[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6271021,"mediaKeyId","3029505-decd8da4c78533e0cca5bb2010c762a9","parentId",3029505,"title","Votes at a glance: April 15 Gloucester County Board of Supervisors work session","audioSeconds",7149,"startMs",81000,"endMs",7230000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3029505-decd8da4c78533e0cca5bb2010c762a9&start=81&end=7230","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3029505-decd8da4c78533e0cca5bb2010c762a9/thumbnail_81000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6271021/Gloucester-County/Virginia/Votes-at-a-glance-April-15-Gloucester-County-Board-of-Supervisors-work-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6271021-931fc015eef95096ddef1f6618418ac9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770652884&Signature=T9qi5PrcQ5WXyMFGg1oZgDOBjb3wZX9bkq42vPuvz6Q7y6xul7uehyjXe9RUkHbCVu-YmUvhXTs09P~FM6xfFp61Y-IWuLdOx~hxDABA5aLF4KFHt3Y2U3b4VF8i0vD3nQlK9qX0QsSVDJ3CvfcjQRBRW8QNPXd-vVoSuJxPN2JVlRAtSnTXDbHKf4DUUw-m8w1MpiA45pF2GQzebFCK~4rlcKS6nn70-LssufGjWrO1dqQqtvjHmlK7gq~Eq7eZjx64MZRptzH-A4aplHKOQiuHma3jPF9hhCskA-yv9Dx0pfOCpjmpaw7AWunYd6OlTMPDDL128UDE8UlotYfcMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Gloucester County, VA","date","2025-04-17T01:06:29.51Z","article","At its April 15 work session the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors recorded the following formal actions:

- Approval of minutes (February 4, 2025): Adopted (voice vote) — \"All in favor? Aye.\" No roll-call tally recorded on the transcript.

- Adoption of the meeting agenda (April 15, 2025): Adopted (voice vote) — \"All in favor? Aye.\" No roll-call tally recorded on the transcript.

- Resolution to convene a closed meeting (personnel matter concerning the county administrator): Motion adopted; the board entered closed session citing Virginia Code §2.2‑3711(a)(1). The meeting reconvened in open session later and the board took a certification vote.

- Closed‑meeting certification: The board reconvened and certified the closed meeting by roll call; the transcript records “Yes” votes from all listed members during the certification (each member answered \"Yes\" during the roll call). The board then approved the certification motion by voice vote.

No ordinances, contracts, appointments or budget adoptions were finalized at this meeting; staff and supervisors discussed proposals (for example, a possible landfill solar lease and budget and tax‑rate timing options) but took no final binding votes on those items during the April 15 session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Gloucester County Board of Supervisors Meeting, 4/15/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The board approved meeting minutes and the agenda by voice vote and certified a closed‑meeting discussion by roll call after convening a closed meeting; no other final actions were taken during the work session.","taxTitle","Gloucester County, Virginia","taxId",30980,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6271026,"Supervisors debate timing of tax rate changes, possible budget cuts and earmarking June receipts",1384,3337000,4721000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3029505-decd8da4c78533e0cca5bb2010c762a9&start=3337&end=4721","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3029505-decd8da4c78533e0cca5bb2010c762a9/thumbnail_3337000.jpg","/articles/6271026/Gloucester-County/Virginia/Supervisors-debate-timing-of-tax-rate-changes-possible-budget-cuts-and-earmarking-June-receipts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6271026-9a46bfb76f8013556b16889fab547fd9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770652884&Signature=ERT1FMD5Y002wQVKuU5nWbaROEHVar5qaaYqbDM0y~~oEXjsw30xavE37GPA835cT68BFix7Ko0H-PbSZmOLyYv2micUHkNHmJ0xl57c0xcaGo-32uuPcSRJGRolP7G~X54L2sdaF06s~yqFE6EUtjtOl3odQJArQptiIRea7fJNMtPRI0zQpzjiye5g25v5cfgPlrdbGCcg1k53bW2rdsKWVpOquo84jMT4HW4DIRxT4ApizJ44OWtZ3wqhTOaRGMmQNlLBPSNrGSAMdbcw9HL14T~n79ZtsZEKXeSKYnUTvNzCF6OTYkZRClfdd97sbzLxuzJwow1KBi4s5cc23A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Gloucester County supervisors spent much of the April 15 work session discussing the upcoming budget, the timing of any tax-rate change and options to reduce expenses.

Supervisors debated whether a tax-rate increase (if approved) should be made effective July 1 so that the new rate would apply to the next fiscal year rather than collect retroactively to Jan. 1. Staff said changing the tax collection calendar would require additional ordinance steps and public hearings; they also noted the board could estimate anticipated June revenue for budgeting purposes without changing the tax‑year structure.

County staff and one supervisor noted a preliminary estimate of roughly $997,000 in additional revenue that could arrive in late June if the board advertises and adopts a higher tax rate; staff proposed the board could earmark that amount for capital projects (PAYGO) rather than treat it as general fund revenue. Staff emphasized that final collection figures will not be known until after the tax-collection period and audit.

Options for reducing expenses were discussed. One recurring suggestion was a 3% across‑the‑board reduction in the overall budget as a \"stretch\" exercise for departments; staff cautioned that because personnel costs make up a large share of the budget, a straight 3% cut could force position reductions in small departments and risk service loss. An alternative would be to target 3% in operating expenditures only, which would have a different distributional effect across departments.

Several supervisors raised employee concerns. One supervisor reported staff and school employees had contacted him about the combined effect of prospective changes to raises and recent increases in employee health‑insurance costs; he said county employees were struggling with higher premiums and some had sought food‑bank assistance. The board discussed whether some implementation of the compensation study (funds for which are in the proposed budget) could be deferred or reallocated to help bridge employee needs; the transcript did not include a final numeric decision on that item.

Supervisors agreed to continue budget work sessions and asked staff to prepare additional options and schedule department‑level briefings. Several potential meeting dates were discussed for follow‑up sessions before budget adoption.","Board members discussed whether to make any tax increase effective July 1 to avoid retroactive collections to Jan. 1, options for earmarking estimated June revenue for capital projects (about $997,000), potential 3% budget reductions and employee compensation and insurance concerns.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6271031,"Supervisors weigh limited-revenue solar lease for closed Gloucester County landfill",909,2431000,3340000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3029505-decd8da4c78533e0cca5bb2010c762a9&start=2431&end=3340","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3029505-decd8da4c78533e0cca5bb2010c762a9/thumbnail_2431000.jpg","/articles/6271031/Gloucester-County/Virginia/Supervisors-weigh-limited-revenue-solar-lease-for-closed-Gloucester-County-landfill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6271031-47112b7b6462ecf3f3bfc3ad43f15896/orig.mp4?Expires=1770652884&Signature=JDO4lFj8ax1cGDsaO-WnXSZGRsj97kWwXtf6Jsx3AcIwXAFDspxoAhWnTI0~6BLIi0DY0AdT82mV8fghij5K9NND~5mu~AKx9e-k7YDkqGXPHK-3TCt0SR-XrlZGJfMhcRRcX5IN1Y5S0P3n3HdnoadG3xkticWNkSpYFYkDEq~YY0eV6q6rHzOVxsj40qT4niWG7UOzOtejcPVI6db1V4M82WAABIRvp~FJ22oY1Dr6riqj3k122-Hm7NLKuTH3pnCMtHaQ4S5Fuuymelf2pIWYimI0oo4SumGZSALnaPG9d1c9y6TjmT-PQPflhmjqFU0MWbXM5~lDTh1oNWRcUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Standing in for an absent staff member, a county official asked the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors on April 15 whether the board wanted staff to pursue a conditional use permit (CUP) and request-for-proposal (RFP) for a solar installation on a closed county landfill.

The official said the landfill site is about 50 acres and that a commercially sized solar array on the capped area would likely use 20 to 50 acres depending on slopes and setbacks. Under county zoning rules for the SC‑1 district, the countywide cap for utility-scale solar in the SC‑1 zone is 882 acres (the board’s two‑percent cap), and currently about 101 acres in SC‑1 are already used — meaning the proposed use would be within the county cap. Projected lease revenue was estimated at roughly $20,000 to $40,000 per year.

The official asked the board for a preliminary signal before staff spends substantial time on a CUP application: \"If the board is interested, what we're looking for is a head nod, go forward with the work,\" he said. The proposed leasing approach would be a long-term lease (presenters said the typical structure would be a 25‑year lease), not an immediate sale.

County Attorney Mister Wilmot and other staff described legal and operational considerations. Wilmot said other localities have built solar on closed landfills and advised shifting as much liability as possible to a lessee: \"I would try to put in provisions of the lease agreement, putting the onus of responsibility of all liabilities on the lessee,\" he said. Staff said the landfill's five‑year post‑closure monitoring period had concluded and that methane monitoring was no longer required at present; they also said solar systems proposed would be non‑penetrating and that lessees would be expected to fence and secure the site.

Supervisors were divided. Some members expressed concern that the estimated annual revenue ($20,000–$40,000) was small relative to the staff time required to process a CUP, and that using county‑owned property for solar would consume part of the county’s 2% solar cap. One supervisor said the board should reexamine the cap before committing county property to utility‑scale solar. Another urged caution because long‑term leases can leave lingering county obligations and potential environmental liabilities. Several supervisors suggested watching outcomes from other counties (Middlesex County was mentioned) that are currently proceeding with landfill solar RFPs and reporting back.

No motion to initiate a CUP or to advertise a procurement was passed. The board did not direct staff to begin the CUP process at this meeting and instead asked staff to continue gathering information and report back; one supervisor suggested waiting to see how similar projects in nearby counties fare before authorizing further work.

Planning and zoning steps, public hearings and a CUP review before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors would be required before any lease or installation could proceed.","County staff described a potential lease for solar panels on a closed county landfill and asked the Board for a preliminary \"head nod\" to pursue a conditional use permit and procurement; supervisors expressed liability, zoning-cap and staffing concerns and asked staff to monitor other local projects before moving forward.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6271036,"County attorney reviews FOIA obligations for meetings and records",2239,217000,2456000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3029505-decd8da4c78533e0cca5bb2010c762a9&start=217&end=2456","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3029505-decd8da4c78533e0cca5bb2010c762a9/thumbnail_217000.jpg","/articles/6271036/Gloucester-County/Virginia/County-attorney-reviews-FOIA-obligations-for-meetings-and-records","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6271036-54d45b56f98729bab6487249ec0d3189/orig.mp4?Expires=1770652884&Signature=Ehs3BUsBvfycSD5bDgYvBpBD0M-TNIDvXNeSVInlRLogQixudgvTbHeMWCKqdpwA9qWlydOf8YI1hnonv~-RzPZRWlmvxvkjG3ieIVNkm50eggW8aT3tUHvyhRv-QM0~ZhnP4FEE-swcLgbgsWDHkaGVplwlwLcsl0IB7DJQMtqUrt7xT2L98MUbDuu3Q2m7ikLth-Gcoei2jb~nHOC0L7YKRg3VVXbjPlCcFTFCZz-GAloHVkRdpvfar5jvr5lXvbpX9n6SFQou5O1D3hgRJ-00QkkRwE7wvuI2-XPxbvHuHWDkUAErlBztFjmVb5hypGzonqOZG45eVW7EPORk2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Mister Wilmot, Gloucester County’s county attorney, told the Board of Supervisors on April 15 that the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) must be interpreted \"in favor of openness and against secrecy and closed doors meetings.\" He reviewed who FOIA covers, the timeline for responses to records requests and common exemptions that can limit disclosure.

The training summarized why FOIA applies to local public bodies, including the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and board-appointed committees, and reminded members that the code requires new officials to be provided a copy of the law and to complete FOIA training within weeks of taking office and again every two years. \"If there's a doubt as to openness of meetings, or as to exemption from disclosure requirements, the act is to be liberally construed in favor of openness,\" Wilmot said.

Wilmot walked the board through the public-records side of FOIA: records include written memorializations of county business whether in email, text or memo; requests need not be written and may be verbal; and the county must respond within five working days with one of four responses — produce the records, say no responsive records exist, claim an exemption, or say more time is needed. He emphasized that requesters may be asked to narrow broad requests and that the county may require a deposit when estimated response costs exceed $200.

On fees and production, Wilmot cited the county policy that the first five pages of a response are provided without charge and that pagination fees generally apply thereafter; staff charge policies and hourly staff time also apply. He discussed common exemptions — law-enforcement, personnel, attorney work product, and some investigatory files among more than 30 statutory exemptions — and said many exemptions are partial rather than absolute.

Wilmot reviewed open-meeting rules, including that a \"meeting\" under FOIA occurs when more than two members gather to discuss public business, that meeting notices should be posted at least 72 hours in advance when practicable, and that minutes (including draft minutes) are records available for disclosure. He also explained requirements and procedures for convening closed meetings (motions must cite the statutory exemption) and the post‑meeting certification that the closed-session discussion matched the stated exemption.

Wilmot warned of enforcement remedies: civil penalties may apply for willful and knowing violations, and prevailing plaintiffs can be awarded attorney's fees. He closed by urging caution: \"If you don't want it splattered all over the public, do not write it,\" he said, underscoring that written communications about public business are presumptively subject to disclosure.

Board members asked procedural questions during the presentation; Wilmot pointed them to the county FOIA policy and to Quentin Shepherd, the county’s public information officer, who handles FOIA requests. After a short question-and-answer period, the board moved on to other agenda items.","County Attorney Mister Wilmot gave a detailed review of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act at the April 15 Gloucester County Board of Supervisors work session, explaining open-meeting requirements, public-records rules, response timelines and common exemptions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: April 15 Gloucester County Board of Supervisors work session

Supervisors debate timing of tax rate changes, possible budget cuts and earmarking June receipts

Supervisors weigh limited-revenue solar lease for closed Gloucester County landfill

County attorney reviews FOIA obligations for meetings and records