Contact Sitemap Search
|Board Members Present:||
Fitzgerald A. Barnes*, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr.* and Jack T. Wright|
* Mr. Spencer arrived at 5:22 p.m. Mr. Barnes arrived at 5:42 p.m.
|Others Present:||Dale Mullen, County Administrator; Greg Hoffman, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of General Services; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Pam Vaughan, Human Resources Generalist; Paul Oswell, Director of Social Services; Bob Gibson, Director of Economic Development; Faye Stewart, Procurement Officer; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration; and Brittany Shupe, Records Clerk, Administration|
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Harper called the May 4, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Wright led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Harper stated he would like to pull Item A under the Consent Agenda out for discussion and add to New Business.
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 5-0, with Mr. Barnes and Mr. Spencer being absent, the May 4, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.
Annual Report - Piedmont Virginia Community College
Dr. Frank Friedman, President of Piedmont Virginia Community College, thanked the Board for the opportunity to give an update on PVCC. Dr. Friedman thanked the Board for appointing Ms. Ava Pippin to the PVCC Board. Dr. Friedman said enrollment continued to rise and the Spring semester had about 4,800 students, which was a ten percent increase over a two-year span. Dr. Friedman said enrollment from Louisa County was up and they accounted for seven percent of the Fall semester enrollment total, which was a 22 percent increase over a four-year span.
Dr. Friedman stated there were two possible reasons for the increase in Louisa County enrollment; one reason was the success of the dual enrollment program at the High School. Dr. Friedman said in the Fall semester, 94 high school students were enrolled in the dual enrollment program and most of them were taking two college courses. Dr. Friedman said the advantage of the program was that the credits were transferable and free of tuition charges. Dr. Friedman said if tuition charges would have been charged for those students, it would have totaled $65,000. Dr. Friedman said the second reason for the increase in Louisa County enrollment totals was the distance learning program, which allowed the students to take college courses over the Internet.
Dr. Friedman said PVCC was facing the same budget issues as the County. Dr. Friedman said enrollment was up ten percent, but the budget was down ten percent.
Dr. Friedman said the science building was currently under construction and should be open by February or March 2010. Dr. Friedman said the science building was going to house all new science labs and allow PVCC to expand their health programs. Dr. Friedman said the Monticello Visitors Center has been vacated and everything was almost ready in order to turn the building over to PVCC as the owner at which time it would be converted into a Workforce Center. Dr. Friedman said the building would house short-term training programs designed to get people back in the workforce. Dr. Friedman said most of the programs would be in the healthcare field because that field was still in high demand.
Dr. Friedman said he was going to provide the Board with a list of PVCCs programs that were designed to help people get back into the workforce. Dr. Friedman said PVCC was best known for its transfer programs. Dr. Friedman stated PVCC had over 40 programs designed to be completed in one semester, two semesters or two years and could lead to immediate employment. Dr. Friedman said PVCC would be trying to develop more short-term training programs with an expansion in the healthcare area.
Dr. Friedman said in the Workforce Development area, most of the work would be in conjunction with the Piedmont Workforce Network. Dr. Friedman said the Piedmont Workforce Network contracted with PVCC to operate the “One Stop Center” in Charlottesville, Virginia. Dr. Friedman said PVCC took over July 1, 2008 and since then the Center has had over 15,000 visits, which represents over 4,000 people. Dr. Friedman said 240 of those people were Louisa County residents and the “One Stop Center” was seeing about 70 people on average per day.
Dr. Friedman said PVCC operated Louisa TeamWorks which serves TANF clients. Dr. Friedman said Ms. Julia Guill had reported to him that there were over 700 visits and 60 different clients, 44 of which had gotten a job.
Dr. Friedman said PVCC would be involved in the closure of the Mead West Vaco plant as far as helping the dislocated workers receive training opportunities, federal money that is available and jobs.
Dr. Friedman stated PVCC would be operating a new program for summer youth employment using Federal stimulus money. Dr. Friedman said PVCC had already worked with Louisa Countys Park and Recreation Department and the Department would be receiving fifteen youth employees this summer. Dr. Friedman said the employees would work from June 15, 2009 to July 31, 2009 and they would all be compensated using Federal stimulus funds.
Dr. Friedman said he felt it was important to update the Board and show the emphasis that PVCC had placed on making sure people get back to work.
Mr. Gentry asked if the construction program had taken a dive in enrollment. Mr. Gentry asked how successful the program was when it started and what the enrollment level was for Louisa County. Dr. Friedman said the Construction Academy was started three years ago because of a Federal grant in excess of $1.5 million. Dr. Friedman said the program was very successful and he did not have the exact numbers with him, but about 160 individuals completed the program and received a job in the construction field. Dr. Friedman said if there were not jobs guaranteed in a certain field, then programs dedicated to that field were not going to succeed. Dr. Friedman stated the Federal grant would run out in December 2009 and the plan had been for PVCC to continue the program as part of their regular budget. Dr. Friedman said he did not have a solid answer yet, but the program may not continue and be picked up in PVCCs regular budget.
Mr. Byers asked what the involvement of the industry was in that program. Dr. Friedman said they formed an advisory committee who helped determine which skills should be taught and how deep the skills should go. Dr. Friedman said the current involvement is the advisory committee was looking into acquiring or building a facility dedicated to the Construction Academy. Dr. Friedman said the industry was working to get materials and labor donated to build a facility on campus to help that program grow.
Mr. Harper thanked Dr. Friedman for coming.
Presentation - CSA Cost Containment Studys findings and recommendation
Mr. Jack Gallagher, CSA Study Coordinator, said a Study Advisory Team was formed at the beginning of the study. Mr. Gallagher said the Advisory Team met monthly over the course of the Study to determine what was working and what was not and what could be done about it. Mr. Gallagher said there was a true collaboration in this group of government and agency officials.
Mr. Gallagher said the primary reason for the CSA Study was a high increase in CSA costs and the fact that Louisa County CSA costs were rising faster than any other locality or county in Virginia. Mr. Gallagher said CSA costs for Louisa County had increased 184%, foster care caseloads had increase 148% and CSA caseloads had increase 128% over a five year period.
Mr. Gallagher said when Mr. Oswell decided to do the CSA Study, his staff was overwhelmed with the number of families coming in and seeking services. Mr. Gallagher said the Study was timely because the local CSA match was going to be increased when children were placed outside of their local community. Mr. Gallagher said this would be implemented in about a year and was designed to encourage localities to treat children in their local community.
* Mr. Spencer arrived at 5:22 p.m.
Mr. Gallagher said the goals of the Study were to identify the cause of the rise in CSA costs and review the strengths and needs of the CSA system. Mr. Gallagher said there were many hard workers in the public agencies who were doing their best, but were extremely overloaded.
Mr. Gallagher said one of his most difficult tasks was accessing data to determine what was working and what was not working. Mr. Gallagher said he hoped one of the results of the Study would be the ability to provide better data. Mr. Gallagher said he would like to see a more collaborative public-private relationship as well.
Mr. Gallagher said Louisa County placed more children in outside communities than any other locality in the area and the most obvious reason for that was the lack of local resources and services. Mr. Gallagher said the lack of awareness, the increase in the number of children coming into care, agency overloads and inadequate evaluation and planning were all reasons why Louisa was experiencing an increase in CSA costs.
Mr. Gallagher said Louisa County had 26 foster homes in their community, which he said was a good thing. Mr. Gallagher said Louisas foster families have been taking children into care, which prevents the children from being sent outside the community. Mr. Gallagher said Louisa County had no homes with specialized foster care and said many localities were beginning to invest money there.
Mr. Gallagher said another reason for the increase in CSA costs was the cost shift from Federal to State to local. Mr. Gallagher said funding was tightening, but eligibility was increasing which caused unfunded local mandates.
Mr. Gallagher stated another reason for the rise in costs was the number of older children that were being served in the system. Mr. Gallagher said research showed that older children act out, have more needs and are more difficult to manage, which caused localities to spend more CSA money. Mr. Gallagher said when a child was sent to a group home in Richmond because he could not be served in Louisa, it would cost between $250 and $400 per day, resulting in a large expense for a 30-day stay.
Mr. Gallagher said Louisas Social Services system was working extremely hard and one of the suggestions from the Study was to take a look at the CPMT and FAPT interactions.
Mr. Gallagher said another cause for an increase in costs was the 14% rise in population. Mr. Gallagher stated that the match rate was also a factor because Louisa had one of the highest match rates. Mr. Gallagher said that communities with more resources had a lower match rate.
Mr. Spencer said he attended the last meeting that Mr. Gallagher presented and there was a question about how many foster children were in Louisas system. Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Gallagher if he recalled the Clerk of the Court stating that the Judge would not allow grandparents to have custody of their grandchildren because of the way the parents were raised. Mr. Spencer asked if that was a contributing reason to the high amount of foster children in Louisa. Mr. Gallagher said that was a tough question because some of the children are mandated and Social Services had to step in and remove them. Mr. Gallagher said Ms. Susan Whitlock had been involved in the Study and he felt the decision making process should be looked at from every level: courts, intake, etc. Mr. Gallagher said there was a chance at every level to intervene rather than send children straight to the CSA system.
Mr. Spencer said the goal of the Comprehensive Services Act was to keep the children in the home with their family. Mr. Spencer said he found it upsetting that a grandparent does not have pull over placing a child in a foster home. Mr. Spencer asked how many cases were in the court right now where the grandparent(s) were seeking custody of grandchildren. Mr. Gallagher said he did not know, but he could provide that information.
Mr. Gallagher said there were four recommendations compiled by the CSA Study. Mr. Gallagher said the first recommendation was to improve the evaluation planning and resource development. Mr. Gallagher said what Louisa County currently had was an agency-based and school-based program and it was not collaborative, inter-agency planning. Mr. Gallagher stated one thing that other successful localities did was hire a Family Services Coordinator (FSC) to help move efforts along. Mr. Gallagher said with the Family Services Coordinator came a Family Services Council.
Mr. Gallagher said the Family Services Coordinator would possibly develop a services guide to help with awareness of local services. Mr. Gallagher said he found that some of Louisa Countys workers were not aware of local programs and services which caused children to be sent elsewhere, increasing CSA costs. Mr. Gallagher said the Family Services Coordinator would perform case review and utilization management which could be funded through CSA costs. Mr. Gallagher stated the cost of covering the Family Services Coordinator could be recovered by bringing just one child back to be served in the local area. Mr. Gallagher said some of the funds for the FSC position could even be recovered through the State-Local costs. Mr. Gallagher said the FSC could also be responsible for reporting five-year trends and document evaluation.
Mr. Gentry asked if the Family Services Coordinator would have any authority or would they just serve as an information gatherer and reporter. Mr. Gallagher said he felt it was crucial for the FSC to have some authority. Mr. Gallagher stated in his recommendation he felt the FSC should report directly to the County Administrator and the position should be able to act on things and be able to work closely with the Family Services Council.
Mr. Gallagher said one of the hardest items of the Study was gathering information because the information was so scattered and some of the information he requested could not be provided to him. Mr. Gallagher stated he would like for this position to make sure the reporting information was organized and a yearly report was done to see what was working and what may need to change.
Mr. Gallagher said the second recommendation was about identifying the services Louisa County had and making sure the community was aware of them. Mr. Gallagher said the committee was recommending that Louisa come up with a web-based services guide that listed every service for families and children ages 0 to 18. Mr. Gallagher said the awareness of whats really available in Louisa County was so limited, which had become a problem.
Mr. Gallagher said another recommendation was to identify the services gap and try to come up with new services. Mr. Gallagher said the County should also choose to invest in local prevention and early intervention. Mr. Gallagher stated only one percent of CSA dollars were spent on this last fiscal year and other localities were spending up to 40 percent. Mr. Gallagher said the services were not only absent, but no money was being spent to create services, to hire a truant officer, to develop a day treatment program, etc. Mr. Gallagher said Louisa County was spending $450,000 dollars on day treatment alone and the idea of taking this service in-house and working with the school system was brought up in the CSA Study.
Mr. Gallagher said in Louisa County when agencies cannot meet needs, it was being “farmed out” to an outside agency. Mr. Gallagher stated other workers were being brought into Louisa to meet needs and Louisa had to pay for that persons administrative costs, time, and travel.
Mr. Gentry said one thing he had really thought about was local intervention before children get into trouble. Mr. Gentry asked for more information on the other localities that are investing 40 percent of CSA dollars since Louisa was only paying one percent, which was a huge gap. Mr. Gentry asked for information on what the other localities were spending the 40 percent on. Mr. Gallagher said it was an array of things ranging from hiring workers to do home visits to investing money in crime control at the intake level.
Mr. Spencer asked if the community was getting the value out of the money that was being paid to Region10 every year. Mr. Gallagher said he would not know the answer to that without being able to examine data.
Mr. Harper said he agreed that there were many people in Louisa County that could play a part and be involved in early intervention. Mr. Harper said many times, people are not allowed to perform these types of services without having a certain set of initials after their name. Mr. Harper asked if there was a restriction in that regard. Mr. Gallagher said there was if someone called themselves a counselor or carried other specific titles. Mr. Gallagher said he taught a parenting class and there were no restrictions or guidelines for that. Mr. Gallagher said Mr. Paul Oswell reported to him that there were at least three people who voluntarily want to be parent mentors without even being paid.
Mr. Spencer said he had served on the CPMT and Social Services Board for years and about 75 percent of children being sent to treatment facilities and services out of the community were because of poor parenting skills. Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Gallagher if that was still a problem. Mr. Gallagher said yes. Mr. Gallagher stated he had done a workshop recently for positive disciplining in young children and 50 parents attended. Mr. Gallagher said there had never been any education program put together for successful parenting. Mr. Gallagher said most of these type classes were offered after parents had already made the mistakes and children had been taken. Mr. Spencer said he had a problem paying $36,000 a month to send a child to a treatment facility and nothing was ever being done to the parents and the children are being sent back to the same home.
Mr. Gallagher said the Committees third recommendation was to improve and simplify the CSA process. Mr. Gallagher said a process needed to be formed in order to make sure that everything that could be done before sending a child to CSA would be done. Mr. Gallagher said other localities have an actual checklist for their workers to follow before a referral was made to CSA. Mr. Gallagher said Louisa County could build on those checklists in order to create their own. Mr. Gallagher stated once a child was referred to CSA, money was being spent directly and indirectly because many people became involved in the case.
Mr. Gallagher said the Committee performed an anonymous staff survey, which was where a lot of the ideas and recommendations came from. Mr. Gallagher said periodic staff surveys should be completed as well as procedure and outcome surveys to check in and see what works and what does not work in the system.
Mr. Gallagher said the final recommendation dealt with training and education of workers. Mr. Gallagher stated that during the course of the CSA Study, every agency was asked to make a presentation on the services they provided. Mr. Gallagher said an inter-agency training program should be put together so that workers know what was available and what their alternatives were.
Mr. Gallagher said Judge Whitlock funded a trip to Hampton, Virginia through a “Best Practices” Grant through the court system. Mr. Gallagher stated the intention of the trip was to examine the CSA system that Hampton had in place. Mr. Gallagher stated there would be a Town Hall meeting set in August in order to bring all agencies and the Family Services Council together and there would be a guest speaker.
Mr. Byers said if there was going to be a Town Hall meeting, it seemed that the Family Services Coordinator should be a part of it. Mr. Byers said he felt if there had been a Family Services Coordinator throughout the entire study, that person could have become more familiar with what Louisa County currently had in place. Mr. Gallagher said he would address the issue of hiring a Family Services Coordinator to have that person on staff as quickly as possible.
Mr. Byers thanked Mr. Oswell and the other people who were involved in the CSA Study. Mr. Byers said as he looked at some of the programs mentioned, he felt there was a possibility to address issues in a time before people get into trouble. Mr. Byers asked Mr. Gallagher to discuss early intervention possibilities.
Mr. Gallagher said the sooner intervention takes place, the fewer amounts of standards there are to be met. Mr. Gallagher said the State was trying to change the standards for specialized foster care because the current standards were the same as the standards for regular foster care. Mr. Gallagher said the impact was there would be more higher standards to be met which costs more money. Mr. Gallagher said that once a child entered the CSA system, there were legal requirements that had to be met.
Mr. Byers asked if there was a timeline or benchmark before seeing a return on the investment. Mr. Gallagher said Hampton, Virginia had brought almost all of their children back to the community and they have seen a dramatic impact financially. Mr. Gallagher said Charlottesville and Albemarle were trying to track their CSA dollars through the utilization review process that the CSA Study Committee recommended. Mr. Gallagher said an easy way to note return was for the Family Services Coordinator to document every time a child was saved from going into the CSA system because that would automatically save CSA dollars. Mr. Gallagher said the FSC could also document every time a child was brought back into the local community early because that would save dollars as well.
Mr. Gentry said there were success stories from this program and he would like to see some specific examples of that. Mr. Gallagher said the guest speaker at the Town Hall meeting would be a perfect example of that because he was the first CSA Coordinator in Hampton, Virginia and he had witnessed first-hand communities saving CSA dollars and changing their systems for the better.
Mr. Harper asked Mr. Gallagher to keep the Board posted on when the August Town Hall meeting would take place. Mr. Gallagher said the meeting would take place August 21, 2009 at Mineral Baptist Church from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Presentation - VDOT Monthly Update
Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator, provided an update of VDOT activities, which included the following:
Maintenance Work Completed:
Maintenance Work Planned for May:
Project Status Changed Since Last Month:
|Status Changed Since Last Month|
|North of Rt.||Install No U-Turn sign||Installation Scheduled|
|Between I-64 and C.L.||Speed Study Reduce 55 to 45||Study Completed Denied|
|Between Rt. 618 & Rt. 652||Speed Study Reduce 55 to 45||Installation Completed|
|Between Rt. 22 & Rt. 694||Install Centerline||Request Submitted|
|Between Rt. 15 & Rt. 615||Rural Rustic, Post at 35 MPH||Installation Completed|
|Between Rt. 33 & Rt. 726||Speed Study Reduce 55 to 35||Installation Completed|
|Between Rt. 731 & T.L.||Speed Study||Installation Completed|
|@ Rt. 208||Install “No Outlet” sign||Scheduled For Installation|
|Between Rt. 22 & A.C.L.||Speed Study Reduce 55 to 50||Installation Completed|
|Between Rt. 522 & 1.5 MN||Rural Rustic, Post at 35 MPH||Scheduled For Installation|
|Between Rt. 636 & E.S.M.||Speed Study Reduce 55 to 35||Installation Completed|
|@ Rt. 607||Rural Rustic, Post at 35 MPH||Installation Completed|
Status Unchanged Since Last Month
|@ Loudin Lane||Install Watch For Turning Veh||Scheduled For Installation|
|From Rt. 767 to Louisa T.L||Speed Study Reduce 45 to 35||Request Submitted|
|@ Rt. 780||Perform Signal Analysis||Request Submitted|
|Main Street Louisa||Pedestrian Crossing pedestals||Scheduled For Installation|
|@ Rt. 687||Install Watch For Turning Veh||Scheduled For Installation|
|@ Rising Sun Com. Center||Install Playground signs||Scheduled For Installation|
|1 MW Rt. 33 to 2 MW||Speed Study Reduce 55 to 45||Study Performed|
|Between Rt. 522 & Rt. 613||Deer Crossing Signs||Request Submitted|
|Between Rt. 652 & Rt. 618||Speed/Safety Study||Request Submitted|
|Between Rt. 635 & E.S.M.||Speed Study Reduce 55 to 25||Request Submitted|
|Between Rt. 635 & E.S.M.||Speed Study||Request Submitted|
|Permits and Land Development|
Site Plan Review Subdivision/Commercial
New Entrance - Commercial
New Entrance - Private
Total Permits Processed
Total Utility Permits Processed
Inspection of New Subdivision Streets
Inspection of New Entrances
Miles of Streets Accepted Into System
Mr. Byers said there were a number of road projects where the speed limit had been reduced significantly from 55 mph to 35 mph and he asked if there was a timeline to place something out that notifies drivers on those roads of the speed limit change. Mr. Glass said no because once the speed study has been completed, VDOT crews go out and install the new speed limit signs per the recommendation.
Mr. Barnes asked about the Route 649 project and said he thought when the project was first discussed, State Forces were going to be used and now the cost of the project has continued to rise. Mr. Barnes said the delay of the project was having a financial impact on the project and he wanted to know if there was anything that could be done to speed up the process. Mr. Glass said this was a common problem and it seemed the more people got involved, the higher the project cost became. Mr. Glass said because of that, it was now beyond the scope of a State Force project and would have to be contracted out.
Mr. Barnes said he would like to be able to schedule a meeting with Mr. Gentry and with colleagues of Mr. Glass to help iron problems like this out.
Mr. Gentry said he and Mr. Spencer had the opportunity to talk with Senator Houck about VDOT matters and he said he left the meeting feeling like Senator Houck was more argumentative rather than supportive. Mr. Gentry said it bothered him that Senator Houck was not doing more for Louisa than what was currently being done.
Report - Water and sewer infrastructure improvement projects
Mr. Skip Notte, Project Manager for Dewberry and Davis, Inc., thanked the Board for the opportunity to provide an update on the Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion and the water well projects. Mr. Notte said funding applications were submitted to DEQ. Mr. Notte said for the Wastewater Treatment Plants, the ARRA funding was requested and he was disappointed to say that neither one of Louisas projects made the short list for funding.
Mr. Notte said the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant was up against a lot of competition throughout the State and did not make the list. Mr. Notte said the Town of Louisa was moving forward in seeking funding from the United States Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Mr. Notte said he heard today that the environmental review was accepted by Rural Development and will soon be going out for public comment. Mr. Notte said he would be looking closely at what the Countys funding vehicle for this project might be. Mr. Notte said Rural Developments lowest rate is 2.75% for a 40-year term. Mr. Notte said he was hoping for an advertisement date of June to go out for bid as long as funding was lined up.
Mr. Brian Marks, Town Manager, said he wanted to re-emphasized that the Wastewater Treatment Plant is really important to the County and the Town. Mr. Marks stated the Town was ready to move forward and he hoped the County would join together in the Rural Development application.
Mr. Notte said the funding application to DEQ for ARRA funds for the Zion Wastewater Treatment Plant did not make the short list for funding either. Mr. Notte said he was very disappointed about that because everyone worked really closely with DEQ to try and develop a state-of-the-art facility application that included reuse. Mr. Notte said he and other County officials attended the public comment session and were able to have a one-on-one conversation with DEQ at which time they were told that DEQ was very excited about the project. Mr. Notte said that, because of potential litigation, DEQ did not want to approve funding for fear that the public comment could hold up the project. Mr. Notte said the Zion project was basically back to the “drawing board” and he was very disappointed that it did not make the list of projects to receive ARRA money from DEQ.
Mr. Notte said the Louisa County Water Authority had worked closely with the Town of Louisa to submit an application to the Virginia Department of Health for the water well project. Mr. Notte said the application was submitted at the end of March and they should have a response soon on whether or not any funding would be received.
Mr. Harper said he found it puzzling that the public comment session could hold up the process on the Zion project because DEQ was in control of that. Mr. Notte said when the Discharge Permit was reissued, there were several people who went to the State Water Control Board meeting to speak out against the permit and DEQ felt that response could be similar if there was a need to change the Discharge Permit for the addition of the reuse portion to the project. Mr. Notte said DEQ felt there was a potential risk with the sensitive timeline of the project because of the potential public interaction.
Mr. Mullen said DEQ said if the money was not under contract by February 2010, then the money would go back into a pile to be redistributed to other states. Mr. Mullen said DEQ said if the Countys attempt to bring a state-of-the-art treatment plant to Zion Crossroads was met with the same litigation that the existing Discharge Permit was met with, the project would be delayed and DEQ could not afford that. Mr. Mullen said DEQ said the project was very nice, but there was a history of litigation at Zion Crossroads. Mr. Mullen said it was not fair, but that was, in large part, the reason why the Zion Crossroads state-of-the-at wastewater treatment plant with reuse did not make the short list of projects to be funded by the ARRA funds. Mr. Mullen said he felt DEQ was going to place the money where it was the easiest to spend it. Mr. Mullen said there were people at DEQ that were advocates, but they could not argue against the fact that any attempt to bring technological advances to Zion Crossroads was going to be met with litigation.
Mr. Harper asked Mr. Mullen if he knew what the County had spent so far on litigation at Zion Crossroads in regards to water and sewer. Mr. Mullen said he did not know, but he would research it and provide that figure to the Board. Mr. Harper said the citizens of Louisa County should know how much that group had cost the County. Mr. Barnes said he knew it was over $1 million. Mr. Mullen said in real dollars and not in lost opportunities. Mr. Harper said it would be hard to measure the lost opportunities.
Mr. Byers said the County had spent a lot of effort and time and staff had put together a great project and he did not want diminish that by the fact that the project had been set aside due to potential litigation. Mr. Byers said he was saddened by the fact that the history at Zion Crossroads would cause another agency to set the County aside.
Mr. Mullen said the challenge had been to the Discharge Permit into Camp Creek which had only been a small amount of very clean effluent. Mr. Mullen said this attempt was to put cleaner effluent into Camp Creek, if any at all. Mr. Mullen said he saw this attempt as an immediate win-win for the developers, the environmentalists, and for the County. Mr. Mullen said he contacted the representatives for Historic Green Springs and explained the plan of cleaner and lesser effluent into Camp Creek and asked the representatives to come to the public comment period and speak in favor of the project and he was denied.
Mr. Spencer said this issue had cost the County over $1 million and this time it just cost the County $8 million. Mr. Spencer asked what the odds of the County would be to be able to sue the people and put the issue to rest. Mr. Hoffman said he could address that with the Board in Closed Session.
Mr. Havasy said there had been a lot of County involvement to come up with a plan for a win-win for everyone and to have one person in control of the whole process seemed to be counterproductive to the entire County of Louisa. Mr. Havasy said this was countywide.
Update and Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the CIP for the Fire Training Center
Mr. Barnes motioned to approve the resolution. Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.
Mr. Harper pointed out to the Board that there was $23,000 being included for “incidentals.”
On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the CIP for the Fire Training Center.
CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD - 6:30 P.M.
Ms. Ginger Dillard, JABA representative, said she came before the Board on behalf of the seniors of Louisa to thank the Board for their continued support of JABA over the years. Ms. Dillard said in hard economic times, it was a mark that the Board was so committed to help take care of the seniors. Ms. Dillard presented a copy of the JABA yearly report to the Board members.
Ms. Paula Molina, JABA representative, thanked the Board for their continued support. Ms. Molina said the adult daycare program was doing well and attendance has been steady at an average of 12 to 13 seniors a day over the last year. Ms. Molina said working in the building with Parks and Recreation was great and JABA had developed a great communication and relationship with Parks and Recreation.
With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed Citizens Information Period.
Update - CIP for Fire Association and EMSAL
Mr. Mullen said the Board had received additional budget information and included in that information was a letter from Mr. Dubé in regards to the funding for the volunteer agencies.
Mr. Havasy said in his opinion, this was an oversight and the funds would be applied back to the budget if the rest of the Board would agree to that. There was no objection from the Board.
Update - LCPS Budget and Projected Stimulus Amounts
Mr. Mullen said one of the biggest unknown items with the budget was the school stimulus money. Mr. Mullen said he thought the School Board was going to discuss the funds at their May 6, 2009 meeting. Mr. Mullen said he had included emails from him and Dr. Pettit and he wanted to be clear that the expenditures were proposals that represent Dr. Pettits ideas.
Mr. Mullen said Dr. Pettit cautioned the Board of Supervisors that stimulus funds were a one-time, one-shot injection of Capital into the funding stream and if the funds paid for positions, those positions would have to be funded, most likely by the County, going forward.
Mr. Mullen said he had been asked if the money coming from the ARRA stimulus package would have to go through the governing body first before being allocated to the school system. Mr. Mullen said this question was being asked all across the Commonwealth and he believed the answer was yes. Mr. Mullen said he just wanted the Board to have the information and be updated and there was no need to take any action at the time.
Mr. Barnes said it would be premature for the Board of Supervisors to act on something before the School Board acted on it. Mr. Barnes said he felt there needed to be dialogue between the two Boards once the School Board had a chance to meet. Mr. Barnes said he felt that the Board should make it clear that if a position was created due to stimulus funds, it would be funded for a two-year period only.
Mr. Spencer said that, according to Dr. Pettits email, there are six new positions being created by stimulus funds and those positions would likely have to be funded by local dollars at a later time.
Mr. Gentry said he thought the Board had made it clear that the stimulus money was going to be treated as grant money in that once the stimulus money was gone, the projects and things funded by the stimulus money would have to be picked up from somewhere.
Mr. Havasy said it would be beneficial to take some of the stimulus money and use it for operational at the school instead of creating many new programs and positions that were only going to have a short shelf life.
Mr. Byers asked that the County Attorney study the issues around the stimulus funds because he would like the Board to be up to date before taking any action on the funds.
Mr. Barnes said he would be surprised if any stimulus money could be appropriated without going through the Board of Supervisors first. Mr. Barnes said he would like to see what the School Board discussed before the Board of Supervisors took any action.
Mr. Spencer said the City of Staunton Town Council and School Board was on TV and they voted to take the stimulus money and hold on to it until next year. Mr. Spencer said the School Board was trying to create six new positions along with all of the new employees at Moss-Nuckols Elementary School and the Board needed to remember that the County would not receive new State or Federal funds because there were no new students. Mr. Spencer said he would like to see the County hold onto the funds and keep them for next year in order to get up to speed on Moss-Nuckols.
Mr. Harper said he did agree with Mr. Barnes in the fact that there must be an exchange of information between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors especially in regards to the stimulus money.
Update - Moss-Nuckols Funding
Mr. Mullen said the County submitted VPSA Bond financing documents after the last Board meeting in order to take advantage of favorable interest rates. Mr. Mullen stated this was a tax-exempt finance vehicle for schools. Mr. Mullen said the average true interest cost was 3.67% and an average coupon rate of 4.73%, which meant the County only had to borrow $14,705,000 to get the $16 million authorized.
Resolution - Approval of the Health Insurance Committees recommendation for Countys health insurance
David Blanchard, Senior Consultant with Dominion Benefits, said he had been working with the County Health Insurance Committee for years. Mr. Blanchard said claims utilization was big with the insurance this year, which tipped the scales unfavorably for employees.
Mr. Blanchard said Southern Health had initially suggested a 48% increase in premiums across the board and the Dominion Benefits calculations were coming in at over 50% increase. Mr. Blanchard said Southern Health would like to remain partners with the County and compromised to a 31% increase.
Mr. Blanchard said utilization patterns are always taken into account when reviewing a group as large at the County of Louisa employees. Mr. Blanchard said the increase should have been higher than 31%, so it was unlikely that the County would be able to find another company that would come in lower, but the market was reviewed thoroughly.
Mr. Blanchard thanked the Board members that were involved on the Committee. Mr. Blanchard said the Committees recommendation was to go from the two current plans offered to adding an additional plan at a lower cost to the employee. Mr. Blanchard said the new plan would have a lower cost to the employee, but would have higher co pays. Mr. Blanchard said the new plan was still within market norms.
Mr. Blanchard said the second phase of the recommendation from the Committee was for the County to continue their payroll contribution strategy. Mr. Blanchard said the County currently paid 90% of the contribution for the employee only rate and an additional 30 percent of the remaining balance if the employee chose to insure their family.
Mr. Blanchard said the Committee recommended that the County truly educate employees of the changes that would be taking place. Mr. Blanchard also suggested educating employees of what was offered to them because the employees are not taking advantage of the Flexible Spending Account options which can save Federal and State tax.
Mr. Blanchard said the County was still with Delta Dental and there was an increase in utilization of that plan as well. Mr. Blanchard said Dominion Benefits calculated an expected rate increase of 27.2 percent, but Dominion Benefits had negotiated a 7 percent rate cap for Louisa County as part of the change in provider last year.
Mr. Blanchard said the Committee recommendation for dental was to renew with the 7 percent rate increase.
Mr. Blanchard said the Board had three decisions before them. Mr. Blanchard said the first was the proposed action of offering the new third health insurance plan. Mr. Blanchard said the second decision was to keep the Countys current payroll contribution for employees and the third decision was to renew the plan with Delta Dental.
Mr. Byers said he recalled information stating that 44% of employees do not fulfill the $500 deductible. Mr. Blanchard said less that 50% of employees would have $500 in deductible exposure and most will not even have $500 in co pay exposure.
Mr. Barnes said he would like to get input from staff.
Mr. Mullen said there were representatives on the Committee from all the affected agencies. Mr. Mullen said it was difficult because the new third health insurance plan has a risk of higher out-of-pocket expenses and there are higher co pays and deductibles for some services. Mr. Mullen said every employee insured on the plan was going to see an immediate reduction in take-home pay. Mr. Mullen said the premiums are going to be higher for the employee and there is no way to avoid that unless the Countys match rate was changed.
Mr. Mullen said there were three things that could be changed: the benefits, the employers contribution, or the premium paid by the employee. Mr. Mullen said the Committees recommendation changed all three which allowed for equalization. Mr. Mullen said an employee with a family would see about a $50 decrease a month in their take home pay in a year where there are no cost of living or merit raises. Mr. Mullen said this was the best attempt to spread the effect across the board for the employer, employee and the benefits.
Mr. Gentry said he went into this thinking the County was going to pick up the increase and the employee would not see a change and that was not what he was getting out of the presentation. Mr. Gentry asked when that changed. Mr. Blanchard said the 31% increase was split evenly between the employee and the County. Mr. Blanchard said if the County would have absorbed the entire 31% increase, the employee would have a 0 percent increase and the County would probably feel a 50% increase.
Mr. Wright motioned to approve the Committees recommendation. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion for discussion.
Mr. Barnes said he felt the Board could wait and discuss this issue next Wednesday at the budget meeting.
Mr. Mullen said Mr. Blanchard said this could be discussed at the budget meeting next Wednesday.
Mr. Wright withdrew his motion. Mr. Barnes withdrew his second.
The Board decided to discuss the issue at next Wednesdays budget meeting when everyone was more informed.
Public Hearing: The proposed Secondary Six-Year Plan for Fiscal Year 2009/10 through 2015/16 in Louisa County and on the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2009/10
Mr. Glass said due to budget restraints, there have been no allocations for the out years. Mr. Glass said the only projects moving forward on the Plan are the ones that were funded with previous funds. Mr. Glass said the list was shorter than it was last year because the unfunded plans are removed and remain in a pool until money is allocated at which time the project can go back on the Plan and move forward.
Mr. Barnes said the Route 649 project had a date of December 2011 and earlier a 2010 date was provided. Mr. Barnes said he was under the impression that the project could begin this Fall. Mr. Glass said the Program Manager in Culpeper changed the ad date in order to give himself a time buffer in case something held up the project. Mr. Barnes said when things like that happen, it makes the Board look bad when they show something to someone with Fall 2009 and then more documentation comes out with 2011. Mr. Glass said he talked to the Program Manager and he was told that the 2011 date was worse-case scenario. Mr. Barnes asked if the Program Manager could change it to the correct date and put the 2011 date in parenthesis as the worse case scenario date.
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 the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the Six-Year Plan for Secondary Road System Construction.
Mr. Barnes said he would like the minutes to reflect that the Route 649 project was initially shown to begin in Fall 2009, but the Six-Year Plan shows December 2011 because the Project Manager in Culpeper pushed the date out to give himself a time buffer.
Public Hearing: Proposed FY 2010 Total Budget Decrease: There is a possible 20.45% decrease in the total Proposed FY 2010 Budget of Louisa County. This is subject to change pending further budget revisions.
Mr. Mullen said he wanted to run down some items that still having moving potential in the budget. Mr. Mullen said, with regards to the health insurance, there were three things that could be moved: the employer match rate, the employee premium, or the benefits plan. Mr. Mullen said he spoke with Mr. Blanchard and asked him to provide the Board numbers for a health insurance proposal that would carry no increase for the employee. Mr. Mullen said the stimulus funding would need to be talked about some more as well as Bowlers Mill Dam, drug-free workplace, Louisa County Historical Society, Sargeant Museum reception area, tourism in the Sargeant Museum, Burn Building, field lights at Moss-Nuckols Elementary, cost of living allowances and merit raises and the James River Water Authority.
Mr. Mullen said he and Mr. McLeod both felt that a half of one percent Contingency Fund was too small and that it should be set at no less than one percent. Mr. Mullen said having the one percent Contingency Fund will keep from unnecessarily drawing down the General Fund.
Mr. Byers asked if the one percent was in addition to the amounts already discussed for fuel. Mr. Mullen said yes.
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.
Public Hearing: Proposed FY 2010 Capital and Operating: There is a possible 89.90% decrease in the proposed FY 2010 Capital Improvement (CIP) Budget and a possible 0.43% increase in the proposed FY 2010 Operating Budget (Operating). This is subject to change pending further budget revisions.
Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jack Manzari, President of Louisa County Historical Society, thanked the Board for the opportunity. Mr. Manzari said the Historical Society had three building that they operated: the Sargeant Pettit House, the Jail Museum and the Crank Building. Mr. Manzari said the Sargeant Museum showcased six themes with one of them being county government. Mr. Manzari said the Museum had 600 visits to special programs and 500 hours of volunteer time. Mr. Manzari said the Museum showcased several temporary exhibits and has several other successful programs.
Mr. Manzari said the Historical Society has a part-time Program Director and has an expense budget of $76,000 which is used to buy supplies, services, insurance, etc. Mr. Manzari said some of the Societys costs are offset by grant money. Mr. Manzari said the Historical Society has revenues of membership dues, sales and rental income, the Crank endowment, donations and grants.
Mr. Manzari said he would take some blame for the Historical Societys funding request issue although he felt it was just a misunderstanding. Mr. Manzari said from now on he would request the money on a more regular basis.
Mr. Manzari said he would like to talk about the Tourism Program. Mr. Manzari said the Sargeant Museum would serve a dual role of a tourism center and a museum. Mr. Manzari said there would be a reception area in the museum for the Tourism Program. Mr. Manzari said there would be a display of information for tours and sites that visitors could go see. Mr. Manzari said the Historical Society would like to receive the same funding they received last year.
Mr. Manzari said, in conclusion, he would ask the Board to continue the support from last year.
Mr. Joe Gordon, 1588 Bumpass Road, Jackson District, Chief of the Bumpass Volunteer Fire Department, said he wanted to speak about the funding that the Volunteer Fire Departments receive each year. Mr. Gordon said many of the local Volunteer Fire Departments use the money they receive from the County to make payments on their fire trucks. Mr. Gordon said Bumpass Volunteer Fire Department was looking into buying a tanker and without the money from the County, they would not be able to do that. Mr. Gordon asked the Board to keep the funding for the fire departments in their consideration.
Mr. Martin Hart, 819 Gammontown Road, Mountain Road District, Chief of the Holly Grove Volunteer Fire Department, said he had been Chief for over 27 years and he appreciated everything the Board had done for the fire departments over the years. Mr. Hart said if the money was taken away from the fire departments it would be devastating for fire department growth and for what they have in place already. Mr. Hart said some of the Volunteer Fire Departments use the money to pay for their fire trucks and some of the Departments use the money in their buildings. Mr. Hart said the money is used to keep the Fire Departments operating and serving the community. Mr. Hart asked that the funding for the Fire Departments be placed back in the budget.
With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.
Mr. Gentry said the Board would have an opportunity to discuss the additional budget requests at their next budget meeting on Wednesday. Mr. Gentry stated he planned on supporting the money for the Louisa County Historical Society.
Mr. Wright said he would be supporting both the Louisa County Historical Society request as well as the Fire Association request.
Mr. Spencer said he pushed last year for the Historical Society to receive $50,000 for their capital improvements and he managed to get $300,000 in Capital Improvement funds from the Board for the Louisa Arts Center. Mr. Spencer said the Louisa Arts Center asked for $60,000 for operational and the Board refused to give any operational funds. Mr. Spencer said he would not support operational funds because if it was done for one, it would have to be done for all.
Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Gibson to speak on behalf of the $15,000 to hire additional staff at the proposed Tourism Center in the Museum.
Mr. Gibson said that tourism was like economic development in that they both helped to build a foundation. Mr. Gibson said Mr. Manzari spoke well about the relationship he would have with the County in regards to the Tourism Center. Mr. Gibson said Louisa County would have its own Tourism Center instead of a regional center. Mr. Gibson said economic development was about working as a team to showcase what Louisa County has. Mr. Gibson said he thought the Historical Society offering the County space at no cost except for part-time labor was a good idea. Mr. Gibson said he spoke with the Town of Louisa and were encouraged that they would participate. Mr. Gibson said he did not think there could be a program more efficient or one that the County could start up for any less cost. Mr. Gibson said there are still some private funds left over that could be used to build the Center in the Museum. Mr. Gibson said this was a great opportunity for the County at a beneficial time. Mr. Gibson said the County should build on what it has and continue to use what its got.
Mr. Havasy asked who would directly benefit from the proposed Tourism Program. Mr. Gibson said the County, the Historical Society, the commercial businesses and tourism would all benefit from the Program.
Mr. Gentry said the $15,000 can be misleading because it sounded like the County could run the Visitors Center for that amount of money. Mr. Gentry said the museum would need money from the County in order for the Visitors Center to even operate there.
Mr. Gibson said that was correct. Mr. Gibson said if the Historical Society had not offered the space free of rent and utilities, he would probably not be having the conversation.
Mr. Spencer said he read a note that stated none of the $15,000 for the Tourism Program should go toward the operating expense of the Museum. Mr. Spencer said if the County was going to do this then they should help with utilities. Mr. Spencer asked what the $15,000 would be for. Mr. Gibson said part-time help. Mr. Spencer said part-time labor is an operating expense. Mr. Gibson said it would be an operating expense for the Tourism Program and not the Museum.
Mr. Byers said he would like to see what money was being used for what as far as Louisa Arts Center, Historical Society, and Tourism Program. Mr. Byers said he needed to understand this completely before voting on it next Wednesday.
Public Hearing: Property Assessment Decrease: Total assessed value of real property, excluding additional assessments from new construction or improvements to property, was less than last years total assessed value of real estate by an average of 1%.
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.
Public Hearing: Proposed Tax Rate Changes of Zero Percent: Louisa County proposes to adopt a tax rate of $0.62 per $100 of assessed value. The difference between the lowered tax rate and the proposed rate would be $0.00 per $100 or zero percent. This will be known as the “effective tax rate.” The tax rate which would levy the same amount of real estate tax as last year, when multiplied by the new total assessed value of real estate with the exclusions mentioned above, would be $.62 per $100 of assessed value. All other tax levies proposed are set out in the chart and are unchanged from FY 2009. This is subject to change pending further budget revisions.
Mr. Harper opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.
Mr. Spencer asked if assessments were going to be done for the coming year. Mr. Harper said yes. Mr. Spencer said people have been told all along that their assessment and taxes went up because of what sold around them. Mr. Spencer asked if the same concept applied to taxes and assessments going down because of houses being foreclosed on or sold around them. Mr. Mullen said that was factored in.
NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED
Resolution - Authorizing the award of a contract to Central Virginia Contractors for Improvements to the Bunting House
Mr. Barnes motioned for approval of the resolution. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.
Mr. Byers asked what all the site improvements included. Mr. Linhares said it included the sidewalk, the entrance and the site work.
Mr. Byers asked why there was such a difference between the price of the successful bidder and the high bidder. Mr. Linhares said that was typical of what to see in the bidding process. Mr. Linhares said a company that is “hungry” for work would bid lower and a company with more overhead would bid higher. Mr. Linhares said it was nothing unusual that he had not seen before.
On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the award of a contract to Central Virginia Contractors for Improvements to the Bunting House.
Resolution - For support of the utilization of industrial access railroad track funds
On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for support of the utilization of industrial access railroad track funds.
Discussion - VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements
Mr. Barnes motioned for approval. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.
Mr. Camp said the purpose of this discussion was for him to present to the Board what he had learned at the VDOT meeting on April 21, 2009 about street acceptance requirements which would go into effect on July 1, 2009.
Mr. Camp said the requirements that VDOT was implementing did not restrict cul-de-sacs in Louisa. Mr. Camp said the regulations broke down areas of Virginia into three categories: urban, suburban and rural. Mr. Camp stated Louisa was shown as being rural which had the least amount of restrictions, but the classification was subject to change. Mr. Camp said if some of Louisas growth areas were reclassified, the requirements could have a more substantial impact.
Mr. Camp said the rural classification would require developments in the County to provide more than one access point into the development. Mr. Camp said that does not mean there could not be cul-de-sacs and there could be planned future connection. Mr. Camp said there could be a loop road network for having two entrances or there could be a cul-de-sac that extends to the property line. Mr. Camp said VDOT would not accept a cul-de-sac with no alternative access points.
Mr. Camp said if any part of Louisa County was reclassified as urban or suburban, there would be sidewalk requirements and other requirements for making sure the development meets the connectivity standards.
Mr. Harper asked what determined each classification. Mr. Camp said he was told it was based on local, State and Federal planning initiatives. Mr. Camp said he specifically asked the question in Hanover of whether or not Louisas classification could change based on the growth areas and he was told the classification of each area was still subject to change. Mr. Camp said it was possible for growth areas to change in the future.
Mr. Gentry said he was concerned with these requirements because it was another way for VDOT to tell counties how to plan. Mr. Gentry said these requirements could put a developer at a huge disadvantage especially because tracts of land that have road frontage may be required to build a road that would suit potential development on tracts of land behind it. Mr. Gentry said the County should make these types of decisions and not VDOT.
Mr. Wright said he felt these requirements were contrary to what everyone had been told for the last ten years. Mr. Wright said the County always tried to restrict the number of entrances off State roads for safety reasons. Mr. Wright said new roads are showing up every where for every new development and the roads had to be to State specifications. Mr. Wright said every time a new road goes in, school buses have to stop there and mail carriers have to stop there which becomes a traffic tie up.
Mr. Barnes asked if the Governor had already signed this. Mr. Camp said the requirements would go into effect July 1, 2009. Mr. Barnes said it was a mute point then. Mr. Barnes said the only reason he made a motion was because the Governor had already signed these requirements into effect.
Mr. Gentry said VDOT was trying to take too much control over county planning and this moved through the General Assembly too quickly.
Mr. Byers asked if this provided an opportunity for land locked property to have access to roads. Mr. Byers said for planning purposes that would probably be something to look in to.
Mr. Havasy said he thought this showed more of Senator Houcks clout for the County. Mr. Havasy said the County had a rule against combining subdivision lots and that was exactly what the County was being told to do now. Mr. Havasy said these requirements could potentially allow for developments that would not have been allowed over the last year. Mr. Havasy said he felt it was time to send the Governor a letter saying thanks, but no thanks.
Mr. Barnes withdrew his motion. Mr. Spencer withdrew his second.
Discussion - A-2 District Changes
Mr. Mullen said this information was being provided to the Board ahead of time because these changes were currently at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Mullen stated there was no need for the Board to take any action at the current time.
Mr. Camp said there were four basic changes to the A-2 zoning requirements. Mr. Camp said the main concern was the new subdivision buffer requirements because no one had been interested since the new requirements went into place. Mr. Camp said most of that was caused by the high cost associated with putting the buffer in especially on property with no existing woodland.
Mr. Camp said the concept for the subdivision buffer was still the same, but more flexibility and options were added. Mr. Camp said the language of the buffer was cleared up to help people understand what was expected.
Mr. Camp said a definition of affordable housing and low to moderate income was added. Mr. Camp said A-2 zoning offered a density bonus if affordable housing was offered so it was only appropriate to add that definition.
Mr. Camp said the third change dealt with road extensions. Mr. Camp said road extensions would still be restricted, but not in all situations. Mr. Camp said there is an exception for the road to be extended onto another parent parcel when the primary purpose of that extension was not to provide access to the subdivision.
Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Camp to go over that requirement again. Mr. Camp said the Countys current regulation restricted the extension of State roads onto a second parent parcel, but the change would eliminate that as a complete restriction.
Mr. Wright said the Board needed more clarification on this change.
Mr. Camp said the fourth change was a re-definition of divisions so they would be subject to the right-of-way dedication requirements as all lots are under the normal subdivision process.
Mr. Camp said the change to the subdivision buffer would allow for a forestry option, an agricultural option and a screening option. Mr. Camp said the forestry option still called for 100 feet with deciduous and evergreen trees required. Mr. Camp said the spacing of the deciduous trees had been increased. Mr. Camp said the screening option was 60 feet and the trees had to be more compactly planted. Mr. Camp said the agricultural option required 400 feet of buffer area, but no trees would have to be planted.
Mr. Spencer said he could see that some of the specific types of trees had been done away with. Mr. Gentry said one of the concerns of the Planning Commission was some of the requirements for tree types when beyond what was necessary. Mr. Spencer said some of the required trees were $800 to $1,000 a piece for seedlings.
Resolution - To correct the February 2, 2009 Minutes of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Spencer abstaining, the Board adopted a resolution to correct the February 2, 2009 Minutes of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
Discussion - Maximizing historic resources and tourism
Mr. Mullen said this item could be moved over for discussion at the Budget Worksession on Wednesday, May 6, 2009.
The Board was okay with moving this item to the Budget Worksession.
Discussion and Resolution - Amended Court Fee Structure
Mr. Barnes motioned to approve the resolution. Mr. Wright seconded the motion.
Mr. Harper said he felt there was being more and more fees added and some people could not pay the fees to start with. Mr. Spencer said the fees are assessed, but a lot of people dont pay them anyway.
Mr. Harper asked for a better explanation of the proposed fees.
Mr. Mullen said one of the proposals before the Board would add a new fee, up to $3, for construction, reconstruction, renovation or adaptive reuse of a courthouse to all civil cases of $501 or more which was House Bill 2311. Mr. Mullen said it would be his preference for the Board to have some sample resolutions to act on with specific examples. Mr. Mullen said under Virginia Code 17.1-281, there was a Court Maintenance and Law Library fee that would allow the Court to assess $2 to each civil, criminal and traffic case in General District and Circuit Courts.
Mr. Barnes said he would like to withdraw his motion and allow the Board time to look at information from other courts to see how much was actually generated from the fees. Mr. Wright withdrew his second.
Mr. Harper said the County already had a Law Library Maintenance fee and he wanted to be provided information on what the County already had in place.
Mr. Gentry said that was his concern and if the fee could be applied toward the Courthouse Maintenance fee it would be more appropriate for him to support.
Mr. Barnes said he would like to see what other localities were generating to see if the fees were worthwhile.
Mr. Harper said he thought the Law Library was already being maintained with an assessed fee. Mr. Spencer reminded the Board that the court expenses were over the average State level by 121% this budget.
Mr. Harper said the Board would hold out on making a decision until further information was provided.
Resolution - Authorizing budget transfer for EMS Replacement vehicles
Mr. Harper said this item was pulled from Consent Agenda for discussion.
Mr. Dubé said these were actually replacement staff vehicles and not EMS transport vehicles. Mr. Dubé said he got prices for the replacement radio equipment. Mr. Dubé said he was initially going to use the existing equipment, but this would make the third time the equipment had been transferred and the technology was not exactly up to date.
Mr. Harper asked if this request covered the vehicles, equipment and the other support items that were necessary. Mr. Dubé said yes.
Mr. Harper asked what would be done with the old SUVs. Mr. Dubé said Mr. Linhares would dispose of the vehicles either through auction or some other route.
Mr. Linhares said according to Virginia Procurement Guidelines the vehicles would be disposed of through an auction basis. Ms. Faye Stewart said the vehicles did not bring enough from auction to pay for the auctioneer. Mr. Linhares said he had been selling the vehicles direct. Mr. Harper asked Mr. Linhares what he meant by “direct.” Mr. Linhares said he placed an ad in the newspaper and sold it for book value. Mr. Harper asked Mr. Linhares if he had ever tried the gov.com website. Mr. Harper said there is a service out there that sells the vehicles for seven percent of the sale price. Mr. Harper said he felt the County should not be involved in selling the vehicles. Mr. Linhares said he did it that way to save the County the percentage that others would charge.
Mr. Byers asked if there was any opportunity for another part of County government to use the old vehicles. Mr. Dubé said he did receive an informal request from one of the volunteer companies to use one of the vehicles as a utility vehicle.
Mr. Gentry said maybe the County should send out more information on the old vehicles because other departments or agencies could be interested in them.
Mr. Harper said he felt the County should take a look at how they are currently disposing of extra vehicles.
Mr. Delk said there had been discussion of hiring an inspector for the two wastewater treatment plants that are going to be built and a vehicle will probably be needed for that position.
Mr. Mullen said he did not think this issue had come up before since he had started with the County. Mr. Mullen said he would not just automatically assume that the way the vehicles were disposed of in the past was the best way in terms of cost efficiency and legality. Mr. Mullen said he would like to get information from the County Attorney about what the County could do with surplus vehicles and what would be the most cost effective option.
Mr. Havasy motioned to approve the resolution. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.
Mr. Byers asked if the money used to purchase these new vehicles and equipment was coming from Revenue Recovery. Mr. Dubé said the money being used was money left over from two years ago when the first ambulance was purchased. Mr. Mullen said he had been told it was not Revenue Recovery money, but he would verify that information with Ms. Stewart.
Mr. Spencer said he was abstaining from vote.
On the motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Spencer abstaining, the Board adopted a resolution to authorize a budget transfer for EMS Replacement vehicles.
Mr. Byers said he would like it to be clear in the resolution for the Burn Building that it would be County property. Mr. Byers said the building would be located on County property, but the resolution was not explicit enough. Mr. Hoffman said that would be taken care of.
Mr. Gentry said the Library Advisory Committee discussed the fact that the Library Foundation was going to put up money for a two year experiment for a “Book Mobile.” Mr. Gentry said there would be four stops in the County. Mr. Gentry said the “Book Mobile” would come around two times a month on Fridays and there would be a trial period as far as location, etc.
Mr. Wright said this idea was tried before and was not successful. Mr. Wright said the reason it was not successful was because it came to the Holly Grove area from 12 to 2 p.m. and everyone was still at work. Mr. Wright said there had to be evening hours.
Mr. Havasy asked who would take over funding of the “Book Mobile” after the two year funding period from the Library Foundation was over. Mr. Gentry said there had been talk about that, but there are no expectations right now.
Mr. Gentry announced that he was resigning from the School Committee. Mr. Spencer said he did not blame Mr. Gentry for removing himself from the Committee at all.
Mr. Harper asked Mr. Byers if he could handle the load of the School Committee by himself. Mr. Byers said he felt the goal was to have at least two Board of Supervisor representatives on that Committee and he felt the Board should move forward with two representatives.
Mr. Havasy said he was concerned that Mr. Gentry felt the need to remove himself from the Committee because he had been a vibrant part of the communication between the School and the County. Mr. Havasy said he was disappointed that it came to this conclusion. Mr. Havasy proposed that Mr. Harper serve on the School Committee with Mr. Byers. Mr. Harper said he did not mind trying to serve on the Committee, but he was not going to spend a lot of wasted time and he wanted to stick strictly to the points. Mr. Harper said if the Committee could not address the points, he would report that it could not be addressed. Mr. Harper said he was not going to spend a lot of time in what could have been and what should have been. Mr. Harper said he would attempt to work on the School Committee.
Mr. Gentry said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Hale to the Region 10 Services Board. Mr. Gentry said he would like to appoint Mr. Jack Speer to the J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College Board. Mr. Havasy said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Norton to the Road Viewers. Mr. Gentry said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Taylor to the Road Viewers. Mr. Wright said he would like to re-appoint Ms. Jessee to the Workforce Investment Board. Mr. Spencer said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Jones to the Road Viewers. Mr. Harper said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Laws to the Road Viewers. Mr. Wright said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Bowles to the Road Viewers. Mr. Barnes said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Wheeler to the Road Viewers. Mr. Byers said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Reidelbach to the Road Viewers.
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board re-appointed Mr. Hale to the Region 10 Services Board, appointed Mr. Jack Speer to the J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College Board, re-appointed Mr. Norton to the Road Viewers, re-appointed Mr. Taylor to the Road Viewers, re-appointed Ms. Jessee to the Workforce Investment Board, re-appointed Mr. Jones to the Road Viewers, re-appointed Mr. Laws to the Road Viewers, re-appointed Mr. Bowles to the Road Viewers, re-appointed Mr. Wheeler to the Road Viewers and re-appointed Mr. Reidelbach to the Road Viewers.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
Mr. Mullen said he included information about State aid reductions for Louisa County as well as information about the renewal of the sewage treatment for 605 Village. Mr. Mullen said there was a report from Revenue Recovery and information from Community Development regarding draft amendments.
Mr. Mullen said there was information about Texanna Subdivision. Mr. Mullen said he, Mr. Camp, Ms. Buckler and Mr. Hoffman had been working together for weeks to get issues resolved. Mr. Mullen said there were fairly substantial gaps in coverage that the Board would be seeing more information on in the near future.
Mr. Mullen said there was information included in his report from General Services in reference to awarding the contract to replace the existing water table at the Ogg Building.
Mr. Linhares said the water table basically keeps water away from the building. Mr. Linhares said the current one was rusted and deteriorated. Mr. Linhares said he thought it was last replaced in 1964.
Mr. Byers said this was an area in which the County should particularly look into a warranty. Mr. Byers said there has been failure of County projects before and there was not a remedy built in the contract to take care of that. Mr. Linhares said the labor for this project had a two year warranty which would cover any defects in workmanship. Mr. Linhares said the particular material used for this project had a 25 year warranty which would cover any defects in the material.
Mr. Hoffman said if there are specific items that the Board wants in a contract, Mr. Linhares would have to know about those items up front because they would have to be included in the bid process. Mr. Linhares said requesting additional warranty could and probably would cost more.
Mr. Spencer asked who was using the Ogg Building besides the Sheriffs Department. Mr. Linhares said the downstairs was being used. Mr. Spencer asked if that would be a potential spot for a tourism center. Mr. Mullen said the Ogg Building was being used intermittingly by the Board of Election and the Sheriffs Office. Mr. Mullen said additional space was needed in this building and there was current discussion about taking certain operations out of the County building and relocating them to the Ogg Building. Mr. Mullen said additional renovation work would need to be done and Mr. Linhares was preparing a proposal for that. Mr. Mullen said the proposal now was for the exterior glazing and trim to help start the process of getting the Ogg Building where it needed to be.
Mr. Wright said there was very little parking available at the Ogg Building and that would propose a problem. Mr. Mullen said the parking issue was what sparked an issue to place an operation in the Ogg Building that would require very little parking.
Mr. Gentry said he would like to see the extended warranty done on a case by case basis the County could end up paying too much for the extended warranty on some of the smaller projects.
Mr. Harper said he would like to see Mr. Mullens list on his report broken down so the Board had the opportunity to discuss individual items instead of jumping around. Mr. Harper said there were some items that the Board needed to make decisions on soon.
Mr. Mullen said he included a letter from Mr. Purcell about the Sommerfield commercial/industrial park on Route 15. Mr. Mullen said he, Mr. Camp and Mr. Hoffman were invited to the site by Mr. Purcell who said he intended to do site work using dirt from Wal-Mart and in order to effectively do that, he would have to cut down several trees. Mr. Mullen said he looked at the six trees and they were outside the buffer area and are all marked with orange ribbon.
Mr. Harper said Ms. Proffitt approached him at the Louisa Inside and Out function and asked why a letter was written to Mr. Carl Hade because they had not submitted anything to the court. Mr. Harper said Ms. Proffitt pointed out that there was no cost to the County other than the cost of the renovation.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for technology funds for the Clerk of the Circuit Courts Office
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for technology funds for the Clerk of the Circuit Courts Office.
A resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Four for Life Funding
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Four for Life Funding.
A resolution declaring May 16-22, 2009, as Safe Boating Week in Louisa County
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution declaring May 16-22, 2009, as Safe Boating Week in Louisa County.
A resolution recognizing David K. Aitken, Jr.
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing David K. Aitken, Jr.
A resolution recognizing Terry McElhone for her service to the citizens of Louisa County
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution Terry McElhone for her service to the citizens of Louisa County.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of April 2009 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $626,745.67.
Mr. Byers said there was money in the bills for fire fighter training. Mr. Byers asked if there were volunteers that did the training. Mr. Dubé said he thought most of them were volunteers. Mr. Dubé said the State set the fee for what those individuals get paid per hour. Mr. Byers asked if the County had people who were experienced and trained enough to teach the classes both in the volunteer group and the career group. Mr. Dubé said yes.
Mr. Byers asked if each individual had equal opportunity to teach the classes. Mr. Dubé said every person who was State certified received the same notice.
Mr. Spencer asked if the people were providing the training records to him like they were supposed to. Mr. Dubé said he had received three out of the seven he was supposed to receive.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the April 15, 2009 Budget Work Session meeting as amended.
On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the April 20, 2009 meeting as amended.
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:57 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:
1. In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (1) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance of departments where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals.
2. In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on actual or probable litigation (specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel).
On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 9:52 p.m.
RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:
|Richad A. Havasy||Yes|
|P.T. Spencer, Jr.||Yes|
|Jack T. Wright||Yes|
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||Yes|
|Dan W. Byers||Yes|
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||Yes|
|Willie L. Harper||Yes|
WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 4th day of May 2009, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 4th day of May 2009, 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 the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the May 4, 2009 meeting at 9:53 p.m. until Tuesday, May 5, 2009 at 8:15 a.m.
BY ORDER OF
WILLIE L. HARPER, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA