Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the July 7th regular Board of Supervisors meeting. With that, Mr. Jesse, would you lead us in a prayer, please? Yes, I would.

Let us bow our heads in prayer. Thank you for just waking up this morning. Let us see another day, dear Lord.

I'll start over again.

Y'all heard it again, but I'm going to do it again. Let us bow our heads in prayer. Dear Heavenly Father, I'd like to thank you for waking us up this morning and letting us see another day, dear Lord. And let's pray for our servicemen and women overseas and keep them out of harm's way. And pray for Middlesex County and this board. And let us make wise and just decisions as we conduct county business. These and all the blessing in my Heavenly Father's name.

Amen. Bridget, would you lead us in the pledge, please?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call, please.

Mr. Bill Harris?

Here.

Mr. Crittenden?

Here.

Mr. Jesse?

Here.

Mr. Don Harris? Here.

Mr. Crittenden? Supervisor Williams informed the board he would not be able to attend the meeting in person today, and he asked to be allowed to join the meeting electronically by Zoom. Therefore, we must follow Board of Supervisors' policy and rules of procedure established for electronic participation in meetings due to a personal matter, medical condition or disability. Supervisor Williams, why are you asking for approval to participate in the meeting electronically? Supervisor Williams. Can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you now. Okay. I happen to be out of town, you know, plans were made and I'm not going to get back in time for the meeting. So I think the best thing for me to be able to do, and it means we have zoom and these kinds of things in the county is to, you know, be cautious and take my time when I can participate the same way on zoom.

Thank you, sir. The board must have a majority vote to approve Supervisor Williams to participate in the meeting by electronic means. All those in favor, roll call.

Mr. Bill Harris?

Yes.

Mr. Crittenden?

Yes.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Don Harris?

Yes. Let the minutes reflect the reason for Supervisor Williams' participation by electronic means and his location of attendance with specifics. All right. Moving right along. County Attorney, do you want to revise the The agenda?

No, sir. But just for clarification for the audience, just so they can know, I apologize with the fans. As you can tell, the air conditioning is doing its best, but it's not winning today. Mr. Williams was saying that he was out of state New York and not able to be here present today. So that was his reason for why. And he stated where. As far as the agenda, Mr. Chairman, there was a republication of the agenda prior to today's meeting. I believe there's one, Brittany, there's been one printed in the back, correct? For the public, we added a closed session onto the meeting at the end. There could possibly be action, and we will need this room, given that Mr. Williams will be joining remotely. But that is all I have, Mr. Chairman, at this time.

All right. Thank you. It would be appropriate to have a motion to approve the agenda for the meeting. So moved by Mr. Jesse. Second. Second by Mr. Bill Harris. Roll call, please.

Mr. Williams.

Present.

Mr. Bill Harris.

Yes.

Mr. Crittenden.

Yes.

Mr. Jesse.

Yes.

Mr. Don Harris.

Yes. Alrighty. Um, it would be, uh, any, uh, additions or changes to the minutes seeing none, uh, moving right along. Um, Disbursements, payroll, that's in your booklet. Recognition awards, Middlesex County Water Authority. I'd ask Mr. England to come forward with that.

Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. We have two longstanding members of our Water Authority Board. that just came off of their tour of duty, so to speak. They've been with us on the board since 2014, and just June 30 came to the end of their term and decided not to continue. We have appointed two other members coming on board on July 1. But we'd like to recognize them today for their service. I did submit certificates. of their dedicated service to the board for approval. So with your approval, we'd like to do that. We do have the Middlesex Water Authority board chair here too, Mr. Greg Chambers is here to provide some remarks about the service of these two valuable members to us.

Mr. Chambers. Thank you very much, and I appreciate you doing this. Carlton and Janet have been with us since the very beginning of our water authority. We've had four longstanding members that have served the full term. Full 12 years. And, you know, I think our board was very well constructed in terms of the expertise that you chose to bring to the table. And Carlton and Janet have offered a lot of expertise, business experience, financial aptitude, to the sense that while we have two new board members that I'm very confident in that will be joining us, it sort of frightens me to think about life without Carlton. without Carlton and Janet. So I want to sincerely thank them for the service and their expertise, and frankly, for Carlton's leadership of the authority for the first half of its existence. So on behalf of the Water Authority and Chip, I want to thank these two great people for all they've done for the Water Authority and the county.

So thank you guys.

And if I may, Mr. Chairman, the Middlesex County Board of Supervisors recognizes the loyal and dedicated service and many contributions of Mr. Carl Ness Revere and Ms. Janet B. Riggs. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Yes. Where's Larry?

Thank you all very much.

On behalf of the county, I'd like to thank both of you for your year service. It's been invaluable and we certainly do appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right. I'd like to open the floor for any public comments.

I have not received any certificates for public comments, but if there is any, they can come up.

Anybody would like to speak? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Treasurer's report, that's in your booklet. Commissioner of Revenue report only is also in your booklet. Sheriff's Office update, Mickey Sampson.

Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. So I know the obvious is going to be the body-worn camera stuff, and I'd like to get to that with just a couple of little updates. If I could first, I brought with me Carol Riley, who is our body camera clerk. She's very much in the mix with the body camera. She's much more technical, I promise you, than I am. And she's done a fantastic job with what she's had to work with. A couple of the other updates that I'll be reaching out to the board members over the next month, some changes over at the courthouse, some legislations come down that we're going to have to change up a couple of things in the courthouse, and I'll be reaching out to you guys individually, you all individually, throughout the month, and may address this again next month. Other than that, everything is running very smooth. We had two deputies graduate from the academy on the 17th of this past month. And we had two more that started at the end of the month. So good Lord willing, the creeks don't rise. We'll all be, we'll be up to par with our personnel, uh, come November, December. Um, so with that being said, uh, heading towards the body worn camera, uh, it's a, it's a constant battle. Um, we've been pushed out to some third party stuff through GTAC as far as the redaction part of it. Um, again, Ms. Riley can speak a little bit more on that. Uh, she, again, she's up to date on all the numbers that you may or may not want to have later on. Um, but we had a lengthy conversation with a senior, uh, national member of GTAC's, uh, organization. He was a national salesperson. Um, it was, it was a good conversation. I received a good email back from him. Um, At some point, I can share that with you all if you'd like. But he's put together a plan to maybe make his product a little more user-friendly for us. And they're planning on coming to the office within the next week or two. So we're hoping that that goes as planned, just like nothing else has. But anyway, do you have any questions of me specifically?

Not to get down into the weeds. But I know there were some operational issues. Have we solved those problems? Or is that going to be what the representative?

That's correct. And Ms. Rawlings, she was in on the call yesterday with them. So she's up to speed as well as far as, again, we both received an email today from GTAC, from their national people. So they're It's a little weird because when we first went with GTAC and when we first did the study, there were seven or eight jurisdictions in the Commonwealth that were using GTAC, and they seemed to be the up and coming at the time. By the time we implemented GTAC, it was us and one other jurisdiction, and they're much larger than we are. But again, we're making it work. I feel like I've reached out now. I finally got high enough up the food chain that things are working out. And they are functioning. It's just been very time-consuming to do it the way we need to do it.

Okay. I have one other follow-up question. Give me a time frame of the viewing of the body camera footage and how many instances have you had to do that? As far as...

The viewing of the footage? Totally, to include FOIAs and as well what goes to the Commonwealth. Yes. Ms. Lyle.

Every video that is taken is viewed. Maybe not in the entirety right at that point, but anything that moves from the Sheriff's Office to any other sort of outwards agency, whether that be through FOIA or to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office, that's viewed in full. Anything that goes out for a FOIA requires a redaction. The easy formula we'd like to try to give everybody is for one hour of footage, it takes two hours to redact, and then it has to be rewatched to make sure that you didn't miss anything. And per state code, you have to have an additional cross-check, so somebody else has to watch that footage too.

How many on the redactions?

Since March.

19 videos since March.

19 videos in a three-month period of time, correct?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you for being here. Commonwealth attorney, Mr. Hurd.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, fellow board members. As I said before, the Commonwealth is not required to prosecute misdemeanors, and that's one of the main reasons the state doesn't fund that type of prosecution, and then that can follow on the localities, and I have never before asked for you for that, and I'm not doing that today either. I'm just asking you to fund what you're by law required to fund by the issuance and implementation of body one cameras. I've explained orally in writing that among other things, the so-called criminal justice reform of 2021 added greatly to the work of the council's attorneys, and I've gone over that in detail orally in writing with you. I've informed you basically we do not have the extra time to spare And you did an action similar to the General Assembly in having basically what's an unfunded mandate for us to do the work without having the staff do it. You did fund it for the Sheriff's Office for the extra work, but not for the Commonwealth's Attorney. The body-worn cameras may have become operational in May, but we were not really reviewing footage until, I'm sorry, in March. We weren't reviewing footage until May. There's a difference in how that it was promised to be performed and how it has performed. I don't need to go into detail with that, but it's affected our office as well. Basically, we're requesting the footage that we believe we need on cases. And there's a lag time, though, in the creation of the footage and when we actually have time to review it. Basically, we're always behind. We have last minute things to attend to that arise. We have other deadlines we have to get to before some of those videos. to be reviewed. And so we get to it as time allows, such as if we have to do it for a bond hearing or as we get closer to discovery and trial. So from May to now, we haven't yet gone to trial for much of the footage available. We haven't had time to do it because of our other duties. So review time can vary from 10 minutes on a video to four hours. And not all of that footage has been reviewed yet so far, even on a four-hour case. Since May, meaning for two months, we requested video in 15 cases. I think the 19 case figure given to you just now may have been to your question about redacting, is what it sounded like. But anyhow, so there can be multiple videos for just one case. So far, we've received 51 videos. And out of those 15 cases, we reviewed videos in 11 so far, meaning currently 27% have gone unviewed. Because the lag time also is going to get worse because we need the help. We expect more cases in the summer. We've heard that there were some cases from the campground over the Fourth of July. We know cases usually increase in the summer. We reviewed dash cam videos. of troopers DUI cases. We've become aware of deputies frequently being the first to respond, thus requiring our requiring the deputies video footage later on when we're looking at the troopers video. We have also a market increase in cases involving some women who have what appears to be paranoia or overly fixated behavior causing more work in our office and the sheriff's office. And in those cases where we normally wouldn't request footage for even like one speeding and reckless driving case, we've had to see the footage because we know what's coming from these particular defendants and accusations that they are making. And reaching out to Department of Justice, FBI, et cetera, filing suit against the sheriff's office, FOIA with everyone. So there's been an increase in that sort of behavior. And also since legalization measures took place regarding marijuana, I see an increase in paranoid behavior and other mental illness symptoms, and thus, again, causing more work. So it doesn't go down. I'm telling you about that because the workload keeps increasing. Now, like I said before, it's not always the number of cases. It's what's involved in the cases. So say litigants and lawyers are using AI, and we have to double check that by finding out the cases don't exist. There's more to body-worn camera footage than just looking at it. It affects our discovery answers. We provide to defense attorneys, and Mr. O'Donnell had to have a juvenile Zanetti blurred in one case. 2021 was, as I told you before, criminal justice reform part one. Now in 2026, it's part two. We basically have had the eternal legislature that keeps going on and on like the energizer bunny. and that it doesn't seem to stop. And they go from doing their legislation, then vetoes and then back. And meanwhile, this is the most convoluted and confusing legislation that myself and some other Taiwan's attorneys have seen in the 37 years I've been practicing law. And that is causing more work on us as well. And basically it looks like they just don't know what they're doing with the effects of some of their legislation. And we have to have more classes and more meetings discussions on that. And one of them that affects us is what was supposed to be giving law enforcement officers the right to basically appeal the decision of a prosecutor that they've lied or should be banned from testifying and put on the so-called Brady list. But what they did was something they've tried to do that's been voted down for years, which is give us, give the defense attorney the requirement that we have to list for them

impeachment evidence.

And so in what looked like a bill to help law enforcement officers with their accusation, in reality, it's creating more work for the prosecutors. And we have to have filed notices. We have to list out this stuff we didn't have to do before. And it's going to cause more work with the body-worn cameras. So I'll say that we really do not have the extra time Time's running out for me to act because I met with the county attorney and provided her with the attorney general opinions and cases spelling out with no uncertainty whatsoever that a local body's implementation of budgetary language is a ministerial function and it's mandatory, it's not discretionary. Also that it is proper to have a writ of mandamus to have a local body actually perform the ministerial function and an injunction then be an additional remedy in addition to the writ of mandamus. So I remind the board that oaths were upheld, were sworn to uphold the law. And the statute of limitations for me to force compliance is one year. And the limitations when it begins, it's arguable, but I intend to be cautious and file it prior to August 5th. You've been warned by the county attorney. You've been warned by me. I've explained to you why your suggestions wouldn't work. Some were unethical. some are not practical, not feasible, not even financially sound in regard to a part-time prosecutor. So I've tried to work with you on that, tried to work with the county attorney in suggesting maybe we can have an agreement to hold statute of limitations, agreement among ourselves. I'm afraid that won't legally work either. And so it's been suggested, I've heard a suggestion that maybe you let me file suit and then you have some, you know, can tell the, voters that you were forced to do this. I do not think that is wise. First, there's, again, the knowingly violation of the law. Secondly, times a precious commodity. And this causing me to not give time to victims and witnesses, spend time on this instead. And also, it's not the best look to serve the citizens. and that the county attorney has to sue because in order to get the job done, it should be done. And I don't like doing it, but I feel like I don't have a choice. And so you may want to consult the county attorney, maybe in a closed session if you wish, about possible litigation and about some effects of this because I don't feel comfortable doing that. You may want to do that prior to making a discussion and vote. I talked to her about that. Lastly, I'll say it's been a long time since I've done this to a board. Some of you didn't see me do this before, but I feel like I need to do this. Bumper sticker. Town Hall's attorney standing between justice and a catch and release program. So I ask you to not sheep out on justice. There's a lot of things you can deal with in a budget. But cheaping out on justice and going against what all the so-called experts have said about what has to be done and what the General Assembly has mandated is standing between justice and actually not, well, it's not helping at all. So not helping your citizens in the way you may have intended with the prior votes. So thank you for your time and I'm willing to answer any questions.

Any questions for Mr. Hurd?

Mr. Hurd, have any of your cases that you've had, if you had defense attorneys requesting body cam footage?

I'll have to go down into that because he's handling most of the cases that involve the body-worn camera footage that I have.

The answer is yes. Yes. Straightforward, yes. And attorneys who do not regularly practice in Middlesex, who have been in other jurisdictions, have been quite surprised we didn't have camera footage, and it's a standard part of all of their discovery requests now.

Right. So they know that if we have it, the sheriff's office has it, they know to ask for it.

They know to ask for it, but we're producing it whether or not they ask for it.

Right.

We've got the constitutional obligation that Mr. Hurd talked about, and that's the safest way to protect it.

I'm just thinking if there's a situation where your office decided this really isn't going to help us at all, but you'd still have to, if they asked for it, then you'd have to review it.

Well, we'd have to review it no matter what.

Right.

that's the only way to find out if there is rating material which might tend to exonerate a defendant. Also, we have to do it for case assessment.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Hurd, have there been any consideration on your part or your office's part of a part-time legal paramedic? Paralegal. Paralegal.

Paralegal or an assistant commonwealth attorney?

Paralegal.

Paralegal. Yes, as I had informed the board, I think, when I made my budget request, we have the numbers for a paralegal. However, we didn't think it was going to be in the budget, and we decided to work with you and offered that we have an administrative assistant who... is able to work, she's already working extra hours. Anyhow, when she decides she could work even extra hours, and be paid just a little extra sum, and you folks, I think, obliged with that, I believe. So maybe your question is, can the duties that we need in regard to the rest of our job, like reviewing footage for preparation of cases, reviewing footage for discovery purposes and deciding what is exculpatory and what is not exculpatory, what is mitigating and what is not mitigating. And I've explained before that with ethical concerns, I'm not willing to do that. That is, Mr. O'Dowd, I talked about it. He went even, I think, to Australia to talk about ethics at one time. He's published on ethics, and we know that that is a horrible idea, and we're not going to do it.

So is there any sort of compromise here?

I'm afraid not. I mean, I put out in that nine pages about my budget of why I think it is even not cost effective to do part-time. You get much less bang for your buck. I've talked to local attorneys about who may be willing to do part-time and look at how much they would charge. And I put all that out for you in those nine pages and explain how it's less effective to do it that way than to have someone full-time and to have the control over it that we need as well. If you have further questions on it, please send my February letter.

No, I'm good. Any other questions? Thank you, sir, for coming today. All right, moving right along. BDOT.

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the board. Quick update for you guys with regards to stuff going on in Middlesex County. Route 333 at Route 626, the Intersection Improvement Project, Regent Road, that's still projected to start December of 26 this year. Deltaville Shared Use Path, the right-of-way authorization is to begin on September 1st. That's a nine-month process for right-of-way. And then following that, there's nine months of utility relocation as part of that process. project. The advertisement date is still scheduled for December 1st of 2027. Bridge projects underway. Route 17 northbound bridge replacement over Dragon Run. That construction has technically begun. You will start seeing some shifting of those lane closures beginning tomorrow, actually, so they can begin constructing the crossovers so that traffic will be able to run on the southbound bridge So first they have to construct those crossovers and they can switch traffic over and then begin substantial construction of that bridge replacement. And the completion date is still early 2028, but that could move either closer or maybe a little bit further away. So maintenance highlights, I did want to hit on contractor primary mowing is complete that first round, the second round. is scheduled to begin early August in Middlesex County. Route 619, 620, and 629, Stormont, Mr. Williams, those ditching and patching and shoulder pulling operations have been scheduled and should begin here in early fall. Some traffic engineering request updates. I did want to update the board on Route 626 Regent Road. We are planning on installing it with the county's concurrence, installing at least two pole mounted speed display signs. Those will show in real time what the speed is of those vehicles that are traveling on that road. There's even some of them, I think these have the capability of storing that information as well. So you'll be able to look it up, see what the 85th percentile is and what the operating speeds of that road are. There's a third location that I'm looking at potentially installing as well. I think it would be beneficial on that road in particular. But more to come on that. Those plans are being developed right now. The locations should have actually been staked already for misutility. So we're well on our way for installation of that. The through truck restricted signs have been upgraded and updated to current standards, but that's as a reminder that was already in place, but all that has been updated and upgraded so that should be good. The golf cart ordinance. land use permit for Lover's Lane in Deltaville. That permit has been approved. So the next step is the county ordinance must be amended to add Lover's Lane to that. As a reminder,

Sorry. Sorry. We'll tag team together. Right. OK. So if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to jump in on that as one reason Mrs. Wolf was here and I. So that will be going out for public hearing, as Mr. McKnight was saying. And it will be on your August meeting public hearing for you to consider an ordinance for Lovers Lane to allow golf carts. And we have notified Sheriff Sampson and. kept everybody in the loop on that. So I'll let you have the thunder back now.

Well, the land use permit on our side has been completed and that's approved. So now it just needs to be updated. The ordinance has to be updated and a public hearing has to be held. And that is all I have unless the board has any questions for me. Questions?

I'd like to thank you for what you're trying to accomplish there on Region Road Force. I appreciate you picking out a box a little bit and signs and everything. Coming out of that turn, leaving Hartfield, okay?

Okay.

The turn that's in question where the cars are running off and almost hitting the means house and stuff. Right as you start to come out of that turn, there's a sign that says speed limit, 55 miles an hour. I mean, that gives people an impression. Well, I'm out of the turn. Let's step on it. Couldn't we just get that sign moved on down past the means house at least? Absolutely. Thank you very much. Like I said, I appreciate what you're trying to do there. I know the means do too.

Any other questions? No, I just want to say that just to give you a compliment on the construction that's going on on Route 33 right now down in Hartfield, it's a pretty big project, and it's very little weight, and it seems to be very well organized, and nobody's leaning on a shovel. So it's a good job. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. McKnight. Appreciate the update.

Thank you.

School matters. None presented. Wow. Is it snowing out there? Is in your packet EDA marketing report only? uh in your packet so services report only in your packet moving down to item five regular agenda items fy psap education grant and dave layman is going to come forward with that good afternoon mr chairman members of the board we've got two grants for you today both of them have no local match requirements the first one is a psap

Virginia 9-1-1 Service Board education, FY27 education program grant. This is basically for continuing education for 9-1-1 dispatchers. The second is a Virginia 9-1-1 Service Board GIS data enhancement program. That award is $50,000. With that particular award, what we're looking to do is bolster GIS information make it more specific, looking to do sub-address points in their schools, in their campgrounds, so that the 911 center has a more specific address when somebody calls 911. As an example, if you're in the campground, for example, on just, say, Trout Lane or whatever, and you dial that number, it's gonna come up at a generic address at that point in time. We don't have the specific lot numbers type deal. This will kind of narrow it down to that specific site. There's no match for either one of these grants. All I would do is ask that you approve them and allow us to move forward with the administration. Questions?

In approving these grants, can we approve them together?

Mr. Lehman, do you know of any reason they couldn't? No. That'd be fine. I did know if maybe sometimes the grant needs special. No. Oh, okay. No, Mr. Chairman, you can do them absolutely together.

Okay. In that case, a motion would be in order to approve the grants. I'll make a motion, Mr. Chair. Motion by Mr. Jesse. Thank you, sir. Second. Second by Mr. Crittenden. Thank you, sir. Further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mr. Bill Harris?

Yes.

Mr. Kurtman?

Yes.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Williams?

We can't hear you.

Mr. Williams, did you hear us? Okay. Mr. Don Harris. Yes. Motion's approved. Thank you, sir.

Item Regular agenda item 5B, Broad Creek project contract.

Good afternoon. As you recall earlier this, I guess late last year, we discovered pretty significant damage to the Broad Creek public dock. That's on Timberneck Road. So I issued an invitation to bids, opened the bids on May 28th, and three bids were received. After reviewing the bids, we recommend issuing a contract to Delta Marine Construction for $30,000. As you recall, this year we actually have a budget for our docks. The county administrator budgeted about $50,000 with their expectation this would be every year to start repairing all of our docks. So this can be funded out of our current dock budget. So therefore, staff recommends awarding the contract to Delta Marine Construction in the amount of $30,000.

Any further discussion?

I just have one question. Is it these docks supposed to be eaten by the design? Is it a floating dock or is it going to be a...

This one will not be. This one has got to be exactly the way it is. It will be to the inch from what I understand where it is.

Thank you. A motion be in order to approve the Broad Creek project. So moved by Mr. Crittenden.

Second.

Second by Mr. Harris. Any further discussion? Roll call.

Mr. Bill Harris?

Yes.

Mr. Kurtman?

Yes.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Williams?

Reggie, is that you nodding your head to approve the contract or shaking it to say no? Okay, thanks. That's a yes.

Here we go. Mr. Don Harris.

Yes, motion's approved.

And as a reminder, this will take time. There are permits still required, even though it's just a complete reconstruction in the same spot. We've got to redo all the permitting, so it will take time. That's all.

Ms. Riccardi, you're still up. ERP software contract awards.

Does Ross have a copy of it that he could share over Zoom?

It should be. Okay. I can do this. There we go. So let's get started. As you recall, We've been working on replacing the county's ERP software for well over a year. I guess I should follow along the PowerPoint. I'll tell you what, you guys, this really excites me, and I'm going to end up going way off my script. So for that, I apologize. But this has been a very fun project, and I'm looking forward to these next steps. So let me behave and follow along with the actual script. As you know, our current system, Bright, was implemented and went live in the 1980s. And everyone recognizes the limitations, ergo, we started talking about probably in 2021, the fact that we probably needed a new financial software. In 2024, we finally got out and requested consulting services. We awarded the contract at that time to Barry Dunn, who is on this call with us. I don't know how to make them appear, but they are here. They did about a year's worth, maybe eight months' worth of fact-finding research to delve into what softwares we need, what works and what doesn't work. In fact, here it is. They started in January 2025, where they started all the research Then in June 2025, we went out for RFP. At that time, we received nine proposals. You had a committee of me, May, the treasurer. Kevin Gentry, the IT director at the time, and Karen of the schools. So the five of us reviewed all nine proposals, and we interviewed the top, who we thought were the top three candidates, and decided to come up with the best of breed approach. And that's where we are now. Let me... with the best of breed approach. So that means that Edmunds will provide our financial, payroll, permitting, purchasing software, and that's where we are right now. They're going to do the general ledger, budgeting, purchasing bid, contract management, accounts payable, fixed assets, project accounting, grant management, things that we're not even using systems for now. All of a sudden, it's all going to be pumped into one computer software instead of a tracked on a spreadsheet somewhere on a piece of paper on my desk. Fixed assets, for example, is a spreadsheet and are public files. We're also going to use admins for HR, benefits, payroll, time, and attendance. Again, we outsource part of that, and we use paper processing for part of our current modules. Then Avenity, that's our second, so talking best of breed, we found that Edmunds did those modules awesome. And then we saw Avenity. Avenity is a treasurer, commissioner of revenue, taxes, and tax billing software. And I will say, I'm going to say it again. Edmunds did exactly what I expected out of a financial system software. I think Aventity did that and more for what we expected and what we'd hoped for for a treasury and commissioner of revenue software. So combining those two together made a great approach. And there I went off track again. Together, these systems will integrate and provide the functionality we need for the long term. As we know, we will have... visibility with built-in dashboards, analytics, drill-down capabilities instead of all of our information in silos. This piece of information will say, oh, you're linked over to this piece of information. I'll pull it together. It's a really exciting opportunity for our financials. And this was my idea to include this again. As you recall, when I first started talking about this, I gave you an example of how bright looked compared to the others. This is our current bright. first page when you open up the software, that's what you see compared to this, where it's just going to be, if I want to go to my chart of accounts, it's just a click and drag. If I want to see my favorites, it's going to be a click and drag. So for the month of reports right now, the words that I have to go through are, you do things like type in BR20 or go, what is it? Go, Go PRAP, whatever. You type in these words at the bottom instead of just saying, I want to go to monthly reports and click on it. So that's like the really exciting part for someone. Have you all met Brittany? Let me digress for a minute. Brittany is our new executive assistant. For her coming on board, she's going to be able to look at this system and run it without having to actually learn new words. This is all going to be words that most people can use when they use Windows. So anyway, since we had presented this information to you several months ago, plus I gave it to you via email, I wanted to make sure that you all knew what we were thinking. Since we brought all that up, the staff, the county attorney and Barry Dunn, plus the vendors have been on multiple Zoom meetings or Teams meetings to do contract negotiations. The contracts that you see tonight, reflect all those negotiations. The first year cost of implementation, this is going to be a two-year implementation, starting with Edmonds. I think I'm going ahead of myself again. The first cost is about $260,000, well within the $287,000 budget approved for the fiscal year. And then the second year, it's going to be $410,000, which is a little bit incorrect because it does include a continuation of the hosting fees, which will end up being an operating cost by the second year. So at that point, we'll be dropping the $50,000 a year-ish of Bright and going on to both Edmunds and Avenity. So that's just, but that'll be in operating costs. So let's see. This is a significant investment. Wait, wait, wait. I wanted to keep on going. Again, sorry. Like I said, I get really excited over this. Sure, that's this page. I'm sorry, you're right. I just skipped over it because I wanted to get to the implementation process. So Edmonds costs $68,000 a year, no matter what. Every year for the next five years, it's $68,000. Avenity, which is obviously a more integrated program, costs $119,000. Well, it starts off at $115,000 the first year. Then it goes to $119,000, then $123,000. They go up, I think, 3.5% or 4% every year.

Are those costs locked in on a contract?

Yes. Yes, sir. And what that does is that provides ongoing annual support, ongoing updates, things like when there's a rate change or anything like that, especially admins. If there's a change in the payroll taxes, they do that for us. We won't have to do any of that. So that's the type of thing that that all includes, plus, of course, just regular maintenance of the system.

So do we have to renew licenses with them every so often?

Probably. Heather, I'm sorry.

I don't know that answer. So that's part of our contract agreement as a license agreement. Yes, sir.

So there's a time frame where we have to renew the license every so often? Is that what you're trying to show us here? Yes.

I'm going to tap Ross and Kate, and I'm going to answer this as best I can. I'm not trying to be elusive. It's just these were extremely complicated contracts. Sort of, Bill? Mr. Harris, sort of? Yes, there are time frames, but most of them are an automatic renewal. Essentially, the day we're done with either one of these vendors, we give notice, and that's going to stop things.

So... So when we need to renew the licenses, is that cost figured in what we're being shown here today?

Yes. To my knowledge, yes, sir. All that's built in. Yes, sir.

Yes, that's the cost. The license renewal?

That's the license renewal, yes, sir. The cost of the first year, that's all the implementation, the data transfer, and the training. So that's why the first year is going to be so much more expensive.

There's no inflation factor or anything tied on any of these prices?

In Edmonds, no, not in the first five years that we're in there. By the time it's, and I'm sorry, I should have had that, but I don't know if it's five or 10 years for them, but Avenity goes up every year. Avenity absolutely builds in. The contract has it built in, whether it's four or 5%.

So these figures were being shown they can go up by inflation?

No, these are fixed for 2028 to 2030. That's the contract.

And the contract is after 2030. We're going to be dealing with an inflation factor if we continue to use this.

There's no doubt in my mind there's going to be an inflation factor.

Thank you.

So what's next is implementation. And this is, if you said, right now, I'm already go, we could go back to our office and admins is ready to start telling us what they need to convert the data. We would convert. or the county, first thing that's got to go is the general ledger, because the general ledger, that's our accounting system, has to be the driver of everything else. That's why Avenity doesn't start until March 2027. Avenity can't start until we have a full ledger built, because they integrate back into our general ledger. Regardless, both of these, we look like we could be live, and this is absolutely impossible in my humble opinion, but if we followed the exact plan and didn't have any barriers, such as pick on snow days or, um, what's something else we're working on new doc, new doc, RFPs, whatever it could possibly interfere with me or, um, Brittany, they actually think they would be live within almost 11 months with our general ledger. And the whole thing could be within about 15 months. I'm going to tell you that I'm not gonna be able to do it that quick, but we'll be close. And then right after, like I said, as they just take a little bit longer to go live with a vanity, um, I know it's going to sound crazy, but the general ledger is complicated. Payroll is complicated. But dealing with the way the structure of your taxing structure, that gets a little bit complicated. So hers takes a lot more detail checking. So but again, a lot of that's going to be you checking stuff. Did you want to say anything about you don't not want to say anything to you? We do have, Karen is here to support, Treasurer was here, but May is here to show their support for this particular system. But I want to say this right here, I know it's a significant investment, but it is one that's going to replace your aging software with a modern system that will improve efficiency, streamline our processes, and better serve both your staff as well as your public. Staff definitely recommends approval of these contracts with Avenity and Edmonds. Obviously, it's subject to final approval by the county attorney, but she has delved into these. Fortunately, it's been about a month since she's last looked at them, but I think we're all ready to say we highly recommend these two programs.

Anything that's going to inhibit these programs from working with our current printers?

No, sir. No, we do have, there is one thing we have to get, and that's going to be a scanner down in the treasurer's office for payments. And that's included in this costing, but everything else will work. It's going to be just like going into the cloud and you will print it instead of having to do something fancy. It's just going to print like you go to word.

And when y'all were signing on this provider, what did the other counties that use them? What did they say? What kind of comments did you get?

I'm sorry, say that again.

Other counties that use this provider, what kind of comments did they make about it?

We have been through that, but I'm going to say Avenity, hands down, everybody absolutely loved it. There was no question about Avenity. Edmonds was a little bit off, and we found out why. It's because people who went 100% with Avenity, the Commissioner of Revenue, either didn't go or balked at it. And I'm pointing at you because it's all your fault. But apparently it is not as good of commission revenue. And so that's where they flawed. One county did not buy all of the Edmonds modules. So bear with me while I say this. When you do fund accounting, Fund accounting is everything has to balance. We create a separate fund just for the treasurer. That's always been it. They didn't buy the treasurer's fund. So obviously that's included, but they chose not to implement. It's not that they didn't buy it, but they chose not to implement a treasurer's fund. Ergo, they couldn't balance their funds and they were frustrated because it didn't work because they didn't do it that way before. So people that were troubled with Edmonds, We delved further and found out why, so I'm not disappointed in their results. What we saw, and from the people that liked it, have been using it for years and years satisfactorily.

To put you on the spot, do you recall any of the other counties you spoke with, who they were?

I do not at the top of my head, but I do have lists, and I know you've probably got lists somewhere.

Thank you.

But we were, like I said, we delved into this, and with nine vendors, I felt like we had a very good variety of options. We got the normal expected ones, RDA, which actually is really better for schools, I think. We got Tyler, which, as you know, would have been my favorite for years until I saw Edmunds. And Tyler really has... Tyler has some limitations that it's actually more advanced than what we need. And then some people that were going to build it from scratch. So they couldn't even show us what they were going to do, but that was the $3 million version. And I think if I'd brought that to you, y'all might not have been as willing to go that route, but there was a, there was one that was $3 million starting from scratch. At this time, what I'd ask for, staff recommends awarding the contract to Avenity and Edmonds as presented in their proposals subject to county internal approval. And do I have anything else? Hold on. Let me see. I don't think I have anything else. I do not.

There's obviously a great deal of personal private information that can be stored in this system. I assume that would be as far as employees, as far as citizens of the county as far as their tax information, that sort of thing. Does this successfully interface with any systems that we have, security systems?

I'm not sure I have that exact answer, but I do know that at the very beginning, we made them through their... confirm that our stuff, that our stuff, that our information was protected. And of course it would be blocked. So for example, you, not you, you're not a good example, but another coworker wouldn't be able to access payroll information. So I'm not sure if that's what you ask is, is Ross on here that he'd be able to confirm that about.

Yeah. I mean, we hear all the, you hear all the time in the news about how a government system information was released and and we'll make sure that this is pretty secure if it has all that information in it.

Right. And again, that was part of the, that's not just part of our requirements, it's part of the proposal, included those types of security issues. In fact, they've gone back on, I think it was even Avenity who came back on us making sure that we were secure. So they were right back to us on that.

That's a good sign.

Any further questions? A motion would be in order to approve the contracts as presented. I so move, Mr. Chair. So moved by Mr. Jesse. Thank you, sir. Second by Mr. Crittenden. Roll call.

Mr. Bill Harris?

Yes.

Mr. Crittenden?

Yes.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Williams?

I saw your mouth move and the words of yes, but I'm going to ask for a head nod, Mr. Williams, to make sure my lip reading is correct.

Yes. There we go.

Can you hear me now?

Yes. Yes, we can. Yes.

Motion is approved.

Okay. For me, I want, this is really exciting for me, but I think in the end, you're going to be excited as well. I think you're really, well, it's going to be a while, but I think you're going to like the results. And I'd also like to express my appreciation to Barry Dunn, who's on this right now, who really helped guide us through. I've talked to other agencies who said they would have never gotten, that they struggled because they didn't have help. Yeah. And I also want to express appreciation to the committee. The committee was the one who actually got us there. So that's all. I just wanted to say thanks to them. And of course, thank y'all. I'm really excited.

All right.

Oh, do I have more?

Education equipment, budgeted supplement request.

Oh, that's me. Election equipment. Page 105. All righty, on to the next. As you know, our 26-27 budget includes the use of $100,000 for my prior reservations of funds for election equipment. The actual cost when we had the equipment, it comes from the state. The county didn't really have a choice. It's $109,706.50. We have been asked, Melissa brought that to my attention, ergo I need to request $9,707 be appropriated somehow for this elections equipment. So that's what I'm asking for at this time. Is appropriate $9,707 from fund balance to pay for this elections equipment.

Questions? Seeing none, a motion would be in order to approve the supplement request. So moved, Mr. Chair. So moved by Mr. Jesse. Thank you, sir. Second. Second by Mr. Crittenden. Thank you, sir. Further discussion? Seeing none, roll call.

Mr. Bill Harris?

Yes.

Mr. Crittenden?

Yes.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Williams?

Yes.

Mr. Don Harris?

Yes. Motion's approved. Item E, sales tax referendum.

Oh, yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. And we've spoken about this during our budget work sessions, but we would like the board to consider authorizing staff to move forward with a referendum for a 1% local sales tax. Obviously, we've got some big needs coming up over the next several years with our high school renovation project.

Yeah.

I'm hearing some slapback. Hold on one second. Just one second. If I can make that. There we go. So basically, this local sales tax would let visitors and others who shop in Middlesex contribute to our school projects. This 1% sales tax would be earmarked only for school capital improvements and major capital expenditures related to schools. And so this is a great way. We haven't been able to do this here before, but with some of the recent legislation, Middlesex County could... put a 1% sales tax on the ballot, it would be in the form of a referendum, and the citizens would have an opportunity to vote on that. We think it's worthwhile in the sense that it will take some of the burden off residents because we know a lot of our revenue comes from real estate. And this is a way to capture some of that transient revenue. People come in, they spend money here in the county. And one of the things that was important for me to call out in this internal discussion that we had, there are carve outs for groceries and hygiene products. So some of those necessities would not be impacted by the sales tax. But, you know, you've got people coming into the campgrounds and they're, you know, tourists and things like that. They can help us pay for some of these upgrades that we need. I was reminded that Gloucester, anytime we go to Gloucester, we're paying for their schools because they already have.

Some other counties around us that are doing it as well that you're aware of?

doing what we're trying to do right now in light of the legislation? Yeah, I think there are a number of them. I'm trying to think of one that I could call out.

Well, one that I think of immediately is Gloucester, for example, but Gloucester already had a legal authority to do that.

Yeah, even ones that already have it. What are some ones that are thinking about it or already have it around us? Matthews, Essex, King Queen, Lancaster, any of them?

Oh, OK, I hate to say this, but the localities I've been in touch with have not been in the local. I apologize. I did not follow that because some of the local ones already have the ability to do it. We just didn't like Frederick County, which I know is not helpful, but that's heading towards like West Virginia. I knew they were going to. I don't know specific ones are joining us other than Gloucester, who already has it in place. But I do know that it is something that numerous localities are discussing. But to be fair, one of the reasons that we're not hearing as much about it is, as Mr. Hurd stated beforehand and as the board's aware, the state legislator really waited until, I'd argue, the 27th hour to adopt a budget. And this was part of that last round of pushback between the governor and the legislature. So we did not know whether this was going to happen until, what was it, last Tuesday? Yeah.

So I'm thinking you haven't had enough time to be able to answer this next question.

Well, maybe.

We've been – What is the projected income?

Oh, now that they are prepared for, and I'll defer back to admin.

Do you have that number, Anne-Marie, the projected income of 1%?

No, it was right at $1 million, but I did not – I didn't write it down.

Yeah, the projection that staff has put out is approximately $1 million. Yeah, it was $1 million, but I don't have the – Right.

So roughly $1 million. Yeah.

But again, it's all contingent on the economy. And I mean, it's a projection. Right. Mr. Gentry, could you scroll down, please? Because the one thing I want to make sure the board is looking at is I want to highlight, keep going down to the question, please. right there, number five. So if you'll expand it, just zoom in a little bit so they can see it a little clearly. So gentlemen, the way this will work is presuming the majority of the board wishes to move forward, you would adopt this resolution tonight with this language in here. I then tomorrow will file with the circuit court a petition in order asking the judge to order a referendum, presuming the judge... you know, if the judge enters the order, then this will be sent to elections to be put on the ballot for the November 3rd ballot for your general election. And this would be the question. Should Middlesex County add a 1% general retail sales tax on purchases to provide revenue solely for the construction or major renovation of Middlesex County public schools in Middlesex County? should this referendum be approved authorizing the levy of such tax, the tax would expire no later than July 1 of 2046. Now, um, that expiration date is, that is the language of the, of the law. I didn't make that up. That's one I'm limited. You're limited by 20 years. So I just went ahead and just kept it of the date of your resolution. Um,

The date of our resolution or is what?

No, it's the resolution.

What's come down is the 1% that all counties will have to get rid of it by that date or possibly?

So that's, yes, sir. I mean, the way it's currently written is that basically the 1% sales tax will expire for those of us who have done it pursuant to this provision. no later than 20 years from the date of your resolution. And yes, we were very taken back instead of the date, because even after this passes with the referendum, assuming it does, you still then have to adopt an ordinance. So think about that. We won't know until, say, December, the results of the election, right, certified. You'll have to review an ordinance language. It may not be until January you actually have this in effect.

So another county that already has this in effect, they're looking at that same date of 2046?

No, sir. Oh. It'll be all of it. So the statute reads on the date of our resolution, 20 years from our date. So, for example, Gloucester's might be sooner because they've already had theirs in place.

So it's 20 years for everyone?

It's 20 years from the date of whenever you adopt your resolution.

Okay.

So, but it won't be, you know, if Lancaster doesn't do this until another year, theirs will be 47, right?

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

No, I have to say, you know, we got to realize, you know, a lot of us do shop in Gloucester.

Oh, yeah.

So you support in this school. So, you know, and if you go to any of these stores around here, there's a campus they buy. They buy up things because a lot of times. The area they're in, their taxes are high on sales taxes and things. So, you know, it only makes sense to me if it alleviates the pressure on real estate, you know, of people coming in here. Because I can tell you, I see those RVs going up and down the road, and, you know, they come in here, they buy. And not just food. They buy a lot of beer, too.

This does apply to, like, meal taxes and that sort of thing?

Don't know that it applies to food per se.

I'm going to, I'm going to look over to, I'm going to phone a friend. Yeah. Well, and, and the commissioner revenue would be good. Yeah.

I don't know that I have that exact answer. I think that in restaurants, there's also a sales tax and then an additional meals tax on top of that. And so it is for sales, excluding food purchase for human consumption, which means grocery store items and personal hygiene items. So if the restaurant does have, and maybe May can... Do they have sales tax? Yes. So if a restaurant has a sales tax, then this would be an additional... on top of the sales tax. It excludes the grocery store purchases and personal hygiene items.

Sorry, tax maybe on lodging, like a hotel?

Well, so like an example I would say is that if I went to the grocery store right now and I bought wipes, baby wipes, that would be excluded. But if I bought dog food, I'd be paying a 1%, right? So if I go to the restaurant and I buy something that's not prepared for human consumption, let's say they have candles at the restaurant, I'm going to pay an extra 1% on that. The clearest distinction I can give is if it's meant for human consumption food, it's excluded.

And hygiene. It's kind of like the Florida model. Get the tourists to help pay your bills.

I think that's the theory. If the board has any thoughts on the question, I tried to write it as plainly but as clearly as I could so that it communicates clearly and articulately to the public what you're trying to do and that this is only about public schools.

Is there a curve out for medications?

So the only language that I know of is it says, no, sir, to my knowledge, it's food. I don't know if medication would be. Well, it could fall under maybe.

I think we need to know about that. I mean,

Well, that's that's so let me let me say it this way, gentlemen. Today's your day to make this decision. OK, and if there's hesitation, I respect that. I'm not. But unfortunately, today's your day unless you want to call a special meeting and you would need to do so before July 21st. You would actually have to do it before July 15th because that's when our judge is back.

If the referendums are approved by the voters, we are then obligated to move forward or we should still have some decision making after that?

You still have to adopt an ordinance.

Okay. So if we decided not to adopt the ordinance, then it would...

Yes, sir. Then, yeah. And I apologize. I don't normally, normally I'm able to, but we're just on a, again, Richmond really did us so many favors, said no one.

I understand what this can do and everything and so on and so on, but we have a, We have a lot of people here that are coming of age and the pharmacy is a place that they visit. And I don't think one place to stop the show, but I also want anything we can do to make sure that medication is carved out. I'm all for that.

And I'm doing some quick Googling here, but it looks it appears, Bill, that the Mr. Harris, that the Virginia law provides. that it exempts rather prescription drugs from the retail sales tax. It does.

And that agrees with what I was finding.

So ostensibly, it would also apply to this as well. So it does exempt. That's what I'm seeing right now. We'll drill down on that. We'll confirm that. But that's what I'm seeing. Thank you. And all of our work is still ahead of us because if you guys choose to do this, we've been working with Dr. Seitz. We really need to make the public aware of what this is and what this is not. And so we've got a plan to socialize this with the community and help them to understand. We're also not helped by the fact that this referendum is going to be on the very bottom of a number of referendums. And so... We just want to make sure people understand what it is. To that end, we'll try to get out there and cheerlead it and talk about it.

Okay. Motion would be in order to approve the...

1% sales tax. A motion would be in order, excuse me, if I may, to adopt the resolution R2026-005 as presented in your packet, please.

Okay. I'll so move on that motion. So moved by Mr. Jesse. Second. Second by Mr. Bill Harris. Seeing no further questions, roll call.

Mr. Bill Harris.

Yes.

Mr. Crittenden?

Yes.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Williams?

I see there.

I got a question. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. My question was, when I asked when you come in, debt or money can only be used on renovations?

It can only be used for public school renovations or new construction. So new construction or renovation of our public schools. I'm sorry, Reggie, now we can't hear you.

Well, you've got two things connected there, Mr. Williams, so that's why it's causing a little bit of echo. Sorry about that. I know. Technology, what are you going to do?

Can you hear me now?

Yeah, it's going to feed back a little bit, but see if you can get your comment in, please.

How about now?

yes sir okay so reggie they're on to the vote they've roll called and it's uh so far it's up to you well we're at your name please yes thank you mr don harris yes motion is approved

All right. Citizens appointments. Anne Marie.

Thank you. And if I thought my item was exciting, that's exciting. Great. Great job. So we've got a bunch of vacant positions that are up for either renewal or filling. So why don't I start from the very beginning? One of the first things we need to do is with the we need to appoint run up. Let me ask you, the bottom of my letter is the staff recommendations. May I just go through that and we'll do the recommendations to start filling people to these unexpired terms or renew their appointments? Does that work?

Yep.

Okay. So we need to consider the appointment of Ronald Rice to fill the unexpired term of Wesley DeLizzo on the wetlands board. And you can see his application is there on page 111. And that's on the wetlands board. Do we want to get a motion on that one and move on, or shall I just go through them all?

You could do them all and just do one, unless there's one in particular the board wants to break out, but you could do your current vacancies for A through F. Okay, I'd be happy to do A through F.

Okay, reappointment of Alice Brooks to a four-year term on the Social Services Board, expiring 6-30. And by the way, the reasons why all these came up is because we did have a bunch of terms that expire on June 30. So these are people renewing. I've got a reappointment of Steve Barnett and Casey Mewborn to the Middlesex Broadband Authority to four-year terms, also expiring June 30, 2030. Reappointment of Artie Johnson and Marilyn South, both from the first... Hartfield... Excuse me. I'm sorry. I can tell there's something wrong with my throat here. Hartfield District to four-year terms on the planning commissions with terms expiring June 30th. Reappointment of Janice Moore to a four-year term on the airport committee expiring 8-31-2030. The next one is from... Trent sent me this, that apparently he needed to confirm Mr. Anzovino as alternate number two and Anton Weber as the primary member to replace Celan Redon as alternate number one for the Clio board. And finally, this one just came up that we were notified that while we had Joyce Wolfe and Kevin Gentry as the primary and alternate members of the Chesapeake Bay Public Access Authority, it needed to be reversed with Kevin Gentry as the primary member and Joyce as the alternate.

I think that's a good place to stop. That was quite a few. That's it.

Yeah, that's it. That's all we have.

That's it, folks. Just all. So if the board's. So Desired, you can make a motion to approve those appointments as presented by staff, if that's your will.

I'll make a motion to approve the appointments as presented.

Motion made by Mr. Jesse. Thank you. Second. Second by Mr. Crittenden. Thank you. Roll call.

Mr. Bill Harris.

Yes.

Mr. Crittenden.

Yes.

Mr. Jesse.

Yes.

Mr. Williams.

Yes.

Mr. Don Harris.

Yes. Motion's approved.

the complicated part of mine, which was the noise ordinance appointments. Do you want to do this one or shall I keep going? Thanks. Thank you.

Wait a minute. Did we do the CLEO? Yes, sir. Yeah, okay. Yes, sir.

I combined all of one, two, and three because those were just your normal appointments. The noise ordinance is for your new committee. Go to page 136. That'll kind of give you the background. And that is the noise ordinance established in 2004 was, as you recall, determined to be non-enforceable. A replacement ordinance was adopted in 2026, which was then repealed in June with a discussion at that time to have a committee participate in a new ordinance review committee. So since May, 11 community members have applied to be on the noise ordinance committee. And those, thank you, those names are listed here. starting with Virginia Jean Atkinson, Stephen Blue, Catherine Williams Coyle, David Edwards, Greg Harrow, Sandra Helko, Doug McMinn, Dawn Moore, Tammy Putney, George Sneed, and Wandra Thornton. We will note that these come from a variety of backgrounds, a variety of different interests. Some are complaining that the noise ordinance went too far. Some are complaining that they still need an ordinance. So there's definitely, I'm going to call it a balance there of people that have different interests, but in the end, they've got to come up with a recommendation. So again, with an odd number of members, you can certainly just adopt these people to come and be part of your committee. And you may also, and this was my plug here, you may want to request or recommend a timeline for completion just so that they know that you're looking for this. I heard somebody say September. Well, I don't think that's going to be practical. Maybe you want to have it done by September. So that's the end of my spiel. Sorry, we're looking for appointing members to the County Noise Ordinance Committee. That's what I'm looking for.

We are on no restrictions for numbers, correct?

It is correct.

And we have 11 that have voiced an interest in participating in this committee. I would think... I would think going forward, we would want to approve all of them.

I just have one question. I'm looking at the list. One of the applicants lists Gloucester as their home. Is that?

She actually lives here in town, but that is her mailing address. Okay. So we did verify that.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Does the board feel that the county's represented from one end to the other evenly?

Once this shareholders committee is formed, we still are... going to be able to have a representative from the sheriff's office, for instance, and maybe some other interested county officials participate.

I believe you'd wanted your county attorney and a representative from the sheriff's office involved in this committee. Yes, absolutely.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Yeah. So with that, it would be appropriate for like your administration, definitely a representative from the sheriff's office. It's as your county attorney, I'm happy to participate in the sense of, you know, giving some within the legal parameters and those things and drafting what the committee asks for. That would be appropriate for my role. But I do think some I believe one person from admin and then I know. Do we know who's from the sheriff's office right now?

It's changed a few times. Yeah, it's changed a few times. It's either Mr. Carver or Lieutenant Carver or Ben Fossum.

Yeah. So we're looking at maybe... But there will be someone from... There will be a representative from the Sheriff's Office. I mean, we can include the Commonwealth Attorney's Office, but it's a... It's an ordinance in which I enforce. So, I mean, but if Mr. Hurd would like to join or Pat, we obviously, we welcome their expertise. Oh, yes, sir. It's fine. Yeah. I will not say no to another lawyer helping out. So, but you'd be happy to invite him as well. Mike, you're officially invited. I see you in the galley. So if you or Pat would like to come and join, we welcome you.

Okay. What's your pleasure?

I move that this panel be accepted for the Noise Ordinance Committee. OK. Second?

I'll second it. Roll call.

Mr. Bill Harris?

Yes.

Mr. Kurtenden?

Yes.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Williams?

Yes.

Mr. Don Harris.

Yes. Motions approved for the formation of the committee. Noise committee.

Can you give staff some direction on a timeframe of when you would like to see something? Any guidance you want to give to staff that we can communicate to this committee would be helpful as well. If there's something in particular, but really a timeline would be helpful. Do you have an expectation of when you'd like to see something back from the committee. Could you give us that guidance, please?

I would think September would be good update time.

I just was looking for something so we can tell. It's good to have goals.

Administrative updates, signatures in time, book sales.

Good evening. Back in August 2020, excuse me, I meant to bring, I was going to bring a book so those of you who didn't see it could see the book. My bad, I'm sorry. Anyway, in 2012, Middlesex County purchased 2,000 copies of the book Signatures in Time, which was designed by the county about the county. To date, more than 800 copies have been sold at the established retail price of $50 per book. But that still leaves almost, I don't know, it's going to be about a thousand. So there's about a thousand books downstairs of the basement of the new courthouse. The books are prepackaged. They're very big books, but they're packaged in little boxes of seven books, seven copies each. Recently, I had a phone call from a Mr. Aubrey Hall of Urbana. He inquired whether this county would consider a discounted rate for bulk purchase. He indicated an interest in purchasing 100 books if a reduced price were available. The obvious benefit is it gets the books out there. They are really good information. Prior to bringing this to the board, of course, I did reach out to Larry, the primary author of Signature in Time, to make sure that he didn't have any concerns about selling this in bulk. And like I just explained, I think he felt that... No objection, because getting the book out there, the reason why we wrote the book, they wrote the book, was so that people would know the history of Middlesex County. So to that end, this pricing, selling them at $40 to Mr. Aubrey Hall or anyone who wishes to buy in bulk, would certainly cover our acquisition costs, while still perhaps encouraging large volume purchases, reducing our long-term storage needs, and most importantly, enabling a greater sales network of this excellent volume of information. So what I'm requesting today is that the board authorize, and bear with me, I came up with these terms, y'all can change it however you want, but authorize a discounted bulk sale price of $40 a book for nonprofit organizations or museums who are purchasing a minimum of two boxes. That would allow people like mom or any of the other museums in town or even schools to buy some signatures of time at a reduced rate. So again, that's, and whether or not my minimum is too low, maybe it should have been four boxes of signatures and times. I'm game for anything. I'm asking for you to authorize a bulk sale.

I'm finally trying to get it out there. I think that's a good point. Rather than the book setting, there's some kind of way to get them distributed.

Thank you. Yeah, I'd just like to say that I'm about halfway through that book right now. It's a big book. It's a big book. But it is a gem. It's a masterpiece. And I really encourage every Middlesex resident to read that book. It makes you proud.

It was one of my first purchases when I came here. That one and there used to be a cemeteries book that's out of print now. But I bought both of those when I got here.

Okay. Motion. Motion. Or a discounted price on signature in time book sales? I will so move. So moved by Mr. Crittenden. Second? Second. Second by Mr. Bill Harris. No further discussion. Roll call.

About $40. Yeah, that's what I'm asking. That's what he offered. Mr. Bill Harris? Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Crittenden?

Yes.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Williams?

Yes.

Mr. Don Harris?

Yes. Motion is carried. Moving right along. Agenda item seven, county uptake.

Just, Mr. Ministry, did you have anything else to add or did I? Okay, no. So Joyce is still here. I'm just going to say it again. Lee took our thunder. We were going to tell you, we were very excited to tell you the golf cart for Lovers Lane had been approved by VDOT. And so Mrs. Wolfe and I will be preparing that ordinance. That'll be advertised and at your August meeting for the golf cart. But beyond that, I don't think... I don't think there's anything else I'm missing. Sorry.

Yes, sir. Will you be in the meetings with the Ornish Noise Committee?

So that's a discussion we've been having. Yes and no. I'm willing to come to some, but I am concerned given the large volume of people that we're going to have difficulty getting meetings and they're going to be late nights. So I will do my very best. But as you all know, I have a small child and I already have quite a few night meeting obligations with the county as is. So I'm going to do my very best, Mr. Harris. But if they're constantly... Not you who lead the group? Well, I think it would be appropriate for your administration to lead the committee meetings. I have a limited role that I can provide, but so much, right?

So I take it, Kevin, you'll be addressing that.

We have our special projects coordinator who has been tasked with this. So he'll be serving on that and I'll serve as...

But, yeah, I do plan to attend as many as possible, but some of the candidates already stated they can't meet until late, like 6 or 7 o'clock. Yeah.

All right. Moving right along. Item 8, unfinished and new business. Unfinished business.

I think we may tag team it because Anne Marie's got the figures, but I'll get started. So the number one, the constitutional officers and county staff bonuses, the board will recall, I think this may have come up in May that there was some money in the 2026 budget. So the previous budget that we just came out of to do bonuses for constitutional officers, cop board employees. And at the time, I think the board, requested that we go back to the constitutionals and get their feedback. And unfortunately, when we brought it back, we kind of brought it back and just dropped it on the table at the previous, I want to say the June meeting. So we wanted to give you a chance to sort of digest the feedback that you got from those folks and decide whether you would like to do a bonus for all the employees so that we're not doing some for the constitutionals and then none for the county employees because as we talked about in here before in many cases we have people working side by side doing the exact same job and it's just a happenstance that they are county or they are state so just as a morale issue we like to be consistent if we do something like that we try to do it for all um I think Anne-Marie had some numbers and figures as to what that might cost, and we had the money that we could do it out of contingency. So it was funded in last year's budget. It's still funded as far as I know. Anne-Marie, you'll correct me if I'm wrong. Correct. If we chose to do it, we could do it. And I believe you tell me you had worked it out in a flat bonus for – let me turn it over to you because you can get into the numbers.

Before you move – Yes, sir. I thought we approved to do the constitutionals and the other county employees.

No, sir. We approved a 2% COLA for FY27. And that's why it's unfortunate these are parked right next to each other because they're really not related in any meaningful way. The bonus was in the 2026 budget, and the state came up with it and said, we are going to authorize this bonus in what was this year's budget three months ago. And so... It's not related to a cost of living increase. It's just a bonus. Okay. And I know it's confusing. You're not alone, Dawn. Did you have anything to add to that?

I did not. I wanted to, you did ask for the number and that was, so the bonus structure was a 2% bonus. That's what the state said. And the equivalent in a fixed flat rate of payment for eligible employees was about $1,175. And remember why this was important that the board has to approve this is we don't give bonuses without the board passing an ordinance. So if you all say, let's go with this, you still have to... pass an ordinance. So that's the big deal. If we probably could have last month said, go ahead and go with the ordinance, then we could be discussing whether or not you wanted to go yay or nay with the ordinance. That might have been an easier way to do it because you would have the ordinance in front of you. So what we're looking at right now is do nothing. That's number one option. Number two, provide the 2% bonus only to eligible Comport employees. Number three is provide a 2% bonus to all county eligible employees. And the other one is to provide an alternate one-time bonus structure, which is $1,175 for most employees, except for the Comport employees that would have to be paid more just to get the bonus. To that end, when I did the math, regardless of which route you went, that was my point, was we do it equivalent. The 2% bonus to all employees would cost about $131,000. The comp board reimbursement was about $41,000 for that. So the net cost to the county was about $9,000. Again, I'm saying about because there are people that come off payroll once in a while, people that quit.

I could have sworn we were talking about a number of $77,000 before. By the number of 77,000 for everyone to get.

That's going to be part two, I think. That's going to be the 3.5%, which is the next agenda item.

So, yes, you're not missing the number. And this is the bonus in last year. So, it's, I know.

So, you're thinking of, there are two different topics that we're going to, let me go back to page one real quick so that we. There was the bonus. That's last year's item.

And then there's this one that you're going to... And maybe I can go into that just so we kind of understand the difference there and we can make the distinction. Does that make sense? Yeah.

Or do you want me, I can also. If you'd like to talk about both.

Yeah, just help us understand the bonus versus the goal.

So the second item, so the first item was the bonus. So keep that word in mind, bonus 2%.

One-time payment.

So now let's go into the fiscal year. That was last fiscal year, old news. Typically, when the state provides a cost of living adjustment for employees, that's for their Comfort employees, we, the county, follow suit. So they have said up and through May, June this year, that they were giving a 2% cost of living to county employees and to Commonwealth, excuse me, to Commonwealth employees and state employees. We were living off that number we budgeted based on that number. When we adopted the 27 budget, the state said, had talked about the 2% cost of living adjustment affected July 1st, so our budget was built using that number. However... After we adopted our budget in June, the state made two changes. First, it increased their cost of living for our comp board employees from 2% to 3.5%. Y'all, 3.5% was never discussed, ever. They never mentioned that, but out of the blue that came. But they're saying it now. And second, it changed the effective date from July 1st to August 1st, which was unusual. But neither of these changes were included in the budget discussions while their state budget was being developed. That being said, let me leave it at that right now. I'm just going to leave that one on the table. That one is the one that's cost a $77,000 increment out of the current year budget. The other one, the $90,000, I have to go back to my, I turned the page already, the approximately $90,000, that's the bonus out of last year's budget.

And at the risk of maybe throwing more numbers and causing further confusion, one of the net effects of when Virginia, though, and the state finally got their budget sorted out is we realized $177,000 more from the state that will shore up our monies that we had to transfer in from fund balance and take that, I believe it was $220,000 down to $86,000. Not totally relevant, but just to say that we're actually getting more money from the state.

Are we looking at getting some money from the school's budget as well? Or is that what you just talked about? Excuse me?

That is that money, yeah.

Yes, sir.

So let's go back. Now that we've got two numbers on the table, but what is the word that you used? They're not related to one another.

They're not. There's a bifurcation.

Yeah, good word. We're going to call it bifurcation. They're two completely different. One is for the prior. The bonus is for the prior fiscal year that just ended. That one, when we were talking about it, and when it first became available, we could have used, and we still would propose to use, the contingency from last year's budget to fund bonuses for everybody. And that's at 2% or $1,175.

I think that's where it gets confusing because we use 2% and that sounds like a COLA.

It does.

But it's truly a one-time payment. And it probably, if we had gotten you the information sooner, maybe it would have happened prior to July 1st, if it was your pleasure. The COLA had to happen after July 1st because this COLA is for fiscal year 2027. And we would be able to take and leverage those state funds and take what we expected to be a 2% COLA for the employees and move it up to a 3.5% COLA for the year. That would affect all employees. Oh, and let me say too, because this came up in a conversation the other day, they don't stack. In other words, if we have budgeted 2%, we're not saying we're going to put 3.5% on top because we saw the schools go from 2% to 5%. So I see how people may get that confused, but truly what we're talking about is another 1.5% in addition to what we had budgeted for the original COLA. It's a small enough figure that we're not amending the budget per se, and we have the money –

one of them is a reoccurring expense correct correct one of them is cola that will be yes yes sir and one of them is just one and done that's right i got a question yes sir do we need to pass that today uh which bonuses yes the bonuses right we've got to accept that today so that we can do the ordinance all right if we accept the bonuses today that's the two percent for the comp employees but we're not giving anybody else that are not comp employees anything. And we are not looking at real numbers. I think I've said that one time before and I was just myself personal because I'm gonna look out for the lower end of the spectrum altogether. And I need a few more numbers to look at that. So I'm not saying not to give the comp employees what they do which is 2% they get from the state. That's a given. Now, what we are trying to do is to bring up the employees that are not comp employees. And all I'm saying is I just got to look at a few more numbers because I'm more concerned about being fair to the less fortunate employees that are not comp employees i got something in mind but i got i got to uh i got to look at the numbers and to see what we can come out with and first the thing going back on last year i think we gave a bonus last year of 700 And now we're giving a bonus approximately this year of eleven hundred dollars. So I just need a little bit more time myself. If the rest of them will pass it, it's up to them. But I can't I want to be fair for the ones that is making less than sixty thousand dollars a year. Every one of them, regardless of when they were employed. And I have to look at the numbers. And we talk about a 3% cost of living. This is just an idea, 3% cost of living. And we control our 2% COLA. We control that. Now, the state is telling us to give all the company employees 2% more. So yes, I got to look at some numbers when you slap it on me like that. And I think I've said that before, and that's how I see it. For what I'm concerned, I don't even want to vote on this thing today. Because if we got to August meeting, then I'll be satisfied with August meeting. Then I'll be ready to go one way or the other. But I can't vote for it today, because I'm more concerned about the joke of cost of living and where that money is going. Now, one thing I would say, that I'm a proud that the schools did do something like they did the year before last. They gave all the employees x number of dollars. They gave the teachers five and a half percent, but they took 4.3% for us. Now I'm getting so tired of doing the math and not being clear. I want to see real numbers, but the rest of the board, once again, want to say, hey, we're going to go with this because I got a plan what's fair and what's not fair. But I do appreciate the idea of some of our comp workers did write nice letters. to the board saying, I think my employees that's working with me deserve more money. And I might not even be talking about bonds because we control that too. Because right now they're not giving anything. So I got something in mind. And if they really mean all of the statements that they're saying, then it'll show itself this time. exactly what they mean so and that's all i got to say the thing i'm saying is we can wait to august if nothing changed and we got a pass for the company employers i don't like to give that back the two percent that the state want to give them i can deal with that because we can give the rest of them what we want to give them in august and we can make it right because we've been getting money back to the state and we can make it right i know we can but we got to look at real numbers

Mr. Chair, I'd like to say something. Bottom line, you know, as we know, bonus is a one-time thing. And as we all know, and I look at where the economy is and how things are going now, gas going up, gas going down, you know, we're in a war and all this other stuff and everything's going up. You know, if you go, just go to the grocery store, just buy anything. electricity going up, everything going up. So, you know, I appreciate our workers, all of them. But this one-time bonus, I think it's not going to hurt. I think it's only going to help for, you know. But my question is now, what is the cost? Now, I heard two or three different costs. I'm writing it down. And one was $90,000, one was $86,000. I may be already off. But how much is going to that one-time bonus going to cost? And you do it at 2%.

And again, it's the same whether we do flat. Because when I calculated the $1,100, I did that based on how much can I afford with that exact same $90,000. So it costs $131,000. you will be reimbursed $41,000.

All right.

So that's how much the bonus costs. Remember, the nice thing, I mean, not the nice thing, the bonus doesn't have any side costs. For example, you don't have to pay. Your life insurance cost doesn't go up on that. Your VRS isn't charged on that. So that is it. The $131,000 is what the gross cost is. Your net cost is going to be $90,000. Okay.

Now you cleared it up for me. I noticed in the letters that the leadership sent, we asked for their input, and I do appreciate them taking the time and the letters that they sent and whatever. I did notice in there that several of them spoke that they would try to tighten up their budgets a little bit so they could contribute to make this happen. Have we spoken with them about that?

They're years over. So if they have funds, I think that's more what they were doing. Their fiscal year is over. Remember, this is all out of last year. Well, it kind of is. If they haven't, that will be used. Absolutely. I may not hear anymore, but it is.

I did see in those letters, the Senate did see a lot of leadership there. And I appreciate that.

I think a lot of them did have money dovers.

So we still have time to make that decision the August meeting.

Right. The ordinance needs to be presented in August so that we can fund the bonus at the August payroll. That's the goal.

So we need to do the bonus today for sure.

They need to... what is it? Enable the county attorney to write the, to have the ordinance.

So what I would say is that if, if it's the intent of the board to give the bonus, then direct staff, I'll, I've already prepared it. I've had it prepared, but we'll tweak it depending on whatever y'all decide. I'll advertise it. It'll be on your August agenda. My only caution is, is if it's not the desire of the majority of the board to approve that, then there's, I would not encourage advertising the ordinance because you have to pay, you have to pay for all that. And So the bonus can be delayed until August per se, but you got to tell me what you want me to do. If you think you're going to approve it, then I've got to advertise.

Say next year, a bonus scenario comes up. A new ordinance is in effect. Every time there's a bonus, you have to do a new ordinance.

Yes, sir. There's. Yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I know. Another one of those fun laws that I wish I could. I wish they would listen to me when I write a comment. But yes, sir. Yeah. I mean.

Let's not do those anymore.

It's frustrating. Yeah, I just personally, I think, you know, just just one opinion. If you will support it or you're not, let's don't play around with it. I think if if you're going to support the employees for the two percent, do it. Bonus two percent bonus. Do it. And if you're not, you know, you're not going to do it. But what I'm saying. Why delay it and then advertise like you're saying and then do all that to say, no, you ain't going to get it. You're not going to get it. So be straightforward. You either want to support it or you're not. And get it out the way. If you're going to sit here and wait and sit down and think about, well, I don't know, should I do it and balance all that? You're either going to do it or you're not going to do it. You support the employees for that one-time bonus or don't. And that's how I look at it.

I mean, why mess with it? So we can vote on that portion of which we discussed here tonight, the one-time bonus. Absolutely. And not vote on the other part she's talking about, 3.5% cost of living.

Okay, I'm going to look to your admin. Yep, that's fine.

Thank you.

I'm how about this let's it's the reason we're kind of looking at each other like who's on first who's on second is because unfortunately we're talking about them in the same meeting but they are two separate pots of money so and I recognize from the board's perspective it's all one pot of money but it is it is I don't know that you could delay the COLA but because the language by the state says that it's supposed to be paid out August starting August 1st right and Yeah, but we don't do payroll until August 15th. Okay, so it sounds like you could wait on the COLA until August if you preferred, if that's what Edmund's saying.

Yeah, in any case, if you did vote for it today, it wouldn't go through until August. They wouldn't be paid the 3.5% in July. Normally, cost of living kicks in in July. This one doesn't until August. So it's the board's pleasure.

I got one other question. I'm being quick on this now to understand that The bonus is only for COMP employees. And the other employees are not getting anything unless we approve it. Now, we're very aware of the COLA. We got to be aware of the COLA because the COLA is 2% that we gave every employee right now. And the state said, well, give everybody 3.5%. I might think it might be better to give some employees 4.5%. Now, I told y'all what the schools done. The schools gave the teachers, which make less money than what they did, 5.3%. But the only thing they did was took 4% for themselves. Now, if we want to help the employees that are down, we talk about all this other stuff that everybody pay the same price. I give you $500 and you go to the store and you spend it up. I'm looking at something that's more permanent for the employees that are less fortunate. And Beans, we are the administration. We should be the ones that set the example. Now, I'm not saying give the money back to the state if they offer it, but some things we are in control of. And I think we can do better then what the bonus is that we want to get to the less unfortunate employees if we watch the numbers because we'll give them something that lasts, not a lump sum of money at one time. If you was getting $10 every month, then you do a year, that'd be $120. I'll give you, and that'll be on your check. Is that what I'm saying now? This will be on your check. That'll mean your other stuff increases too with the money. And let me give you a little bit more example. It's just like if you got a 401k or savings investment or whatever. When you give something that a person can keep your increase in their salary and you're not hurting us, Because we're in control of the destiny. Instead of saying, hey, I don't care. I'll just give you a lump sum of money. And then some people understand it like that. And I told you a long time, I'm looking out for the less fortunate. Yes, the ones that got to go to the store. Some that is more longevity than others. I'm looking out for the girls that's sitting next to the one that's making the money. That can get a little bit more money that's lasting. we're trying to do it right and once again i want y'all to think very careful what the schools did now i didn't say her and you know everything was right but they got 5.3 percent and somebody got two point i mean four point some percent and they got kind of like uh bonuses on top of that because they gave money out of some balance that they got that y'all don't even know about OK, so we trying to set the example and I think with passing what we gotta pass tonight is fine and all I'm saying is just we got another month away. We'll pass up. We know we are because we got the votes. We just want to make sure we're doing something to help our less fortunate ones that are on staff. and we can give them a little bit more, even if it ain't all at one time, we can continuously give them for the next 15 years that they've been working for the county because we've been looking out for the county, not only just throwing the bonus money on them at one time and say that's good enough because they're at the bottom of the poll. And that's how I look at it. I'm not going to say I'm not going to change, but I want to look out for the less fortunate employees because if you're making good money, you don't feel the cost of living like the ones that go to the store and got to take money from the next check to pay for the other ones and if you give them all a lump sum at one time they'll spend it to catch up on something i want to give them something that's permanent i don't want to just throw it at them and i think we're looking at this cola we're looking at three point when you look at this 3.5 percent i'll let you know what the school's done and we don't have to give them any more than that. Because just this afternoon, we sat here and we listened to somebody came to us and said right in front of us, if you don't do it, I'm going to sue the county if I don't do what I want, if I don't get what I want. So we got to be a little bit better than what we saying when we started disagreeing. Now, whatever said, I'm not exactly disagreeing with this bonus. I'm saying if it's 30 days from now and we start giving them some money, will give us time to talk to some of them so they actually can see what we're actually doing. That's all I got to say about it. Take time to think about it.

Yeah, irregardless of the amounts, I don't like the fact that the... state can manipulate their numbers uh... for this particular set of circumstances and then You know, when we looked at this before, some counties were giving it, some counties, it'd be curious to know. But for the state to then come out and say, oh, we think you need to give this because of this, and it puts us in a bind of what we have to decide, irregardless of the number, I'm more positioned to say, to hell with it. what you want to do. Um, if you can't get your house in order, don't expect for us to try to run behind you on what you're deciding or you're not deciding. Um, and that's, that's my biggest, uh, problem with the whole thing is they wait till the last minute and then they say, Oh, this is a one time. Well, hell, it could be a one time. It may not be a one time, but for them to then expect for us to run to solve the problem that they have, it's just tough to swallow. It's absolutely tough to swallow.

Yeah, I'm a little concerned about the, I mean, hypothetically, what do you do if the state comes in and says, well, we're going to give a 10% raise to stuff? Right. I mean, we're going to be on the hook for 10% for everybody else? I mean, there's got to be some sort of an end to this.

I think we can look at the bonuses tonight and make a decision on that part.

So, can I help?

Yeah, no, I'm going to make a motion, but I'm just going to make sure that, you know, that bonus is what we're talking about. Well, I know that's what we're talking about. Now, that's the 2%, which would cost $90,000. For everybody. For everybody. That's for everybody, right?

Yes, sir.

Right, right.

But that's for everybody, regardless of how we split it up. Okay. That's what I mean.

And I can... I guess I'm going to have to make that motion. I'll make that motion that, you know, the 2% bonus, one-time bonus for all employees. Based on last year's numbers. Based on last year's numbers. Thank you for getting me straight.

That said, that means it's coming out of last year's budget, roughly.

Yes, sir. That's why I added that part. Well, I encourage Mr. Jesse to add that to his motion. Second.

Okay, so we have a motion was made for 2% by Mr. Jesse, seconded by Mr. Harris. Any further discussion?

I got one question. Also, I know that the state had put more money in, so that money that we'll get back from the schools will help offset this. Oh, did I hear that wrong?

You're on the wrong one.

Okay, all right.

So that's the correct, you are correct, but that's towards the raise, which is item number B. Oh, okay, all right.

I'm just making sure.

Ignore that one for a moment.

It was a lot of numbers going here and there, and, you know, I'm just letting you know. I'm trying to make sure that I'm right with what I'm thinking about. That's all right.

I just want to say that I do echo what y'all talked about. I am concerned about the state telling us what to do at the last minute and somehow or another. You need to figure something out a little different from this, because this is the way to treat the employees. Going to get it, not going to get it. All this should be settled and come out, and that's what it is. This thing, it's not the right way to treat the employees. I don't appreciate the state doing it either.

Any further discussion? Call for the question.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Williams? Yes.

I want to hear the motion again, what I'm voting on.

The motion is to approve a 2% bonus for all employees, which include the comp board and non-comp board county employees based on last year's salary and budget. So the money will come from last year's budget, not this year's.

But it's coming out of the fund balance. So it's really the same. It's the same money. So this is what I'm saying before I vote. The state funds our employees x number of dollars. So if you're working in a position and you are funded by the state, the state is not paying 100% of your salary. Now we make a motion to saying that we want to give them employees More money when we control the destiny. You know, if I vote for it, it's not nowhere near what I want to do. And I think we're going to have to do a better job in really looking at things when we vote for something. Because we got to make sure that our staff and our employees or whatever we got understand what's going on. Because the state is making a problem and we are making it worse. So in saying that, I can't vote for it.

Mr. Bill Harris?

Yes.

Mr. Crittenden?

Yes.

Mr. Don Harris?

No. Motions carried. Matters presented by the board.

We still have the second item about, and this, again, we're listed as a discussion because we wanted to know the direction that the board wanted to go for the annual raises. Right now, remember, we're doing payroll this week. And right now our payroll has the 2% in it, which was approved by the board of supervisors in their 27 budget. At that point, we'll do payroll this month with the 2%, but I wanted to make sure that the board knows that the comp board and the state are authorizing at 3.5% instead as of August 1st. So we can come back in August or you can say, Ann Marie, go ahead and fix it. Make it the 3.5% now. You can say leave it because we don't feel like talking about it now. Bring it back next month and we'll talk about it in August. So those, I think, I don't know whether those are my options, but increase the annual raise for eligible comp board employees. Increase it for all county employees. Do nothing. Leave it at 2%. or come back next month. I'm happy to do any of these items.

How about having enough of the state shenanigans for the day?

Is that a motion?

No, I agree with you. Can we just table it and deal with it in August? Everybody be here?

Yes, we can easily do that.

I don't get a problem with that either. That'll be pretty good. I like that. OK, that'll be pretty good. We make it right now. That's what I'm trying to tell you all along.

OK. Moving right along. Matt is presented by the board. I'll start to my far left. Mr. Jesse.

Yeah, Little Peninsula Planning District. We had another executive director. Resign? He put his resignation in, but there's a lot of things that's going on there, and we're going to try to get down to the bottom of it, because it is a good organization, but we got some issues going on, and we're going to work on it, because I'm on that board, and I'm going to... We got some meetings, and we got a special call meeting. The 14th. Huh?

The 14th.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We got some issues going on, but we're going to take care of that. But I think on the 14th of July, we got a special meeting that we're going to have to kind of correct some things and get some things in order because we need some cleaning house, and I'm going to leave it like that.

Nothing to report.

Nothing to report. I'm good.

Mr. Williams?

Can you hear me now?

Yep.

Matt is presented by the board. You know, I was at the meeting with Brother Jesse, and this is what I'm going to say. We can't let numbers confuse us, because sooner or later, numbers are going to come to truth. I don't care how much they show up. And that's what I learned from the meeting. It's just like the Middle Peninsula. Yes, they did run into a problem. Of course, I seen it a year ago. But anyway, it's a learning experience. And hey, I appreciate all y'all. Even if I'm the idea that I think everybody's smart and the idea is to make you think and make things happen. you know, be reasonable because God gave us something that he gave to every person and he didn't make a mistake. So it's not easy trying to do the right thing. And in this world we live today, we got to treat each other just like we'll treat our sister, brother, our friend. We can't be in a hurry to make a decision all the time when we don't have all the information. And we got to be willing to change in the middle of the road. And I also had a meeting with Ms. Sykes and Dr. Burnett about the school's renovation. And when you buy something, when you go out to get something, this is what I say, and you look at it like you want it. You got to know what you want, especially when you're doing it for everybody in Mulesix County. So, hey, thank you. Maybe I talk too much. I know some not going to understand the way I talk. And I'm glad to see Bridget back. That's the main thing I want. I'm glad to see her back. Sorry I couldn't be there. Brittany. Well, you know, I'm going to give her a nickname anyway. Thank you, John. Got that wrong.

All right. Item number 10, public comments. I'm going to open the floor for public comments.

Good afternoon, Mr. Harris and board members. Oh, I'm sorry, Ann Marie. My name is Dawn Moore, and I live in Urbana.

On April 28th, 2025, a stakeholders meeting for the body-worn cameras were called. I was one of the community members on the committee. Our objective was to discuss the challenges, cost, funding and staffing needs. After many observations, it seems we need, we should have needed a community advisory ad hoc committee to oversee the implementation of the body-worn cameras. Being on the committee, several things were requested but never transpired. I now see the committee ended too early and the items requested should have not been requested. They should have been demanded. When considering the body cameras, the committee was told the sheriff's office was reviewing three companies. It had been requested to have a presentation for the committee from the three companies, but that did not happen. The recommendation came back from the four representatives on the committee from the sheriff's office that GTEC is the body worn camera that was recommended. And they were able to try all three cameras. After further discussion with other employees, that did not happen. The cameras arrived and then they sat on the shelf until a magnet was received, unacceptable. Then the camera sat for another 30 days due to a policy needed to be posted for the community to review for 30 days. I never knew the policy was ever posted. I didn't see it in the paper because I had all my papers that I went through before I just threw them in the trash. Now, months after being received, the cameras are finally being used. I have not seen them personally on an officer. A deputy came into a building and had the magnet, but not the camera. The camera was in the car. Make that make sense. I am very disappointed with the process and the use at this time. It's also been stated publicly that the sheriff's office needs new body worn cameras. Not happening again. This project should not be as complicated as it has become. I am disappointed in the overseeing of the department. There has been no transparency. Please note, I would have brought this concern, I would not have brought this concern to the board if my request for the meeting with the acting sheriff was acknowledged. I requested a meeting in person after the board meeting on five five and was told not a problem. Never heard back. So I sent an email on 5-28 and never heard back. As a community partner, I find this very disappointing. But as a PSA announcement, you now have before you the back to school bash. Please try, even if you just drive into the camp and see what's going on. This is not a one organizational event. We have the NAACP. We have the Rotary Club. We have the Kiwanis Club. The Moose is joining us this year. Social Services is there. The camp has donated the camp for the county and all those organizations coming together to put this event on for the children of this county. Please try to attend. Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak? I will close the public hearing.

All right. So now I'm up. So with that, gentlemen, it would be appropriate at this time for the board to convene in closed session pursuant to Virginia Code section, excuse me, for the board to enter a motion to convene in closed session. pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 2.2-3711, A7 and A8. This is for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel concerning probable litigation threatened by the Commonwealth Attorney's Office against the Board of Supervisors regarding funding of staff and to discuss specific legal matters and questions with legal counsel regarding the threatened litigation.

So moved. Seconded.

Roll call.

Mr. Crittenden?

Yes.

Mr. Jesse?

Yes.

Mr. Williams?

Yes.

Mr. Bill Harris?

Yes.

Mr. Don Harris?

Yes. We will convene in five minutes in this building, in this room, for the closed session. Thank you.

If you want to, we can cover the stuff. We can't have the recording during the session.