Contact Sitemap Search
|Board Present:||Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright|
|Absent:||Fitzgerald A. Barnes|
|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; 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 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Wright led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD
Mr. Andrew Kenny, Patrick Henry District, stated he was here tonight representing the Louisa Humane Society. Mr. Kenny said it was brought to their attention by a member of SNAP that the Board was in receipt of an email concerning the Louisa Humane Society that was sent by Colleen Cole, Mary Humphries, Josie Kinkade and Harold Plasterer, all from SNAP, and Renee OLeary and Laurel Olson, both from the Green Springs Humane Society.
Mr. Kenny said he didnt mean to imply that SNAP was a partner in this with them, but he thought it would be something that they would welcome; however, their email was very disparaging of the Louisa Humane Society and what they referred to as the “Kennys.” Mr. Kenny said the email was slanderous, but it represented serious opposition to the Societys proposal in the local community; therefore, in light of this, the Louisa Humane Society was withdrawing their proposal. Mr. Kenny said if the aforesaid individuals and organizations werent hypocrites, they would restore Longevity House, provide the area with a lost cost spay and neuter clinic and provide an adoption center that would give abandoned animals a second chance. Mr. Kenny said the Louisa Humane Society, if asked, stood ready to assist with this in any way they could.
Mr. Kenny stated that they regretted this decision and it would be great if these groups could concentrate more on helping animals instead of worrying about who received the credit. Mr. Kenny said with the advice of their legal council, this would be their only public comment on this matter; however, they would be happy to discuss the matter with Board members individually, if they wished. Mr. Kenny thanked the Board for their allocation of scarce resources to aid the animals of Louisa County.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Harper stated he would like to add a discussion of Relay for Life, a resolution confirming the state of emergency declaration and a discussion of the South Anna Agricultural and Forestal District to new business. Mr. Harper stated he would also like to add a discussion for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel to closed session.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the February 19, 2008 agenda was adopted as amended.
Presentation - Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)
Mr. Paul Oswell, Director of Social Services, introduced Margaret Smith as the new CSA Coordinator.
Mr. Oswell said CSA was a 1993 Virginia Law that provided for the pooling of eight specific funding streams to purchase services for high-risk youth. Mr. Oswell said the funds were returned to the locality with a required state and local match and were managed by local interagency teams. Mr. Oswell said the purpose of the act was to provide high quality, child-centered, family focused, cost effective services to high-risk youth and their families.
Mr. Oswell stated that he provided the Board with statistics from last fiscal years CPMT Management Report. Mr. Oswell noted that the report included a comparison of Louisa County to the Northern Region, as well as Statewide. Mr. Oswell indicated that Louisa Department of Social Services (DSS) was the number one referral source, education came in second and Juvenile Justice was third. Mr. Oswell noted that Juvenile Justice referred about 15 percent of the children in Louisa County, which was about double compared to the Region and Statewide.
Mr. Oswell stated that the report also showed the top five reasons to access CSA. Mr. Oswell said neglect was the number one reason and court involvement was the number two reason, whereas, court involvement wasnt even listed in the top five under the Region or Statewide. Mr. Oswell said Louisa County had 25 children in a residential treatment facility, which was very high and compared unfavorably to the Region and the State; however, Louisa County was at 16 percent for family foster care maintenance only, which was higher than the Region and the State and didnt quite offset the cost, but may offset the percentage of children.
Mr. Oswell said the primary service reason for children placed in group homes and residential treatment facilities in Louisa County was court involvement, whereas, the primary reason for the Region and the State was behavioral issues. Mr. Oswell added that many children that came into care from the courts were placed in higher costing residential or group homes.
Mr. Oswell said residential treatment accounted for 44 percent of the overall CSA cost, which was higher than both, the Region and the State; however, group home care accounted for only 13 percent, which was about equal with the State comparison.
Mr. Oswell noted that the CSA pool expenditures had increased considerably since when the program was first started. Mr. Oswell said in 1994, pool expenditures were $73,258, compared to last year where the expenditures were $1,253,580.
Mr. Oswell stated that when Louisa County received their pool allocation, they carved out a certain amount of funds that could be used for non-mandated children, which were children that the DSS werent required to serve. Mr. Oswell noted that for the past five years, very little money had been spent towards non-mandated children because the monies were being spent to serve the mandated children.
Mr. Oswell indicated that 56 children were in their current foster care caseload. Mr. Oswell said in addition to the children in foster care, there were 10 children that were identified as at risk of coming into care and another 27 children that have been identified as foster care prevention.
Mr. Oswell stated that he was pleased to report that currently 76 percent of the children were in either a foster home, a treatment foster home, a trial home visit or placed with relatives, which meant that more children were being served locally than they have in the past. Mr. Oswell added that only 13 children were in congregate care, which was either a group home or a residential facility.
Mr. Oswell said last year, the total number of CPS referrals was 191. Mr. Oswell noted that from that, the Louisa DSS conducted 48 investigations and had 25 founded cases of abuse and neglect. Mr. Oswell added that there were a total of 120 family assessments, which meant that they didnt go into the investigative track, but DSS had to intervene. Mr. Oswell said from the first two quarters of this year, there had been 76 CPS referrals, which had resulted in 19 investigations and three founded cases. Mr. Oswell added that 62 family assessments had also been completed.
Mr. Oswell said many people might think that CSA was the only pool of money used; however, they also used Title IV-E, which didnt require a local match. Mr. Oswell said last year, Louisa DSS used almost $400,000 and this year through December, almost $300,000 had been used.
Mr. Oswell said this year, the Governor proposed to change the match rates for localities to encourage more children to go into community-based or regular treatment foster care. Mr. Oswell noted that the change would actually cost the County an additional $84,000 in local monies. Mr. Oswell said Louisa DSS wanted to encourage children to be in community-based services, but for the Governor to expect it to happen in July was a real disservice.
Mr. Oswell indicated that the following were important issues and concerns of the Louisa DSS:
Mr. Harper questioned what the response was when the Match Rate Talking Points were given to the Senators and Delegates. Mr. Oswell stated that he didnt think it would happen because there had been enough of an uproar, primarily from VACo and VML, that changing the match rates was another cost shift to the localities and was a huge disincentive.
Mr. Gentry said when CSA was discussed about a year ago, his concern was why the situation was so bad in Louisa County. Mr. Gentry said the reports given to the Board reflected that Louisa County was above the State average in most areas. Mr. Gentry said he thought next year, the number of children in foster care would continue to increase; therefore, the County had to find a way to coordinate their efforts and determine some way of getting to the root of the problems.
Mr. Byers said the report provided by Mr. Oswell showed disproportionate percentages for referrals from Juvenile Services for Louisa County compared to the Region and the State and questioned what caused that. Mr. Oswell said he didnt have an answer for that. Mr. Byers said he recently looked at information from the Schools about the number of children on reduced lunches and questioned if there was any correlation between that and the second highest referral source being education. Mr. Oswell said he didnt think there was a direct correlation between students with reduced lunches and children that came into care.
Mr. Byers said he noticed in the Boards expenditure report that At Risk Youth had already spent 76 percent of their monies. Mr. Oswell said CSA seemed to be higher in expenditures this year; however, he wasnt prepared to make a request for additional funds.
Mr. Spencer questioned if families that had children in foster care were being charged a co-pay. Mr. Oswell said yes, when children came into care, they referred them all to child support enforcement.
Mr. Spencer said he noticed that two children were in community-based intervention and about 60 children were in different foster homes and questioned if home-based counseling and the Community Services Board was being used. Mr. Oswell said where children were placed was decided by the FAPT Team, who made a recommendation to CPMT. Mr. Oswell said community-based intervention and home counseling worked for some children, but didnt for others. Mr. Spencer questioned how much was currently being used. Mr. Oswell said very little.
Mr. Spencer questioned if it would benefit DSS if the Board provided them with additional positions to do home-based counseling. Mr. Oswell said he wasnt sure that he would want to use additional positions for home-based counseling because there were currently only eight children in a residential facility, but he would probably want to hire someone for utilization management to review congregate care placements and work on getting the children out sooner.
Mr. Wright said lack of facilities was a problem and he was concerned about why the vacant adult facilities that had been closed down couldnt be reopened for the CSA program. Mr. Wright stated that during a meeting of a regional group in Charlottesville, he asked that three members of the General Assembly conduct a survey to evaluate the charges that were being made by the facilities to the counties and he was told that a study had been completed. Mr. Wright said the survey included figures from the facilities with their justification; however, it didnt show comparisons to determine if the figures were justifiable; therefore, they have agreed to go back to the General Assembly and try to determine a way to measure what the facilities were charging.
Mr. Harper questioned if there was any measure that was used to determine if the Department was being successful or unsuccessful. Mr. Oswell said a success was if the children returned home. Mr. Harper said that was an individual success, but he was talking about program wise because for every child that was sent home, there was another one or two waiting to come in. Mr. Harper said a method needed to be determined on how to make correlations and figure out what was driving the referrals.
Resolution - Transferring funds and removing Route 603, Bowlers Mill Road, from the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Roads in Louisa County
Mr. Gentry indicated that the resolution stated that Bowlers Mill Road (Route 603) was being dropped from the Six-Year Plan entirely, when in all reality, it was actually being maneuvered from the priority list to the Countywide incidental construction list. Mr. Gentry added that he thought the verbiage should be changed in the resolution for clarification.
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution transferring funds and removing Route 603, Bowlers Mill Road, from the project listing of the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Roads in Louisa County and placing it in the Countywide incidental construction list of the Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Spencer stated under consent agenda items was a resolution to take three streets in the Forest View Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways. Mr. Spencer questioned why the resolution stated that the Board guaranteed a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. Mr. Glass said that should have been taken care of prior to making a request to have the streets submitted into the system. Mr. Spencer said it hadnt been taken care of. Mr. Glass stated he couldnt answer that without looking at the files; therefore, the Board may wish to hold off on approving that resolution.
Mr. Spencer indicated that the letter in the Board Packet stated that “The Boards concurrence with these streets into the secondary system would require a proper resolution, which included the guarantee of an unrestricted and unencumbered right of way as dedicated in the AM 4.3.” Mr. Glass said he knew the County had requirements on the right of way and it had to meet the minimum before an application could be submitted to take the roads into the secondary system; therefore, he assumed that all requirements had been met. Mr. Harper clarified that the road was built and questioned Mr. Morgan if he had reviewed it and knew we had the easements. Mr. Morgan said that was part of the subdivision approval. Mr. Gentry explained that VDOT wouldnt accept the road if there wasnt a guaranteed right of way from the County and questioned if the County Attorney and the Community Development Department concurred that we had the right of way that the documentation stated.
Mr. Coffey said to the best of his knowledge, that was standard, routine language and the subdivision plat shouldnt have been approved unless it had a free and unencumbered right of way. After discussion, it was consensus of the Board to delay taking action on that resolution until specific answers regarding this issue were received.
Discussion - Surplus Revenue Sharing funds
Mr. Gentry questioned if it was possible to transfer this money into the revenue sharing project at the school site, if it was approved. Mr. Lintecum stated that he would check into that. It was consensus of the Board to delay action on this item until Mr. Lintecum determined if the funds could be transferred to the revenue sharing project at the school site.
Resolution - To request the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to give priority consideration to projects proposed by the Buckingham Branch Railroad
Mr. Byers questioned if there were funds earmarked for spurs or sidetracks to help build out rail parks. Mr. Lintecum indicated that spurs would be done through the railroad access program.
Mr. Havasy said he noticed that the project would be started in 2008 and the expected completion date was in 2014. Mr. Havasy questioned if the funds would come all at once because a lot of interest could be incurred off $21 million over a period of years. Mr. Lintecum said he thought the money would be sitting with the State and they wouldnt release it until they had to.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the following resolution:
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE RAIL PRESERVATION APPLICATION OF BUCKINGHAM BRANCH RAILROAD COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad desires to file an application with the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation for funding assistance for the projects; and
WHEREAS, Buckingham Branch Railroad has identified projects that are estimated to cost $21,200,000; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly, through enactment of the Rail Preservation Program, provides for funding for certain improvements and procurement of railways in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is an important element of the County of Louisa transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Buckingham Branch Railroad is instrumental in the economic development of the area and provides relief to the highway system by transporting freight, and provides an alternate means of transportation of commodities; and
WHEREAS, the County of Louisa supports the project and the retention of the rail service; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has established procedures for the allocation and distribution of the funds provided.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, on this 19th day of February 2008, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation to give priority consideration to the projects proposed by the Buckingham Branch Railroad.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be spread upon the minutes of the February 19, 2008 meeting and sent to the Buckingham Branch Railroad.
Resolution - Awarding the contract for the Virginia Rural Broadband Planning Initiative for Louisa County
Mr. Hardy said he previously talked to the Board about a broadband study for the community funded by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Mr. Hardy indicated that the Board approved that staff move forward with that and apply to the State for 100 percent of funding up to $25,000.
Mr. Hardy said the County received eight proposals, of which four firms were brought in and interviewed. Mr. Hardy said the Committee determined that CCG Consulting, LLC was the most appropriate responder to the request for proposal. Mr. Hardy said a contract price for Phase I was negotiated at $19,000 and should be completed by August 1, which included surveys of businesses and residences and phone surveys of a statistical sampling for residences that had a need for broadband. Mr. Hardy noted that Phase I would lead into Phase II, which would also be funded up to $50,000 by DHCD if the Board chose to go forward with that after Phase I results were in. Mr. Hardy added that CCG responded to phase two with $37,000 if the Board chose to continue with the project.
Mr. Wright said he noticed that the completion date of August 1 wasnt included in the contract. Mr. Hardy stated that the contract could be modified to include the completion date of August 1 for Phase I of the project.
Mr. Gentry said recently, he talked to the Chairman of the Board for Grayson County and they were doing a similar type of study. Mr. Gentry said they found out that there were different levels of broadband and wanted the state of the art and questioned if that was addressed in the contract or if Mr. Hardy would determine where Louisa County needed to be. Mr. Hardy indicated that the needs assessment would try to address how high of a broadband speed the County needed or could afford. Mr. Hardy said while having the highest speed was a good goal, it wasnt feasible in this County. Mr. Hardy indicated that this study would tell the County what was requested or desired and they would try to make the two match to determine what was affordable.
Mr. Havasy said Mr. Hardy indicated that a survey would be completed to determine what the present needs or desires were in the community and questioned if there was an adequate way to measure what the Countys needs would be in ten years. Mr. Hardy stated that the firm selected was a very experienced firm and they would have a good idea of developing counties and how needs changed over time.
Mr. Byers questioned if there was any relationship between this study and the telecommunications study. Mr. Hardy said the telecommunications study helped identify current assets in the County and this study would build on that inventory; therefore, they would all tie together in some fashion.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution awarding the contract of $19,000 funded by DHCD to CCG Consulting for the Virginia Rural Broadband Planning Initiative for Louisa County with the contract to be modified to state a completion date of August 1 for Phase I of the project.
CUP10-07; National Communication Towers, LLC c/o Elliot Harrigan and Central Virginia Technology Group, LLC, DBA CVALink c/o Brian Gilbreth, Applicant; Shirley P. Clough, Owner; requests a conditional use permit for the construction of a 199 foot telecommunications lattice tower on an Agricultural (A-2) parcel. The property is located on the west side of Route 522 (Cross County Road), north of the South Anna River, across from Route 648 (Gardners Road). The property is further identified as tax map parcel 90-2, in the Mountain Road Voting District.
There were no public comments during the Neighborhood Meeting held on December 12, 2007.
CityScapes Report was favorable on this proposed tower in this location and the Development Review Committee voted (6-0) to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission with certain conditions carried forward to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 10, 2008 in reference to the requested conditional use permit application. In light of CityScapes recommendation, the applicants comments were brief and only one person spoke during the public hearing in support of the application. The Commission reviewed the application and concurred that there was a need for telecommunication service in this area of Louisa County. They also supported the conditions recommendation by CityScape and voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors with the conditions recommended by CityScape, specifically the design of the tower support structure as a monopole.
Based on the above meetings and recommendations, Staff recommends that the following conditions be imposed should the requested conditional use permit be approved:
Mr. Havasy said he noticed that most conditional use permits had the clause included that the Board of Supervisors or their designated representative reserved the right to inspect the premises at any time without prior notice and questioned why this CUP didnt include that language. Mr. Coffey said that was certainly a condition in the pre CityScape review period and typically it dealt with uses. Mr. Coffey said he wasnt sure the clause was needed for a telecommunication tower site; however, the Board was free to add any conditions they wished to impose in addition to what was recommended.
Mr. Byers said page three of the handout provided by National Communication Towers, LLC included a list of carriers and questioned if that was how many businesses had already contracted to use the tower. Mr. Coffey stated that the applicant was available to explain the report.
Mr. Spencer questioned if there was a condition for the applicant to remove the tower if they were to stop using it. Mr. Coffey said the Countys ordinance required that; therefore, it had been codified and was no longer selected to CUP conditions.
Mr. Elliott Harrigan, President of National Communication Towers, LLC, requested the Boards approval for a tower to provide coverage on Route 522 between I-64 and Route 33. Mr. Harrigan added that they believe there was a need for coverage along that corridor.
Mr. Harrigan said what he provided to the Board in supplement to CityScapes report, was a packet of information that included an aerial photo of the location for the proposed tower. Mr. Harrigan said also included in the packet was a list of six wireless carriers that had a license from the Federal Communications Commission to provide wireless communications services in the County. Mr. Harrigan said the fourth page of the handout listed all of the towers that they believed signals from their proposed site would handoff to. Mr. Harrigan added that the sheet also provided the distance between the towers, the carriers that were currently located on the towers and the frequency they used.
Mr. Harrigan said he presented this material to all of their customers and they were currently evaluating it. Mr. Harrigan stated that both, AT&T and Sprint had advised him that they definitely needed a site along this corridor, but at this point in time, they didnt have it included in their 2008 budget; however, he thought majority of their customers were still in the process of formulating their budgets for 2008.
Mr. Harrigan stated that he provided this information to Brian Gilbreth at CVA Link and he also had an interest in this site in order to provide wireless broadband coverage.
Mr. Harrigan said he believed a Board member asked a question earlier in the meeting about broadband as it related to the Countys future study on this issue. Mr. Harrigan indicated that majority of wireless carriers offered a service, where a device could be attached to a computer to wirelessly receive a broadband signal from a tower that was in proximity to the home.
Mr. Byers questioned if it was normal to proceed with this without having pending contracts. Mr. Harrigan said there werent any pending contracts at this time, but typically the level of support that a carrier would provide in zoning was a letter of interest. Mr. Harrigan said in some instances to address this concern, they provided a condition in the zoning approval that they couldnt get a building permit issues until they presented a signed letter of intent or lease from the carrier, which he would be willing to do for this request.
Mr. Wright said he didnt think that proffers could be accepted now that the public hearing had already begun. Mr. Morgan said that was correct; however, since this was a request for a conditional use permit, the Board may wish to add it as a condition. Mr. Wright said he didnt think that there would be any question about the contract because the Board began discussing this particular site at least three years ago. Mr. Byers said he yielded to the wisdom of Mr. Wright; however, he wouldnt in the future because he thought there should be some type of condition to have a signed letter of intent or lease before a permit was issued to build. Mr. Harper said he thought that was a valid point.
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.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction, operation and maintenance of a 199-foot telecommunications tower with associated equipment.
REZ20-07; County of Louisa, Applicant; “Various”, Owners- Rezoning of the following properties, from Industrial (IND), as indicated below:
|Applicant||Owner||Location||Voting District||TMP||Acreage||Current Zoning||Proposed Zoning||Comprehensive Plan Designation|
County of Louisa
|Johnson Tena K.||S. of Route 22, east of Range Rd.||Patrick Henry||40-(22)-A||8.85||IND||C-2||Industrial|
County of Louisa
|Johnson, Thomas K & Mary E.||S. of Route 22, east of Range Rd.||Patrick Henry||40-(22)-C||10.85||IND||C-2||Industrial|
County of Louisa
|Crossroads Land and Development LLC||West of Woodridge Terrace, N of I-64||Green Springs||51-55||19.12||IND||C-2||Mixed Use and Regional Commercial|
In December, the Board approved amendments to the Countys industrial regulations, along with the rezoning of over 90 Industrial IND properties. After the Planning Commission meeting, two property owners requested to have their properties rezoned to General Commercial (C-2). Their request would be consistent to other properties in the area, but the Board could not rezone these two properties, since the request would be more intensive than what the County advertised. Originally, these property owners requested Agricultural (A-2). The Board passed a motion to initiate the rezoning of these two properties, from Industrial (IND) to General Commercial (C-2), with no charge to the property owners. These properties are located west of the Town of Louisa, south of Route 22 (Louisa Road).
Prior to the November Planning Commission meeting, staff accidentally left a property out of the industrial rezoning public notice. Since this property was not included in the public notice, it was removed from the action. The property is part of the Spring Creek development. The rest of their industrially zoned properties went to C-2, except for this one property. The owners agreed to have this property rezoned to C-2. The Board passed a motion to initiate the process of rezoning this property from IND to C-2, with no charge to the owner.
The Planning Commission discussed this application during their January hearing and unanimously passed a recommendation of approval. This rezoning action includes all three of these properties. This would finalize the industrial project and all three requests are consistent with the rezoning of the initial 90 properties.
Mr. Harper said the Board has discussed before about the fact that what was left as Industrial may need some addressing going forward because of the broad allowance of what was permitted in that district.
Mr. Wright questioned what was allowed in C-2 that wasnt allowed in Industrial. Mr. Coffey said the difference now between C-2 and the Industrial District was that in C-2 you couldnt do industrial, other than a very few light industrial items, and in Industrial you couldnt have commercial, other than some limited commercial in I-1 and almost none in I-2. Mr. Coffey said with the old IND District, you could just about have whatever commercial you would like; therefore, C-2 and IND were very similar in what they allowed in terms of commercial uses.
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.
On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the rezoning of three parcels totaling approximately 38.82 acres from Industrial to General Commercial (C-2).
Discussion - Adoption of the 2008 Goals and Objectives for the Board of Supervisors
Mr. Harper indicated that the Board had received an updated list of the 2008 Goals and Objectives. Mr. Harper said he thought most Board members signed off on the changes and questioned if any other modifications were needed.
Mr. Gentry said under the first goal for land use and growth, he would like to see “mobile home” referred to as “manufactured home.”
Mr. Gentry said under the third goal for land use and growth, he agreed that the County needed to create a tracking system to define the number of residential lots that had been approved for development and were currently under construction; however, he thought the second part of the goal, dissolution of any lot that had been undeveloped within its five-year time period back to open land, was an action within itself and should come later after the first part was completed.
Mr. Byers said he would think that this was a beginning process and that the Board understood that they would be making changes to this document as they proceeded. Mr. Harper agreed and said he thought it was a great start and he was looking forward to seeing it develop.
Mr. Gentry said the first goal under education talked about forming a Committee with the Schools and the School Board has elected two of their members, Mr. Seay and Mr. Huffman, to be part of that Committee.
On motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the 2008 Goals and Objectives with the changes noted above.
Discussion - Relay for Life
Mr. Wright said last year, the Board made a donation of $2,500 to Relay for Life and he couldnt think of a better use of taxpayers money than supporting this organization for what they did with cancer research.
Mr. Gentry questioned Mr. Morgan if he had any conflict because he was on the Planning Committee for Relay for Life. Mr. Morgan questioned if Mr. Gentry profited from the position. Mr. Gentry said no, he was strictly a volunteer. Mr. Morgan said then that wasnt a problem.
Mr. Spencer stated that Relay for Life was a fantastic organization; however, he didnt think that the County should be giving tax dollars as donations to charitable organizations because if they donated to one, they had to donate to all.
Mr. Havasy agreed with Mr. Spencer and said citizens didnt voluntarily give the County their taxes. Mr. Havasy said he didnt think it was appropriate for County Government to be selective in choosing which charitable organizations to donate to.
Mr. Byers said he was a cancer survivor and he thought contributing to the organization was a worthwhile endeavor. Mr. Byers said he had a tendency to look at this as using tax funds and he hoped that if the Board voted not to contribute to this particular event, that they would keep that in mind with others that came up as well in order to be consistent with their deliberations and actions.
Mr. Wright said he recalled years ago that the Board contributed to SNAP, which was a charitable organization; therefore, this request wasnt setting a precedent.
Mr. Harper said he didnt know of anything that the Board contributed to that had the potential to impact every living being in Louisa County anymore than this did; therefore, for that reason, he would support this request.
Mr. Wright stated he would like to make a motion for the Board to contribute $2,500 to Relay for Life for the year of 2008. Mr. Byers seconded the motion. Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote.
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||Yes|
|Willie L. Harper||Yes|
|Richad A. Havasy||No|
|P.T. Spencer, Jr.||No|
|Jack T. Wright||Yes|
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||Absent|
|Dan W. Byers||Yes|
With the votes reflecting 4-2, the motion passed for the Board to contribute $2,500 to Relay for Life for the year of 2008.
Resolution - Confirming the State of Emergency Declaration
Mr. Lintecum said when the County declared an emergency, it opened up some other forms of revenue where some people who went out might get reimbursed for the expenses that they and the County incurred.
Mr. Lintecum said the Countys volunteers and paid staff did a great job and gave tremendous efforts. Mr. Harper agreed and said he was very impressed with the operation; he thought it was well in hand and was handled in a very proficient, efficient and professional manner. Mr. Harper recognized the contribution by everyone involved.
Mr. Wright said everyone did a fantastic job with bringing the fires under control.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution confirming the State of Emergency Declaration of February 11, 2008.
Review of Renewal - South Anna Agricultural and Forestal District
Mr. Harper stated that Mr. Coffey included information about the South Anna Agricultural and Forestal District in the Board Packet. Mr. Harper said Mr. Coffeys letter to the Board indicated that the responses he received were all positive and requested that the parcels remain in the District. Mr. Harper said it was the election of the Board as to whether they referred it back to the Planning Commission or whether they elected to go straight ahead with a vote.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to renew the South Anna Agricultural and Forestal District for an additional ten-year period, with the original parcels totaling 864 acres.
Mr. Coffey said a landowner wanted to know if they could be added onto the District and questioned Mr. Morgan if that could be done. Mr. Coffey indicated that the State Code language said something along the lines of it could be done as part of the review process, which, to him, indicated that if the district were to be expanded, it would have to be referred to the Planning Commission and go through the review process, then be added on and come back before the Board for their approval. Mr. Wright said he believed that they could initiate the process at any time. Mr. Morgan said that was correct.
Mr. Gentry said the Board of Supervisors 2008 Goals and Objectives that were approved earlier tonight mentioned the Committee comprised of himself and Mr. Byers that was established for communications with the School Board. Mr. Gentry said the Committee probably wouldnt attempt to have their first meeting until after the budget process was completed, but he would ask that if any Board member had an opinion of what specific items should be communicated to the School Board to let him know before their first meeting. Mr. Harper questioned if parameters had been set for that Committee. Mr. Gentry said the goals were fairly clear and left it open as to how the two boards related to each other and what topics could be discussed. Mr. Byers said when they crafted the language of the Committee, it gave both Boards an opportunity to look at what was being proposed; therefore, there shouldnt be any lack of clarity.
Mr. Spencer stated he would like to re-appoint Inez Thurston to the Commission on Aging. Mr. Byers stated he would like to appoint Darrell Slover to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging Board of Directors.
On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board appointed Ms. Thurston to the Commission on Aging and Mr. Slover to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging Board of Directors.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
Mr. Lintecum said included in the Board Packet was a memo from Ms. Shelhorse regarding the utilization of the Water Authoritys property by Parks and Recreation for sports fields. Mr. Lintecum indicated that he had discussed this idea with Mr. Delk and he had no problem with it as long as the fields were maintained in a proper manner. Mr. Lintecum said if Board members didnt have any objections, they would move forward with this project. The Board agreed.
Mr. Lintecum said Mr. McLeod prepared an overrun analysis report for the operating budget through December 2007, which was included in the Board Packet.
Mr. McLeod said he reviewed each departments expenditures while comparing them to the 50 percent level of expenditures; therefore, any department that had less than 50 percent of their budget was included on the analysis. Mr. McLeod added that for every department with potential cost overruns, he calculated the funds required to balance the department at their current spending levels.
Mr. Wright requested that a brief comment on why the department had an overrun be included on the analysis.
Mr. Harper commented that the analysis would keep the Board abreast throughout the year on line overruns.
Mr. Lintecum said included in the Board Packet was a letter from Major Lowe regarding supplemental appropriations.
Mr. Harper said last year, the Sheriffs Department had a significant amount of overtime as well and they were able to absorb it within their budget and if the Board was in agreement, he would like to see the Department try that again this year.
Major Lowe said he wanted to show the Board that the Department had some options on that, whether they gave comp time or just went ahead and paid overtime; however, they had concerns with how to address the problems associated with comp time. Major Lowe said he was looking for some direction and advice from the Board on how they felt was the best way to handle overtime because at the rate their were going, he sensed that there was a possibility they might go over budget by the end of the year. Major Lowe said in 2002 when the County first started experiencing a lot of rapid growth, the call volume was only about 27,000 calls per year; however, at the end of 2006, the call volume was 153,000 calls per year, which was a dramatic increase within the Department.
Mr. Wright questioned what the procedure was for overtime in the Sheriffs Department. Major Lowe said staff had to get supervisor approval for overtime, which was documented on their timesheet. Mr. Wright questioned what had been done to try to decrease overtime. Major Lowe indicated that overtime could come from various things, such as training, court, transports, unexpected events in the County, etc. Major Lowe added that sometimes the call volume would become so strong for a couple of hours, that it exceeded the capability of the on-duty shift, which required the Department to call additional backup to handle the call volume.
Mr. Gentry stated that he had previously written down the following five questions:
Mr. Gentry stated he understood that growth would always be a factor because it was hard to predict and overtime would always be an issue with any management job. Mr. Gentry said maybe one way to address comp time would be to set a maximum level because allowing too much could create another problem. Mr. Gentry said when you get to a certain amount of overtime, it somewhat dictated that there had to be more manpower and he hoped that the Department would address that in this coming budget.
Major Lowe stated that the Department did look at different schedules to determine which was the most effective and found out that the present shift they were working was the most effective.
Major Lowe stated he talked with Mr. Spencer about the issues where the Schools took up a lot of the deputies overtime when they patrolled events and it came to his attention that there might be a possibility that if the Schools paid for the overtime, they could recoup some of that money back from the State.
Mr. Spencer questioned why some employees had so much more overtime than others. Major Lowe said when overtime was needed the Department requested volunteers. Mr. Spencer questioned why the deputies had overtime for senior citizens, neighborhood watch and child safety programs. Major Lowe said overtime would be requested for those types of programs to do the child ID program, to teach the elderly about ID theft and scams on the Internet or to do bloodhound and K-9 demonstrations.
Mr. Spencer said it didnt make sense to him how part-time employees were being paid $3,000 to $4,000 in overtime. Mr. Spencer questioned if Major Lowe was requesting an additional $500,000 for overtime or if it would be absorbed out of the Departments existing budget. Major Lowe said they were going to try absorb as much as possible.
Mr. Byers said for the upcoming budget, he would be interested in seeing what the State Compensation Board said was a reasonable staffing level compared to what Louisa County had. Mr. Byers said the County was becoming technologically advanced and at some point, he would like for the Department to consider working with the Judicial System to determine if there was some opportunity to use that as a means to communicate to a person instead of having to do so many transports. Major Lowe said the Department has been trying to get video conferencing with the judges for several years and all judges were on board except for one, which probably had the most activity.
Mr. Havasy said it needed to be investigated how population of a county related to the needs of county staffing.
Mr. Wright said the State formula used to be one deputy for every 1,500 people and questioned if that was still the same. Major Lowe said yes.
Mr. Lintecum said the Community Development Year End Report for 2007 was included in the Board Packet for the Boards review.
Mr. Gentry commented that the report was very professional and included good data, but it showed a lot of information and he would a like a bottom line of what everything meant. Mr. Coffey said overall, their activity has leveled off. Mr. Gentry said he was concerned about why manufactured housing was down 67 percent, which wasnt good for a county that was looking at affordable housing issues. Mr. Coffey said he thought that the purchase of manufactured homes was on the decline nationwide.
Mr. Byers said he thought at some point, everything that was done needed to be done with an eye towards eliminating anything that wasnt absolutely needed and wouldnt take away from the safety and well being of the citizens of Louisa County.
Mr. Lintecum said April Jacobs had applied for and been awarded with the Revenue Recovery Position.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for vehicle Repairs
On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for vehicle Repairs.
Resolution - For a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for funds donated for the K-9 program
On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for funds donated for the K-9 program.
Resolution - For a supplement to the County Administrators Department for employee recognition
On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplement to the County Administrators Department for employee recognition.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Mr. Byers suggested that one of the bills under the County Attorney be changed from erroneous assessments to contested assessments because the current heading was misleading. Mr. McLeod agreed and stated that he had asked Mr. Morgans Office to review it. Mr. McLeod noted that either way, they would no longer be using that verbiage in the invoice description.
Mr. Byers said he knew that the voting location rent fee for Galilee Baptist Church doubled, but in the event that the district reverted back to two districts, he hoped that the fee to the church would be reduced.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, with Messrs Gentry and Byers abstaining on bills pertaining to him, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of February 2008 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $369,411.64.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the January 31, 2008 meeting.
Mr. Spencer said at the February 4, 2008 meeting, he repeatedly questioned Mr. Gasper what criteria was used for assessing fair market value and Mr. Gasper did not respond. Mr. Spencer indicated that he would like that reflected in the minutes.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the February 4, 2008 meeting with the above-mentioned change.
On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:31 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:
1. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:40 p.m.
RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 19th 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 19th 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 6-0, the Board voted to adjourn the February 19, 2008 meeting at 8:40 p.m. BY ORDER OF
WILLIE L. HARPER, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA
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 19th 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 6-0, the Board voted to adjourn the February 19, 2008 meeting at 8:40 p.m. BY ORDER OF
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 19th 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.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adjourn the February 19, 2008 meeting at 8:40 p.m.
BY ORDER OF