Buckingham Board Is Going For Goals
Published 4:50 pm Thursday, November 1, 2012
BUCKINGHAM – When the Buckingham County Board of Supervisors met in October, County Administrator Rebecca Carter led a discussion on the board's recent work sessions.
Facilitated by Martha Walker, of the Virginia Cooperative Extension, the sessions were held July 10 and September 17.
Although the entire board was on hand for the first session, those present at the second session included Chairman Monroe Snoddy and Supervisors Donnie Bryan, John Staton, and Cassandra Stish.
Carter shared that at the second work session, the group prioritized the issues that supervisors brought to the table during the first work session.
Subsequently, the county administrator presented those prioritized goals one at a time so that all of the board could consider them.
Although listed as Goal 5, this issue comes to the forefront because of the referendum regarding a possible Food and Beverage Tax on the November 6 ballot.
This goal stresses the need for the county to maintain an attractive tax rate for its citizens and businesses.
During the first work session, this topic included exploring the possibility of implementing a Beverage and Food Tax to assist in offsetting real estate taxes and unfunded mandates.
At its August board meeting, supervisors moved forward with the necessary resolution calling for a referendum on the Beverage and Food Tax and petitioned the circuit court to put the non-binding referendum on the November ballot. Subsequently, on August 15, the court granted the petition.
With that move, on November 6, voters will have the opportunity to respond Yes or No to the following question, “Should the Board of Supervisors of Buckingham County, Virginia adopt a tax on food and beverages of up to FOUR (4) PERCENT, as authorized by Section 58.1-3833 of the 1950 Code of Virginia as amended.”
After advising the board that the Clerk of Buckingham Circuit Court is tasked with advertising a notice about the referendum, Carter asked supervisors if they wanted to place an advertisement in the newspaper using their fact sheet on the Food and Beverage Tax.
Supervisor Joe Chambers questioned the need to do so if the clerk was going to advertise it. Agreeing, Supervisor Bill Talbert stated that everybody knows about it. He later added that he thought the advertisement would be throwing away money that the county could put to better use.
Conversely, Supervisor Staton said he has received phone calls about people misrepresenting some of the details on the tax
Noting that copies of Section 58.1-3833 of the Code of Virginia were available to the audience, Staton, drawing from the code, shared, “The tax is not levied on all food and beverages sales. Some examples of exemptions would be food and beverages: (1) sold through vending machines; (2) sold by volunteer fire departments and rescue squads; nonprofit churches or other religious bodies; educational, charitable, fraternal, or benevolent organizations, on an occasional basis, as a fund raising activity; or (3) provided and sold by churches that serve meals for their members as a regular part of their religious observances.”
The exemptions, continued Staton, include food and beverages sold by public or private elementary or secondary schools who serve food to their students or employees; and food and beverages provided/sold by medical clinics, convalescent homes, nursing homes, or other extended care facilities to patients or residents.
Likewise, he said the exemptions also cover meals and beverages provided or sold by day care centers; and provided by a public or private nonprofit charitable organization or establishment to elderly, infirm, blind, handicapped, or needy persons in their homes or at central locations.
Concluding, Staton offered that the information from the Virginia Code should be out there for everyone to see.
When Supervisor Bryan asked for clarification on what the clerk of court would be advertising, E. M. Wright, Jr., county attorney, explained that the clerk would advertise the fact that there is a referendum.
Subsequently, with a five-to-two vote, the board agreed to advertise the fact sheet. Talbert and Chambers cast the opposing votes.
Goal 1, stated Carter, was to complete the RFP, Request for Proposals, process to explore the feasibility of establishing five recycling sites to save money for solid waste management and practice a more environmentally friendly manner of waste management.
She said the county received one response to the RFP from Van der Linde Recycling at a proposed annual cost of $625,000.
Carter added that she, Karl Carter, assistant county administrator, and Carolyn Amos, solid waste supervisor, would work with all of the solid waste costs over a five-year period and provide a cost analysis to the board during its November meeting.
In conjunction with the possibility of changing to five manned sites and the way the county manages its solid waste and recycling, Carter said supervisors at the September 17 work session agreed that a public hearing should be held.
Moreover, the supervisors who attended that work session called for changing the board's bylaws to include a utilities committee rather than the current sewer and water committee. With that change, the responsibilities of the utilities committee would include sewer, water, and solid waste.
Subsequently, the full board unanimously approved the committee name change and amending the by-laws.
Supervisors also unanimously agreed to schedule a public hearing on the possibility of utilizing five manned sites and changing the county's management of its solid waste and recycling. The board set the hearing for its November 13 meeting.
Goal 2 calls for utilizing all economic development resources to enhance the competitive advantage of the county. Carter said the goal is divided into three objectives.
The first objective, 2A, establishes strategies to expand the county's infrastructure that supports business development.
According to the county administrator, the county's new water plant, which is currently under construction, will fulfill the strategy of expanded water capacity.
Carter added that after the new plant is completed in the spring of 2013, the utilities committee would be able to address the issue of extending waterlines.
Although the infrastructure strategy also calls for expansion of the sewer plant, Carter noted that the proposed design is in the works but funding the projected $13 million for the expansion is problematic at this time.
However, she said the engineers have been asked to break the project into phases for price comparisons, which should be available after the first of the year.
The last infrastructure strategy calls for Chairman Snoddy to appoint a taskforce to research and develop a plan for broadband access. Snoddy said he would make those appointments at the November meeting.
Objective 2B calls for reviewing the zoning ordinance and aligning it with economic development goals; and, establishing a new position to enforce the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the objective also includes creating a taskforce to launch a feasibility study on business licenses.
Carter shared that the discussion included whether the planning department/planning commission or a business growth taskforce should be responsible for implementing this goal.
Stish, noting there would be issues beyond the realm of zoning, shared that she would like the board to consider the taskforce option and include the planning commission/planner.
Subsequently, the board approved establishing a business growth taskforce; and agreed to make those appointments at its November meeting.
Supervisors also agreed with Carter's recommendation to create a position that would include the enforcement of zoning ordinances in addition to administering and enforcing the new state-mandated erosion and sediment control and storm-water management program.
Additionally, the board agreed to task the personnel committee with formulating a job description and finding the means to fund the position.
In another unanimous move, the board voted to establish a taskforce to carryout a feasibility study on whether to implement a business license.
Carter explained that this taskforce would include members from the Buckingham County Chamber of Commerce, a representative from the BOS, and county staff.
Supervisor Bryan shared that during the work session when the possibility of a business license was discussed, the main consideration was formulating a comprehensive directory of county businesses. He said the discussion included that fees would be nominal and would go to the chamber to maintain the directory.
Goal 2C focuses on utilization of water from the James River as an economic development asset due to the heavy industrial use targeted for the Bremo Bluff area.
The board concurred with the work session discussion that the responsibility for securing withdrawal rights for water from the James and the development of a plan for use of that water should rest with the utilities committee and county administration. A timeline of May 2014 was set for meeting this goal.
Goal 3 calls for the county's EMS, Emergency Services, to be a state-of-the-art operation.
According to Carter, the county is currently waiting for responses to its RFPs for the new radio system to provide the supporting infrastructure for EMS.
She said $500,000 has been reserved for the project; and, the board recently approved a contract to locate a tower on Spears Mountain.
“This tower will provide the missing link in delivering coverage to our entire county,” added the county administrator, noting that the system should be in place by February 2013.
Addressing Goal 4, which supports the expansion of agriculture and forestry as economic tools, the board voted to task the business growth task force with considering the alignment of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to support agriculture and forestry.
Part B of Goal 4, seeks an evaluation and study of the agricultural curriculum in the school system. Furthermore, the strategy calls for Chairman Snoddy to talk with the school board about the feasibility and funding to implement an agricultural curriculum by 2014.
Subsequently, supervisors unanimously supported the evaluation and study of an agricultural curriculum and tasked Snoddy to talk with Ed Wise, chair of the school board, regarding the prospect.
However, Part C of Goal 4, establishing an agricultural/forestry advisory council, was put on hold because of the many issues already on the table.
Moving to Goal 6, the last of the goals devised during the work sessions, Carter said the objective discussed was to establish a public-private education and infrastructure plan.
According to minutes from the September work session, “The Public Private Education and Infrastructure Act of 2002, was designed to bring private sector expertise to bear on public projects-saving time and money.”
The strategy to establish such a plan, explained Carter, calls for utilizing the business growth task force to develop the plan.
During the discussion, Talbert said he felt the county administrator and assistant county administrator could do as much for economic development as any committee.
Stish, in turn, said she thought having others work with the administrators would be beneficial.
Subsequently, Stish moved to establish a public private education infrastructure plan. The motion passed with yeas from Snoddy, Stish, Bryan, and Staton. Chambers and Talbert cast opposing votes and Allen abstained.
After proceeding through all of the goals, the board, in a unanimous vote, authorized the county administrator to request cost estimates for a financial forecast/plan that would include different scenarios to pay for the proposed strategies.
Although the initial emphasis is on a five-year financial plan, the board concurred that the plan could be extended to ten years if necessary.
