[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6216374,"mediaKeyId","3651572-25479cb620496876a48d4759a4bddff6","parentId",3651572,"title","Isle of Wight supervisors adopt organizational slate, bylaws and meeting schedule; several appointments approved unanimously","audioSeconds",9288,"startMs",260000,"endMs",9548000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3651572-25479cb620496876a48d4759a4bddff6&start=260&end=9548","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3651572-25479cb620496876a48d4759a4bddff6/thumbnail_260000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6216374/Isle-of-Wight-County/Virginia/Isle-of-Wight-supervisors-adopt-organizational-slate-bylaws-and-meeting-schedule-several-appointments-approved-unanimously","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216374-8ca304dd1544b3e3ede44a09156a90b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138274&Signature=eNHHylGsCN6jqBsKKBUgsFpffmuR17~X7uLhORmLxVJU~nlslk-S3-8Z2zWCXZ-8RtvGTOxWtEvtnwfKvB4lxgY3yzqv3cWr7zEfljBmIH~6xYpmBsdJYZE149hHJeiGhBwCQL7Bir9hnMNtdP8wcvIAC8D-DgjQPi~E-2gHB3zfUZ3-sDkVuAv0aPlaTPMcFeIuBfFYfZaJKpxybFSHFyWzhVNa4Xo7qxopO8V69KHOHs2nXr4siEhLjDhPCx6XYWOScn7F7sKF9v8pvWKJY6lnvlhoyl9PXDuv0TQVpyEaj9JvzUYRMgcI9n9QtBojBbyxfk3A7rXjd9CXtqoXXw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Isle of Wight County","date","2025-01-02T00:00:00Z","article","At its organizational meeting the Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors completed routine organizational votes: electing officers, appointing clerks, adopting a meeting calendar and approving bylaws and committee assignments.

Nominations and votes: a nomination for Don Rosie as chair was made and the board recorded affirmative votes for all members present, installing Rosie as chair for 2025. Rudolph Jefferson was nominated and approved as vice chair. The board appointed Catherine Mayes as clerk to the Board of Supervisors and Courtney Denny as deputy clerk. The board also adopted the Board of Supervisors meeting schedule for 2025, approved the bylaws and rules of procedure as presented, and reappointed members to internal and regional committee assignments.

The nut graf: the actions formalize leadership and administrative arrangements the board will use through 2025 and clear the way for committee work and the county's calendar. Several procedural adjustments to the bylaws were highlighted in discussion: notably a change to the public‑comment line requiring speakers to state their name and either their election district of residence or, if they live outside the county, their city/county of residence (the redline language removed the requirement to state a street address).

Votes at a glance (recorded on the transcript):
- Election of Chair (nomination: Don Rosie) ' Outcome: approved. Vote (recorded): Rudolph Jefferson ' yes; Renee Rountree ' yes; McCarty ' yes; Acree ' yes; Don Rosie ' yes. Tally: 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.
- Election of Vice Chair (nomination: Rudolph Jefferson) ' Outcome: approved. Vote (recorded): same roll call as above. Tally: 5/0/0.
- Appointment: Clerk to the Board (Catherine Mayes) ' Outcome: approved (roll call recorded as yes by the same five members). Tally: 5/0/0.
- Appointment: Deputy Clerk to the Board (Courtney Denny) ' Outcome: approved (roll call recorded). Tally: 5/0/0.
- Adoption: Board of Supervisors meeting schedule for 2025 ' Outcome: approved (roll call recorded). Tally: 5/0/0.
- Adoption: Bylaws and Rules of Procedure for calendar year 2025 (redline version discussed) ' Outcome: approved. Clerk to provide redline; staff noted one potential item would require closed session discussion if pursued further. Tally: 5/0/0.
- Reappointment: Board committee assignments and regional board and committee appointments (slate reaffirmed) ' Outcome: approved. Tally: 5/0/0.

Closed session: The board made a motion to enter closed session citing the Code of Virginia for limited personnel and economic development discussions and for consultation with legal counsel. The motion referred to the Code of Virginia citations as read on the record; the county attorney made the motion and the roll call on the motion returned unanimous affirmative votes from the members present. After the closed session the board returned to open session and approved a certification motion stating, to the best of each member's knowledge, only lawfully exempted matters were discussed. That certification passed on a roll call vote.

Nut details on bylaws language: staff said they provided a redline showing an amendment to section 4.1D that now requires each public speaker to state their name and election district of residence or their city/county of residence if they live outside the county, removing the requirement that a speaker provide a street address.

Ending: The board completed its organizational motions unanimously and directed staff to finalize meeting schedules, distribute bylaws redlines and proceed with committee work for the year. No policy changes were adopted beyond the procedural bylaws language and appointments; the board scheduled additional intergovernmental and strategic‑planning follow up items for upcoming meetings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors - Organizational Meeting/Work Session Thursday, January 2, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Supervisors elected Don Rosie chair, Rudolph Jefferson vice chair, appointed Catherine Mayes clerk and Courtney Denny deputy clerk, adopted a 2025 meeting schedule and bylaws and reappointed committee and regional assignments. The board also moved into and returned from closed session under Code of Virginia citations.","taxTitle","Isle of Wight County, Virginia","taxId",55528,"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},6216377,"County recycling program adds cameras, internet and site upgrades to cut costs and improve service",1788,2890000,4678000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3651572-25479cb620496876a48d4759a4bddff6&start=2890&end=4678","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3651572-25479cb620496876a48d4759a4bddff6/thumbnail_2890000.jpg","/articles/6216377/Isle-of-Wight-County/Virginia/County-recycling-program-adds-cameras-internet-and-site-upgrades-to-cut-costs-and-improve-service","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216377-2a2bbcdeb5e4dccc778e4870783d2ed6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138274&Signature=Kpub~P4FNtyEeQ6zj6Aqps934pDrtkfYo8RZmflU8b8c03Ku3672iN7v1irLeqXLE6p7u4WpJd0SHAX4CpiFxRob28uEtc~YuQLMfLKmyBlpFp1irWLcfX91by4yYP8v8Gvxbs4982y4PxzOZKw62rk3WgYtLWW5vkrvTNz4hrcMKIdAuQlFtY7zLvxxuy9f8Fgz9L5a-o1PManBnKjlmKp4OwsKARuSPl1-Lh5ktsAePIChv1siptN4j9hnqP4B8DOdXGEvHF~mtjAQo7STZDTg9QFybebQrKSW0eNuBXUQqMU6H02arSkJOJdfzLY61yPyr-yexsrnguR1UhqkXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County refuse and recycling staff reported on recent operational upgrades and proposed investments aimed at improving safety, shortening site wait times and reducing hauling costs.

Michael Ethridge, who presented the update, said the division worked with county IT to install internet service and real‑time camera monitoring at eight convenience sites and that doing so cost the county far less than an early estimate. \"When this project first started ... the cost to implement Internet at all of the sites was somewhere around 35,000,\" Ethridge said. \"Fast forward to today, we were able to get all 8 sites for less than $800.\" He credited IT staff for negotiating lower costs and building the infrastructure in‑house.

The nut graf: staff said internet‑enabled cameras let supervisors and site managers view multiple sites in real time, speed detection of sites that are not opened on schedule, monitor traffic patterns and test layout changes without having to be on‑site. Ethridge said those changes already reduced congestion at Jones Creek after staff created a new lane and relocated a recycling compactor.

Ethridge also described data collection improvements that allow staff to capture traffic counts and tonnages from the field. Those measurements guide which sites get upgrades first; he said Jones Creek is the busiest with roughly 7,000 visits in the 2023 reporting period and that Carol Bridge and Staves Mill are the next candidates for directed improvements.

For smaller county‑operated and leased sites, Ethridge proposed installing self‑contained compactors and concrete pads to reduce open‑top container hauls. He said installing compactors at three smaller sites the county does not own (Camptown, Crocker and Walters) would dramatically cut annual hauls from about 800 to about 236, eliminating roughly 546 hauls per year. Ethridge presented a high‑level cost estimate: \"This particular project right here for all 3 sites, concrete pad turnkey is about ... $150,000,\" and said the division budgeted roughly $150,000 for Camp Town and $150,000 for Carol Bridge while noting some installation costs for Staves Mill had already been incurred.

Board members asked about whether closing underused sites would be preferable to investing in upgrades. Ethridge said consolidation can make sense from a pure operations cost perspective but also flagged rural access considerations: some residents travel short local distances by trailer or lawnmower to the nearest site and closing a site could create hardship for those users. He said staff prioritized improvements that kept sites open while increasing efficiency.

Ethridge concluded by describing practical, low‑cost improvements already implemented at several sites: painted traffic arrows, lay‑down areas for bulky items so staff can load with machinery (reducing container counts and hauls), and relocation of compactor pads to permit two‑side service at sites. He said the division will propose phased investments to the county budget and that some smaller items can be completed with in‑house labor.

Ending: The board took no formal vote on the capital proposals at the meeting; staff said they will bring cost details and a phased proposal for consideration during the upcoming budget cycle.","Refuse and recycling staff described new low‑cost internet and camera installations at eight convenience sites, traffic‑flow changes and proposed compactors aimed at reducing hauling and operational costs.",{"_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},6216383,"Isle of Wight supervisors review growth scenarios as five‑year comprehensive plan update continues",1887,1010000,2897000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3651572-25479cb620496876a48d4759a4bddff6&start=1010&end=2897","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3651572-25479cb620496876a48d4759a4bddff6/thumbnail_1010000.jpg","/articles/6216383/Isle-of-Wight-County/Virginia/Isle-of-Wight-supervisors-review-growth-scenarios-as-fiveyear-comprehensive-plan-update-continues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6216383-b6609b42d53671ffe167ec71beb27ea5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138274&Signature=iJETyZG2zZclTmcgkqYR~msYiOAhg2zOwP0QOa-57Z8MrBMSgDFlQiVxY3T1EFjpHdcSL97J2gvrs-R1d4NpAnrZv1jMVd6dgdvdTB230Bzm1wpTbRBrpSGiemOqHB3-z-db-U-QoMwU5Qa2BLilHDRySZ31FMgW6xSyx8ei5q9xF7fHDA~qQijB6dKxIpqo~wW6DWn~lWomcJoWm191xBXQpUdlQYmgKBPlYnxpP8qAtQSZEnzviH2hzpIg~Pw0Q76UqDKvbMJAdk7Pxd5izaipktDPhaWCUbtLXAcBH2GBOKeA8kJ~EGrIdlz0qLt0t4nuRnL2zOfXob4B--nwsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Isle of Wight County Board of Supervisors on the organizational meeting agenda received an update on the county's comprehensive plan five‑year review and the growth scenario analysis from Amy Ring, the county's community development director.

Ring said the review follows state law and a multi‑phase public process that produced eight candidate growth scenarios and two preferred scenarios. \"The code of Virginia requires that every locality review its comprehensive plan at least once every 5 years,\" Ring told the board, noting the county began the current review in summer and has run multiple public meetings and surveys.

The nut graf: the growth scenarios and an ongoing consultant study will guide where and how much the county plans for housing, commercial development and public facilities through 2040. The board and county staff said the analysis will inform budget planning and public‑safety, school and infrastructure needs tied to different growth rates.

Ring summarized the public engagement and analysis to date. The county's previous comprehensive plan process included more than 10 public meetings and a survey with more than 740 responses; for the current five‑year review staff ran additional meetings and surveys. In describing outreach for the current update Ring said one phase drew \"409 survey responses\" and later staff had a separate survey that she said received \"the exact number, I think it was over 700\" responses; staff said they are analyzing those results and assembling a redline draft of proposed plan changes for stakeholder review.

Ring said the county hired the consultant firm Tishler Vi(ce) in July 2024 to prepare a growth‑rate scenario study examining three trajectories: a historical (higher) rate, a moderate 1% rate and a more rapid 3% scenario. She said preliminary findings from the consultant were expected in the \"next couple of weeks\" and a fuller report by March. The firm also performed fiscal and market feasibility studies that, Ring said, found both preferred land‑use scenarios to be fiscally positive overall while flagging that some economic development assumptions were optimistic.

Ring provided planning numbers used in the analysis: the consultant's fiscal work projected an average annual population and employment growth rate of about 0.83% between 2020 and 2040; the county used an average household size of 2.4 to estimate housing needs and calculated roughly 2,731 additional residential units would be needed to accommodate that projected growth. Ring said the county's April 2020 housing inventory was 16,441 residential units and as of July 2023 there were approximately 17,566 units (about 1,100 added during that period); she noted staff did not have demolition counts on hand and would provide them later.

Board members pressed for more granular outputs and follow up analysis. Several supervisors asked the consultant to provide growth and development figures by magisterial district (rather than the county's service districts) or to break out residential versus commercial development geographically. Ring and other staff replied the study scope specified county‑wide growth scenarios plus analyses tied to Development Service Districts (DSDs), and that magisterial‑level reporting is possible though it can be complicated where districts overlap.

Supervisors also raised operational and fiscal implications: one supervisor asked staff and the consultant to estimate the additional recurring cost if volunteer fire and EMS services were replaced by fully paid personnel, saying the county should have a background estimate of that potential liability running alongside growth scenarios. Ring said the growth‑rate study will evaluate public‑facility needs and operational impacts tied to each growth trajectory. Don Keaton, the county administrator, confirmed the county will try to incorporate preliminary consultant numbers into upcoming budget discussions.

Ring said staff are assembling a master redline draft and expect to distribute it to the larger stakeholder group by the end of February and to have consultant deliverables available in March, which staff said would allow board members to use scenario results in the FY26 budget cycle.

Ending: The board did not take formal action on the plan at the meeting; supervisors asked staff to return with the consultant's preliminary growth‑rate results and to provide magisterial‑level breakdowns where feasible. Staff scheduled the next stakeholder working group meeting for the second Tuesday in February.","County staff briefed the Board of Supervisors on the five‑year review of the comprehensive plan, presented two preferred growth scenarios and a separate growth‑rate study. Consultants are expected to deliver preliminary growth‑rate findings in the coming weeks.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Isle of Wight supervisors adopt organizational slate, bylaws and meeting schedule; several appointments approved unanimously

County recycling program adds cameras, internet and site upgrades to cut costs and improve service

Isle of Wight supervisors review growth scenarios as five‑year comprehensive plan update continues