presentable format I will bring the matter back before you.


Financial Forecast update: We have had a first round of meetings with Robinson, Farmer and Cox regarding the Financial Forecast. This was mostly gathering information. Looking at our revenues and looking at our expenditures. I just wanted to let you know that this has started. It will take several months because we look at different scenarios. There will be different scenarios brought back to you all too. We are going to try to incorporate some of the things you all talked about that you would like to do. This will show you what we can do with the money we have and what we would have to do to afford all the things. Retirement of Carolyn Amos: I announce the retirement of Carolyn Amos, Solid Waste Supervisor. We are certainly sorry to lose Carolyn but due to health reasons she will be leaving us at the end of July. Staton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity that the Board recognize her service over the extended period of time. She started out driving the truck herself and still does I think from time to time. Supervisor Staton moved, Supervisor Talbert seconded and was unanimously carried by the Board to recognize Carolyn Amos for her service from 1991 to 2013 to Buckingham County. Personnel Committee Report: I have provided you with a Personnel Committee Report to you under separate cover. That concludes my report, Mr. Chairman. Re: Other Board Matters Stish: I’d like to make a quick update regarding fire training question that was on the table. I met with the Fire Training Committee. It was a wonderful meeting and I was very encouraged with those firemen. We agreed that my idea was a good and noble one but perhaps it wasn’t the best way to support the training center at this point and we are going to explore some different options. We are having some conversations with the folks in Richmond who do the training for our volunteer staff. I’d love to have your feedback and hopefully your participation should we…I’d like to have work sessions at least every other month. You know a while back we did that visioning thing… Chambers: You always want these work sessions and then you don’t show up. You forget about them. Stish: Once. Chambers: Twice. The work session down here and the Planning Commission. It was twice. I wrote it down.


Stish: Did you really. You are keeping tabs on me. That’s alright. I’d like work session if that is possible. Talbert: Al Doss is working up…yall know him, the tower people. I’m going to support this one coming up for public hearing but I told him, I said, “Al, I’m not voting for anymore towers unless you start getting them out in the community. The light company has lights all over the community, telephone people have land lines all over the community and if you can’t put them in a rural area where we need them. You’ve got hundreds and hundreds and thousands all over the county that has no reception.” He said in two years we are supposed to have it. I said, “Look, I’m telling you, I’m not voting for any more towers until they start putting them out in the community.” I know why they do it, they are working on infrastructure on 15, 24 and 56 and all these big roads. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chambers: You didn’t show up for the work session with the School Board and the work session with the Planning Commission. That’s the two you missed. Stish: Yes, sir. You are right. I’ve missed a couple. Tana Knott: Mr. Chairman, you caught me off guard, but I’d like to take the opportunity thank each and every one of you for the cooperation you have extended to me over the years. When I’ve called, you’ve actually answered my phone calls and were willing to talk to me and it’s made my job a whole lot easier. I thank you for the plaque. It’s beautiful. It means a lot to me and will continue to mean a lot. Thank you all very much. There was a standing ovation for Mrs. Tana Knott. There being no further business to discuss, Chairman Snoddy declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: _____________________________ _________________________________ Rebecca S. Carter I. Monroe Snoddy County Administrator Chairman

june 2013 - buckingham county

Documents