Louisa County Seal, click for homepage Louisa County Seal, click for homepage
Contact    Sitemap    Search    

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
FEBRUARY 4, 2008
6:00 P.M.



Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Mike Schlemmer, Coordinator of Emergency Services; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager; April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk; and Zuwana Morgan, Records Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the February 4, 2008 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m.  Mr. Harper led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Discussion - Land use valuation

Ms. Pleasants said the County adopted land use taxation in 1976 and it went into effect in 1977 and it was decided at that time that the State Land Evaluation Advisory Council (SLEAC) values would be used.  Ms. Pleasants indicated that using the SLEAC values were highly recommended; however, the County could decide to use something else if the Board wished to do so.  Ms. Pleasants stated she liked the SLEAC values because a lot of research went into developing them and they were the fairest and most accurate.

Ms. Pleasants said the Code of Virginia established land use for the preservation of real estate for agriculture, horticulture, forest use and open space use to be fit in the best for public interest to preserve our land.  Ms. Pleasants said SLEAC was appointed and governed by the Code of Virginia and they were required to base their estimates of the use value of agriculture, horticulture and forestal land on the capitalization of warranted cash rents or the capitalization of net income.  Ms. Pleasants said since rental markets were very thin, and in many jurisdictions, published rental data was unavailable, SLEAC had elected to base their use value estimates on the capitalization of net income.  Ms. Pleasants indicated that SLEAC used a seven-year study to develop each next year.

Ms. Pleasants said since 2001, forestry has increased each year, whereas agriculture has decreased.  Ms. Pleasants added that home sites were also included in the land use values, which were based on fair market value.  Ms. Pleasants noted that sometimes there was also land in land use that hadnt been used for anything, which would also be based on fair market value, but would still be reflected in a land use value.  


Ms. Pleasants indicated that she had spoken with several citizens that were concerned about the increased land use values and requested that the Board direct any other concerned citizens to her office.  

Mr. Spencer questioned if land had to be agriculturally zoned or if it could be zoned something else and still be in forestry.  Ms. Pleasants said the land had to be zoned agricultural, unless the zoning was done by the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Spencer clarified that the zoning had nothing to do with the land use taxation.  Ms. Pleasants said no, unless it was zoned agriculture and the owner of the property requested a more intensive use in zoning.  

Mr. Spencer stated he received several calls from farmers stating that the land use taxation was based on the soils and questioned if that was the case.  Ms. Pleasants said yes, it was based on the soil classification.

Mr. Barnes questioned why there was a substantial difference in land use comparisons of surrounding localities.  Ms. Pleasants indicated that the SLEAC Committee would have to answer that question because it was based on productivity.  Mr. Barnes stated he would like to have an explanation of why there was so much discrepancy between the values.  Mr. Gentry agreed and said he would like to know reasons why the values had increased so much in forest and decreased in agricultural through a six-year period and the formula that was used to determine the values.  Ms. Pleasants said she would ask for that.  

Mr. Byers questioned if there were any subdivided properties that were in land use.  Ms. Pleasants said there could be and it would depend on when the property was subdivided and when the plats were recorded.  Mr. Byers questioned if the land would divert back to not being subdivided at some point if it wasnt developed.  Ms. Pleasants said not through her office.

Mr. Harper said he thought it was very interesting how forestry was trending up and agricultural was trending down, but he understood that values werent totally determined based on the surface.  Mr. Harper said he suspected that anytime an individual had a question it would have to be dealt with individually and he encouraged to have any concerned citizens contact Ms. Pleasants directly.
   

Discussion - 2008 Real Estate Assessments


Mr. Gasper said included in the Board Packet was the 2008 reassessment medians.  Mr. Gasper said the median value was the representative of the mid-point, whereas half of the property values were above the point and half were below.  Mr. Gasper said the following were the median value changes from the previous year assessment:  

Entire County Range 0% to -1%
Entire County with homes -5%
(excluding Lake Anna & Blue Ridge Shores) -5% DWMH
Entire County land only 0%
(excluding Lake Anna & Blue Ridge Shores)
Lake Anna waterfront with homes 0%
Lake Anna water access with homes -3%
Lake Anna access and waterfront (land only)0%

Mr. Gasper said the one area that had an increase was commercial and industrial land because this past year, there were a lot of sales with commercial properties.  

Mr. Spencer indicated that the reassessment medians didnt reflect the peoples property that had increased.  Mr. Gasper stated that the information he provided to the Board were midpoints.  Mr. Spencer questioned why some property assessments increased and others didnt.  Mr. Gasper said one main reason that assessments increased were because something was found on the property that they didnt know existed before.  Mr. Gasper said also, certain markets within the County did better than others, which would reflect an increase in that area as well.  

Mr. Spencer questioned if land was taxed by the use or taxed by the zoning. Mr. Gasper said it depended on what the market said. Mr. Gasper said they looked at the zoning. Mr. Spencer questioned where they got the authority by State Code to assess properties by zoning. Mr. Gasper said he didn’t think it was in the State Code. Mr. Spencer questioned then how could it be done. Mr. Gasper said the zoning made a difference in the value of the property. Mr. Gasper said everything was done by the market. Mr. Spencer said it has always been that assessments were made by the use of the land and then they started doing it by zoning, but there wasn’t any statutory authority to use zoning. Mr. Gasper said there wasn’t any statute to assess properties by the use either. Mr. Spencer said there had to be some kind of criteria. Mr. Gasper said they value some properties as far as use, if that’s what the market showed. Mr. Gasper said if there was a commercial property and they had a residential home on it, that was residential use on a commercial property; therefore, they would value it accordingly. Mr. Spencer said but his question was what was the State Legislative authority to assess land. Mr. Gasper said by market value. Mr. Spencer questioned if it said by market value somewhere in the State Code. Mr. Gasper said State Code said 100 percent market value. Mr. Spencer said he couldn’t get anything answered. Ms. Pleasants said State Code required that you assess real estate at 100 percent fair market value; therefore, it was those values which were established by the market, regardless of how they were used or zoned.

Mr. Harper questioned if Mr. Morgan had anything to add to that discussion. Mr. Morgan read Section 58.1-3280 of the Code of Virginia, which stated the following: Every assessor or appraiser so designated under this chapter shall, as soon as practicable after being so designated, proceed to ascertain and assess the fair market value of all lands and lots assessable by them, with the improvements and buildings thereon. They shall make a physical examination thereof if required by the taxpayer, and in all other cases where they deem it advisable.

Mr. Spencer questioned Mr. Morgan if State Code said there was a criteria to use. Mr. Morgan said only the fair market value. Mr. Spencer said so the assessor could do anything he wanted. Mr. Morgan said so long as he looked at the sales and could justify his assessments. Mr. Morgan said with the litigation the County had going now, they were going to have another assessor look at the work that our appraiser had done to make sure nothing was that far out of line. Mr. Morgan said he has listened to Mr. Gasper in various occasions talk about the assessments that have been done in Louisa County and he thought he has done a very thorough job of looking at all of the sales and looking at the areas that they had been occurring in and his assessments were based on that.

Mr. Byers said State Code stated that the assessors shall make a physical examination if required by the taxpayer and questioned if an onsite inspection was completed if a homeowner made an inquiry.  Mr. Gasper said if a homeowner requested them to look at their property they would certainly do it.  Mr. Gasper added that the assessors physically went to a quarter of the County each year to inspect the property.  

Mr. Barnes stated he would like to see a map that showed the different markets of the County as a whole.  Mr. Gasper said he certainly could provide a general overview that showed the market of specific areas; however, each individual house in the area wouldnt do the same thing.  Mr. Harper said each area should be based on comparable sales.  Mr. Gasper said correct.    

Mr. Gentry said the information provided stated that the median for the entire County land only was 0% excluding Lake Anna and Blue Ridge Shores and questioned if that meant that those two areas increased.  Mr. Gasper said he generally looked at waterfront separately because they were normally different than other areas in the County.  Mr. Gentry said the information also stated that Lake Anna access and waterfront land only was still 0%.  Mr. Gasper indicated that the median was the same this year.  Mr. Gentry said he would like for Mr. Gasper to provide the Board with information of the entire range because the median didnt provide a lot.  

Mr. Spencer said there was 700 acres for the new industrial rail park that was recently rezoned from commercial to industrial and questioned if that was the reason the property assessment increased.  Mr. Spencer requested an answer through email.    
 

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

Mr. Byers said at the last meeting, he made a statement about an implication of several County employees that he felt werent given the proper oversight by management and since that time, he met with the proper management person and talked with them.  Mr. Byers said he found in one case that the person had authorization for the change in schedule and the other person didnt work for Mr. Lintecum.  Mr. Byers said he would like to openly extend an apology to them for any implications he made.  Mr. Byers said in the future he would be diligently trying to route personnel matters to their proper manager.  

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Spencer stated he would like to add discussion of personnel reporting directly to the County Administrator to closed session.

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the February 4, 2008 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

VDOT Monthly Update
- Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator, provided an update of VDOT activities, which included the following.  Mr. Glass said attached to the report was a copy of the Secondary Six-Year Plan for the Boards review.
Maintenance:

Construction: Land Use: Traffic Engineering:

Mr. Byers said he noticed in this report that there were a number of roads that VDOT was looking at decreasing to 45 MPH and questioned if sometime in the future, Mr. Glass foresaw that all of the secondary roads would be 45 MPH or less.  Mr. Glass said no, he hadnt had any indications of that from traffic engineering.  Mr. Glass indicated that VDOT looked at speed limits on an individual road by road basis.  Mr. Wright said he believed that Hanover County went to virtually 45 MPH on every secondary road.  Mr. Glass said that was probably a local decision.  Mr. Harper said perhaps that would be something that Mr. Glass could determine if it was an option for Louisa.  

Mr. Barnes questioned if the Board would entertain sending a letter to the Governors Office asking them to reconsider the hierarchy they put together with VDOT and start allowing the locals to make some decisions.  Mr. Wright added that the information included in the Board Packet regarding this issue should be sent with the request.  Mr. Havasy agreed and said he thought the Board had to start writing more letters to express their feelings about issues.  Mr. Gentry said about three years ago, there was emphasis about VDOT working closer with the locals and that has completely went in the opposite direction; therefore, legislators needed to be more involved with the locals concerns.    

Mr. Harper said he would like to see a statement from the Commissioner or the Governor as to what the stated purpose of VDOT was.

Mr. Gentry said he thought the letter should include information about how the local VDOT Residency had worked very closely with the Board and for years, they were given the authority to make decisions regarding projects; however, that was no longer the case and the Board was concerned about that.  

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for Mr. Lintecum to send a letter to the Governor, John “Butch” Davies, Delegate Janis and Senator Houck to let them know the Board was extremely frustrated with VDOTs policies and procedures and to include information from the concerned constituents.

Mr. Havasy requested that all letters sent to VDOT be copied to the Board.  

Mr. Lintecum said Walnut Woods Road (Route 820) was a rural addition that the County had been wrestling with for about five years.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that we had the money through revenue sharing for the road and he thought it should be taken care of; however, there were about $15,000 worth of utility adjustments that would have to be funded by the Board.  Mr. Spencer said Walnut Woods Subdivision was promised years ago that the road would be taken over by the County.  Mr. Spencer said if the utilities werent moved, there wouldnt be any room for a cul-de-sac; therefore, he asked that the Board consider the idea of paying for the movement of the utilities.  

Mr. Wright stated there was a similar problem on Rock Spring Road and Mr. Morgan got personally involved with the negotiation with the utility company and they decided that they would move the utilities their expense.  Mr. Harper requested that Mr. Morgan look into that with Walnut Woods Road.    

Mr. Havasy said the County wasnt in the business for moving utilities and he thought the Board could run into a big problem if they started doing that; however, he was willing to honor this prior commitment.  

Mr. Gentry said when the Walnut Woods issue first started, he advised the County and the property owners that VDOT didnt pay for utility adjustments; however, at that time, it was thought that the utilities might not have been a problem.  Mr. Gentry said the challenge was whether the road or the utilities were there first because if the road was there before the utilities, the utility companies would be required to adjust them at their costs because they came onto the street easement.  Mr. Glass said he knew that one of the phone companies didnt have a utility easement and would relocate theirs at their own expense.

Mr. Wright questioned what the incentive was for a utility company to accept to negotiate if the Board had already made a motion to front the money to cover the expenses.  Mr. Barnes said he understood what Mr. Wright said; however, this was a unique situation where these people had the expectation that this project was going to get done.  Mr. Gentry said he thought the fact that this was a six to seven year ordeal needed to be included in the motion to show that this issue was different from most situations.


On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Messrs Wright and Harper voting against, which carried by a vote of 5-2, the Board voted for Mr. Morgan to proceed with negotiating the price with the utility companies and if he wasnt successful, the Board would fund $15,000 to move the utilities because prior commitment by the Board had been made, but each situation has to be judged on its own merit in the future.

Mr. Havasy said the ditching on the secondary roads at the intersection of Route 640 and Route 695 was wonderful; however, the intersection was now a lake.  Mr. Glass said he would look into that.    

Mr. Gentry questioned when Mr. Glass expected responses back from the Board about the Six-Year Plan.  Mr. Glass said by the first meeting in March.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

To amend Section 70-225 of the Louisa County Code extending tax-exempt status to the following real property owned by Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation, Inc.:

-        Tax Map parcel 24-15 consisting of 168 acres with a total assessed value of $531.400.00 and a 2007 real estate property tax charge of $1,230.08.

-        Tax Map parcel 24-23 consisting of 2 acres with a total assessed value of $41,500.00 and a 2007 real estate property tax charge of $257.30.

To amend Section 70-227 of the Louisa County Code to provide personal property tax-exempt status for a vehicle owned and operated by Spay/Neuter all Pets, Inc. with an assessed value of $13,300.00 used to transport animals for spay and neutering.

To add Section 70-228 to the Louisa County Code extending tax-exempt status to real property owned by the Arc of the Piedmont, described as tax map parcel 40 A2 1 76 or 210 East Main Street, Louisa, Virginia with a total assessed value of $246,400.00 and a 2007 real estate property tax charge of $1,527.68.  And to extend tax-exempt status to real property owned by the Louisa County Resource Council, described as tax map parcel 42 4 B1 parcel B1, or 147 Resource Lane, Louisa, Virginia with a total assessed value of $35,800.00 and a 2007 real estate property tax charge of $221.96.


Mr. Morgan said late last year, the County received requests from various organizations to give tax-exempt status to both real and personal property.  Mr. Morgan indicated that the State had given localities the ability to grant tax-exempt status to nonprofit organizations that met different qualifications and all of the organizations listed above were qualified for this tax-exempt status.  Mr. Morgan said the Board considered this in a late part of last year and passed it as a permanent ordinance; however, in order for an ordinance to be permanent, a public hearing had to be held and the Board had to consider it a second time.  

Mr. Byers questioned if all of the 501(c)3 properties in the County received tax-exempt status.  Mr. Morgan said not automatically.  Mr. Morgan noted that the organizations would submit tax-exempt requests to the County and the Board would then consider them.  

Mr. Spencer stated that Arc of the Piedmont was located in the Town of Louisa and questioned if they had authorized the tax-exempt status for the organization.  Mr. Morgan said he didnt know if they had asked the Town of Louisa for that status.  Mr. Spencer said he thought that should be done before the Board considered it.  Mr. Morgan indicated that both bodies had to consider the status separately.

Mr. Havasy clarified that the Board could consider waiving the taxes for the County and the organization could still be taxed by the Town, which had no effect on the Boards decision.  Mr. Morgan said that was correct.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.  With no one wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.

Mr. Spencer stated he could be supportive of Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation and Spay/Neuter All Pets; however, he couldnt support giving the Arc of the Piedmont and the Louisa County Resource Council tax-exempt status.  

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Spencer voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board adopted a resolution to amend Article VII. Exemptions from property tax for nonprofit organizations, Sec. 70-225 for real property owned by Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation, Inc., Sec. 70-227 for personal property for a vehicle owned and operated by Spay/Neuter All Pets, Inc. and add Sec. 70-228 for real property owned by the Arc of the Piedmont and the Louisa County Resource Council.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion - Longevity House

Mr. Lintecum said Mr. and Ms. Kenny of the Humane Society had provided the Board with a proposal for Longevity House.  Mr. Lintecum added that they were available to answer any questions the Board might have.  

Mr. Gentry said he was aware that SNAP had been looking for new home and questioned if they had found one.  Mr. Kenny said as far as he knew, SNAP hadnt found a new home, but the Humane Society hoped that they would be a participant in this if they were successful in restoring Longevity House.  Mr. Gentry said he noticed that in the proposal it talked about Spay Virginia; however, it didnt mention SNAP and questioned if both organizations could be included.  Mr. Kenny said Spay Virginia was a different organization from SNAP, but SNAP would actually be a client of Spay Virginia, as they currently were.  

Mr. Byers said the Humane Society was a 501(c)3 organization and questioned if this would be another situation where they would be tax-exempt.  Mr. Gentry stated that the organization would only be leasing the property.  

Mr. Byers said he felt that there had to be a strong commitment to help the County ensure that when an animal was adopted, it had been spayed or neutered.  Mr. Kenny said the Humane Society proposed to have both the spay and neuter and the adoption center located at Longevity House, which would relieve the pound from having to go through the procedures of an adoption.  Mr. Byers questioned if there would be any potential for people who found stray animals to bring them in to be spay or neutered.  Mr. Kenny said if someone called them with a rescue animal, they picked it up and took it to the pound so it was checked in with the proper procedures and given its initial shots.  Mr. Kenny said the Humane Society would then take the animal over again to have it spayed.  

Ms. Kenny said Spay Virginia, under the auspices of the National Humane Alliance Program, has set up two spay and neuter clinics in Virginia.  Ms. Kenny indicated that Louisa County has been an area that they have targeted because of the overpopulation problems and because it was difficult to get animals spayed and neutered in rural communities.  Ms. Kenny said this particular clinic, as the other two, would be open to the public so an individual could make an appointment to have their animal spayed and neutered at a low cost or they could go through an organization, such as SNAP, because they had grants where they could actually offer free or even lower costs to spay and neuter.  Ms. Kenny indicated that surrounding localities have expressed interest that they would like to use this clinic as well.  Ms. Kenny said the Humane Society would ensure that all animals would be spayed and neutered and given a rabies shot before they were adopted.  
 

Mr. Havasy questioned if all funding would be provided through private donations.  Ms. Kenny said actually, Spay Virginia had already applied for grants to set up the spay/neuter clinic and as far as renovations for the building; there were a number of local contractors that were interested in giving donations.    

Mr. Barnes said Mr. and Ms. Kenny were committed to the animals in this community and he supported their use of Longevity House.  Mr. Wright agreed and said this was the first solid proposition that the Board had been presented with.  
 

Mr. Wright questioned how much County land would be involved.  Mr. Lintecum said one and a half to two acres.

Mr. Havasy questioned if the County was going to deed or lease the property.  Mr. Harper said he thought there were details to be worked out, but he was in favor to lease it and include in the agreement as to how it would perpetuate itself.  Mr. Kenny said the Humane Society would ask in the lease that if the County decided to break the lease before the period was up, that the organization be reimbursed for the itemized capital expenses that they put into the building.  

Mr. Gentry said he didnt know how the grants were set up, but if they specified whether it was leased or non-leased, the Board needed to know that information.  

Mr. Spencer stated he supported the proposal 100 percent.  


On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for Mr. Lintecum, Mr. Morgan and Mr. and Ms. Kenny to draw up a proposal to bring back to the Board for adoption with the caveat that if the County broke the lease, the organization would be reimbursed for monies spent on renovations of the building.    

PRESENTATION

Presentation - A resolution recognizing Jackson T. Wright for his years of service as Chairman of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors

Mr. Harper presented a resolution to Mr. Wright recognizing him for his dedicated service and leadership as Chairman of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

OLD BUSINESS

Decision - County decals

On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for County staff and Constitutional Officers to chart a course for eliminating County decals by April 1, 2009.  

Mr. Byers said typically, he liked to see what would be the advantages and the disadvantages and this, perhaps, had some disadvantages to law enforcement as well as advantages in efficiency in County Government.  Mr. Byers added that it appeared that a 6-1 vote would be futile if he had any objection.  Mr. Wright indicated that most of the issues had been discussed thoroughly over the last two years.    

Sheriff Fortune stated that he totally objected to it.  Sheriff Fortune said doing away with County decals would put law enforcement at a disadvantage because they wouldnt have probable cause to stop vehicles.  Sheriff Fortune said over the weekend, one officer stopped four vehicles without decals and two had drugs in the car.

Mr. Harper questioned if anyone voting affirmative wished to reconsider.  

Mr. Havasy questioned how many counties statewide had eliminated County decals.  Ms. Layne said surrounding counties that have eliminated annual decals were Goochland, Fluvanna, Orange, Henrico and Hanover.

Mr. Gentry said he thought Sheriff Fortunes concern and the landfill ordeal were two issues that needed to be resolved.  Mr. Harper requested that those two issues be taken into consideration and for Mr. Lintecum to determine whether the County would use a permanent decal or no decal and report this matter back to the Board within 60 days with a recommendation.

Mr. Byers said he thought another piece to that process would be identification of what the savings would be, in terms of manpower and dollars saved, in order for that to be measured as well.


Discussion - Board appointed committee terms

Mr. Morgan said at the request of the Board of Supervisors, he had researched which County Commissions and Authorities had set terms of office and which had members that served at the pleasure of the Board.

Mr. Morgan said Section 15.2-2308 of the Code of Virginia determined that the Board of Zoning Appeals consisted of five to seven members appointed by the Circuit Court for five-year terms.


Mr. Morgan said Section 15.2-2212 allowed the Board of Supervisors to appoint members to the Planning Commission for terms that were concurrent with the Board members appointing them.  Mr. Morgan noted that Planning Commissioners could be removed from office for malfeasance, missing three meetings in a row, or missing four meetings in a twelve-month period.

Mr. Morgan stated that Section 36-105 of the Code of Virginia called for the Board of Supervisors to establish a Board of Building Code Appeals.  Mr. Morgan said under the terms of the State-wide Building Code, the members served at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors.


Mr. Morgan indicated that as outlined in Section 15.2-4304 of the Code of Virginia, the Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee was made up of four landowners involved in agricultural or forestal activities, four other landowners, the Commissioner of the Revenue and one member of the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Morgan added that the landowner members served at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Morgan noted that the Board of Supervisors member was a full, voting member of the AFD Advisory Committee.


Mr. Morgan said under the provisions of Section 15.2-4904 of the Code of Virginia, there were seven members of the Industrial Development Authority.  Mr. Morgan said initially, two were appointed for one-year terms, two were appointed for two-year terms, two were appointed for three-year terms and one was appointed for a full four-year term.  Mr. Morgan indicated that every appointment after the initial terms expired was to be for a full four-year term.  Mr. Morgan added that IDA members could be removed for missing three meetings in a row or missing four meetings in a twelve-month period.


Mr. Morgan stated that Section 15.2-5204 of the Code of Virginia determined that there shall be five members appointed to the Health Center Commission that reside in the County and serve terms established by the governing body.


Mr. Morgan said Section 2.2-5205 of the Code of Virginia determined that the Community Policy and Management Team shall be comprised of at least one elected official or appointed official by the governing body, and local agency heads of the community services board, juvenile court services, the health department, department of social services, and local school division.  Mr. Morgan added that a parent representative and private organizations that provided children or family services were to be included on the CMPT.  Mr. Morgan noted that the statute didnt set a limitation on the terms of members of the CMPT.


Mr. Morgan said under the provisions of Section 23-220 of the Code of Virginia, the State Board of Education established policies and procedures for local community college boards.  Mr. Morgan stated that members appointed to the J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College Board served a four-year term, as does members of the Piedmont Community College Board.


Mr. Morgan indicated that by ordinance, the Lake Anna Advisory Committee was to have one member of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors plus one alternate and two Louisa County Residents.  Mr. Morgan noted that the County Administrator served as an ex-officio member. Mr. Morgan said Citizen members were appointed for a four-year term and may be appointed for a second four-tear term.


Mr. Morgan said Section 33.1-230 of the Code of Virginia stated that whenever the Board of Supervisors deemed it necessary, they could appoint five resident freeholders as Road Viewers.  Mr. Morgan said it didnt speak to a limitation on terms, but the Board of Supervisors had made the appointments for one year.

Mr. Morgan stated that the composition of the Thomas Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board was established in 9.1-278 of the Code of Virginia.  Mr. Morgan said the Board was comprised of a person appointed by each governing body to represent the governing body, a judge of the general district court, a circuit court judge, a juvenile and domestic relations district court judge, a chief magistrate, one chief of police or the sheriff in a jurisdiction not served by a police department to represent law enforcement, an attorney for the Commonwealth, a public defender or an attorney who was experienced in the defense of criminal matters, a sheriff or the regional jail administrator responsible for jails serving those jurisdictions involved in local pretrial services and community-based probation services, a local educator and a community services board administrator.  Mr. Morgan added that the Current Board of Supervisors appointee served a three-year term.

Mr. Morgan said under the provisions of Section 42.1- 39 of the Code of Virginia, members of the Library Board of Trustees were appointed for a term of four years.  Mr. Morgan noted that no appointed member could serve more than two consecutive four-year terms.

Mr. Morgan said the Library Advisory Board was an agency of local origin and its members served four-year terms.

Mr. Morgan said the State Department of Aging had established regional aging commissions and the local agency was required by Federal statute and terms thereof were established through them.  Mr. Morgan said currently, the appointed members of the Jefferson Area Board of Aging Board of Directors served a two-year term.

Mr. Morgan indicated that he couldnt find statutory or regulatory authority for the establishment of the JABA Advisory Council; therefore, it was assumed that it was established at the request of JABA.  Mr. Morgan added that members served two-year terms.

Mr. Morgan said likewise, he couldnt find statutory authority concerning the membership of the Commission on Aging.  Mr. Morgan said it appeared to be a local agency whose members are appointed for three years; however, since there wasnt statutory provision on the terms of this agency, members served at the pleasure of the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Morgan said under the provisions of Section 51.5-47 of the Code of Virginia, the Jefferson Area Disabilities Services Board was to be compromised of at least one local official from each of the participating jurisdictions, two representatives of the business community, and consumers.  Mr. Morgan indicated that each board shall have no less than thirty percent representation by individuals or family members of individuals with physical, visual, or hearing disabilities.  Mr. Morgan said there was no mention in the statute of a limitation on the term of anyone appointed to the Board by the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Morgan said the Water and Sewer Rate Commission and the Transportation Safety Commission were established under State law, but no longer existed; however, they both continued to serve useful functions for the County.


Mr. Spencer indicated that the Transportation Safety Commission was established as a requirement of insurance carriers and the function of that Commission was to review accident reports of any County vehicles.

Mr. Gentry requested that staff use the list provided by Mr. Morgan to update older information.

Mr. Byers said he appreciated that Mr. Morgan included the date on the document he provided and in the future, it would be helpful for all the documents he received to include the date and page numbers.  The Board agreed.


Resolution - To request funds through the revenue sharing program of the Commonwealth Transportation Board

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to request funds through the revenue sharing program of the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - Supplemental appropriation for the Virginia Rural Broadband Planning Initiative Grant

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation for the Virginia Rural Broadband Planning Initiative Grant.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Gentry said he attended a meeting last Tuesday with the Regional Legislative Program Committee.  Mr. Gentry said some concerns that came up after general discussion were about how some of the legislation rules were getting too involved with land use issues.  Mr. Gentry said the Committee discussed a lot about the fact that localities were competing against lobbyists when it came to getting the legislators attention and they needed to do a better job locally to open up communications and give input.

Mr. Wright said the following two items were discussed at the Mayor and Chairs meeting and were currently under consideration by the House and Senate.

·        Overhaul of the cash proffer process
  ·        
Homestead legislation

Mr. Wright said the House and Senate were trying to enact SB 768, which was intended to eliminate cash proffers and replace them with an impact fee system to help pay for schools, roads and public safety facilities.  Mr. Wright said the maximum amount that could be collected from impact fees was $8,000 for commercial property and $5,000 for residential property.  Mr. Wright added that developers could also use costs for offsite work done on the development as a credit against the impact fees.  Mr. Wright suggested that the County protect the cash proffer system because SB 768 in its new form would have a negative impact on local governments efforts to pay for growth and could be a major loss of revenue.

Mr. Wright said
both houses of the Virginia General Assembly were going to act on a constitutional amendment that authorized local governments to grant annual residential homestead exemptions of up to 20 percent.  Mr. Wright said he agreed with the idea of the legislation, where residents could exempt a certain portion from the taxable assessment of their primary residence; however, he thought the amount should be based on a specific amount rather than a percentage.  Mr. Wright suggested that the Board support the exemption act with a fixed $25,000 limit.

Mr. Gentry said he understood that these two items were under heavy discussion with legislators and that there was a push by some to postpone the decision until input was received from the localities; therefore, he was a little reluctant to support what he had read because he didnt know what changes had been discussed there.  Mr. Gentry said he saw some positive things with impact fees; however, he wasnt ready to recommend in great detail one over the other.  Mr. Gentry added that he thought it was important that a letter was sent to the representatives stating the Boards input on those two issues.    

Mr. Barnes said he had always thought that impacts fees were the way to go because they provided more benefits to the community.

Mr. Havasy said he liked cash proffers because they were adjustable, whereas impact fees limited the County on what those monies could be spent towards.  


On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting that SB 768 be carried over to 2009 for further study of its potential impact to local governments and to allow local governments more input on how such land use changes could impact each locality.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution supporting the homestead legislation with an amendment limiting the total exemption to $25,000 for all homesteads.  

Mr. Harper said Mr. Wright has agreed to serve as the Louisa County Chamber of Commerce Liaison.    

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Harper stated Al Gutekenst submitted his resignation for the Clean Community Commission and asked that his wife be appointed to replace him; therefore, he would like to appoint Marilyn Gutekenst to the Clean Community Commission.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to re-appoint Lee Lintecum to the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development.

Mr. Gentry stated he would like to recommend that Joe Leslie be re-appointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals.  

Mr. Gentry said he noticed that there were two vacancies for the
Jefferson Area Board on Aging Advisory Council.  Mr. Gentry indicated that Mr. Morgan emphasized that JABA requested the Advisory Council; therefore, he would like for Mr. Lintecum to approach them to see if that was still something they wanted for Louisa.  Mr. Gentry indicated that he was on the JABA Board of Directors and did a good job of representing Louisa County; therefore, he wasnt sure that those two positions were absolutely necessary.

Mr. Barnes said he would like to appoint Ava Pippin to the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board.

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board recommended that Mr. Leslie be re-appointed to the Board of Zoning Appeals and appointed Ms. Gutekenst to the Clean Community Commission, Mr. Lintecum to the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development and Ms. Pippin to the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum said the School Board would like to hold a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors to discuss their budget on either Tuesday, March 18 or Wednesday, March 19.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that the Board already had a budget workshop scheduled for Wednesday, March 19 in the Extension Meeting Room.  After discussion, it was consensus of the Board to hold a joint meeting with the School Board on Tuesday, March 18 at 6:00 p.m. if the School Board could provide their budget to the Board of Supervisors 30 days prior to the meeting.

Mr. Lintecum said the
Facilities Management Department monthly summary and the Board of Supervisors monthly summary of top projects was included in the Board Packet.  

APPROVAL OF BILLS

Mr. Byers said he would like for the Board to consider placing the responsibility on someone to review the bills to make sure they were within the framework of what had been budgeted for specific areas.  Mr. Byers added that if there was something that appeared to be out of the ordinary, such as over spending the budget, that those issues be brought to the Boards attention at the meeting.  Mr. McLeod indicated that the bill summary sheet was in the process of being changed to show percentages of how much of the budgeted amount was left for each General Ledger number.      

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Mr. Barnes abstaining on bills pertaining to him, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of January 2008 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $547,343.12.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the January 22, 2008 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:08 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the Administrator.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:50 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 4th day of February 2008, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and

WHEREAS, §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 4th day of February 2008, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the February 4, 2008 meeting at 8:51 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


________________________________
WILLIE L. HARPER, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA