Southampton County Board of Supervisors approved multiple rezoning and conditional-use items including a 20 MW solar-plus-storage project, heard a school facilities and safety funding request using speed-camera revenue, received VDOT and clinic updates, and entered a closed session on a dog-hunting ordinance.
Discussion Points
•Agent explained project intent for Bridal Lane and updated VDOT coordination and traffic analysis.
•Applicant presented project scope (20 MW solar, battery storage footprint ~71 acres) and financial proffers ($920,000 upfront, $200,000 over five years plus revenue share).
•Board required that the CUP motion include formal reliance on the administrative record and planning commission recommendation.
•Clinic invited board to visit and offered to answer questions about operations.
•Clinic reported service volumes and financial value to county residents; county investment totals since 2007 were noted.
•County Administrator confirmed funds from the Capron program are reserved and exceed $1,000,000.
•Dr. Thompson presented safety and facility updates and requested use of speed-camera program funds to buy 18 solar flashing beacons (quote $466,616).
•Morton read an impact statement opposing siting a utility-scale solar facility (Dimension Energy) inside her residential neighborhood (Parcel 74-21C).
•Planned projects include turn-lane improvements, bridge replacement and night milling/paving on Route 58.
•Planning staff presented the rezoning and CPA items and noted planning commission 7–0 recommendations.
•Residents and board members raised concerns about visibility, truck routing and whether utilities savings for consumers will follow from county revenue.
•She cited construction traffic, noise, dust, drainage concerns, and battery-related fire risk.
•VDOT completed ditching, pothole repair, shoulder work, tree trimming and other maintenance; completion rate 86.2% for the quarter.
Decisions
•No action taken at Oct. 27 meeting; item to appear at next meeting.
•No appropriation vote at Oct. 27 meeting; direction to return in November.
•Rezoning and comprehensive-plan amendment approved at Oct. 27 meeting.
•Rezoning approved 3–1; CUP approved (unanimous vote recorded for CUP).
Directions
•Board motions included explicit language relying on the administrative record and planning-commission deliberations.
•Chair encouraged the speaker to attend the next meeting where the item will appear to add to the public record.
•County Administrator authorized to execute siting/signing agreement after approvals.
•County Administrator to return at November meeting with an appropriation prepared if the board wishes to proceed.
•No direct action; continued partnership acknowledged.
•Staff to ensure battery compliance documentation, third-party testing evidence (UL 9540) and truck-routing restrictions are enforced.
•Staff to record approvals and coordinate with VDOT for any required access improvements.
•VDOT to proceed with planned contracts and to re-advertise residency-wide sweeping contract after a non-responsive bidder.
•VDOT to provide additional traffic-study results to board members on request.
Southampton County Board of Zoning Appeals meeting was postponed because the panel lacked a quorum; staff rescheduled hearings for Nov. 16 and said applicants would not incur additional fees for continuances.
Discussion Points
•Annual meeting used to elect chair, vice chair, secretary
•Attendees requested staff add supplemental materials to packets
•Board lacked quorum and could not conduct votes
•Cases were continued to Nov. 16
•Plan to request county funding for training
•Staff confirmed they will add documents and distribute to all parties
•Staff described required disclosure and conflict-of-interest forms
•Staff to hold an additional meeting to explain recent ordinance and procedural changes
•Staff will not charge additional fees for continuances
•State requires at least one annual meeting
•Training options include VCU certification and online/in-person courses
Decisions
•meeting rescheduled to Nov. 16 at 7:30 a.m.
Directions
•Staff to add submitted documents to applicant packets and set a return date for paperwork
•Staff to request funding from Board of Supervisors
Southampton County Planning Commission opened with a pledge and recognition of a newly certified commissioner, approved minutes with a correction, heard two public comments including praise for National Night Out and a warning about the "Red Green Coalition," then spent most of the meeting continuing a detailed review of a proposed data center zoning ordinance and requested maps and technical guidance before the next meeting.
Discussion Points
•Conflicting provisions on generator testing hours and continuous noise limits and lack of clear prevailing standard
•DEQ permit requirements and missing groundwater modeling in the draft ordinance
•Desire for technical briefings from utilities and university experts
•How to limit data center acreage (1% county cap) and whether to apply forest/open-land ratios
•How to translate megawatt or percent limits into acres or square footage
•Megawatt caps vs acreage/square-foot metrics and 80-foot building-height limit
•Need for maps and overlays to show feasible development areas
•Potential two-mile proximity to transmission lines and one-mile separation from towns with a five-mile spacing option to protect riverfronts
•Public comment included a citizen warning about an advocacy group and a sheriff's report about community policing outreach.
•Request for GIS overlays of power and gas lines and outreach to Dominion/VCU for technical advice
•Setbacks: 2-mile proximity to transmission lines and 1-mile separation from towns; consideration of 5-mile spacing to protect riverfronts
•Staged review of ordinance sections rather than resolving all topics at once
•Whether the 1% limit should be based on total county land area or applied with a forest/open-land ratio
•Whether to require groundwater modeling, peak day demand and monitoring stations
Decisions
•Deliverables to be presented at next meeting (no ordinance vote)
•No formal votes on ordinance; commission agreed to continue review and requested deliverables for next meeting
Directions
•Clarify which standard prevails for generator testing vs noise compliance
•Incorporate 'red-flag' analysis findings into ordinance language where feasible
•Staff to follow up with DEQ about jurisdiction and enforcement and to incorporate monitoring/impact-analysis language where possible
•Staff to model 1% and setback scenarios with parcel overlays
•Staff to prepare overlay maps of transmission lines, gas lines and current M-1 parcels
•Staff to procure and present overlays and to seek outside technical presenters
•Staff to seek technical briefings from Dominion Energy, Virginia Commonwealth University and other electrical/nuclear experts
Southampton County Board of Supervisors met for a regularly scheduled meeting covering public comment, VDOT truck restrictions, finance and appropriations, a lengthy public discussion on state dam-safety letters and potential impacts for local pond owners, two proposed industrial wells, and a set of routine appointments and permits.
Discussion Points
•Appointments confirmed including a deputy county administrator to CPMT
•Appropriation is routine to reallocate funds and prepare for audit
•Board members raised concerns about diversion impacts and school-bus intersections
•Capital estimate $3,860,000; early costs captured via reimbursement resolution
•Claim that county did not advertise senior positions externally
•DCR explained hazard classification, inventory and outreach methods
•Local owners expressed alarm about letters and potential financial burden
•Neighbors oppose a Dimension Energy solar farm due to proximity to homes and loss of farmland
Planning Commission met to consider multiple rezoning and conditional-use applications including a local 5-acre lot, a 20 MW solar-plus-battery facility (Synergy Power) and a ~4.4 MW shared-solar project proposed by Dimension Energy (Southampton CSG LLC); commissioners recommended approval of the Synergy Power CUP and unanimously recommended denial of the Dimension Energy rezoning and CUP after extended resident comment.
Discussion Points
•Adjacency notice to neighboring property owners
•Applicant described subscription mechanics, 20% resident discount and tax projection (~$173,000 M&T over project life)
•Audio backup exists and was used to prepare minutes
•Clarification that family transfers are allowed under the chosen subdivision method
•Commission discussed comprehensive plan future land‑use designation (medium‑density residential) and sewer proximity
•Commissioners asked about inspections and emergency responder training
•Commission requested an amendment to July minutes to reflect adjournment and asked staff to recommend process improvements and counsel options
•Developer described changes to decommissioning and bonding language
•Developer presented spacing, UL testing and fire-safety information
•Need to review Goochland materials and other local examples
•Ordinance vs overlay (TOD) tradeoffs: predictability vs flexibility
•Potential regional constraints (water/aquifer issues) affecting data centers
•Residents raised property‑value, aesthetics, agricultural use and cultural‑resource concerns (Nottoway ancestral lands)
•Staff presentation of RES202604 and packet materials
•Video stream scheduling failure with vendor (Swagit) left a gap in video recording
Decisions
•Continue discussion — unanimous
•Minutes to be amended; process improvement follow‑up requested
•Recommend approval of rezoning RES202604 (unanimous)
•Recommendation to Board of Supervisors to approve CUP202602 (unanimous)
•Recommend denial of conditional‑use permit (unanimous)
•Recommend denial of rezoning (unanimous)
Directions
•Amend July minutes to note adjournment
•Continue item at next meeting
•Explore counsel options for procedural guidance
•Forward favorable recommendation to Board of Supervisors
•Forward favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
•Prepare denial recommendation packet for Board of Supervisors including public comment and cultural resources notes
•Staff to arrange outside planner and compile sample TOD materials
•Staff to validate audio backups and vendor scheduling process
Southampton County Board of Supervisors met Aug. 25, 2026; the board heard extensive public comment and local officials on state dam-safety letters affecting private millponds, approved multiple appropriations including school repairs and a pay-study implementation, and advanced planning work on a data‑center ordinance.
Discussion Points
•Director provided list of critical repairs and is obtaining multiple quotes.
•Draft includes limits on energy generation until power authorizations are secured and proposals to cap area devoted to data centers.
•Miss Lowe described the HRWC amendment details and effective date once local approvals are complete.
•Multiple residents described ponds' role in firefighting water supply, wildlife habitat and property values.
•Owners reported inspection/repair costs approaching six figures and said state‑owned ponds are treated differently.
•Sheriff urged adoption to retain deputies; board discussed reserve use to fund transition.
•Staff outlined appropriation items and school revenue lines.
•Staff recommended 50th percentile effective Dec. 1 with phase‑in options and costs presented.
•State representative said DCR had sent surveys in 2021 and would attend the September meeting to brief the board.
•Supervisors requested capacity and cost breakdowns to ensure stewardship of funds.
•TODs add design controls not found in base zoning and can limit the geographic extent of data‑center development.
Decisions
•Appropriate $605,000 to begin repairs; motion passed unanimously.
•Appropriations and HRWC amendment approved unanimously.
•Board approved 50th percentile plan and one‑year implementation.
•Continue drafting and schedule planning‑commission review and public hearings.
•Deferred reading/vote of local resolution until after DCR briefing in September.
Directions
•Board to invite DCR to September meeting for briefing and public Q&A.
•Finance to finalize year‑end transfers and present the June 30 report in September.
•PayPoint HR to set final scales and staff to prepare budget adjustments.
•Planning staff to refine ordinance and TOD language and present to planning commission in September.
•School staff to return next meeting with detailed quotes and capacity numbers.
•Staff to prepare clear fact sheet explaining applicable Virginia code and regulatory steps for landowners.
The Southampton County Planning Commission discussed drafting a data‑center ordinance and whether to pair it with a technology overlay district, agreed not to advance rezoning until the ordinance is finished, and scheduled continued consideration for Sept. 10.
Discussion Points
•Consider whether the 1% land‑mass cap for solar could apply to data centers.
•Continue item at Sept. 10; no rezoning action now.
•Debate over ordinance vs overlay and a hybrid option for local discretion.
•Disclosure that developers and attorneys had attended a prior meeting.
•Local water availability and aquifer recharge needs.
•Need to preserve the issue for the record and ensure public transparency.
•Options for onsite power (small modular nuclear vs gas turbine generators) and implications for cost and reliability.
•Preference to delay rezoning applications until the ordinance is complete.
•Staff to present ordinance vs overlay to Board of Supervisors.
•Use of model language from Goochland, Loudoun and Suffolk to shape a Southampton County draft.
•Whether to draft a standalone ordinance or pair it with a technology overlay district to give the county more design and siting control.
Decisions
•Meeting adjourned; item continued to Sept. 10.
•No rezoning action to be taken until ordinance is completed.
•No rezoning will be advanced before the ordinance is finalized; item continued to Sept. 10.
Directions
•Continue Planning Commission review at Sept. 10 meeting.
•Delay rezoning until ordinance adopted.
•Include water and utility connection studies in ordinance considerations.
•Mr. Prince to present ordinance vs overlay differences to the Board of Supervisors.
•Staff to include model documents and links in the next packet and ensure public notice.
•Staff to include model documents for next meeting.
•Staff to provide model documents and links for commissioners to review.
The Southampton County Board of Supervisors met July 28, 2026. The board heard public comment on roads and a proposed solar project, received a VDOT transportation update, reviewed a countywide compensation study and directed staff to return with cost options, heard a school superintendent presentation and grant requests, approved several funding and contract actions, and hired a county administrator in closed session.
Discussion Points
•Board convened closed session under Code of Virginia exemptions for personnel and legal matters.
•Board members requested concrete examples and fiscal impact estimates.
•Carroll summarized completed maintenance and listed upcoming projects and schedules.
•Dr. Campbell explained methodology, comparator selection, and compensable-factor scoring.
•Residents were reminded to file work orders via VDOT customer service channels.
•Staff noted $590,000 placed in FY27 budget to begin implementation.
•Staff outlined the scope and fee structure and estimated potential interest income.
•Staff presented quotes and requested CIP transfer.
•Superintendent emphasized need for door-hardware security upgrades and long-range facility planning.
•Superintendent requested direction rather than immediate funding.
•Supervisors questioned whether this would reduce courthouse funding; staff said records-room remains funded.
•Supervisors requested clarifications on cost components and deliverables.
•Thompson outlined grant mechanics and local match requirements; board discussed sequencing and financing.
•Upon return, members certified the closed meeting and approved the employment agreement.
Decisions
•Addendum approved and appropriation carried by voice vote.
•Approval of Lynette Lowe as county administrator (unanimous).
•Board provided consensus support to pursue grant application and further planning; no appropriation approved.
•No final implementation vote; board consensus to review costed options at next meeting.
•Transfer approved by unanimous voice vote.
Directions
•Board supported preparing grant application materials and directed staff to prepare a financing road map.
•County administrator to coordinate bond/debt service options if projects proceed.
•County administrator to prepare financing road map for phased implementation.
•County to execute the addendum and appropriate $36,053 to start the contract.
•Human Resources to finalize employment agreement documentation and report execution to the board.
•Proceed with CIP transfer and procurement.
•Staff and VDOT to return traffic‑study results to the board when available.
•Staff to model 50th- and 60th-percentile scenarios and publish materials before the next meeting.
•Treasurer and administrator to report implementation updates.
The Southampton County Planning Commission on July 16, 2026 approved a rezoning for the White Franklin Solar Plus Storage project but tabled the related conditional-use permit to allow developers to supply additional battery and decommissioning details; the commission also voted to recommend a 12-month, due-diligence delay on data-center applications while it crafts an ordinance.
Discussion Points
•Battery energy storage container footprints, setbacks and compliance with NFPA 855/UL9540A
•Decommissioning bond valuation, five-year reviews and administrative fee indexing for inflation
•Need for more detailed battery-site plans before CUP approval
•Need to gather technical information on closed-loop cooling, water use, grid impacts and local safety
•Scope and length of the delay (proposed 12 or 18 months)
•Visibility/screening and prime farmland avoidance
•Whether the Board of Supervisors had already approved a legally binding siting agreement and whether a buyer for the power was committed (Dominion Energy identified)
•Whether to use the word 'moratorium' or a legally defensible due-diligence delay
Decisions
•Conditional-use permit tabled (unanimous)
•Recommend 12-month delay (unanimous)
•Rezoning for the White Franklin Solar Plus Storage project approved (unanimous)
Directions
•Applicant to submit detailed battery-site plan and clarified decommissioning language within one week
•Recommendation to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors
•Staff to circulate materials and place CUP on next meeting agenda
•Staff to compile model ordinances and technical materials
Southampton County Board of Supervisors met June 23, 2026, and approved a locally written battery energy storage systems ordinance, several appropriations and appointments, and an MOU extension for the James River Juvenile Detention Commission. The board also heard a presentation on a proposed 20 MW solar-plus-storage project and received updates on emergency preparedness and local economic projects.
Discussion Points
•Board approved routine items including minutes, VDOT items, appropriations and appointments.
•County attorney presented an MOU amendment and disclosed representation to the commission.
•Developer presented site, sizing, safety standards, interconnection upgrades and local payments.
•No roll-call tallies were recorded in transcript; voice/hand votes recorded as unanimous.
•Planning Director Reagan Prince described the ordinance and rationale, including a 15-foot height restriction.
•Resident asked about chain-of-custody and foreign procurement safeguards; developer cited compliance with federal and utility procurement rules.
•Resident public comment expressed support for a local ordinance.
•Supervisors questioned footprint limits, setbacks and fire-safety coordination.
•Supervisors questioned spacing between battery containers and solar modules, fire-safety and decommissioning.
Decisions
•Board adopted the local BESS ordinance.
•Multiple motions approved as recorded in meeting transcript.
•No final board approval recorded during this meeting; further permitting steps required.
Directions
•Clerk and finance to implement appropriations and update records.
•County Attorney to finalize MOU amendment paperwork.
•Planning staff to format ordinance for code adoption.
•Project will proceed through special-use permitting and further review; staff to coordinate environmental and emergency-service checks.
•Staff to coordinate emergency services (fire) on response procedures and setbacks.
At its May 26, 2026 meeting the Southampton County Board of Supervisors adopted the fiscal year 2027 budget, including a 4-cent real-estate tax increase to support teacher and staff raises; advanced a battery energy storage ordinance to public hearing ahead of a July 1 state deadline; and heard public requests for a moratorium on data-center applications.
Discussion Points
•Delaware Road, Waller Road and Farmers Bridal Road listed; Cabin Pond meets vehicle threshold but is not on the current list.
•Key ordinance provisions: setbacks, fencing, landscaping bonds ($50,000), phasing and commencement requirements; co-location with solar allowed.
•No new funding included this year; public hearing only required if new funding exceeds $100,000.
•Planning commission requested a one-year moratorium on data-center applications to allow completion of a local ordinance; concerns cited included water use, power demands and community protections.
•Whether to approve a 4-cent real-estate tax increase to fund a 5% instructional raise; citizen survey result cited with 86% opposed by a supervisor; concern that without increase instructional and special-education positions may be cut.
Decisions
•Adopted FY27 budget; adopted capital improvement plan; adopted tax ordinance; adopted fees and personal-property relief ordinance; approved appropriation resolutions and transfer amounts.
•Adopted six-year plan list as presented; decided Cabin Pond may be added later through resolution and public hearing if prioritized.
•Board agreed to consider the moratorium request at a future meeting; no formal moratorium enacted at this meeting.
•Ordinance moved to public hearing at the next meeting.
Directions
•Implement adopted FY27 budget and proceed with administrative steps for fund transfers and payroll adjustments for raises.
•Pass resolution adopting current list; staff to advertise and schedule public hearing on any changes to the list.
•Place the moratorium request and legal review on the next meeting agenda for further consideration.
•Send the ordinance to public hearing and proceed with public review before July 1 to avoid adoption of the state model ordinance.
Southampton County Planning Commission held a special meeting to review a proposed battery energy storage systems ordinance and unanimously voted to forward the draft to the Board of Supervisors for first reading; commissioners also discussed decommissioning, emergency response language and a separate shared-solar project and upcoming community meeting.
Discussion Points
•A commissioner alleged a prior administrative advance of a large solar project that bypassed the Board; multiple residents reportedly called commissioners.
•Commissioners asked to add a definition for BMS (battery management system) to the definitions section.
•County attorney made limited formatting and wording changes; most substantive edits were to reduce redundancy in the ERP and noise sections.
•Decommissioning agreement used for the Southampton solar project is reviewed every five years and will be shared with the commission.
•Safety language discussed: thermal runaway, and when active fire-extinguishing systems might be required was left to code compliance and building-official discretion.
•Staff confirmed a town-hall (June 10) and public-notice plans (letters to adjacent property owners) and agreed to circulate the meeting invitation to commissioners.
Decisions
•Motion carried to forward the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for first reading (6–0).
•No formal action taken; matter to proceed through town-hall and standard Board hearing process.
Directions
•Staff (Mr. Prince) to transmit the revised draft to the Board of Supervisors for first reading.
•Staff to post the June 10 meeting invitation on the county website and circulate it to commissioners.
•Staff to provide commissioners a copy of the Southampton solar decommissioning agreement ahead of the next meeting.
•Staff to verify whether newspaper notice was placed and to confirm developer-paid advertising if required.
Public hearing on Southampton Countys proposed FY2026 budget focused on a proposed $0.04 real-estate tax increase to fund a requested 5% teacher pay raise; public commenters urged fiscal restraint, flagged budget errors and continuing solid-waste fees, and the board moved to advance a 4-cent increase to $0.75 per $100 valuation to the next meeting.
Discussion Points
•Call for removal of or referendum on the solid-waste fee, which commenters said began in 2012 (Cindy Edwards)
•Public concern that reassessment and prior adjustments have increased household taxes (Warren Simmons)
•Residents flagged formatting and numerical errors in the published budget (Cindy Edwards)
•School leadership requested a 5% pay increase to address teacher retention (Acting Superintendent, Brandon Rogers)
•Supervisors debated staging raises over multiple years vs. granting a single-year 5% increase (Supervisor (no))
Decisions
•Board recorded a motion to raise the real-estate tax rate by $0.04 and held a voice/hand vote; transcript does not include a full roll-call tally and staff indicated final action would be taken at the next regular meeting.
Directions
•Finance to present exact revenue projection per penny and the net effect of 4cent increase at next meeting
•Staff to prepare corrected budget documents and scenarios showing 4% vs 5% impacts on instruction and administration for next meeting
Southampton County Planning Commission continued a public hearing and approved a conditional use permit for a canine training facility and spent the bulk of its meeting editing and preparing a draft battery energy storage systems ordinance for legal review and a special follow-up meeting.
Discussion Points
•A commissioner flagged potential state preemption concerns (building and fire codes) because the draft repeatedly references NFPA standards.
•Commissioners and staff confirmed that on‑farm production of animal feed/treats may be allowed under agricultural rules but retail at the residence would be treated separately and likely require conditional use review.
•Commissioners asked and applicant clarified that police/military dog training will not occur; training focuses on obedience and service dogs for veterans.
•Commissioners identified multiple editorial problems (municipality names, duplicated noise provisions, an ambiguous setbacks sentence) and proposed deleting or rewording problem passages.
•Staff explained the draft and its sources (Isle of Wight County, City of Suffolk) and how it was formatted to match county code.
•Continue the matter to a special called meeting on 05/21/2026 at 7:00 p.m.; staff to circulate revisions and attorney comments prior to that meeting.
•CUP 2026-01 approved unanimously with recusal noted.
Directions
•Applicant to stay in contact with planning staff (Mr. Prince) to advance plan review and labeling approvals.
•Staff to clean up references to other localities, remove duplicated sentences, clarify who does final site inspections and specify financial assurance language.
•Staff to ensure proffers are included in the permit record.
•Staff to forward the draft to the county attorney for written comments and present or circulate attorney feedback before the special meeting on 05/21/2026.
Board of Supervisors meeting in Southampton County on April 2026 covered citizen comments on road and solid-waste problems, routine reports and votes on school-bus financing and appointments, and a contentious debate over recognizing Chief Justice Bernard S. Goodwin that ended with the board approving a portrait and plaque inside the courthouse (3–2).
Discussion Points
•Opponents said naming a public building after a living person risks future embarrassment and suggested school-based recognition instead.
•Proponents argued the recognition would inspire youth and that the local bar association supported honoring Goodwin.
•Public commenters urged more active enforcement at refuse sites and prioritized repairs for specific county roads.
•Staff reported the public-safety radio project timeline slipped to 2027 and that three refuse sites will receive entrance paving soon.
Decisions
•Approved interior portrait and plaque (3–2). Motion to add exterior lettering failed for lack of a second.
•Approved VML/VACO financing for buses; appointed recommended representative to the Western Tidewater Community Services Board; moved FY27 budget to advertisement; certified closed-session compliance.
Directions
•Administration to file appointment paperwork and proceed with closed-session next steps per staff recommendations.
•Finance to finalize bus-financing closing documents.
•Proponent stated recognition would be privately funded; staff to confirm funding arrangements.
•Staff to publish budget advertisement and prepare public-hearing materials for May 20.
•Staff to work with the proponent on placement and plaque details and return to the board for administrative clearance.
Southampton County supervisors held a budget meeting that approved advertising a 75¢ per $100 real-estate tax rate to increase local school funding after the acting superintendent requested additional funds for pay increases; the board also discussed switching school payroll to twice-monthly and a transparency task force.
Discussion Points
•Bank and operational deadlines require payroll files three full business days before payday
•Costs associated with appointing an independent chair (a $25,000 fee was referenced)
•Differing views on whether moving forward with inquiries would help the community or reopen past disputes
•Each 1¢ in real-estate tax estimated to raise about $238,000 locally
•Estimated $1.1M cost for a 5% payroll increase
•Estimated $38,000 additional direct costs for twice-monthly school payroll (checks, direct-deposit slips, toner, system dues)
•Superintendent preference to hold vacant positions rather than cut student-facing roles
•Superintendent request for $4,000,615.15 local funds and $6,065,437 total funding including state support
•Whether an independent chair (named James Ellenson in discussion) should interview staff and produce answers to previously unresolved questions
Decisions
•Board voted to advertise a 75¢ per $100 real-estate tax rate directed toward schools (advertisement for public hearing).
•No final action on rescinding or amending the resolution recorded in the transcript; board members asked for written materials and further coordination.
•No immediate change; board will await a feasibility and cost study.
Directions
•County staff to publish draft budget advertising 75¢ real-estate rate and schedule a public hearing
•County staff to request a written scope and list of questions from the committee and to coordinate with the school board chair (Brian Rogers) for formal action
•School and county payroll/finance to produce a detailed plan with costs, staffing needs and policy recommendations (direct deposit default, payroll cards)
•School finance to provide prioritized vacant-position list and refined savings estimate
Southampton County supervisors received a school division budget presentation on April 15 outlining a $4,000,615 ask, a proposed 5% staff pay increase, a request to move school payroll to twice-monthly, and a county capital-improvement plan that includes a $62 million middle-school replacement and multimillion-dollar facility projects.
Discussion Points
•Administration proposed a 5% staff pay increase and moving payroll from once-monthly to twice-monthly; a staff survey (291 responses) showed 56% support.
•CIP includes major school and county infrastructure projects (school replacement, HVAC overhaul, well construction) with timing and funding to be coordinated with financial counsel.
•Division requested $4,000,615 to maintain staffing and programming; drivers included higher utilities, fuel and insurance costs and an LCI increase.
•Some FY26 projects may roll into FY27 if not finished by June 30; vendor lead times and market pressures influenced cost estimates.
•Supervisors calculated a remaining local need of roughly $1.6 million after state increases; alternatives such as a 2% raise will be explored.
Decisions
•Board scheduled an additional budget meeting to refine the draft for public hearing; no formal funding decision was made.
•No capital approvals taken; CIP presented for board review and further action.
Directions
•Board to meet again the following week to finalize the draft budget to publish for public hearing.
•Staff to provide a prioritized list of cuts/options showing effects of partial funding and a 2% raise alternative.
•Staff to refine project timing, confirm contractor availability and work with financial counsel on debt layering.
•Staff to report back on which FY26 funds should be reappropriated for projects rolling into FY27.
Southampton County Planning Commission met April 9; members opened a public hearing on a conditional‑use permit for Bucks Dog Training and continued that hearing to the May meeting; commissioners received updates on the Synergy White solar project and agreed to draft a county battery‑energy‑storage ordinance ahead of expected state action.
Discussion Points
•Applicant described services and history; commissioners sought specifics on hours, animal counts, acreage used and waste handling.
•Commissioners emphasized the need for emergency response, decommissioning and safety standards for battery storage.
•Commissioners noted a lack of written proffers in the packet and recalled a standard practice of receiving them with CUP applications.
•Commissioners raised concerns about the county's forest/open‑land ratio for utility‑scale solar and the possibility of a developer using cleared portions of a larger parcel to meet that requirement.
•Staff presented the Synergy White solar conceptual materials and noted the proposed combined solar and battery storage footprint.
Decisions
•Commissioners agreed to fast‑track drafting a BESS ordinance to meet an anticipated state timetable and return recommended language to the board in June.
•Motion passed to continue action to May meeting and to keep the public hearing open to avoid re‑advertising.
Directions
•Staff to compare Suffolk and Isle of Wight drafts, consult building and fire officials, and prepare draft BESS ordinance language for planning commission review in May/June.
•Staff to request a detailed site map from the Synergy applicant showing open vs. forested acreage.
•Staff to work with the applicant to prepare written proffers and a waste management plan and include them in the May packet.
The Southampton County Board of Supervisors reviewed a $93.8 million draft FY2027 budget on April 8, 2026, with no proposed tax or water/sewer rate increases; members heard presentations from department heads and local nonprofits and moved the public hearing to May 20.
Discussion Points
•A staff member cited a deputy-clerk starting salary of $32,547 as too low.
•DEQ requires two new wells to draw from the Potomac Aquifer; draft shows potential $3,860,000 financing.
•Draft FY2027 budget totals $93,786,279 (6.71% increase); no tax or water/sewer rate increases proposed.
•Library reported increased circulation and outreach needs.
•Museum/historical society and economic development groups requested county participation in a $120,000 tourism fund to hire a tourism coordinator.
•School fund increase and local required effort increase due to change in Virginia composite index.
•Senior Services requested $30,000 in general-program funding to leverage services.
•Sheriff reported being 10 deputies short and requested pay increases to retain staff.
•Western Tidewater Free Clinic requested $46,709; Western Tidewater CSB requested $98,000 to support SCIP and behavioral-health services.
Decisions
•Approve calendar change to hold public hearing May 20 (voice vote approved).
•No formal action taken at the meeting; compensation adjustments would require budget action.
Directions
•Board moved the public hearing to May 20 and will continue budget work at meetings on April 15 and April 22.
Southampton County Board of Supervisors held its March 24, 2026 meeting, hearing public comments on road conditions and trash, receiving a VDOT update on paving and safety studies, approving appointments and a rezoning request, adopting a resolution opposing a state collective-bargaining mandate, and moving into a closed session for personnel and economic-development matters.
Discussion Points
•Community development described the application and the planning commission's unanimous recommendation; attorney for applicant described site constraints and septic alternatives.
•Supervisor Gillette read and introduced a resolution opposing state-mandated collective bargaining; other supervisors discussed the legislation's passage and its potential fiscal impacts.
•Updates on Beale Farm grant reimbursements, Go Virginia funding, Turner Tract site-readiness work, and VADI broadband passings (4,931 completed, 169 remaining).
•VDOT described recent pothole and full-depth repairs, upcoming chip-seal and plant-mix overlays, ditch cleaning, cross-pipe replacements and SMART SCALE project timelines.
Decisions
•Resolution adopted by unanimous voice vote
•Rezoning approved by voice vote
Directions
•County staff to transmit resolution to Richmond.
•VDOT will follow up on outstanding traffic-study requests and provide details to county staff.
