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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JUNE 15, 2009
5:00 P.M.

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
Others Present: Dale Mullen, County Administrator; Greg Hoffman, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Faye Stewart, Procurement Officer; Kevin Linhares, Director of General Services; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Delbert Feaster, Lieutenant; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Bob Gibson, Director of Economic Development; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration; and Kimberly Smith, Records Clerk, Administration

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the June 15, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Byers led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Dr. Pettit, School Superintendent, presented preliminary SOL test scores to the Board for all of the schools.  Dr. Pettit said she knew the schools were accredited because of the scores and she was proud that test scores had increased over the last ten years from 60% passing rate to 80% and 90% passing rates.  Dr. Pettit expressed her appreciation to staff, students, teachers, administration and parents.  Dr. Pettit also expressed her gratitude to the Board of Supervisors and the School Board for supporting the students and their education.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper stated he had three items to add to Closed Session.

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the June 15, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

Presentation - A Resolution Recognizing Vickie Southall for Service to the Citizens of Louisa County

Mr. Mullen read the resolution and presented a signed, framed copy to
Ms. Southall.

Presentation A Resolution Recognizing Julia Williams for Service to the Citizens of Louisa County

Mr. Mullen read the resolution and presented a signed, framed copy to Ms. Williams.

Presentation Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Coverage of Lake Anna

Captain Joe Pajic stated that he was the Regional Manager for the Game Department and said he worked out of the Fredericksburg office.  Captain Pajic said his Region consisted of twenty counties, including Louisa County.  Captain Pajic said he brought along Sergeant Paul Atkins, the Supervisor for the District that Louisa County was a part of.

Captain Pajic said the mission of his Division was most importantly to promote safety for persons and property in connection with boating, hunting and fishing.

Captain Pajic said questions were posed to him about how staffing and coverage was decided on for each
Jurisdiction and whether or not the staffing in Louisa was comparable to other areas.  Captain Pajic said there were staffing criteria used to determine placement once there were new Cadets graduating from the academy.  Captain Pajic said there were 100 Conservation Police Officer Jurisdictions and the maximum employment level was 129 Field Officers, not including Sergeants.  Captain Pajic said that once the current class of Cadets graduated, there would be 124 Field Officers out of the 129 allowed.  Captain Pajic said the Field Officers were freely distributed among the 100 Jurisdictions based on 21 weighted factors.

Captain Pajic said the first factor was the area of Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
(DGIF) property owned in the area and the second factor was the area of boating water bodies.

Captain Pajic said Buggs Island Lake, Smith Mountain Lake and Lake Gaston were the three largest water bodies that have a combined total of 89,800 acres.  Captain Pajic said that
Officers who worked Region 2, the Smith Mountain Lake region, also had to work Buggs Island Lake and Lake Gaston.  Captain Pajic said the next largest lake was Lake Anna with a combined total of 13,000 acres, 3,400 of those acres being on the private side.

Captain Pajic said some of the other 21 factors used were the number of boating incidents, the number of DGIF boat access point, the length of trout streams, the number of hunting incidents, the number of boat registrations and the number of deer kill permits.

Captain Pajic said his
Region was Region 5, which consisted of twenty counties.  Captain Pajic said the Region was divided into 5 work Districts and each District had four to six Jurisdictions.  Captain Pajic said a Sergeant supervised each District and each District had four to seven Officers assigned to it.

Captain Pajic said most of the counties in Virginia had only one Officer assigned and that was determined by population and the physical size of the county.  Captain Pajic noted that there were three or four Officers per county down near Smith Mountain Lake.  Captain Pajic said three years ago, the General Assembly passed a law that mandated patrol on Smith Mountain Lake because of a high-profile case with a boating accident where an elderly couple was killed.

Captain Pajic reviewed a summary of boatin
g incidents within Region 5 as well as a breakdown of incidents by day of the week.

Sergeant Atkins reviewed a summary of boat patrols, arrests and checkpoints performed in 2008 for District 52, which he said included Lake Anna.

Captain Pajic said he looked for ways to better approach the demands of his
Division using the resources provided to him.  Captain Pajic said special operations and Boating Strike Force were ideas that were formed.  Captain Pajic said Boating Strike Force took Officers from every District in the Region and assigned them to two weeks of nothing but boat patrolling.

Mr. Harper asked how each County was determined when arrests were made on Lake Anna.  Captain Pajic said GPS coordinates and systems were used.  Mr. Harper asked if that was based on the original channel of the river.  Captain Pajic answered yes.

Mr. Byers said he
read the article in the Richmond newspaper and it appeared that there were a lot more resources assigned to Smith Mountain Lake.  Mr. Byers said there was always the threat of nuclear attack on the North Anna Power Station and he wanted to know who had the responsibility of handling that type of threat.  Captain Pajic said that kind of direction came from the Executive Branch and it would be handled as a type of special operation.

Mr. Byers
said the Louisa County Sheriffs Department recently put a unit out on Lake Anna and asked how the coverage on the lake was coordinated.  Captain Pajic said everyone worked together really well.  Captain Pajic said the Coast Guard had recently helped supplement by providing Officers and using DGIF boats.

Mr. Gentry asked if the
Boating Strike Force was something that was done every year.  Captain Pajic said it was something new that was tried last year.  Captain Pajic said something similar would be done this year, but it would not be the exact same program as last year.  Mr. Gentry said a couple of the months appeared to come up short on coverage of regular boat patrols and the Boating Strike Force appeared to help with that.

Mr. Harper asked Captain Pajic if there was ever any coordination with the local
Sheriffs departments of each locality.  Captain Pajic said several special operations were coordinated with the Louisa and Spotsylvania Sheriffs Departments last year as well as with the Virginia State Police Department.

Mr. Harper thanked Ca
ptain Pajic and Sergeant Atkins for making their presentation.

Presentation - Thomas Jefferson Health District

Dr. Lillian Peake, Health Director for the Louisa County Health Department and the Thomas Jefferson Health District (TJHD), said she wanted to share information with the Board regarding Louisa County and the Health Department.  Dr. Peake said one of the major things that prevented communicable diseases and deaths from infectious diseases was basic public health measures.  Dr. Peake said these health measures included education, reducing crowding and keeping water clean, free of sewage and chlorinated.

Dr. Peake said
the difference between medicine and public health was that in medicine there were doctors and nurses who were trying to treat one patient and one disease at a time.  Dr. Peake said in public health there were doctors and nurses who were trying to monitor and take care of the entire community.  Dr. Peake said the goal was to determine what was needed in the community in order to keep people safe.  Dr. Peake said one of the most important things was to try and prevent epidemics and the spread of disease.  Dr. Peake said the local Health Department had a communicable disease control and prevention program which was comprised of surveillance and investigation, immunizations, sexually transmitted disease prevention program and tuberculosis control.  Dr. Peake said there was also an environmental health program where the intention was to keep food and water safe.

Dr. Peake said the Health Department tried to keep the community safe by improving the health of women and children.
 Dr. Peake said that was achieved through family planning clinics, prenatal care clinics, WIC and case management for at-risk families.  Dr. Peake said the prenatal care clinic in Louisa was the only one in the entire Health District.

Dr. Peake said a Community Health Assessment was performed for Louisa County and she highlighted a few areas of importance.  Dr. Peake said the demographic and socioeconomic factors were taken into consideration during the Assessment, which included a review of population, age distribution and ethnic groups.

Dr. Peake said the infant mortality rate in the TJHD had increased between 1995 and 2007.  Dr. Peake said that the Federal Government had set up “Healthy People 2010 Target” guidelines and the TJHD was over what the target level was
aimed to be for infant mortality.

Dr. Peake reported that there was
a positive finding in the teen pregnancy rate.  Dr. Peake said the Louisa teen pregnancy rate dropped from 1997 to 2007 and Louisa had actually met the “Healthy People 2010 Target”.

Dr. Peake discussed the percentage of women who start
ed prenatal care in the first trimester of their pregnancy.  Dr. Peake said it was a fact that if women could have a good start on their prenatal care, they had a better chance of having a healthier baby.  Dr. Peake said Louisa County exceeded the percentage of Charlottesville and Virginia, but the level was still not where she wanted it to be.  Dr. Peake stated she thought the prenatal clinic in Louisa attributed to a higher percentage for Louisa.

Dr. Peake discussed the five leading causes of death and said she was surprised because Louisa itself had a higher rate than the TJHD and Virginia in all five causes.  Dr. Peake said that was especially true in heart disease and unintentional injury.  Dr. Peake stated there was work to be done in Louisa on chronic disease prevention and unintentional injury prevention.  Dr. Peake said deaths from heart disease and cancer had decreased over time, but the Louisa rate was still higher than the TJHD and Virginia.
 Dr. Peake said the unintentional deaths were mostly vehicle-related accidents and that was something Louisa needed to work on as well.

Dr. Peake said public health did not involve the
Health Department only.  Dr. Peake said broad public health objectives could be achieved by working together as a community; it would take the police to ensure safe vehicles and driving laws and the schools to ensure disease was contained and reported and children received healthy meals.  Dr. Peake said everyone working together would help ensure better overall public health.

Ms. Elizabeth Davies,
Epidemiologist with the Health Department, discussed the Communicable Disease Program (CDP).  Ms. Davies said the CDP provided investigation, surveillance and follow-up for a number of reportable diseases that were required to be reported by medical labs and providers within the District.  Ms. Davies said there were over 75 diseases that must be reported; some within 24 hours and some within 72 hours.

Ms. Davies reviewed a year-to-date graph of diseases that had been reported and discussed the H1N1 Swine Flu reporting and control.


Mr. Gentry asked if there was a particular reason for the decrease in teen pregnancy in Louisa County.  Dr. Peake said there was a decrease in teen pregnancy throughout the United States.  Dr. Peake said she felt it had to do with better sexual education.

Mr. Harper asked about
the increase in infant mortality.  Dr. Peake said she felt infant mortality was rising because of the disparity among certain groups.  Dr. Peake said some of it could be attributed to the poorer families and to the women who are not able to receive prenatal and infant care.  Dr. Peake said there were other factors, such as housing and food, which could affect a woman having a healthy baby.

Mr. Harper thanked Dr. Peak
e for her presentation.

Presentation - TJPDC Rural Technical Committee

Mr. Camp said he had been attending the TJPDC Rural Technical Committee meetings in hope of becoming more familiar with the organization and figuring out how to use their services to better help Louisa.  Mr. Camp said he had been working with the Committee on several projects.  Mr. Camp said he wanted to introduce the Board to the new Executive Director of TJPDC, Mr. Steve Williams.

Mr. Williams said he had been a Planner for 27 years and has had a very broad work base.  Mr. Williams
said his goal at TJPDC was to make sure the Commission was serving the needs of local governments.

Mr. Harper said he thought it would be a good idea for Mr. Williams to go out into the community and meet some of the Board members and other staff to talk about what the TJPDC could do for Louisa.

Mr. Havasy said he felt the only thing Louisa
County would be asking for was open communication and a close relationship with the County.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion and Resolution Louisa County Visitors Center and Sargeant Museum

Mr. Mullen said he was asked to produce additional information regarding this topic.  Mr. Mullen said he was also asked if the Louisa Arts Center had used appropriated money for operations instead of capital.  Mr. Mullen said he had not conducted a full audit, but he did check with the Finance Department and everything indicated that the money given was spent on a capital campaign or spent to repay money for the completion of the Louisa Arts Center.

Mr. Gentry said this was about the third time the Board had talked about this.  Mr. Gentry said what he wanted to put on the table was the fact that this was a proposal was for a visitors center at the Sargeant Museum and would go through the Economic Development budget as a tourism line item.  Mr. Gentry said he would like the Board to support the request for $64,700 as shown on the Louisa County Visitors Center Expense Budget FY 2010.  Mr. Gentry said he would like to make that a motion.  Mr. Havasy seconded the motion.

Mr. Spencer stated he was not going to support this because of the Boards decision last year to not provide operational funds.

Mr. Barnes
said he understood Mr. Spencers concerns, but he felt he could support this because it would be operated in-house under the Economic Development Department budget.  Mr. Barnes said he could not support providing operating funds to private, non-profit organizations, but this proposal would be used as a tool to attract tourism.  Mr. Barnes said he wanted it noted that his support was for this proposal to be under the Economic Development budget.  Mr. Gentry answered yes, that was part of his motion.  Mr. Barnes noted this would be a County agency.  Mr. Gentry stated it would be under the Economic Development budget as a tourism line item.

Mr. Byers asked if the Board anticipated appropriating this amount of money for operations every year.  Mr. Spencer said it could be more.  Mr. Havasy said more money is allocated to departments every year.  Mr. Havasy asked why the Board should not allocate money every year towards something that would promote Louisa County.  Mr. Gentry said the amount for the Louisa County Visitors Center could go up each year or could go down, but that would be determined and analyzed as the years went by.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Gentry's motion.

PRESENTVOTE
Dan W. Byers No
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper No
Richad A. Havasy Yes
P.T. Spencer, Jr. No
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 4-3, with Messrs Byers, Harper and Spencer voting against, the Board voted to approve creation of a Louisa County Visitor's Center in the Sargeant Museum with the following budget breakdown:

Louisa County Visitors Center Expense Budget FY 2010

DescriptionBudget Amount
Part Time Compensation $25,000
Postage $1,000
Computer $2,000
Computer Training $400
Insurance $2,000
Office Supplies $3,000
Printing $10,000
Professional Services $3,500
Program Supervision $10,000
Utilities $7,000
Security Monitoring $300
Miscellaneous $500
   
Louisa County Visitors Center Total $64,700

Discussion and Resolution James River Water Authority Assignment of Contract and Funding

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the full appropriation for the James River Water Authority adopted budget.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to execute and endorse transfer and assignment of contractual obligations to the James River Water Authority.

Discussion and Resolution Louisa County Public Schools Stimulus Funding

Mr. Barnes motioned to approve the resolution.  Mr. Wright seconded the motion.

Mr. Byers asked if the money was granted to the School Board, would it be used specifically for what was listed in the draft documents from Dr. Pettit.  Dr. Pettit answered yes.  Dr. Pettit stated that what the schools were asking for now was just the highlighted items or “immediate needs”, such as personnel and software.  Mr. Byers asked if these were the funds that the School Board had requested in their June 8, 2009 letter totaling $711,310.91.  Dr. Pettit said yes and noted that the total included $76,286 for the Moss-Nuckols Elementary Principal.  Dr. Pettit noted that this was only a portion of the stimulus funding.

Mr. Harper asked where the funds were coming from for the Moss-Nuckols Elementary Principal.  Dr. Pettit said it would come from the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds.  Mr. Harper asked if that amount was included in the funds currently being requested.  Dr. Pettit answered yes.  Mr. Harper said he had no problem with what was discussed at the joint meeting between the Board and the School Board, but he would not support the additional money for the Moss-Nuckols Elementary Principal.

Mr. Spencer said there was a request from the School Board for the County to grant them an additional $76,286 for the Moss-Nuckols Elementary Principal and now the requested amount
had shown up again in the June 8, 2009 letter from the School Board regarding the stimulus funds.  Mr. Spencer asked if the Principal was going to be done separate.

Mr. Mullen said the $76,286 had originally been asked for in the County budget process and the funds were set aside under non-departmental
for the School Board to request at a later time.  Mr. Mullen said Mr. Havasy asked if the money for the Principal could come out of stimulus money and the answer was yes.  Mr. Mullen said the Principal would not be paid for twice, and if the resolution was approved tonight, the Principal would be paid for out of stimulus funds.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Barnes' motion.

PRESENTVOTE
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper No
Richad A. Havasy Yes
P.T. Spencer, Jr. Yes
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Dan W. Byers Yes

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Harper voting against, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the Louisa County School Board for Federal Stimulus funding.

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion and Resolution General Fund Balance

Mr. Mullen said his intention was to have this discussion sooner as this was a project Mr. McLeod was working on.  Mr. Mullen said the County would be entering a new era where there would be more accountability for the funds in the General Fund balance.  Mr. Mullen said it was important that everyone understood that there was not a large amount of money sitting around that was unassigned or uncommitted.  Mr. Mullen said the County would have to account for the funds over time.  Mr. Mullen said at the June 3, 1996 Board meeting, the Board decided that the County would need to allow for a $25 million set aside in order to cover any transition away from dependence on a single source of tax revenue.  Mr. Mullen said the County relied very heavily on tax revenue from the North Anna Power Station (NAPS), which totaled over $10 million in tax revenue a year.  Mr. Mullen said he provided a list to the Board of items that the tax revenue from NAPS potentially covered, including Sheriffs Department, Fire and Rescue, Emergency Services, Office of the EMS, Central Virginia Regional Jail, Rappahannock Juvenile Jail and CSA.  Mr. Mullen said if there were some type of event that prevented the receipt of taxes from NAPS, prior planning needed to be done.

Mr. Harper said Mr. Huff and Mr. McLeod made the recommendation not to carry the money as a decommissioning fund.  Mr. Harper said he did not understand it when that was said and still did not understand it to this day because it was an important component.

Mr. Mullen said he did not know the entire history, but he did have the information that Mr. Jerry Rosenthal had provided him when he served as part of the Dry Cask Committee.  Mr. Mullen said it would be his hope that the County would consider carrying a stabilization fund balance under GASB 54 totaling about two years worth of tax revenue.  Mr. Mullen said changing the State match rate received from the County would take about two years and he would not want the County to be left with any shortage.

Mr. Mullen said once the funds were committed or assigned, the Board would be able to go back and re-commit or re-assign those funds as planning dictated.  Mr. Mullen said nothing the Board did tonight would be irreversible or unchangeable and it would not be a commitment to spend the money.  Mr. Mullen asked that the Board consider taking action tonight.

Mr. Barnes said he agreed that there were misconceptions in the public and the Board needed to show fiscal responsibility.  Mr. Barnes asked what the General Fund balance would be left at if the Board approved this as recommended.  Ms. Stewart said over $11 million would be left in the General Fund as unobligated and unassigned.

Mr. Byers said he was thinking along the line of having two years worth of
revenue set aside, which would be about $20 million.  Mr. Mullen said he thought that would be ideal.  Mr. Byers asked how much money was usually spent on expenses each quarter.  Ms. Stewart said she was not sure without having the numbers in front of her.

Mr. Harper said the first half of each fiscal year had to be funded off reserves because taxes were not even received until December.

Ms. Stewart said about $5 million out of the $11 million that would be left over in the General Fund balance would have to be used to implement GASB 54.

Mr. Mullen said it would be the most cautious to plan for
about 1.5 years.  Mr. Mullen said there was not anticipation for major loss of revenue.  Mr. Mullen said the County would have to create a trust fund with VACO VML to be in compliance with GASB 54.  Mr. Mullen said that was where the $5 million cost came from.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the Department of Finance to begin implementation of GASB 54.

Ms. Stewart reminded the Board that they had already committed $1.9 million to go to the CIP for FY 2010.

Discussion and Resolution Proceeding with Wireless Hot Spot CIP Project

Mr. Hardy said this project had been allocated in last years CIP budget.  Mr. Hardy said there was some grant funding available in order to help provide additional hot spots.

Mr. Hardy said this project would be used for public safety and would also provide bandwidth for the schools.  Mr. Hardy said it would connect the elementary schools to the High School and would connect some County buildings into that network as well. Mr. Hardy said this project was not geared towards public access yet, but may become part of the project in the future.

Mr. Hardy said the project would provide public safety hot spots at the schools and several other County buildings where Deputies could upload and download reports in the parking lot.  Mr. Hardy said the Deputies did not have modems in their vehicles because the monthly cost would be way too expensive.  Mr. Hardy said the project would eliminate T1 connections for the schools and the County and would improve AS/400 connections.

Mr. Hardy said the project was set up with backbone locations and subscriber locations.  Mr. Hardy said the intention was to have a loop connection in case power ever went down.  Mr. Hardy discussed the proposed locations.

Mr. Hardy said
monopole towers would have to be placed at the High School and two of the existing elementary schools.  Mr. Hardy said there may be additional work at the other schools where a small stand would have to be placed on the top of the buildings to run internet connections.  Mr. Hardy said additional hot spots could be done in the future.  Mr. Hardy said it was not his intention for the County to provide internet service to citizens, but the infrastructure of this project could possibly allow for private companies to offer Broadband service to citizens.

Mr. Hardy said the estimated total cost of the project was $340,000 and there was funding of about $377,483.
 Mr. Hardy said he was seeking approval from the Board to move forward with the project.  Mr. Hardy said he would like to get the project out to bid for both vendors and equipment.

Mr. Barnes said people needed Broadband and Louisa did not have it.  Mr. Barnes said he understood that some of the public would be upset, but there was nothing else that could be done right now.  Mr. Barnes said he had personally seen the success and convenience of a project like this.  Mr. Barnes asked if teachers would have the ability to access the network in the parking lot rather than being blocked out.  Mr. Sestito said the teachers laptops would not be blocked, but they would have to bring their laptops in to be configured to access the network.  Mr. Sestito noted that there was open public access at the Library.

Mr. Byers asked
if the hot spots would work for Emergency Services and other County personnel, such as Community Development.  Mr. Hardy said they would be able to use the hot spots, but the building inspectors and Emergency Services personnel had cell modems in their laptops already.

Mr. Spencer asked if the County would have co-location sites on the towers.  Mr. Hardy said co-location sites would be offered.  Mr. Spencer asked if the County would be building the towers.  Mr. Hardy answered yes.  Mr. Spencer asked why the County would not let the tower companies build the towers and save money.  Mr. Hardy said that could be done.

Mr. Barnes said the County should look at renting some of the tower space in the future as potential revenue.

Mr. Harper asked if the County would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the towers.  Mr. Camp said the Telecommunications Ordinance was being reviewed to make that an exception, but as it stood right now the answer would be yes.

Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Mullen if he shared the same recommendation as Mr. Hardy.  Mr. Mullen said he agreed, but the way the project would be done had to change.  Mr. Mullen said Mr. Hoffman was not happy with the construction of the contract and he did not believe the contract met procurement guidelines.  Mr. Mullen said he deferred to the County Attorney and was going to follow his lead.  Mr. Hoffman said the project would be going out to bid.

Mr. Byers asked if the monopole towers would be on school property.  Mr. Hoffman answered yes.  Mr. Byers asked if the school would then be responsible for obtaining any necessary permits.  Mr. Hoffman said he believe
d the CUP had to be applied for in the property owners name.  Mr. Byers asked if the schools would receive the money if there was a rental of the tower space.  Mr. Hoffman said yes.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution proceeding with the Public Safety Wireless Broadband Project (otherwise referred to as Wireless “Hot Spots” Project).

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing - CUP01-09; Community Wireless Structures III, LLC, c/o Thomas A. Murray, Applicant; Judy H. and Archie L. Proffit, Jr., Owner; requests the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as an amendment to CUP07-07 to increase the approved tower height from a 199-foot telecommunications structure to 255-feet.

Mr. Camp said this was a request to amend CUP07-07 and increase the approved tower height from 199 feet to 255 feet.  Mr. Camp reviewed the staff report, which detailed the applicant, location, tax map number, zoning and property use.  Mr. Camp also reviewed the Neighborhood Meeting, the DRC Meeting and the Planning Commission Meeting results.  Mr. Camp said there was considerable discussion about the tower height and the lighting that would be required, but the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Board.

Mr. Camp said the tower would require lighting because it would be over the 200 foot threshold.  Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission felt it was appropriate to go above the standard 199 foot height and grant a special exception for the 255 foot height.  Mr. Camp said this may be the only situation in the County where that would be supported.

Mr. Camp said it was explained that there would have to be even more towers built if the additional height on this one was not granted.  Mr. Harper asked if that applied in every District in the County.  Mr. Harper asked if Green Springs was different from all the other Districts.  Mr. Camp said he felt that was the case in this situation because of the Historic Green Springs District.  Mr. Harper said he took exception to that.

Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission had recommended 19 Conditions and he wanted to discuss the most important ones.  Mr. Camp said Condition 2 dealt with the lighting on the tower and stated that the lighting must meet FAA standards and must utilize a dual system.  Mr. Camp said white strobe lights would be used during day time hours and red flashing lights would be used at night.  Mr. Camp said the maximum amount of ground shielding technology at the time of construction had to be used.

Mr. Harper asked if the ground shielding would be a requirement going forward in all Districts.  Mr. Camp said ground shielding had been required in the past.  Mr. Camp said this was a new type of technology with LED lights.  Mr. Camp said the LED lights had more of a focused beam and the shielding was more effective.  Mr. Harper said that requirement should be used across the board in all the Districts in the future.

Mr. Havasy asked if the ordinances or procedures were going to be changed to make that a requirement on all future towers over 200 feet.  Mr. Camp said he thought that was a great idea to have the LED technology as a requirement on new towers greater than 200 feet in height.  Mr. Havasy asked about older towers.  Mr. Camp said that could only be enforced if those older towers came back to the Board for amendments such as this one.

Mr. Camp said Condition 6 required that dark-sky lighting be used for all exterior lighting.
 Mr. Camp said Condition 7 reserved space for Louisa County for future needs.  Mr. Harper asked if Condition 7 had an expiration date.  Mr. Camp said only if it was waived by the County Administrator and determined that the space was not needed.

Mr. Camp said Condition 9 placed a one-year validity date on the permit for tower construction and operation.  Mr. Camp said a one-year extension could be approved by the Zoning Administrator after being reviewed by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Havasy asked what the definition of operating was:  just having the tower up or actually having the tower in use.  Mr. Camp said in use; there would actually have to be antenna on the tower operating.

Mr. Byers asked if the additional 56 feet was going to reduce the need to have three other towers built.  Mr. Camp said that was what the applicant and the consultant had explained.

Mr. Tam Murray, applicant and representative of Community Wireless Structures (CWS), said that Verizon stated they could not get the 199 foot tower height to work.  Mr. Murray showed a map of the coverage with the 199 foot tower and coverage with the proposed 255 foot tower.  Mr. Murray said the 199 foot tower studies showed that the coverage would be appropriate, but it would actually fall short and leave an area with no coverage.  Mr. Murray said Verizons problem with the 199 foot tower was that it would leave about a 2 mile strip on Route 15 with no service.

Mr. Murray said during the balloon flight, the tower could not be seen.  Mr. Murray said the use of the LED lights would cut down on the views of the tower at night.  Mr. Murray said a tower shade would be used as well, which would block views of the tower from the base.

Mr. Murray said the site was distant from the road and technology would be used that would scatter the light.  Mr. Murray said Green Springs was a tougher area to work in, but the 255 tower height outside of the Historical Green Springs District would allow for coverage inside the District and still provide coverage on Route 15.

Mr. Gentry asked if there had been any studies on how many 255 foot towers it would take to cover the Historic Green Springs District.  Mr. Murray answered no.

Mr. Wright asked what Verizon knew about the site now that they did not know
when the tower was originally approved.  Mr. Murray said each carrier had their own technology and service spectrum and Verizon was not able to make the 199 foot tower work even though the original studies thought they could.  Mr. Murray said that once Verizon approves a site, it would be serviced for a very long time.

Mr. Barnes said there were citizens who complained to him about not having cell phone service in areas where towers had been constructed.  Mr. Murray said constructing the towers would not provide cell phone service until carriers co-located on the tower.

Mr. Byers said he appreciated the timeline provided by CWS.  Mr. Byers noted that everyone wanted new towers, but no work was being done on the existing towers as far as co-locating and getting carriers to provide their services there.  Mr. Byers asked what was going to be done about covering the areas that were still left with no service.  Mr. Byers said he felt the focus in the past was to place towers where it was most profitable as opposed to making sure there was complete coverage for the County.  Mr. Byers asked how many more towers it would take to provide complete coverage for the Green Springs area.  Mr. Murray said he did not have the answer to that question.  Mr. Murray said the entire cell phone industry was challenged between spending money in larger cities where cell sites existed and were more needed and between spending money and expanding into more rural areas.

Mr. Havasy asked if there was a commitment from Verizon on the tower now.  Mr. Murray said Verizon had given them the plats and a letter of intent.  Mr. Murray stated Verizon would not sign a lease until the tower was under construction.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Mr. Frank Robinson
, 12048 Louisa Road, Green Springs District, said he lived within the Historic Green Springs District.  Mr. Robinson said he only had sketchy cell phone service at home and had to use satellite internet, which was very problematic.  Mr. Robinson said he went to the Planning Commission hearing and he supported the tower extension in order to provide internet and cell phone service in the Historic Green Springs District.  Mr. Robinson urged the Board to take this proposal into consideration.

Ms. Robin Heimer, Green Springs District, said she was also part of the Historic Green Springs District.  Ms. Heimer said she felt she did not have access to great cell phone service or internet and she had a problem with the Board not pursuing those amenities more aggressively.  Ms. Heimer said she did not have a problem with placing a tower in the Historic Green Springs District and she was sure there were other people who would like that along with many other things that have come up lately.  Ms. Heimer said it would be great to have a tower within the Historic Green Springs District so that people were not left with areas of the District that would not be provided coverage.

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 he was told that a tower could not be placed in the Historic Green Springs District and he wanted to know if that was a fact.  Mr. Camp said he was not sure if there were any legal restrictions against placing the tower inside the District, but it would probably be very hard to do.  Mr. Rick Edwards, consultant with CityScape, said it was a Federal law that facilities could not be placed within the Historic Green Springs District.

Mr. Harper asked about Condition 19, which required that the applicant obtain approval from the FAA.  Mr. Harper said that was a requirement from the FAA and not a requirement from the County.  Mr. Harper said he did not think that should be a condition of the CUP because he did not want the misconception that it was a requirement from the County.

Mr. Havasy said there was property in the Historic Green Springs District that had no easements on it and he asked if a tower would ever be able to be placed there.  Mr. Edwards said a tower could not be placed unless there was a cooperative effort to do so.

Mr. Barnes said he had asked to have a Verizon representative present at the first meeting in July because there were so many citizens who were frustrated with the lack of Broadband and cell phone service.  Mr. Barnes said there were a lot of small businesses in Louisa that wanted Broadband.  Mr. Barnes said the phone companies needed to understand that people in rural areas paid their phone bills just like people who lived in the cities and it was time for the phone companies to pay attention to that.

Mr. Byers said it troubled him that the County had to place a tower outside of the Historic Green Springs District just because the people in the District did not want to have a cooperative effort.

Mr. Harper asked if the County knew for sure that the Historic Green Springs District did not want to work cooperatively or
if that was that an assumption.

Mr. Havasy said he had not received negative feedback from his constituents about this cell tower.  Mr. Havasy said he had actually received phone calls and emails from people who wanted the technology.  Mr. Havasy said this was not all about the Historic Green Springs District, but also about Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Havasy said there were people in that area that wanted and needed the technology for business, education and socializing.

Mr. Spencer said he wanted people to know that the Board was approving towers, but nothing could be done by the Board to force the cell phone companies to bring service to the towers.

Mr. Havasy motioned to approve the resolution and asked that the first part of Condition 19 be removed where it said the applicant had to receive approval from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources.  Mr. Hoffman said he thought Condition 19 was going to be deleted in its entirety.  Mr. Havasy agreed.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

        On the motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Byers voting against, the Board adopted a resolution to decide on the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to increase the approved tower height from a 199-foot telecommunications tower to 255-feet.

Public Hearing - CUP02-09; Community Wireless Structures III, LLC, Applicant; Louise Dean, Owner, request the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as an amendment to CUP05-06 to increase the approved tower height from of a 175-foot telecommunications structure to 199-feet.

Mr. Camp said this was a request to amend CUP05-06 and increase the approved tower height from 175 feet to 199 feet.  Mr. Camp reviewed the staff report, which detailed the applicant, location, tax map number, zoning and property use.  Mr. Camp also reviewed the Neighborhood Meeting, the DRC Meeting and the Planning Commission Meeting results.  Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission recommended approval with the same conditions as CUP01-09 except one of the conditions was that this tower would not be lighted.

Mr. Murray said this tower was already constructed to 160 feet and, if approved, an extension would be built.  Mr. Murray said the additional height would provide coverage to an area of the County that currently had very little to no coverage.

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. Gentry asked if the Telecommunications Plan was being considered and if this tower was going into one of those locations.  Mr. Murray said the County hired a consultant who studied where the tower sites were and where there was not coverage.  Mr. Murray said he had proposed six tower sites to fill in six major service gaps.  Mr. Murray said there were still other service gaps in the County.  Mr. Camp said the Telecommunications Plan was being followed.

On the motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to decide on the request for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to increase the approved tower height from a 175-foot telecommunications tower to 199-feet.

Public Hearing - Amendments to sections of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances to clarify and simplify the meanings of different types of restaurants and the zoning districts in which they are allowed.

Mr. Camp said the County Code currently had several different definitions of a “restaurant” with the intent of being extremely accurate.  Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission proposed redefining “restaurant” so there are only two definitions.

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. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of clarifying and simplifying the meanings of different types of restaurants.

Public Hearing - Amendments to sections of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances designed to reduce the costs associated with installation of the buffers, redefine a division, define affordable housing and low to moderate income, allow the extension of roads on parent parcels in limited circumstances and remove ambiguities in the current ordinance language.

Mr. Camp said this was a proposed amendment to both the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, particularly §86-66.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, which pertained to the A-2 District.  Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission initiated this to revise the subdivision buffer requirements in A-2 to keep with the intent of the Ordinance without having a substantial cost to the applicant.

Mr. Camp said the amendment changed the quantity and size of the required trees and allowed for flexibility in the design of the buffer.  Mr. Camp said other changes included a new definition of “subdivision,”division,”affordable housing” and “low to moderate income.”

Mr. Camp said division lots would now be required to dedicate right-of-way when necessary.  Mr. Camp said it was also clarified that the two allowed division lots did not necessarily have to be created at the same time as the current Ordinance implied.

Mr. Camp said changes to allow the extension of roads to more than one parent parcel in limited circumstances was another change.  Mr. Camp said there were only two situations where this would be possible.  Mr. Camp said the first was that a subdivision road could be extended to provide access to more than one parent parcel only if the seven-lot restriction itself was extended to include all of the parcels being included in the subdivision.
 Mr. Camp said if a road was going through and extending to another parent parcel making three parent parcels in total, the maximum number of lots allowed would still be seven.  Mr. Camp said this would allow some flexibility in certain circumstances that existed with older lots.

Mr. Harper asked if there was a certain circumstance like this right now.  Mr. Camp said there was nothing that drove him to amend the section the way it was being proposed.  Mr. Camp stated there was no particular application that prompted this.

Mr. Camp said the second circumstance that would allow roads to be extended would be for things such as public road projects.  Mr. Camp said the Ordinance defined it as where the subdivision road would not be providing primary access to the development.  Mr. Camp said this could be used to provide interconnectivity between developments as well as for a public entity to extend a road.

Mr. Byers asked if the purpose of the last change was to be able to link parcels.  Mr. Camp answered that it could allow for interconnectivity whereas the current Ordinance was very rigid in that it would not allow for inner-parcel connectivity.  Mr. Camp said the Ordinance amendments would allow for that to happen as long as the road was not providing primary access.

Mr. Spencer asked if this meant that the Patriots Crossing development could build a road all the way through and obtain all the lots that were wanted.  Mr. Camp said this would allow the Patriots Crossing developers to build a road all the way through the development, but they would only be able to have seven lots.  Mr. Camp said he thought they were only allowed fifteen division rights under the current Ordinance and this would limit their division rights to seven.

Mr. Gentry said Mr. David Stone with the Forestry Department recommended five changes to the amendments after the Planning Commission had already forwarded their recommendation to the Board.  Mr. Gentry asked if Mr. Stones recommendations had been taken into consideration.  Mr. Camp said he had taken the recommendations into consideration.  Mr. Camp said each one of Mr. Stones suggestions was discussed in great detail by the Planning Commission and he did not feel it was necessary to adopt the recommended changes from Mr. Stone.

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. Barnes motioned for approval.  Mr. Wright seconded the motion.

Mr. Havasy said he agreed with several of Mr. Stones suggestions.  Mr. Havasy said he thought the idea of preserving healthy existing trees and shrubs was a very practical idea that should be considered by the Board.  Mr. Havasy said he also agreed with the suggestion that the buffer should consist of a mixture of evergreen and leafy-type trees.  Mr. Havasy stated he did not agree with the suggestion of requiring that a temporary fence be installed because that would have an added expense on the developer.  Mr. Havasy also stated that he felt the 2” tree size over the 1” tree size should be considered.

Mr. Barnes said he understood and appreciated Mr. Stones suggestions, but he also wanted to respect the Planning Commission and the fact that they had discussed everything in depth.  Mr. Barnes said, as the motioner, that he supported the changes as submitted by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Byers said he commended the Planning Commission and the others who worked on the amendments.  Mr. Byers said this proposal offered the developer the opportunity to pick and choose their options, which made it very palatable for developers.

Mr. Harper asked if any changes were being made to the density increases or bonuses.  Mr. Camp answered no.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of reducing the costs associated with installation of the buffers and remove ambiguities in the current language and to reformat this section of the ordinance and provide for new definitions, revised definitions and extension of a road to another parent parcel in certain situations.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Gentry said Relay for Life took place on June 6, 2009 and was very successful.  Mr. Gentry said the money collected from Louisa County was over $150,000.  Mr. Gentry said that was remarkable in a tough economic time.

Mr. Wright reported that the name of the One-Stop Center in Charlottesville, Virginia had been changed to the Virginia Workforce Center of Charlottesville.  Mr. Wright said the Workforce Council and the Workforce Board would be meeting to consider a new operator of the Virginia Workforce Center of Charlottesville.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Hoffman pointed out that he had set up a process for contract review.  Mr. Hoffman said it would be a six-step process where pre-approved forms would be prepared by the department head, reviewed by the County Attorney as an initial draft, added to the Board Packet for review by the Board, signed by the vendor, approved “as to form” by the County Attorney and then signed by the County Administrator.  Mr. Hoffman said this process would apply to contracts over the County Administrators limit of $20,000.  Mr. Hoffman stated the process would be the same for contracts under $20,000 except the Board would not vote on them.

Mr. Byers said some of the contracts were large and consisted of many pages.  Mr. Byers asked why it was important to make all the copies of the contract when the department head, County Attorney and County Administrator had already approved them.  Mr. Hoffman said it was important for the contracts over $20,000 because the Board had to vote on them.  Mr. Hoffman said the contracts under $20,000 had been provided because the Board had asked for more detail.  Mr. Hoffman said that could be stopped at anytime.

Mr. Mullen said the County went to great lengths and detail to develop a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment plant with reuse at Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Mullen said the idea was to reduce the amount of effluent going into Camp Creek.  Mr. Mullen said he included a letter from the developers as Spring Creek reiterating their commitment for the wastewater treatment plant with reuse and stated their significant need for reusable wastewater for irrigation at the Spring Creek Golf Course.  Mr. Mullen said Spring Creek committed to helping the County in any way necessary.

Mr. Mullen said the wastewater treatment plan was environmentally friendly, put lesser, cleaner effluent into Camp Creek and was entirely possible.  Mr. Mullen said he invited Historic Green Springs, Inc. to help and participate with the County by showing up to the public hearing at DEQ to let the people at DEQ know that if the County went to a wastewater treatment plant with reuse, the County would not be met with litigation.  Mr. Mullen said the request was denied.  Mr. Mullen said he was told that any attempt to expand the plant at Zion Crossroads, even including reuse and state-of-the-art treatment, would be opposed and probably with litigation.

Mr. Mullen said Historic Green Springs, Inc. did not appear at the public hearing and the County was left to explain to DEQ how the green, environmentally friendly plan was suitable for ARRA stimulus funding when they believed it was not.  Mr. Mullen said the County was told they were ranked down on “shovel-readiness” because of the perception that the plant would be slowed down by litigation.  Mr. Mullen said the County was told they were not “needy” enough and not “shovel-ready” enough.  Mr. Mullen said part of that had to do with the litigation.

Mr. Mullen said it was increasingly frustrating when Historic Green Springs, Inc. adopted resistance as its position.  Mr. Mullen said on June 4, 2009, representatives from the Louisa County Water Authority and Mr. Hoffman attended the Technical Advisory Committee Meeting in Richmond, Virginia and at least two of the members from Historic Green Springs, Inc. were present.  Mr. Mullen said those two representatives took the position that Louisa County should be denied future allocations of nutrient loading to force the County to reuse and state-of-the art treatment.  Mr. Mullen said he was not sure how both of those positions could be true or desirable at the same time.  Mr. Mullen said it seemed to him that this illustrated the inherent difficulty in any attempt of bringing sustainable infrastructure to the citizens who live in and around the district.

Mr. Mullen said he felt it was important to have these conversations openly and honestly so that the citizens can know and the County could enter a new era of doing business in that district.
 Mr. Mullen said this could be contrasted in the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in the Town of Louisa that was being expanded in a cooperative effort with no hesitation.

Mr. Mullen said there was a mistake with the vote count on Resolution 09.138.  Mr. Mullen said it was clear on the audio that Mr. Byers did not vote for the speed reduction for Moss-Nuckols Elementary School and that correction was made on the resolution.

Mr. Mullen said Mr. Jamie Glass with VDOT called him about the speed reduction and asked if he could write a letter to the Board opposing the attempt to change the speed limit in front of Moss-Nuckols Elementary School independently of the speed studies performed by VDOT.  Mr. Mullen said he spoke to Delegate Janis about this and he was aware of the
opposition from VDOT.  Mr. Mullen said Mr. Glass asked if there was anything the Board would do to reconsider the speed reduction.  Mr. Mullen stated he told Mr. Glass he would present the letter to the Board.

Mr. Gentry commented that
he would like to stick with what the Board had originally approved.

Mr. Barnes said there were a lot of people who were concerned with the speed in that corridor of Route 208.

Mr. Harper said he intended to support what the Board had already done with the speed reduction.

Mr. Mullen said no action was needed and he intended on having further discussion with Mr. Glass.


Mr. Mullen said there was an advertisement for bid for the expansion of the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in the Town of Louisa.  Mr. Mullen said this was an important project for the County as well as the developers.  Mr. Mullen said the County was going to try and take advantage of aggressive market pricing.

Mr. Mullen noted he had provided information on year-end numbers and re-appropriation.  Mr. Mullen said re-
appropriation was the proper term for what had always been referred to as “carryovers.”  Mr. Mullen said another item for discussion was “encumbered” and what it meant for something to be “encumbered.”  Mr. Mullen said when he talked about encumbered, it was something for which a purchase order existed or money was under contract for.  Mr. Mullen stated that the Board should also take into consideration the fact that grant money, money with a purchase order and money under contract should be re-appropriated.  Mr. Mullen said he would provide a further explanation in writing.

Mr. Mullen said he wanted to discuss May 2009 through June 2009 bills.  Mr. Mullen said he was asked what the County received for the $31,150 that was paid to Region 10 Community Mental Health each quarter.  Mr. Mullen said Region 10 provided mental health services and substance use disorders treatment and prevention services that allowed individuals with disabilities to remain in their homes.  Mr. Mullen said the individuals received counseling, therapy and supervision.  Mr. Mullen said Region 10 provided services to schools to work with at-risk children and were part of the team in planning for at-risk children.  Mr. Mullen said Region 10 served 777 individuals in Louisa County last year for a total cost of $2.7 million.  Mr. Mullen said Louisas direct cost was only $121,000 through appropriations.

Mr. Mullen said the second question he was asked was under vehicle expenses.  Mr. Mullen said he was asked if this vehicle was bought by money from the Sheriffs Department and if so, why was it not with the Sheriffs expense items.  Mr. Mullen said the Sheriffs Department was able to get a vehicle at this cost because it was part of asset forfeiture and everything in asset forfeiture was governed by, audited by and administered under State and Federal programs.  Mr. Mullen said he reviewed the transaction in questions and believed that everything was in accordance with law.  Mr. Mullen said the Board did not have any purchasing control over this purchase as it was being made with asset forfeiture money.

Mr. Mullen said he wanted to bring a potential overrun in the Commonwealth Attorneys Office to the Boards attention early.  Mr. Mullen said it appeared to him that compensation to staff would be over budget by $41,000.  Mr. Mullen said the VSTOP attorney was made full-time and the grant only covered $26,000.  Mr. Mullen said it was possible that the remaining portion was overlooked.  Mr. Mullen said some of the categories in their budget were under, but it appeared that their overall budget could be over by as much as $20,000 at the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. Mullen said it appeared that overall expenses of Emergency Services were going to be under budget by between $400,000 and $500,000.  Mr. Mullen said some transfers would have to be made because Emergency Services was being covered with various part-time staff.

Mr. Mullen noted that Saturday, August 1, 2009 at 9:00 a.m., the ground breaking ceremony for the Fire Training Center would take place.
 Mr. Mullen said he would like to make this a special event and show the leadership the Board had provided and the value that the volunteers add.
Mr. Mullen said there was a resolution in the Board Packet for a new printer for the Finance Department and it appeared that the total would run over the $20,000 limit that he was allowed to approve.  Mr. Mullen said he would like the Board to take action so he could have a budget transfer to CIP for the new printer.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing transfer of funding to CIP for a new printer for Finance Department.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation for Accident Repairs

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for Accident Repairs.

Resolution Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation to the Aquatic Facility for the Swim Team

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the Aquatic Facility for the Swim Team.

Resolution Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation to the County Administrators Budget for Employee Recognition

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the County Administrators Budget for Employee Recognition.

Resolution Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation to the Landfill Budget

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the Landfill Budget.

Resolution - Authorizing a Budget Transfer to Allocate Actual Workers Compensation Expenses to Individual Departments

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a budget transfer to allocate actual Workers Compensation expenses to individual departments.

Resolution Authorizing Budget Transfers for the Department of Emergency Services

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing budget transfers for the Department of Emergency Services.

Resolution - Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation to the Sheriff's Office for K-9 and to the Animal Shelter for Donations

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriff's Office for K-9 and to the Animal Shelter for donations.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Harper pointed out that he had received a letter from the Lake Anna Advisory Committee stating that a town hall meeting would take place on July 22, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at the Livingston Elementary School in Spotsylvania, Virginia.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Messrs Byers and Gentry abstaining from their reimbursements, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of June 2009 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $ 459,843.72.

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 May 27, 2009 meeting.

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 June 1, 2009 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:36 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) (3) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussing the acquisition of real property for a public purpose where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body.
  3. 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).

REGULAR SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 9:29 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

PRESENTVOTE
Willie L. Harper Yes
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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 15th day of June 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 15th day of June 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.

ADJOURNMENT

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the June 15, 2009 meeting at 9:31 p.m.


BY ORDER OF


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