prepared by experts in the field, reaches conclusions that

prepared by experts in the field, reaches conclusions that may suprise Mr. Davis. It states that, in Rappahannock, “the apparent increase in crime may be attributed to more- comprehensive reporting in 1976 than in 1975.” The report continues: An interesting factor is that over 50 per cent of the landowners in Rappahannock County do not live in the county. Many part-time, summer, or vacation homes are located in Rappahannock. This results in crimes against property not being reported to authorities until they are discovered, which may be weeks after the offense occurred. The Rappahannock County Sheriff’s Department has a total of three full-time sworn law enforcement personnel. In 1976 a burglary occurred almost weekly and only four were cleared by arrest. This may indicate a need for additional investigative personnel to meet increasing service demands being placed on the Sheriff’s Department. We wonder whether the Commonwealth Attorney’s battle with the Sheriff’s Department and the Supervisors over policing and mileage reimbursement was joined for the good of the county. From what we can tell, Rappahannock citizens appear satisfied with the quality of law enforcement here and want the Sheriff and his Deputies out policing as a visible deterrent to criminals. If Davis succeeds in his efforts to convince the State Compensation Board to disallow mileage reimbursements for policing activities, we think county residents would insist that the service continue. And who will pay the mileage charges? Not the Compensation Board, if Davis has his way. Instead the money will be drawn from the county’s general fund, with Rappahannock taxpayers bearing the entire load.