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

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
MARCH 19, 2007
5:00 P.M.

Board Present: *Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, *Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, *Eric F. Purcell and Jack T. Wright

*Fitzgerald A. Barnes arrived at 4:50 p.m.; Richard A. Havasy arrived at 4:53 p.m.; and Eric F. Purcell arrived at 4:58 p.m. [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager and April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk


Mr. Wright stated he would like to change the normal sequence of the agenda, with the concurrence of the Board.  Mr. Wright said he would like for the presentation for the accreditation of the Sheriffs Department to start at 4:00 p.m. and to have the Constitutional Officers and Citizens Information Period begin at 5:00 p.m.

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried a vote of 4-0, with Messrs. Barnes, Havasy and Purcell absent, the Board voted to reconvene the meeting.  

Chairman Wright called the March 19, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 4:00 p.m.  Mr. Gentry led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.


Presentation Accreditation of Sheriffs Department

Sheriff Fortune introduced Mr. Gary Dillon, Program Manager, from the Virginia Accreditation Center.  

Mr. Dillon said § 9.1-102 Code of Virginia establishes the powers and duties of the Criminal Justice Services Board and the Department of Criminal Justice Services.  Mr. Dillon said this established a Virginia Law-Enforcement Accreditation Center and that the Center shall, in cooperation with Virginia law-enforcement agencies, provide technical assistance and administrative support, including staffing, for the establishment of voluntary state law-enforcement accreditation standards. Mr. Dillon said the Center would provide accreditation assistance and training, resource material, and research into methods and procedures that will assist the Virginia law-enforcement community efforts to obtain Virginia accreditation status.

 Mr. Dillon said the Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission consists of six Police Chiefs and six Sheriffs.  Mr. Dillon referenced a chart showing the current Executive Board and stated their purpose is to determine accredited staffs.  

Mr. Dillon stated accreditation is a progressive and time-proven way of helping institutions evaluate and improve their overall performance.  Mr. Dillon said the program consists of 180 standards and each standard must be contained within the agencys policies and procedures or as a common practice of the agency.  

Mr. Dillon said this program was started to give all agencies throughout the Commonwealth the ability to achieve accredited status.  Mr. Dillon added this program is very cost effective; an agency that wants to participate in the accreditation program only pays an application fee of $250.  Mr. Dillon said the program is designed to be affordable and achievable by all agencies in Virginia.  

Mr. Dillon stated accreditation requires the Sheriffs Department to regularly inspect itself to make sure that polices and procedures are being followed.  Mr. Dillon said the program also assists in policy development, helps minimize liability, promotes accountability and enhances the agencys reputation.  Mr. Dillon added there are sixty-three accredited law enforcement agencies in Virginia.    

Mr. Dillon stated this program is voluntary.  Mr. Dillon added the program is managed in Virginia and the standards are Virginia specific.  Mr. Dillon further added the program is attainable by any agency and is cost effective.  

Mr. Dillon stated the steps taken to become involved in the program include completing an application and an agency participation agreement.  Mr. Dillon said the longest part of the process is the self-assessment stage.  Mr. Dillon said the Accreditation Manager of the agency would look at the VLEPSA standards manual to see if the agency already has policies and procedures in place that comply with the standards manual.  Mr. Dillon stated once that process is completed, the agency has to start gathering compliance to prove their policy is being followed.  Mr. Dillon added after that is completed, the agency would have a mock assessment.  Mr. Dillon said the formal assessment would be done following the self-assessment.  Mr. Dillon added the formal assessment would have certified assessors conduct the assessment of the agency, which would include a static display, an agency walkthrough, a file review and an exit interview.  Mr. Dillon stated the report is then filed and forwarded for the Commissions review.  Mr. Dillon stated there would be a certificate presentation after the process is completed.

Mr. Dillon stated this program is a continuous process and re-accreditation is completed every four years.  Mr. Dillon said compliance would need to be gathered every year to show that the agency is still following policies.  Mr. Dillon added that the program standards tell agencies what policies should be in place, rather than how they should be followed.  Mr. Dillon further added that waivers could be granted on standards.

Mr. Dillon stated administration, operations, personnel and training are the four areas that are covered in the standards manual.  

Mr. Dillon defined written directives as any written policies or procedures implemented by the Sheriff that employees are expected to follow.

Mr. Dillon stated static display, agency walkthrough, interviews, observations and ride-a-longs are ways to prove to the assessors that the agencys policies are being followed.  Mr. Dillon added other ways to prove compliance are through photographs, videos, newspaper articles, work schedules and e-mails.

Mr. Dillon said the types of agencies that can participate in the program include police, sheriffs, state agencies, campus police, federal agencies and others.  

Mr. Dillon stated Virginia Law Enforcement Accreditation Coalition (VALEAC) is another law enforcement organization, which consists of agency accreditation managers throughout the State.  Mr. Dillon said the group meets four times a year to discuss information and to train.  Mr. Dillon added a website is maintained by the group.

Mr. Dillon indicated that this program is designed to increase professionalism in law enforcement agencies.  Mr. Dillon added this program helps standardize policies.  

Mr. Gentry stated he can see the advantage of this program and questioned why more agencies arent involved.  Mr. Dillon stated that manpower is a big obstacle for agencies because getting the program started is almost a full time job and agencies that dont have a base procedural manual have to start from scratch.  Mr. Dillon stated the reason that agencies arent involved with this program isnt because of cost because it is only $250 to apply to the program.

Mr. Jennings questioned what is the time frame from submittal of the application to being accredited.  Mr. Dillon said the time frame varies and depends on how much time the person assigned to the program is allowed to work on it.  Mr. Dillon noted time needs to be devoted to the program.  Mr. Dillon stated the accreditation could be completed within a year, if the necessary time is dedicated.  Mr. Jennings questioned the cost to get accredited.  Mr. Dillon stated the largest cost would be manpower and it is only $250 for the application fee.  Mr. Jennings questioned what advantages the Department would have over other jurisdictions that arent accredited.  Mr. Dillon stated the main advantage is to be recognized as one of the few agencies in the State that is an accredited agency.  

Mr. Harper questioned if there were minimum standards for a written policy.  Mr. Dillon stated there are minimum standards the assessors will examine.  Mr. Dillon explained examples of inspections and reports that need to be completed by each agency.  

Mr. Wright said, in his opinion, being an accredited agency would be an advantage for recruiting employees. .  Mr. Wright said he hoped the Department was already following many of the procedures that are listed in the VLEPSA standards manual.  Mr. Wright added that he doesnt see how the County can lose by being involved, if the Sheriffs Department is committed to the program.  Mr. Wright noted that there are always more effective and efficient ways of following policies and procedures.  

Mr. Wright questioned Major Lowe about how many Department employees are already aware of the accreditation program.  Major Lowe said the accreditation program has been the primary goal of the Department since 2000.  Major Lowe stated the Department had to build from the ground up and implement a few policies at a time to develop a strong foundation.  Major Lowe indicated that the Department is very committed and feels comfortable that the policies and procedures are being followed.  

Mr. Wright stated that basics should be discussed every year.  Mr. Gentry said it sounds like the Department is ready for this program.

Mr. Wright questioned if a notice needs to be given in advance of termination.  Mr. Dillon stated the Department could send a letter of withdrawal from the program and termination would be in effect immediately.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried a vote of 4-0, the Board voted to support the Sheriffs Department to pursue involvement with the accreditation program.

Mr. Barnes arrived at 4:50 p.m.

Mr. Havasy arrived at 4:53 p.m.

Mr. Purcell arrived at 4:58 p.m.


Ms. Gloria Layne, Treasurer, stated the Board needs to make a decision on County decals before August 1, 2007.  Ms. Layne said citizens who own vehicles that are valued under $1,000 dont feel like that should be required to purchase a County decal because they arent required to pay Personal Property taxes.  Ms. Layne said the Board needs to come to a conclusion on how things should be done.  Mr. McLeod said the Board asked for the discussion to come back at the August meeting but the Treasurer needs a decision prior to then.  

Mr. Wright stated that County decals and Personal Property taxes are two different issues.  Mr. Wright said there would be a problem if the Board decided to go with a permanent County decal and charge people through their Personal Property bill because the citizens that dont have to pay Personal Property taxes wouldnt get charged for the decal.  Mr. McLeod said with the exemption for vehicles valued under $1,000 in place, the Commissioner set the reimbursement rate for the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) at 49.78%.  Mr. McLeod stated if the Board does away with the $1,000 exemption, the PPTRA would change to 52.78%.  Mr. McLeod added this would give every citizen a little more of a tax refund.  

Mr. Purcell stated he doesnt see how a permanent decal could be enforceable for some cars and not for others.  Mr. Wright said billing would be complicated if a tax bill isnt generated for citizens dont pay Personal Property taxes.

Mr. Harper said he thinks if the vehicle is registered in Louisa, then a County sticker should be bought in Louisa.  Mr. Harper said he thinks the Personal Property tax should be left as it is now.  

Mr. Gentry questioned how many vehicles are valued $1,000 and under.  Ms. Layne said she didnt have the number of vehicles but said it would have generated about $88,000 in taxes.  

Mr. Barnes said he agrees with Mr. Harper.  

Mr. Harper questioned what would be the easiest way for the Treasurer and the Commissioner.  Mr. McLeod said if the cost for a County decal is added to the Personal Property bill, everyone would need to receive a Personal Property bill with the decal fee listed.  Mr. Wright said if the $1,000 waiver is removed, then everyone would receive a bill anyway.

Mr. Jennings said the County shouldnt remove the decals because a decal is needed for identification for the Landfill and the Sheriffs Department.  Mr. Jennings said he thinks that all vehicles should be taxed.

Mr. Barnes questioned if farm use vehicles, valued under $1,000, are exempt.  Ms. Nancy Pleasants, Commissioner, stated if the vehicle has a licensed farm use tag then they are taxed.

Mr. Havasy questioned what the Personal Property tax would be on $1,000.  Ms. Pleasants stated it is $1.90 per one hundred and if they were entitled to the Personal Property tax relief, then they would receive a reimbursement of 52.78 percent.  

Mr. Gentry questioned how $1,000 was determined for the exemption. Ms. Pleasants said the State allows that vehicles valued at $1,000 or less can be exempt.

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to remove the exemption on vehicles valued under $1,000 from paying Personal Property taxes.

Mr. McLeod stated the Board wants a permanent decal sticker and the only question was if a total bill or a prorated bill would be sent out for the first year enacted.  

Mr. Wright stated there needs to be a way for vehicles to be identified for the Sheriffs Department and for the Landfill.  Ms. Layne questioned if personnel from the Sheriffs Department would remove the decal if the Board decides on a permanent decal and a citizen doesnt pay the Personal Property tax bill.  Major Lowe stated no because he can see where it would cause issues if the Department tried to do strict enforcement on that.  

Mr. Wright said his concerns are that a lot of decals have been stolen and older people have problems changing their own decals.  Mr. Purcell said permanent decals are not a unique idea because other localities are going to this, but he thinks it should be kept as it is.  

Mr. Wright questioned if Mr. McLeod could come back to the Board with a recommendation by the first of June.  Mr. Gentry said the Board has talked about permanent decals for two years and he doesnt want to wait until June to make a decision.  Mr. Gentry said County decals are good for the Landfill and the Sheriffs Department and added he doesnt think the County is ready to change what is already being done because he hasnt heard overwhelming reasons on why this procedure should be changed.    

Mr. Havasy stated he thought the main reason that permanent decals were brought up was because it costs about $50,000 to issue decals every year.  Mr. McLeod said part-time employees have to be hired each year and there is a long line at the Treasurers window to issue the decals.  

Mr. Purcell said he agrees with Mr. Gentry because since this process has been started, he has only heard why it shouldnt be done.  Mr. Barnes said other localities are doing this and he thinks it would be a great approach.  Mr. Barnes added the County is not ready for permanent decals yet, but it can still be worked out.  

Ms. Layne said some localities request citizens to hang a sign with the license plate number of the vehicle from the rear-view mirror for using Landfill.  Ms. Layne stated the Landfill could verify the sign issued by the Treasurers Department and the license plate number.  Mr. Wright said that would be transferring time from the Treasurers Department to the Landfill.  Ms. Layne stated the tags would be issued from her Office.

Mr. Gentry questioned how much administrative work would be required for the tags for the Landfill.  Ms. Layne stated for about 30,000 tags, cost would decrease to about $7,000 for one year.  

Mr. Harper stated the Board told Mr. McLeod to submit options for the program but he thinks Mr. McLeod should not give the Board options, rather present exactly what the program should be.  

Mr. Wright stated Mr. McLeod should continue the research on this program because the following motion only applies for this year and not for years to come.  

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Havasy voting against, the Board voted to continue with the current decal policy.

Mr. Lintecum said there is a letter in the board packet submitted by the Treasurer requesting the Boards approval to remove $126,566.61 in 2001 Personal Property taxes and a request for authorization to sell property, which has delinquent 2004 Real Estate taxes, in order to collect $101,429.42 in unpaid taxes.  Mr. Lintecum added the Treasurer is also requesting the Board to advise if it is their desire to continue the issuance of free County decals to members of the volunteer fire departments and rescue squads.

Mr. Wright questioned if funds that are not paid will be submitted to the County Attorney for collection.  Mr. Morgan stated these funds have tried to be collected but were unsuccessful.  Mr. Havasy questioned how real estate taxes couldnt be collected.  Ms. Layne said real estate taxes can be collected but they are turned over after three years.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for the removal of $126,566.61 in delinquent 2001 Personal Property taxes from the Treasurers records as of December 31, 2006.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for authorization to sell property, which has delinquent 2004 Real Estate taxes, in order to collect $101,429.42 in unpaid taxes.

Mr. Wright said the other question is to continue the issuance of free County stickers to members of the volunteer fire departments and rescue squads
.  Mr. Wright added the County should recognize those members.

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for the issuance of free County decals (one per active member) to members of the volunteer fire departments and rescue squads serving Louisa County.

Mr. Barnes stated it is a great idea to recognize the members and emphasized for the Treasurer to make sure every member is included.  Mr. Barnes added a statement should be included to apologize if any names are missed.

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for authorization to publish the names submitted to the Treasurers Office of members of the volunteer fire departments and rescue squads serving Louisa County.


Mr. Garrett A. Grant, Mineral District, stated members of the Buffalo Soldiers have come before the Board previously asking for financial support.  Mr. Grant said the Buffalo Soldiers give presentations to the youth about the history of the Buffalo Soldiers.  Mr. Grant stated the Board already said they would give financial support and questioned when the Board was planning to help with funding.  Mr. Grant added funding in an amount of $3,233 would pay for materials for presentations to the youth to teach them about Buffalo Soldier history.  


Mr. Harper questioned Mr. Havasy if he wanted to make “Assign a Highway” a topic of discussion.  Mr. Havasy stated there is a meeting coming up and questioned if the topic could be discussed in two weeks.  Mr. Harper stated discussion could wait, but he is very keen about this program.

Mr. Wright stated he would like to add a discussion of the construction for the new elementary school under old business.  Mr. Barnes stated he would like to add the buffalo soldiers concern under new business.  Mr. Morgan stated he would like to add consultation with legal counsel to closed session.  Mr. Lintecum said he would like to add discussing business not yet announced to closed session.  Mr. Jennings said Mr. Hubert Ellis was on the IDA and he needs to be recognized for serving.  Mr. Wright stated complications need to be resolved with that issue first.

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the March 19, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.


Discussion - New Elementary School

Mr. Wright stated at the meeting last week, the Board members present came to a consensus that the main responsibility of the Board of Supervisors was to set the number of student and the cost for the school.  

Mr. Gentry stated the Board is just basically updating the action that was taken in January 2006.  

Mr. Wright questioned if Mr. Barnes and Mr. Jennings has met with the School Board.  Mr. Barnes stated that Mr. Lintecum tried to set a meeting up and that was not very well received.  Mr. Barnes added a meeting has not taken place because the School Board wants to have a joint meeting rather than a Committee meeting.  

Mr. Purcell stated the Board is not in the school design business, however, the Board is in the money appropriation business.  Mr. Purcell stated the Board has already set an amount for the school, not to exceed, and questioned if the Board is going to adopt the motion again or if the Board is going to raise the figure.  Mr. Purcell added if the figure is raised, he couldnt go forward without knowing where mistakes were made the first time.  

Mr. Wright stated the all-inclusive figure that was discussed at the last meeting was $20.268 million, which was the cost that Mr. Linhares had presented.  

Mr. Linhares said $20.268 million is based on state averages and total square footage.  Mr. Linhares added that cost does not include costs that have been spent up to date.  

Mr. Purcell questioned what accounts for the discrepancy between $20.2 and $24.5.  Mr. Linhares stated costs the Architect and the Construction Manager were charging is higher than the average, the design of the school and the site.  Mr. Linhares stated in this particular case, the site costs were raised because of the shrink/swell soil.  Mr. Linhares said the average site cost between schools built in Virginia is in the $2.9 million range and Louisa is at about $3.4 million.  

Mr. Purcell stated design is a main factor of where this project went wrong and questioned what would be the cost of time and dollars in changing the design.  Mr. Purcell added he has to see the cost benefit analysis of the equation to know which direction to proceed in.  Mr. Purcell further added he feels like the Board is going around in a circle with this project.  

Mr. Wright stated he received an e-mail from the Chairman of the School Board stating the School Board wants to have a joint meeting during the budget process to discuss this project.  Mr. Wright said he is concerned with having a joint meeting until the School Board comes up with something for the Board to look at.  

Mr. Gentry stated the school would have to be redesigned to get the numbers down to where they need to be.  Mr. Gentry added redesign is not for the Board of Supervisors to dictate and he is concerned because he hasnt heard the School Board mention redesign yet.  Mr. Gentry said the school doesnt have to be 90,000 square feet to handle 700 students.  Mr. Gentry said Loudoun County built a school for over 800 students with about 79,000 square feet.  Mr. Gentry added the schools square footage could be reduced and the project could be completed for about $19 million.  

Mr. Wright said he doesnt see where a joint meeting will accomplish anything at this point.  

Mr. Gentry stated the Board took the appropriate action a year ago by allowing the school $16 million open-ended with justifications and the School Board never presented the Board with any justifications.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks an appropriate number for the school would be $19 million based on his analysis.  Mr. Wright questioned if $19 million was based on a specific amount of students.  Mr. Gentry stated the schools square footage could be reduced and the school could still accommodate more than 700 students.  

Mr. Havasy questioned when designing a school, what is the States optimum square footage per child.  Mr. Linhares stated the Countys consultant gave a number of 104 but the average of the schools listed in his presentation was 96.  Mr. Wright stated the average square footage per child from the schools he has looked at ranged from 83 to 124.  

Mr. Jennings said the Boards need to go forward to either meet by Committee or meet by Board.  Mr. Jennings added he is not ready to set a new figure for the school.  

Mr. Barnes stated redesign has to be an option.  Mr. Barnes said fourteen adults should be able to reach a goal of educating the children of the County and putting them in an economically suitable building.  Mr. Barnes added the Boards need to move forward to start the construction of the school.

Mr. Wright stated he feels the Construction Committee still needs an opportunity to function.  Mr. Wright added he doesnt think anything will get solved with a joint meeting at this time.  Mr. Wright said he suggest writing a letter to the Chairman of the School Board stating the Board of Supervisors want the School Committee to meet with the Construction Committee before having a joint meeting.  

Mr. Havasy said he would recommend getting an agenda for what the School Board wants to talk about before assuming the School Board would present the same information. Mr. Gentry said Mr. Havasy is stating a fair option.  

Mr. Harper stated he would still like for the Committees to meet first.  Mr. Gentry suggested writing a letter directly to the Chairman of the School Board asking for a meeting between the Committees.  

Mr. Wright questioned if the Board agreed for Mr. Lintecum to write a letter to the School Board Chairman requesting a meeting between the Committees before a joint meeting is scheduled.  It was the consensus of the Board to send a letter to the Chairman.                                


Discussion - Assessment methodology - Richard Gasper

Mr. Gasper, Assessor, explained the general guidelines of land values.  Mr. Gasper stated data is gathered on all vacant land sales and parcels are separated by subdivision or non-subdivision.  Mr. Gasper said lots are also classified by size and are broken down by areas or neighborhoods.  Mr. Gasper added the base home site value from list of sales is determined.

Mr. Gasper explained that zoning, topography, road frontage, gravel road, right of ways, irregular shaped lots, easements, high tension power lines, flood plains/swamps, buried utility pipe lines and other external influences are included in the land value adjustment factors.

Mr. Gasper stated
analysis of sales determined that for non-subdivision lots there is a value differential paid by buyers for lots of twelve acres and less.  Mr. Gasper said Regardless of zoning the first acre is assigned the greatest value as being the home site portion of the parcel.  Mr. Gasper said studies of sales indicated the next four acres are considered to represent the second tier of value that is recognized to have the most market influence after the home site value.  Mr. Gasper added the remaining residual acreage, up to total of twelve, would add additional value at a reduced rate.  Mr. Gasper further noted that all acreage, whether improved or not, is valued using this method.

Mr. Gasper referenced a property card of the land use and value for parcels that are twelve acres or less and explained the examples of improved and unimproved land use and values.  Mr. Gasper included a tax map example as well.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Gasper for better clarification.  Mr. Gasper stated this is just an example of a property card.  

Mr. Gasper stated tracts of land above twelve acres are valued by the acre and the only exception would be tracts with existing dwellings.  Mr. Gasper said valuations are determined by verifying factors such as:

1. Size of Parcel
    a. Per acre value ranges created from sales with consideration of brekas at increasing number of acres

2. Location
    a. Road frontage vs. non-road frontage: R.O.W.; easements; undetermined access

3. Appeal/Neighborhood
    a. Proximity to other amenities such as, education, employment, and recreation

Mr. Gasper added that properties are equalized into value ranges by sales analysis.

Mr. Purcell questioned if the evaluations were effected if the Government body were to take away the ability to subdivide on the road.  Mr. Gasper stated it would be affected and sales would have to be looked at.  

Mr. Gasper referenced a chart of the land use and value for parcels that are twelve acres or more and explained the examples of improved and unimproved land use and values.

Mr. Gasper stated the valuation of raw tracts of land is determined by sales within the area of similar sites.
 Mr. Gasper said developers or other users of these parcels have considered the ultimate use for the land prior to purchase, typically considering zoning, possibility for change or variance, division rights, productivity of the land and the feasibility of their investment.  Mr. Gasper stated the Assessment Office values these tracts of land as bulk acreage based on the current sales in the area.  Mr. Gasper added if a parcel was rezoned or divided, it would be reassessed accordingly.

Mr. Gasper said
four key elements of valuing waterfront parcels are the position on lake, the water view, the water depth and the amount of water frontage.  

Mr. Gentry questioned how the position on the lake, water view and water depth is determined.  Mr. Gasper said assessors look at all waterfront land values that occur in Louisa County and follow the sales.  Mr. Gasper said assessors have to actually go to a lot of the lots to determine the water view and that is a personal opinion.  Mr. Gasper stated all of these factors play a part in the total assessment.  Mr. Gasper added all of these items are added into one equation.  Mr. Wright said property owners would also look at these factors as well before buying property.

Mr. Gasper added other criteria used to determine the value of waterfront parcels are the size of the lot, topography and the neighborhood.  Mr. Gasper referenced a map showing waterfront parcel examples.  

Mr. Harper questioned if the value of a piece of property would change if it was rezoned but the use was not changed.  Mr. Gasper said yes the value would change for the next reassessment.  Mr. Harper questioned why it would be for the following reassessment.  Mr. Gasper stated the assessments are completed January 1 of every year.

Mr. Gentry questioned if a property was taxed on the use or by the zone.  Mr. Gasper stated the property is taxed on the use of the property.  

Mr. Purcell questioned when property sales decrease and is reflected in a record of sales is that taken into consideration the following year.  Mr. Gasper stated yes.  Mr. Purcell questioned what accounts for a percentage increase assuming that all variables for reductions dont change from one year to another.  Mr. Gasper said that the increase is all market based.

Mr. Gentry questioned realistically, how 30,000 parcels be assessed by two or three people.  Mr. Gasper stated there are five assessors and a thorough check is completed for a quarter of the County every year.  Mr. Gasper stated it is about a four-year cycle.  Mr. Gasper said the property that isnt looked at within that year is assessed based on the market data.

Mr. Jennings complimented Mr. Gasper on the assessment appeals process.

Funding for Buffalo Soldiers

Mr. Barnes said members of the Buffalo Soldiers came to the Board and introduced the program.  Mr. Barnes stated he met with two members and talked about some of the things they were trying to do with the program.  Mr. Barnes said the members were to come up with a total cost to submit to the Board so that it could be put into the budget.  Mr. Barnes said he thought that a great venue would be the Historical Jail to make sure there was a Buffalo Soldier representation.  Mr. Barnes said he would like the Board to consider this request during the budget.  Mr. Barnes stated the budget would be approved the first or second week in May.

Mr. Gentry said there is a section in the Museum House that is going to be dedicated to the Civil War and he suggests the Buffalo Soldiers be located there as well for it to be a successful project.  

Mr. Havasy said he is on the Trevilians Battlefield Committee and he would like for this project to go through tourism.  Mr. Havasy stated if the project stands alone as charity, he doesnt want the Board to get involved.

Discussion/Consideration Early approval for Sheriffs Department to purchase vehicles for FY 08 budget

Mr. McLeod stated the Sheriffs Department would like to pre-order vehicles for a delivery date in July.  Mr. McLeod said when the Department doesnt do this, vehicles arent delivered until the end of the year.  Mr. McLeod said it is difficult to get approval this early because the budget hasnt been approved.  

Major Lowe said only one company supplies the vehicles and every locality orders at the same time and competes to get their vehicles first.  Major Lowe said vehicles werent being delivered until about ten months after being ordered.  Major Lowe indicated if the vehicles were ordered this month, they would be delivered by July.  Major Lowe noted this year, the Department is trying to order vehicles in the off-season.  

Mr. Wright said the department is requesting ten new vehicles for a total cost of $275,000.

Mr. Barnes questioned the average life of a car.  Major Lowe stated the average life of a car is about two years.  Major Lowe stated vehicles for Court Services will last anywhere from two to three and a half years, vehicles for Administration will last about five years, and vehicles for Detectives last about five years.  Mr. Barnes questioned how many miles the vehicles have in two years.  Major Lowe said the average mileage for Patrol Officer vehicles is about 40,000 to 50,000 miles per year, about 100,000 miles every two years.  

Mr. Havasy said the State has moved the recycle mileage to 150,000 miles and questioned if the Department is proposing to move the mileage to 150,000 before recycling the cars.  Major Lowe said the Department recycles the cars on based on the condition and the maintenance of the vehicles and they usually average about 125,000 miles.  

Mr. Harper questioned if some of these vehicles are recycled into the school system.  Major Lowe said some vehicles are given to the school system and others that have high mileage are saved as a spare for personnel to drive when going to the academy.  

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for early approval for the Sheriffs Department to purchase vehicles for the FY 08 budget.

Resolution - To award a contract to CDW-G for the purchase of twenty (20) tablet pcs and related accessories

Mr. McLeod said the Criminal Justice Systems Improvement Grant for $79,860 was awarded to the Sheriffs Office for the purchase of twenty tablet pcs and policing software to improve field data collection and electronic forms on December 18, 2006.  Mr. McLeod stated the Board approved the resolution on January 16, 2007 and the IFB was advertised on February 15, 2007.  Mr. McLeod said six bids were received; the highest bid was 52,791.32 and CDW-G was the lowest responsive bid at $44,846.43.  Mr. McLeod said the Department would like to award the contract to CDW-G for $44,846.43 to cover the hardware portion of this grant program.  Mr. McLeod added $51,660 was allocated in the original grant application to cover hardware expenses and the bids came in lower than estimated for grant purposes.  

Mr. Havasy questioned if the tablet pcs would allow the Deputies to spend more time on the road rather than in the office filling out paperwork.  Major Lowe said this is primarily designed for better record keeping and to get officers back on the street quicker.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to award a contract to CDW-G for the purchase of twenty tablet pcs and related accessories.


Mr. Harper said the Regional Jail is going to stand independent this year of any local funds but within the next couple of years, they may not be able to sustain any longer.  Mr. Harper stated there is an increase with Local and State population, Federal prisoners are being reduced.

Mr. Jennings stated he attended a meeting with the Pool Committee and the pool is well on the way and everything is looking good with that project.

Mr. Wright said he attended the transportation meeting with the Governor and there were about twenty-five to thirty Counties that were present.  Mr. Wright stated the next day, the Local 29 News stated local officials, Mayor David Brown of Charlottesville and Board Chairman Jack Wright of Louisa lead discussion.  Mr. Wright added he didnt lead the discussion, however he did participate.

Mr. Wright stated the Workforce Council and the State are trying to reduce the number of workforce areas within the Council.  Mr. Wright stated the Council trying to group Louisa with areas like Richmond, Hanover County, Henrico County and Chesterfield.  Mr. Wright added that people is the only thing Louisa has in common with those localities.  Mr. Wright noted that there is a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 21 to talk about the different needs for each County.


Mr. Jennings stated he would like to appoint Gail Martin to the Clean Community Commission.  Mr. Wright questioned if Ms. Martin could fill the vacant position as well as continue to serve as the secretary for Commission.  Mr. Jennings said yes.  Mr. Jennings stated he would like to appoint Milton Cosby to the Transportation Safety Commission.  Mr. Havasy stated he would like to appoint Scott Wheeler to the Piedmont Housing Alliance Board.  Mr. Gentry stated there is a vacancy on the Commission on Aging that he has had a hard time filling.  Mr. Gentry asked that the vacancy be posted on the web page and in the next County Messenger.  

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Martin to the Clean Community Commission, Mr. Cosby to the Transportation Safety Commission and Mr. Wheeler to the Piedmont Housing Alliance Board.


Mr. Lintecum stated the public hearing on VDOTs six-year plan has been postponed because after reviewing the newest allocations for the plan, there was a reduction in funds so the plan has to be re-done.  Mr. Lintecum added once the revised plan is completed, Jamie Glass would provide copies for the Boards review.


Resolution - Appropriation for funds donated for the creation of the piedmont crossroads visitors center

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for appropriation for funds donated for the creation of the piedmont crossroads visitors center.


Mr. Lintecum stated the most interesting item in correspondence is the request to replace and relocate Martha Jefferson Hospital for $308,817,214.


On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, with Mr. Gentry abstaining on bills pertaining to him, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of March 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $477,806.80.


On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the March 5, 2007 new elementary school workshop.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the March 5, 2007 meeting.


On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:58 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.

2.        In accordance with §2.2-3711 (a) (5) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing business not yet announced.


On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:38 p.m.


On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, 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 the 19th day of March 2007, 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 the 19th day of March 2007, 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. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the March 19, 2007 meeting at 7:39 p.m. until March 28, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.