[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6119858,"mediaKeyId","2710327-f78aabd3d6818e144ae0c41e0dd24e84","parentId",2710327,"title","Votes at a glance: Appomattox County Board of Supervisors (meeting actions and outcomes)","audioSeconds",2721,"startMs",69000,"endMs",2790000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2710327-f78aabd3d6818e144ae0c41e0dd24e84&start=69&end=2790","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2710327-f78aabd3d6818e144ae0c41e0dd24e84/thumbnail_69000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6119858/Appomattox-County/Virginia/Votes-at-a-glance-Appomattox-County-Board-of-Supervisors-meeting-actions-and-outcomes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119858-3e76445aa0052ecb979151e4b42809bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1775041681&Signature=KcS23AzpfbLhV9RXP2GQHlX2cRpNptycTiR6ugRXwP4fAWyxnYGAmUq3FHFiSq1XGnDs-3Fqg8l~x4tYF0vTracLJ-d6ZXB96Xvtc18dOs2bilXk6l0cc9HptfvAfNjaVIKkw7epekKZ2XR59FsRPfkf6YORDGzIM~UzBMAR59kjbfDkj7HWdh73Ggi6A~SbPrx4yqNtrsMYDNJDtomW4R3Eu-L-SG5TQ~hhTJ1bOIHk0yxXVkz93clmSFsGjR26ZWUMhhJvt-4jTskWrMiPd91fvyXS7nxqcKu-6gEPjx5ZRwkt7QyxAdG7McTjMdS0H3QhsMkSuGQfJyTI-qsPCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Appomattox, VA","date","2025-03-18T15:23:47Z","article","This summary lists formal motions and recorded outcomes taken by the Appomattox County Board of Supervisors at the meeting. It is a concise record of votes and key details; full ordinance texts, agreements and expenditures referenced here are in the county packet.

1) Approve agenda as amended
- Motion: Approve the agenda with the addition of an adjustment to the published FY‑26 budget calendar (item 14).
- Mover: Mister Carter (mover stated in meeting); second: not specified in transcript excerpt.
- Outcome: Approved by voice vote.

2) Noise ordinance amendment (Appomattox County Code, chapter 13‑3‑5)
- Motion: Amend section 13‑3‑5 by deleting the word “discernible” and clarify the measurement language by adding parenthetical wording \"(or sound level)\".
- Mover: Mister Carter; second: Mister Wolfskill (as recorded in the meeting).
- Outcome: Approved. The board voted to amend the county noise ordinance as presented.
- Authority referenced: Appomattox County Code, chapter 13‑3‑5 (noise ordinance).

3) Resolution ending a local emergency
- Motion: Adopt a resolution declaring the end of the local emergency originally declared for storm damage from ice for the period Feb. 11–Feb. 21.
- Mover: Mister Bufkills (as recorded in the meeting); second: recorded.
- Outcome: Approved.

4) Letter of support for Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) manufactured home weatherization program (grant application)
- Motion: Authorize county administrator to sign and send a letter of support for ODEC’s Tobacco Region Revitalization Commission grant application for a manufactured‑home weatherization program.
- Mover: motion recorded; second recorded.
- Outcome: Approved. County administrator authorized to sign the support letter.
- Note: ODEC/SEC proposes a $13 million multi‑year program across member territory; local participation is in the form of a support letter.

5) Commissioner of Revenue: tax refund transfers
- Motion: Transfer $1,303.19 from the general fund and appropriate to 1209‑5803 to cover four refunds (personal property and real‑estate items; two refunds related to a veteran exemption noted).
- Outcome: Approved by unanimous voice vote.

6) Economic development: Konjana LLC incentive payment (EDA reimbursement)
- Motion: Transfer $25,000 from the general fund to 8105‑6007 special projects for the annual incentive payment to Konjana LLC as reimbursement to the EDA.
- Outcome: Approved (annual distribution, eighth year of a ten‑year incentive program; county reimburses the EDA for the payment).

7) Broadband incentive grant payment (Firefly / central provider support)
- Motion: Transfer $84,687.56 from the general fund and appropriate to 8105‑6007 special projects for the broadband incentive grant payment agreement (May 2018 agreement).
- Outcome: Approved. Board discussion included member questions about service roll‑out timing and local connectivity; board ultimately approved the transfer.

8) Solid‑waste study payment
- Motion: Transfer $47,300 from the general fund and appropriate to 4205‑3002 for professional services to McGill & Associates for the solid‑waste planning study.
- Outcome: Approved (see separate article on the McGill presentation and study options).

9) Capital/Project transfer: courthouse renovation
- Motion: Transfer $580,452.90 from the county CIP fund to the general fund and appropriate to 9104‑7016 for courthouse renovation costs.
- Outcome: Approved.

10) Budget work session and FY‑26 calendar changes
- Motion A: Schedule a special called budget work session on Tuesday, March 25 (6 p.m.) to discuss FY‑26 budget; include insurance consultant and auditor presentation as feasible.
- Motion B: Amend the published FY‑26 budget calendar to cancel the April 15 meeting, hold the public hearing on the FY‑26 budget at the regular board meeting on Monday, April 21, and set budget approval for Wednesday, April 30.
- Outcome: Both motions were approved by the board.

11) Appointment: Cortland Park Board
- Motion: Appoint Teresa Davis as community engagement coordinator to fill a Cortland Park Board vacancy.
- Outcome: Approved.

12) Consent agenda
- Motion: Approve the consent agenda (bills, minutes, supplemental appropriations, line‑item transfers and fund transfers as listed in the packet).
- Outcome: Approved.

13) Solid‑waste study funding (professional services) — duplicate record for emphasis
- Motion: (as #8 above) Approve payment to McGill & Associates, $47,300 transfer for study work.
- Outcome: Approved.

Notes on votes and procedure
- Several motions were routine budget appropriations and transfers from the general fund or the CIP fund; the board recorded voice votes on many items. When the meeting transcript did not unambiguously record mover and seconder names for a motion, this summary lists the motion and the recorded outcome but marks speaker details as not specified.
- Items that require ordinance adoption (for example, precinct boundary changes or noise‑ordinance text that affect code) were referred for public hearing and/or attorney review as required; final legal effect awaits formal ordinance adoption and any required state review.

If you need a single line‑item extract (motion text, mover, seconder, vote tally) for a particular agenda item, request the item identifier and we will provide it in tabular form.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","03-17-2025 Meeting | Appomattox Board of Supervisors","oneSentenceSummary","The board approved a range of administrative and policy actions at the session: agenda changes, ordinance amendment to the noise code, funds transfers for incentives and projects, a resolution ending a local emergency, a public‑hearing directive for precinct consolidation, and multiple budget‑calendar and appointment decisions.","taxTitle","Appomattox County, Virginia","taxId",30504,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6119864,"Sheriff reports arrest totals; veterans, extension offices describe rising demand and program requests",1227,2553000,3780000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2710327-f78aabd3d6818e144ae0c41e0dd24e84&start=2553&end=3780","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2710327-f78aabd3d6818e144ae0c41e0dd24e84/thumbnail_2553000.jpg","/articles/6119864/Appomattox-County/Virginia/Sheriff-reports-arrest-totals-veterans-extension-offices-describe-rising-demand-and-program-requests","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119864-7d573f78f6bbf5f0c793f698f207d964/orig.mp4?Expires=1775041681&Signature=eb3slFRH6xyEAY17MHIdIZytn2AZdw4Txtc-3t4iWw-R7Q5BaGQHU7Jo5wkMWs2Lv0fKlva7kBe1qbV3kqGVaUigoOhAeV~r2ywMHIqydw5mgI1gtoJqeAeMxlN~qMp0~zhwO9uPoLz1lPoEGOcAhhlb-X9Yc0D9IbEMtEXqeZx-ZO5su2gnebI6501G0mJDKdNAwQ03uLiN1w6d-tOM6i6H48L3cqre0zZBTpOjPh52~VUzBEtxr2QPNm0P-u63l7YJ0WZmKNCCgOJS3Wo0-~G8oDhFny9TcQEgh60AONVs3OjkZsr54tWk~92fLoh0ziOwUPFf8vs765AAokDrPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sheriff Robbie Richardson provided quarterly enforcement statistics to the Appomattox County Board of Supervisors, reporting 251 summons issued year‑to‑date, 63 misdemeanor arrests and 37 felony arrests through March. Richardson said the sheriff’s office will begin breaking felony arrests down by type (drug arrests, crimes against persons, crimes against property) to give supervisors more insight into enforcement activity.

Sarah Maddock, CEO of the Piedmont Area Veterans Council, updated the board on a marked increase in service demand since the nonprofit secured a permanent building. She said the organization handled $555,000 in grant activity last year and provided $175,000 in direct assistance to Appomattox County residents. Maddock told the board veterans’ needs include homelessness assistance, benefits claims, transitional employment services and counseling; she said the nonprofit is booking appointments out weeks in advance and is operating with volunteer staff who are working many hours beyond expected shifts. Maddock said the council has increased fundraising and board size and is limiting direct services to the nonprofit’s covered counties because demand from outside the service area has grown.

Bruce Jones, senior extension agent for the Virginia Cooperative Extension Appomattox office, presented his FY‑26 budget request to the board. Jones said salary and wage calculations come from the district director at Virginia Tech and that the local share remains at the county’s historical one‑third level for the office’s positions. Jones requested county support for part‑time wages to enable a summer intern (Virginia Tech may match roughly half the intern salary if the county participates), program supplies for rented community center space, professional dues for extension associations and employee education — specifically funding to support training and licensing related to a drone the office expects to receive for agricultural work. Jones said the county’s requested share for the extension office was about $81,000, and total VCE investment in the Appomattox office was presented as about $382,000.

Why it matters: County social‑service and public‑safety needs, plus agricultural and veterans services, are drawing increased demand and budget requests. Supervisors responded with appreciation and in several cases signaled support for continued funding and follow‑ups on partnership opportunities and program details.

Ending: Supervisors thanked the presenters and asked staff to circulate further budget information and to work with the nonprofits and extension office on program and funding specifics.","Sheriff Robbie Richardson gave quarterly summons and arrest counts. Piedmont Area Veterans Council reported rising requests for homeless‑veteran assistance and increased grant activity; the Virginia Cooperative Extension requested county support for staffing and training including a possible summer intern and drone training support.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6119868,"Registrar proposes moving two precincts, board sets April public hearing on option to create new Falling River location",778,2622000,3400000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2710327-f78aabd3d6818e144ae0c41e0dd24e84&start=2622&end=3400","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2710327-f78aabd3d6818e144ae0c41e0dd24e84/thumbnail_2622000.jpg","/articles/6119868/Appomattox-County/Virginia/Registrar-proposes-moving-two-precincts-board-sets-April-public-hearing-on-option-to-create-new-Falling-River-location","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119868-b659fee3c900fbaf198397f1bf749c50/orig.mp4?Expires=1775041681&Signature=F2nHhP1Pl3kObmeaMRRyPtYUKGa9OktMnUDzI79afZHWVcb04gooGKi9eEJcivr~WwTUeiHx5wum-PihguLmSxaku1Lx5hp7ONUHACKE-ZMV68UnGM3OrsF-AViDOFeyPsPoOQGHYUeZiBhrKoZYJ5nLW6utimTUb5nB31OkNJNNZsaMcZx~wVU~MbyAx3uJMIkC5fsOuVIbr9ZfBU0gHzDv~03s0vuY6SLRqinvFimwRrEZrHxSV6tNk6lIJl0KlfYIU8t3tUWfCXPu5MoXQgG6UzuXmYv4YerUtlqbQGckgimbZXw9fBOdN-zz6uuZ8guRfPXaYJhWNplz~17Orw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Patricia Morton, the Appomattox County registrar, presented three options to the Board of Supervisors to reduce the county’s nine precincts to seven as a cost‑saving and facility‑quality measure. The proposed changes would consolidate one precinct housed in a building without indoor plumbing and create a new polling place for Falling River voters at Friendship Baptist Church under the option the board selected for public hearing.

Morton told supervisors recent election‑law changes — including 45 days of early voting, an absentee permanent list and a June primary — have increased administrative workload and cost. She said the AG precinct building lacks running water and adequate heating and that Oakville appears a better long‑term site for AG precinct voters. Morton also proposed creating a new Falling River polling location at Friendship Baptist Church after reviewing four churches in the Falling River area for parking, ADA access, road safety and proximity to the district’s population center.

Morton described three formal options:
- Option 1: Merge AG into Oakville and merge Chap into Spout Spring (presented in January).
- Option 2: Make no changes now and delay any consolidation.
- Option 3: Merge AG into Oakville and create a new Falling River precinct located at Friendship Baptist Church (the option the board moved forward for public hearing).

Morton explained Option 3 is intended to reduce some voters’ travel distances (she said the maximum additional travel under earlier proposals could be as much as 12 miles for a few voters and that Option 3 reduces the maximum additional travel to roughly 6–8 miles for most affected voters). She flagged one‑time costs tied to notification mailings: roughly 2,000 affected voters at Spout Spring would require a mailed voter‑card notification at about $1,700 total.

County Attorney Mark Popovich advised the board that under the Virginia Voting Rights Act the attorney general’s office reviews proposed precinct changes for potential discriminatory effects; Morton said she had discussed the options with NAACP representatives and that they expressed understanding of the county’s constraints.

Board action: The board voted to pursue Option 3, to set a public hearing on the proposed ordinance change for April 21, and to have the county attorney submit a letter to the Virginia Attorney General’s office for preclearance review. The motion to set the public hearing and to route materials to the attorney general passed at the meeting; supervisors noted final ordinance approval still requires the formal ordinance process and public comment.

Why it matters: Consolidating precincts affects where voters go on election day, can change travel distances for some residents, and carries statutory review and notification duties. Morton emphasized that election changes must be finalized in time to affect the November general election and that any ordinance changes must be completed by early September to take effect for that election.

Next steps and costs: If the board proceeds after public comment and any AG review, the registrar will mail updated voter cards to affected voters and hold the required public hearing. Morton estimated the one‑time mailing cost for affected Falling River/Spout Spring voters at about $1,700; ongoing savings come from lower annual precinct costs and reduced facility upkeep.

Ending: The board authorized staff to proceed with the public‑hearing process and preclearance review; the action does not itself change precinct boundaries until an ordinance is adopted following the hearing and any AG review.","Appomattox County Registrar Patricia Morton presented three options to reduce precincts from nine to seven to cut election costs and replace a precinct building without running water. The board voted to pursue option 3, set a public hearing for April 21 and asked the county attorney to notify the Virginia Attorney General's office.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6119872,"McGill study lays out seven options, wide cost gap for Appomattox County solid-waste plan",270,180000,450000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2710327-f78aabd3d6818e144ae0c41e0dd24e84&start=180&end=450","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2710327-f78aabd3d6818e144ae0c41e0dd24e84/thumbnail_180000.jpg","/articles/6119872/Appomattox-County/Virginia/McGill-study-lays-out-seven-options-wide-cost-gap-for-Appomattox-County-solid-waste-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119872-cedaa96ac1dc1d1b1ea8afc8f2de689f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775041681&Signature=S5RjfmcaPLatHo6Y7Nmj-g1kh2aBhtQECmCh6ip8VO8wtxhA1WME31-lfbu4KkU5KSz0ZKEXIHNq3YYQoLXesKcMicNfKbc2PaGn-2kOu2BiJMWhyfwh71JJtHSAX-YIgoxdKRG8ZcvRMh92Qj7kFk74E~A2aZ8XfoP1EWqemzsLqQv203iJjT4ZbVXR1Q4Qv7-Q4i05wWZlvhrD4wcnLO8txGZnu7Yoix-WtCwXCQi9kOQvSXUkBd~KvNyPpvkn6eg7g8yP2xm4lEqvH3~iSIzMbCmipW7ld4MAVft-EiwYoI~QNtm0qrvo4~zU8lN5EDXRgr~DokzT1Uc0W77Kcw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Mark Cathy, vice president and regional manager at McGill & Associates, presented a 20‑year comparison of seven solid‑waste management options to the Appomattox County Board of Supervisors, outlining capital, operating and revenue assumptions and projecting costs and tons managed for each scenario.

The study, commissioned last year, examined continuing direct haul from convenience centers; building a county transfer station; partnering with a private transfer station; reactivating previously permitted cells at the county landfill; building a new county landfill on county‑owned property; selling the site to a private landfill developer; and developing a waste‑to‑energy facility. The Region 2000 landfill, which currently accepts much of the county’s waste, is estimated in the presentation to run out of permitted airspace around 2029.

McGill’s cost comparisons used a 20‑year planning horizon and a set of escalation assumptions for salaries, hauling, disposal and equipment. Cathy told the board the analysis focused on “total cost” to the county over that period, and highlighted wide differences between alternatives.

Major findings and illustrative 20‑year totals presented by McGill:
- Direct haul to the nearest municipal solid‑waste (MSW) landfills: roughly $40 million total; about 132,460 tons managed; average cost per ton about $303.
- County‑owned transfer station (county builds and operates): roughly $57 million; 132,460 tons; average cost per ton about $431 (higher capital outlay for construction and equipment replacement drives costs). Option 2b (adding commercial waste) increased tons but produced a lower average per‑ton cost because of scale.
- Partnership with a private transfer station (county host agreement, private capital): roughly $31.5 million; 132,460 tons; average about $238 per ton — the lowest county out‑of‑pocket cost in McGill’s models because the private partner bears capital expense.
- Reactivate previously permitted landfill cells (sales J and K): roughly $69 million; about 1.3 million cubic yards of airspace estimated; average cost per ton presented at higher levels in McGill’s model but with substantial county engagement and permitting responsibilities.
- New county landfill on county property (desktop estimate): roughly $69 million; about 41 acres and 2.7 million cubic yards estimated from preliminary topographic review; average cost per ton similar to the reactivated cells scenario.
- Private landfill developed on county property (sell to private developer, negotiate host agreement): McGill estimated the county’s 20‑year net cost at roughly $27.6 million assuming a private developer bears major capital costs.
- New waste‑to‑energy facility: McGill estimated capital and operating costs near $102 million in the model used; the firm emphasized the large tonnage required for economic scale, lengthy air‑quality permitting and the need to secure residual disposal for ash. McGill noted existing U.S. facilities serving large metropolitan areas and several Virginia facilities that have closed, and said permitting for a waste‑to‑energy project could take many years.

Cathy told supervisors the private landfill or a private transfer‑station partnership appeared most favorable on total county cost, while a county landfill would give the county “control” of disposal but would raise capital exposure. He warned that bringing in outside waste can shorten landfill life even as it helps pay capital costs — a classic tradeoff county leaders would have to weigh. Cathy also said McGill used conservative assumptions for revenues (for example, tipping fees and recycling) and escalators for salaries, hauling and capital replacement.

Supervisors pressed McGill on schedule and permitting. McGill said permitting timelines vary by option; a transfer station or reopening a previously permitted cell should not take a decade under normal permitting processes but political and site‑specific issues can extend schedules. McGill reiterated the Region 2000 landfill expiration (presented as about 2029) as a driver for near‑term decisions.

Board action tied to the study: later in the meeting the supervisors approved a transfer of $47,300 from the general fund to professional services to pay McGill & Associates for the solid‑waste study. That transfer motion was moved and seconded during the consent and finance items; the board voted to approve the payment.

Why it matters: Appomattox County currently handles roughly 5,700 tons per year in the county waste stream; the Region 2000 authority’s capacity outlook, rising disposal and construction costs, and several policy and local‑control considerations mean the next steps the board chooses could alter capital needs, operating costs and the county’s long‑term fiscal exposure.

Looking ahead: McGill recommended the county investigate potential private partners and host agreements, refine market capture assumptions (how much out‑of‑county tonnage can realistically be attracted), and complete due diligence on county property for a possible new cell. Supervisors asked staff to continue vetting options and to return with more detailed financials and permitting timelines as needed.

Ending: The presentation gave supervisors quantitative comparisons but did not produce an immediate policy choice; the board approved McGill’s invoice and directed staff to continue work and to report back so the board can consider next steps before Region 2000’s projected capacity constraints.","A consultant presented seven disposal and processing options — from continued hauling to a $102 million waste-to-energy plant — and ranked them primarily by total 20‑year cost. The board later approved a $47,300 payment to McGill & Associates to complete the county's solid‑waste study.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Appomattox County Board of Supervisors (meeting actions and outcomes)

Sheriff reports arrest totals; veterans, extension offices describe rising demand and program requests

Registrar proposes moving two precincts, board sets April public hearing on option to create new Falling River location

McGill study lays out seven options, wide cost gap for Appomattox County solid-waste plan