Contact Sitemap Search
|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|
|Others Present:||C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; and Mary Jackson, Deputy Clerk|
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Barnes called the May 15, 2006 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Havasy led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
There were no Constitutional Officers that wished to address the Board.
CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD
Garland Nuckols, Louisa District, said that he was here this evening to discuss the EMS issue of having 24/7 coverage. Mr. Nuckols said that this topic is intense and dear to a lot of individuals in the County. Mr. Nuckols said that they have been holding a lot of meetings recently to see if there are ways that they could work with the Board to compromise. Mr. Nuckols stated that from what they are seeing and calculating, it is not the time for 24/7 EMS coverage in Louisa County. Mr. Nuckols said they realize that many of the volunteers work other jobs; they do see the fit that they need midnight coverage until 6:00 a.m. and the daytime coverage. Mr. Nuckols stated that it seems that there is more coverage needed during the daytime than any other time from what they could see through the statistics they have so far. Mr. Nuckols said that they have been working with all of the squads in the County together to present something to the Board prior to their budget meeting. He said that they are working together to make sure that they could cover the evenings from Friday through Sunday without any problems and to assist during the daytime hours. Mr. Nuckols said that the hours per year are around 9,200, which the career staff has covered 5,200 hours and the volunteers have covering 4,056 hours. Mr. Nuckols said that he believes that they would drastically impact the volunteer system if they decide to change to having 24/7 coverage. Mr. Nuckols stated that if the Board were to offer something more for recruitment and retention of the volunteers, it would help with the system in Louisa County.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, said that he would like to add a resolution honoring the Holly Grove Ruritan Club for forty years of service for the Boards consideration to the agenda.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the May 15, 2006 agenda was adopted as amended.
Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD)
Mary Johnson, TJSWCD Representative, informed the Board that she was here this evening to provide them with a brief outline of what the TJSWCD has been doing and what their recent activities have been in Louisa County. Mrs. Johnson said that they have been working very closely with Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development. Mrs. Johnson introduced several staff members and a Director to the Board. Mrs. Johnson said that in working with the Community Development Department, they have done forty erosion and sediment plans and nine storm water management plans in FY04-05 for Louisa County. Mrs. Johnson explained that when someone submits a plan, it is sent to the district for review for erosion and sediment control. She said that they also help with inspections during this past year due to the shortage of staff in this department, which they conducted 123 inspections from October through December 2005. Mrs. Johnson assured the Board that the TJSWCD is always available to help out in this capacity. Mrs. Johnson said that they are also responsible for inspecting flood control dams in their district, which Louisa has eight that is maintained by them. Mrs. Johnson said that they provided a lot of funding for conservation agriculture, which they worked very closely with the NRCS. Mrs. Johnson identified some of the features of conservation agriculture as fencing livestock out of streams, which Louisa County had over 13,000 feet of fencing installed in FY04-05 to protect streams. Mrs. Johnson said that they provided alternative water source funding to allow the individuals that fenced off the streams to have another source of water for their animals. She said that they have planted seventeen acres of stream buffers this past year, which is a program that they are getting involved with. Mrs. Johnson identified this program as the TJSWCD Easement Program, which is designed to protect water resources. This program was established through their district and the Thomas Jefferson Water Resources Protection Foundation is the administrative arm of this easement program. Mrs. Johnson said that maintaining easements is their responsibility and is a critical responsibility of their foundation. She said that the conveyance of an easement to the conservation district is often used as an alternative by developers to help them meet state, local, or federal water-related regulations. Mrs. Johnson said that this is sometimes used for wetland mitigation if they are doing crossings or waters of the US crossings. Mrs. Johnson explained to the Board that they were able to do some rainwater harvesting through a grant program, which one of the grants was issued to a resident of Louisa County for them to put in a roof top collection cistern that provided grey water for their housing. Mrs. Johnson pointed out that this is a great water resource that they are missing out on right now. Mrs. Johnson stated that they provide education in the communities that they support, which educates landowners of what they can do in their own backyard. She said that they are involved with the Envirothon Competition, which included a team that participated from the Louisa County High School. Mrs. Johnson said that they are currently trying to work more with the high school since it is difficult to get students involved by offering camps and scholarships for those entering into the environmental field. Mrs. Johnson provided the background of their organization to the Board saying that an elected Board of Directors, which the next election would be held in 2007, runs them. Mrs. Johnson said that James Kean and herself are the elected directors for Louisa County and Pat Hanley is the director at large. Mrs. Johnson said that they cover Nelson, Fluvanna, Albemarle, and Louisa Counties. She said that they are working on having Charlottesville enter into their district, where they would be active with them. In closing, Mrs. Johnson said that she would like Alyson Sappington, TJSWCD Manager, tell them a bit more about the easement opportunities in the foundation.
Ms. Sappington explained to the Board that they work extremely close with Albemarle County in their development process. She said that often times storm water management practices could do more harm than they do good since they have to meet certain specifications. Ms. Sappington said that Albemarles Planning Department is flexible enough to allow some developers to utilize their easement program and ensure that a 100 riparian-forested buffer is maintained along all of the streams within that development. Ms. Sappington said that in perpetuity, they would be responsible for the monitoring and enforcement, which they charge a fee for the long-term monitoring; making it a self-sustaining program. Ms. Sappington stated that developers are typically quite responsive in that they dont have to do structural practices, instead just agree to maintain the wooded buffers in that development.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Purcell saying that he had a question about the easements. Mr. Purcell asked if you were in a subdivision and were to have a riparian easement extending around the back edge of someones lot, would the responsibility of maintaining this convey with the property when it were sold to a third part. Mr. Wright questioned if the farm ponds were legally accessible to volunteer fire departments, with the owners permission, to put in dry-hydrants for back up water supply. Mr. Jennings said that he happened to visit Mr. Hanleys farm some time ago, which has seen the improvements that have been made. Mr. Jennings said that he would like to commend them on their interest in maintaining the conservation in this matter. Mr. Gentry extended his appreciation to the staff that was present saying that their presentation was very educational. Chairman Barnes said that he came to Louisa County by working for the Soil Conservation. Chairman Barnes extended his appreciation to them for all of their hard work and dedication.
Ms. Sappington replied that they are responsible for monitoring it, which they send someone out to spot check it each year to ensure that the homeowner is in compliance; this makes it the property owners responsibility to maintain it and their responsibility to enforce it. Mrs. Johnson responded to Mr. Wright saying that they do not have any control over privately held farm ponds. Ms. Sappington said that she would have to look into this issue, saying that she believes that they would be able to work with the landowners. Mrs. Johnson pointed out that one of the flood control structures they had an issue where it was clogged, which they hired divers to go in and investigate to find the source of the clog and remove the debris as part of their responsibility. Mrs. Johnson said that in the event of a catastrophic storm, the flood control structures have to be operational.
Holly Grove Ruritan Club Recognition
Mr. Wright said that Holly Grove Ruritan Club, which was formed in 1966, held a dinner last week. Mr. Wright said that the County has used this field for recreational ball along with their facilities. Mr. Wright said that since they have been here for forty years, he felt that they Board should recognize them for their forty years of contribution to Louisa County. Mr. Wright said that he would present the resolution to them at their next meeting.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted recognizing the Holly Grove Ruritan Club for forty years of community service to its citizens and the surrounding areas of the County.
Discussion E911 Ordinance
Pat Morgan, County Attorney, said that he has included in their packet the latest draft of the section of the County Code that deals with the display of numbers for the 911 system. Mr. Morgan said that this has been before the Board some months ago, which was given back to staff to modify the changes that were requested. He said that the essence of this is that it would require that once a building permit is issued, the property owner must put some kind of sign on the property reflecting the address numbers so it could be identified allowing emergency vehicles to locate a specific parcel. Mr. Morgan said that once a home is constructed, it would require that the numbers be no less that 4 in height and about a ½ wide that would have reflectorized material to allow it to be clearly seen from the street when needed for fire and rescue services. Mr. Morgan said that they have also included provisions for what to do for commercial and industrial property, apartments, townhomes, and the like. Mr. Morgan pointed out that it states that an occupancy permit would not be issued until the signs are displayed in accordance with this ordinance. Mr. Morgan said that the Board has to decide whether to refer this to staff or to move forward with a public hearing if this were acceptable to the Board.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that he has several concerns regarding this, which he has discussed with Mr. Morgan. Mr. Wright said that some of the verbiage bothers him, especially where it says that if the structure were located within 50 to the road, it would allow individuals to place it on their dwelling by the door. Mr. Wright said that this makes it difficult for them to see and he believes they need to be consistent by having the signs placed at the entrance of the driveway. Mr. Wright said that is also shows in here that it is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain their own sign, which would lead to a conglomeration of them. Mr. Wright stated that the signs should be placed in a common place for fire and rescue to identify the property during an emergency because thirty seconds could mean the difference between life and death. Mr. Wright said that if they leave this up to the property owners to obtain their own signs, they may or may not get installed. Mr. Wright said that even if they were to charge more on the permit for this, he wants the County to distribute the signs so there is consistency with the color of the signs, where it is placed, and the style of it. Mr. Wright said on Section E, line 5, where it states, the provisions of subsection C above related to the placement of street address numbers on commercial and industrial structures and signage shall apply Mutatis Mutandis, asking how many individuals, other than law enforcement or legal staff, would actually understand what this means. Mr. Wright said that he would prefer to have verbiage that everyone that is using this would understand. Mr. Purcell said that sometimes when you have a subdivision, it might not be taken into the state system for a while due to their requirements of having three homes constructed on the road. He said that in this case, you often find the mailboxes out on the main road and asked if he would prefer for these signs to be placed on the temporary mailboxes or on the lot by the driveway where the temporary entrance is. Mr. Purcell said that he would like to know what the intent of the ordinance was. Mr. Harper said that he agrees with what Mr. Wright is saying that they should have uniformity with the signs. Mr. Harper said that he would like to see this further defined saying that it should be placed at the driveway, be at least 3 off of the ground, and be very specific on what the requirements are. Mr. Harper pointed out that the postal service has definitive specifications on how your mailbox can be installed. Mr. Harper said that this would allow the fire and rescue to look at the same location on each parcel to clearly identify the correct address. Mr. Harper said that he agrees that if the property owner is going to be responsible for the installation of these signs, they have to be made very well aware of it up front. Mr. Harper stated that he would like to see them placed at the driveway entrance and have specific requirements. Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Morgan to take the information that has been said this evening and make the necessary modifications to the ordinance and bring it back to the Board by their next meeting. Chairman Barnes said that last month, he was working on a habitat home where a gentleman fell of the roof. He said that when they called 911, because of the home being under new construction, they did not have a specific address to tell them where it was, which could have been alleviated if they had the address number.
In response to Mr. Purcells question, Mr. Morgan said that if they were to have a case of this nature, you would want to have the sign on the lot by the driveway.
Discussion Permanent County Stickers
Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator, said that they put this information together to look at what possibilities they could have. Mr. McLeod said that decals were created to help enforcement to get the car tax revenue. He said that since then, it is a source of revenue that they have collected $577,000 in FY05. Mr. McLeod identified the reasons they should consider this change because it is a cumbersome management process, the Treasurer no longer needs it as a collection tool, and it is an unnecessary intrusion in peoples lives. Mr. McLeod said that if they are going to protect the revenue, there are two different sources that have to be protected for car tax revenue and the decal revenue. Mr. McLeod pointed out that the Treasurer has different tools that are at her disposal for the car tax revenue such as the V-Stops, liens on wages, and intercepting state tax refunds. Mr. Lintecum said that in conversations that he has had with the Treasurer, she does intercept state tax refunds and is going to the V-Stops, but she is not in favor of having liens on wages. Mr. McLeod stated that they have two alternatives to either have a permanent decal or having no decal at all. Mr. McLeod said that if they were to look at the revenue, they could add a decal to the personal property tax, which could be reflected on their bills that would not be a tax deduction for individuals who itemize. Mr. McLeod said that if they were to adjust the tax rate, then it would be a deduction on someones taxes for personal property. Mr. McLeod identified how they could go about calculating the personal property tax if they decided to select this option. He said that in reviewing the FY05 data, they figured the amount from the personal property tax, the PPTRA, and the decals, which equated to $4,486,738. Mr. McLeod said that with the current tax rate of $1.90, it would give them $24,141 per penny. Mr. McLeod said that when you go back and take this to pennies and divide it by the $577,077, it gives them a total of twenty-four pennies to offset that tax, which would give them a new tax rate of $2.14.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that one of the reasons he had suggested going with the permanent decals was because this was the only way that they have to identify individuals who are eligible to enter the Landfill and the Refuse Centers.
Mr. McLeod said that if they went with the permanent or having no decals, the Landfill and Refuse Sites would have to come up with another method. Mr. McLeod said that if they want people who pay their taxes to be able to utilize these services, then they have to provide something for these individuals to show to those attendants to get them in. Mr. McLeod said that if they were to have the permanent decals, there isnt anything further to verify whether these individuals have actually paid their taxes. Mr. McLeod said that both he and Mr. Lintecum will continue to discuss this issue with the Commissioner and the Treasurer, but he would like to have the Boards input on what it is they are looking for.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Chairman Barnes asked what the recommendation was from the committee.
Mr. Lintecum replied that they wanted to provide an update to the Board on where they are at in this process to provide as much information as they could. Mr. Lintecum said that he has talked with the Town Manager of Mineral and the Town of Louisa briefly, which the Town Manager of Louisa was leaning more towards the permanent decal from a law enforcement perspective. Mr. Lintecum said that the most important aspect is to not lose the revenue from it. Mr. Lintecum said that he had explained to the Commissioner and Treasurer that he would get the Boards input and then get back with them for the final recommendations to be made. Mr. Lintecum said that they are looking at what other alternatives are available other than a permanent decal, if such alternatives are available. Mr. Lintecum said that through their study, they have found that some localities have gone to the permanent decal and some are doing without. Mr. Lintecum said that he doesnt know what difference it makes in other communities when you dont have a decal and they do for how the law enforcement would handle this. Mr. McLeod said that back in December, when the Board discussed the PPTRA and how the plan was morphing from the 70% down to 52%, where they were granting an exception for individuals to not have to pay taxes on a vehicle that was valued at $1,000 or less; therefore, they would have to revisit this issue because of the vehicle licenses.
Chairman Barnes asked that they have the committee verify whether the majority of the localities have gone to permanent versus not having one at all and what their reasoning was behind their decision and bring it back to the Board. Chairman Barnes asked if there were a specific time frame that they have to make their decisions by. Mr. Wright said that the County currently has decals that are valid through April 15, 2007; therefore if they implement this, they would have to begin January 1, 2007 because the bill is sent out in December. Mr. Wright pointed out that the bill would have to be prorated for the first year for them to be consistent with it.
Mr. Lintecum replied that they would have to make a decision by September. Mr. Lintecum said that Hanover County initially issued the stickers their first year, just like they did with a regular decal and then the added it to their tax tickets the following year. Mr. McLeod said that Hanover had anticipated an 8% return every year from the citizens having to replace that permanent decal, which they charged a fee for the permanent decal.
Discussion Preliminary Subdivision Plat Review Borden Estates Subdivision
Darren Coffey, Community Development Director, said that the Borden Estates Subdivision is a review of a subdivision containing twenty-seven lots in Louisa County and is comprised of three parent parcels to be served by a new internal state road. Mr. Coffey said that the subdivision would have one access to Route 701 (Borden Road). Mr. Coffey said that it appears to be in compliance with the A-2 zoning regulations. Mr. Coffey said that the proposed must also adhere to minimum lot frontage and width requirements of the A-2 district. He said that a 125 buffer has been proposed along the state road frontage, which is shown to remain undisturbed. Mr. Coffey showed the Board a layout of the proposed subdivision identifying its characteristics.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Havasy pointing out that in the middle of the plat, behind the buffer, there was a section of land that is not identified and questioned which piece of property it belonged to. Mr. Havasy said that it doesnt appear to be scaled to 2.2 acres. Mr. Gentry said that when he received this plat, it reminded him of a subdivision that was done in the seventies with the property lines on the middle of the road that has easements instead of right of ways, which he has concerns about that. Mr. Purcell pointed out that once the road is deeded to VDOT, there wouldnt be any property ownership in the road right of way. Mr. Harper pointed out that this right of way could impact the lots reflecting 1.5 acres, since this is the minimum requirement. Mr. Harper asked why they would have the road coming into a cul-de-sac, since it is such a short distance from making a second point of ingress and egress to the subdivision. Mr. Jennings said that they are reflecting three parcels that create this subdivision, which is an issue the Board needs to revisit, but it appears to be in compliance with their current zoning ordinance at this time. Mr. Harper asked staff to address the property line that comes to the centerline of the road.
Andrew Kestner, Applicant, replied to the Board that this particular piece of land would remain as common area. Mr. Coffey said that the easement could be part of the common areas, but the way the plat is shown it reflects that the property lines extend to the road, but the road would be a right of way. Mr. Kestner explained to the Board that he had stopped the road at the cul-de-sac because the property on the right hand side has high ground and once you get further down on the property, the road would be crossing a wetland area, which he did not want to disturb. Mr. Coffey assured Mr. Harper that he would address the property line issue and it would be dedicated right of way.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to allow the Community Development Staff to review the Borden Estates Subdivision administratively.
The Board did not report on any committees or commissions this evening.
Chairman Barnes reminded the Board that at their last meeting Mr. Jennings said that he had an individual that was interested in serving on the Social Services Board, which he also has a constituent from the Patrick Henry District and another individual that is interested in serving on this Board as well; therefore, they would address this appointment at their next scheduled regular meeting.
Mr. Wright said that he would like to reappoint Gerald Bowles to the Board of Road Viewers. Mr. Wright said that Hunter Bowles had said that he did not want to be reappointed to the Commission on Aging; therefore, he would like to appoint Ellen Wright to the Commission on Aging. Mr. Wright said that Paul Belair is unable to be reappointed to Region Ten; therefore, he would like to appoint William Hale to this committee as recommended from Region Ten.
Mr. Jennings said that he would like to reappoint Bleucher Reidelbach to the Board of Road Viewers.
Mr. Harper said that he would like to appoint Mary Satazahn to the Central Virginia Regional Jail.
Mr. Gentry reminded the Board that at their last meeting he had inquired about being appointed to JABA, which the question was posed on whether the appointment required a citizen appointment or if a Board of Supervisors member would be able to serve. Mr. Gentry said that this appointment does not require having a citizen member; therefore, he would like to serve on the Jefferson Area Board on Aging.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Mr. Gentry abstaining from his personal appointment, the Board reappointed Gerald Bowles and Bleucher Reidelbach to the Board of Road Viewers and appointed Ellen Wright to the Commission on Aging, William Hale to Region Ten, Mary Satazahn to the Central Virginia Regional Jail, and Willie Gentry to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Mr. Lintecum did not present any information to the Board this evening.
Mr. Purcell said that the Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan has been sent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which he does not know what will happen with this and asked if this made a difference.
Mr. Lintecum replied that the plan that was sent to FEMA was the same thing that the Board approved last year.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to adopt the Consent Agenda for the following four resolutions:
Resolution Adoption of the Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for submission to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Resolution Recognizing Emergency Services Week of May 14 20, 2006
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted proclaiming May 14 through May 20, 2006 as Emergency Medical Services Week in Louisa County.
Resolution Appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for Funds Donated to the K-9 Unit
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted appropriating $759.00 to the Sheriffs Department K-9 Unit for funds donated from the Masonic Day Lodge #58 for the amount of $704.00 and from Linda and John Nelson for the amount of $50.00.
Resolution Recognizing May 15 19, 2006 as Business Appreciation Week
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted recognizing Business Appreciation Week from May 15 through May 19, 2006.
Chairman Barnes brought the letter from Mr. Butch Davies of VDOT to the Boards attention regarding their Six Year Plan.
Mr. Wright said that he would like to have the Board authorize the County Administrator to send a letter of recognition to Brian Marks for his appointment as the Louisa Town Manager.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to have Mr. Lintecum send a letter of recognition to Brian Marks for his appointment as the Louisa Town Manager.
Mr. Morgan did not discuss any legal correspondence with the Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of May 1, 2006, as presented.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Mr. Gentry abstaining from a reimbursement check pertaining to him, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the first half of May 2006 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $318,000.51.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess for dinner at 5:53 p.m.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:59 p.m.
To Amend the Louisa County Code to Establish a Central Absentee Voter Precinct
Cris Watkins, Voter Registrar, explained to the Board that she is proposing a Central Absentee Voter Precinct that she previously discussed with them. Mrs. Watkins stated that this would be an additional precinct to the fourteen that they currently have. Mrs. Watkins said that the purpose of this precinct would be to have all of the absentee ballots counted in one central location, which they are proposing to be the Ogg Building. Mrs. Watkins explained that the votes would be cast in her office for in-person absentee and the mailed absentee votes would be taken to this location for them to be counted. Mrs. Watkins said that the advantages that they see to having this precinct would be for the security of the votes, instead of them being traveled all over the County on election day, and for the secrecy of the votes. Mrs. Watkins said that the voting machine costs around $6,000, which they have funds available from the Help America Vote Act to fund this. Mrs. Watkins said that the only cost that the County would be facing is to pay three officers of election for working the day of elections. Mrs. Watkins said that this would alleviate the other workers from the other precincts having to calculate the paper ballots after having worked all day and would help increase the accuracy of the absentee ballots.
The Board discussed this topic briefly with Mr. Purcell asking if the building would be staffed throughout the day. Mr. Gentry asked how many absentee ballots they had last year. Mr. Gentry asked what the average votes were per precinct.
Mrs. Watkins replied that the law requires each precinct to have staff there by 5:15 a.m. to open at 6:00 a.m. Mrs. Watkins said that they would be able to enter the ballots into the voting machine, but they could not hit the tabulation button until 7:00 p.m. Mrs. Watkins said that if an individual were to come in to the precinct to vote absentee that is visually impaired, they cannot vote unassisted since they have a paper ballot and require assistance, whereas if they go to the cap, the voting machines are audio and they can vote independently. Mrs. Watkins stated that this is one of the requirements of the Help America Vote Act to allow each voter to vote independently. Mrs. Watkins said that they received 701 applications for ballots sent out, which they processed around 642 for the actual election. Mrs. Watkins said that since she has been employed as the Voter Registrar for Louisa County, they have had the workers come back in under court order to recount the ballots. Mrs. Watkins said that each precinct typically has around 1,000 voters.
Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. With no one wishing to address the Board, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.
Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Wright said that he feels that this makes sense to have this precinct, which he doesnt find any negative aspects to it at all. Chairman Barnes said that he had received an email from a constituent asking how individuals are selected to become an Election Officer to work at one of the precincts. Chairman Barnes pointed out that this person wanted to ensure that individuals selected to work this precinct would be from various districts and not just one. Mr. Wright said that he would like to have the Building and Grounds Committee work with the appropriate individuals to determine what has to be done at the Ogg Building to ensure that everything is up and running prior to the next election.
Mrs. Watkins responded by saying that they keep a list of individuals that are interested in working as Officers of Election, which they would use to select the three individuals. Mrs. Watkins said that they would have individuals from various districts working at this precinct.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted to establish a Central Absentee Voter Precinct, which shall be in the Ogg Building, 102 West Main Street, Louisa, Virginia to be used for all general elections and becomes effective immediately.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the May 15, 2006 regular meeting at 7:11 p.m. until Tuesday, May 23, 2006 for their Budget Public Hearing that will be held at the Louisa County Middle School Forum at 6:00 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA