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

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JUNE 16, 2008
6:00 P.M.

Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy and Jack T. Wright
Absent: P.T. Spencer, Jr.
Others Present: Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Gloria Layne, Treasurer; Nancy Pleasants Commissioner of Revenue; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dube, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; April Jacobs, Revenue Recovery Administrator, Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Zuwana Morgan, Deputy Clerk and Brittany Spaur, Records Clerk


Chairman Harper called the June 16, 2008 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m.  Mr. Wright led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.


Mr. Darren Coffey Green Springs District stated he would like to give his condolences to the Lintecum family and hoped the peace would out weigh the pain of the loss.

Mr. Coffey read and provided the following statement:

Leadership is about affecting human behavior so as to accomplish a mission.  In the context of a democratic society, it should be done in a unified fashion by the elected body and not individually, in secret, or in conflict with existing regulations and policies.

What is the Boards mission?  What are its major goals?  How have these been communicated to the public?  To County staff?

Louisa County has an excellent, professional staff.  Over the past 6 or 7 years, Louisa County has done a particularly excellent job of hiring competent, dedicated professionals at all levels, including department heads.  Until recently, it also allowed these professionals do their jobs relatively unfettered.  Now, there are examples of micromanagement or, at the least, routine involvement by Board members directly with staff with little or no regard to any chain of command.  This is disruptive, and results in a more inefficient work environment.  The more staff has to routinely justify their actions, the less work that gets done.  A major benefit of hiring good people is that it should create a more productive and healthy work environment, but that is undermined when policy makers adopt an active management role.  

The Boards role should be that of setting policy, and then helping staff implement those policies.  Giving staff the benefit of the doubt, rather than automatically deferring to citizen comment, or negative assumptions.  This too is demoralizing over a short period of time.  Look around.  The County Attorney position is open.  The Community Development Director position is open.  I predict more to come.  This does not have to be the case however.

Good people will follow good leaders.  This County needs and deserves good leaders.  They do not need more bosses. It is said that
leadership differs in that it makes the followers want to achieve high goals, rather than simply bossing people around.  

So far this year, the Board has moved the meeting time back one hour when the only request was to have Citizen Input be a timed item for six oclock.  And those six oclock meetings have resulted in the same level of citizen participation, as well as earlier closed sessions that impact attendees more than if the meetings were at 5pm.  Ironic or inefficient?

The Board has approved a budget over $700,000 more than recommended by the County Administrator.  This, after they had numerous work sessions, stepped over dollars to save cents, failed to approve the budget, then realize the dilemma and finally pass the budget.  How can you hold department heads and others to fiscal responsibility when you cannot hold yourselves to it?  The County has won 6 financial reporting awards in a row. Thats professional fiscal responsibility.
I do not agree that citizens want less services and more savings or that some of our current services are not needed, but if that is true then what are they?  I suspect that Parks & Recreation is one area on the Boards list of unneeded services.  As a former mentor once told me, “you will spend money on either parks or jails, which will it be?”  I think our rapidly increasing CSA costs are an indicator of our future jail costs, and perhaps not enough attention being paid to structured recreation over the past years.  Kids will find something to do, either productive or destructive.  Lets choose the ounce of prevention rather than the pound of cure.

Another issue has recently been the Countys zoning and site plan regulations and code enforcement procedures.  To not enforce these regulations equally is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 5
th and 14th amendments, and interference with the day-to-day administration of certain County duties, such as zoning administration, is a violation of an elected or appointed officials  oath of office, which includes ensuring evenly applied laws with no bias toward specific individuals or businesses.  

If you do not like the regulations that exist, then work with staff and the Planning Commission to change them.  Do not individually, or otherwise, encourage or demand the enforcement or non-enforcement of existing regulations.  Again, that is a violation of equal protection and due process under the Constitution, and courts have also ruled it to be arbitrary and capricious, and it is illegal.  Dont put yourselves, or County staff, into that position!

The bottom line is this:  this is a County at a critical time in its history.  It is at a crossroads, if you will.  It has made great progress in recent years and it needs to continue to do so.  But it threatens to implode, and to slide back into the unhealthy political past.  Do not let that happen!  Trust your professional staff.  Support them and let them lead you so that you can set responsible and fiscally sound, but progressive policies.  Unify yourselves however you need to in order to be a good leader for this County.

Thank you for your commitment to serving this County, and may God bless you in your efforts to lead us.


Mr. Harper stated he would like to move item nine on the agenda to item three.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the June 16, 2008 agenda was adopted as amended.


Presentation - Sheriffs Department accreditation

Ms. Denice Marrs said the Sheriffs Office wanted to improve the service of the Louisa Countys Emergency Medical Dispatch Program.  Ms. Marrs said she had heard Mr. Ken Crumpler speak at a seminar and he explained to her what needed to be done for the county to be eligible for a grant to get a new EMD (emergency medical dispatch) program.  Ms. Marrs said she worked with Ms. Faye Stewart who helped her write the grant.  Ms. Marrs said once the grant was approved she worked with EMS and the volunteers to get the emergency dispatch cards in order.  Ms. Marrs said once everything was in place she contacted Mr. Ken Crumpler and he informed her of what needed to be done to become accredited.  Ms. Marrs said they were notified on June 5, 2008 that they had received their accreditation.

Mr. Ken Crumpler, Communications Coordinator for Virginia Office of EMS introduced OEMS Director Gary Brown. Mr. Crumpler said EMD was a protocol system. Mr. Crumpler said the 911 dispatcher was the first to respond in an emergency situation.

Mr. Crumpler said the dispatcher manages and processes 911 calls.  Mr. Crumpler said the dispatcher gives the caller basic medical instructions.  Mr. Crumpler said the dispatcher was also a benefit to the EMS crew because he or she would keep the crew updated on their way to the call.  Mr. Crumpler said the calls for services have increased but the resources have not.

Mr. Crumpler presented an accredited emergency dispatch center plaque to the Louisa County Sheriff Office 911 center.

Mr. Harper said the Board appreciated Mr. Crumpler coming to present the plaque.  Mr. Harper said the Board was proud of the efforts that had been made and everyone involved.

Sheriff Fortune said he was honored to accept the accreditation and he was very pleased with the progress of the 911 communication center.  Sheriff Fortune said it was very important to him as Sheriff to provide the very best service for the citizens and this was a good example of that.  Sheriff Fortune said as the community grows we needed to prepare for that growth.  Sheriff Fortune said Louisa County could be proud of the Sheriffs Office, the hardworking men and women who work there make a difference in our lives.  Sheriff Fortune said he wanted to thank the Board for their continual support and Denise Marrs and her staff.  Sheriff Fortune invited the Board to  come sit and listen in on calls in the Communication Center because they were the heart of the Sheriffs Office.

Annual Report - Clean Community Commission

Mr. Mark Monson said he was the co- chair of the Clean Community Commission.  Mr. Monson said the Clean Community Commission was an organization with members in each district appointed by the Board.  Mr. Monson said their focus was on ways to help the county beautify the county.

Mr. Monson said the CCC annual report was in the Board Packet.

Mr. Monson said the First Annual Louisa Beautification Festival was held Saturday, April 5, 2008 organized by the volunteers of the Countys Clean Community Commission. Mr. Monson said the festival was headed by Nancy Lear and the festival was a success despite predictions of bad weather.  Mr. Monson said more than 50 booths that filled the Glen Mayre Shopping Center.  Mr. Monson said vendors ranged from the Red Cross to Virginia Community Bank, with lots of local non-profits participating.  Mr. Monson said the Virginia Department of Forestry and the Thomas Jefferson soil district both had booths.  Mr. Monson said government agencies that benefited the most from this public forum were Louisas Parks and Recreation program, supplying the “moon bounce” and painting the faces of children, Louisa Fire and Rescue, as well as the Junior Volunteers.  Mr. Monson said the festival was the brain child of Supervisor Richard Havasy of the Green Springs District.

Mr. Monson said next year the CCC hoped to see more representation from the Board of Supervisors, Sheriffs Department, Highway Department and Tourism.  Mr. Monson said the town of Louisa was very supportive and the Mayor came and spoke.  Mr. Monson said the Mayor hosted the Steering Committee meetings.

Mr. Monson said other events planned for the month of April by the CCC (in cooperation with the County landfill) were: old tire collection special (April 12) the landfill accepted up to 30 tires from any county resident. Mr. Monson said they collected four semi-truck loads of tires.  Mr. Monson said they had a  hazardous waste day (April 19) and they had a Neighborhood Clean-up (April 26).

Mr. Monson said each year the CCC sponsors a poster contest.  Mr. Monson said there were more than 330 entries this year.  Mr. Monson said Ms. Wanda Bailey of the Louisa County Schools coordinated the event.  Mr. Monson said everyone that participated got an award and the winners were published in the county paper.

Mr. Monson said the CCC was actively involved in getting the ordinance for inoperative vehicles and unauthorized dumps.  Mr. Monson said Louisa Countys ordinance was being looked at by other counties in the state as a model.

Mr. Monson said the CCC  was really encouraging broader recycling methods.  Mr. Monson said he knows that plastic and cardboard recycling has been included in the budget.  Mr. Monson said the more trash kept out of the new landfill the less expensive it would be and the longer it would last.

Mr. Monson said the CCC strongly urges the Board to hire a Litter Control Officer which was already in the budget and had not been filled.

Mr. Harper said the Board appreciated the work of the CCC and wished them continual success.

Mr. Gentry thanked Mr. Monson for all the CCC had done and asked that he forgive him for missing the festival,  his mother-in-law was very ill at the time.  Mr. Gentry said he was supportive of all the CCC does.  Mr. Gentry said he had mentioned to Mr. Small about putting the ideas together for the Board and he had done a good job in doing that.

Mr. Monson said the CCC had put together a brochure and they were asking for it to be put County Messenger as an insert.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod to see if that could be done.

Mr. Havasy said he had the pleasure of being on the committee.  Mr. Havasy said Nancy Lear was the work horse in the whole project.  Mr. Havasy said the committee was full of leaders.  Mr. Havasy said the last he heard 6,000 junk cars had been collected.  Mr. Havasy said he just wanted to applaud all the members.


Resolution- Recognizing Virginia Dominion Power for 30 years of Operating Service

Mr. Page Kemp, Supervisor of Station Licensing introduced Mr. Eric  Hendrixson, Director of Nuclear Station Safety and Licensing and Mr. Mike Duffey, Nuclear Information Center Coordinator.

Mr. Havasy said North Anna Power Station was a great neighbor in this community.

Mr. Kemp said on behalf of North Anna he would like to thank the Board and all the previous Boards for their support.  Mr. Kemp said they also appreciate the support from the Sheriffs Department and the all the fire squads.

On motion of Messrs Gentry, Barnes, Wright, Harper, Byers and Havasy, seconded by Messrs Gentry, Barnes, Wright, Harper, Byers and Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Virginia Dominion Power for 30 years of operating service.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod to check with Economic Development and see if there were any other Businesses that had hit their 30 year mark.

Update EMS Revenue Recovery Program

Ms. Jacobs said as of now, the county was still on schedule to begin billing for ambulance services on September 1st.  Ms. Jacobs said when she returned to the office this morning, she received an email stating that the software and connectivity issues were not resolved to this point to carry out training this week, which would be postponed until the second or third week in July.  Ms. Jacobs said as long as the training goes well in July and the trial period begins as soon as training was completed, September 1st would still be a realistic target date.

Ms. Jacobs said she was also informed today that the countys Medicare provider number was assigned on June 5th and we should be receiving it in the mail any day now.  Ms. Jacobs said once received, a copy would be forwarded to DAB.

Ms. Jacobs said she began advertising and collecting fees for the subscription program in May.  Ms. Jacobs stated attached was a report showing the funds collected in May.  Ms. Jacobs said she would continue to include a monthly report in the Board packets under the County Administrators Report the second meeting of each month.  Ms. Jacobs said the report would show the same information as the attached report.  Ms. Jacobs explained the report to the Board.

Ms. Jacobs said she would continue to inform citizens about the EMS Revenue Recovery Program through public education meetings.  The following meeting dates and locations have been scheduled:

o        July 7, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at Jouett Elementary School
o        July 21, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at Louisa Middle School
o        August 4, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at Trevilians Elementary School
o        TBA at Holly Grove Rescue

Ms. Jacobs said flyers for the public education meetings and informational brochures had been distributed to various locations around the County, to include County offices, post offices, pharmacies, medical offices, public schools, nursing homes, convenience stores, etc.

Ms. Jacobs said the public education meetings that were held in April and May were advertised in The Central Virginian, The Lake Anna Observer and some local Churchs Sunday Bulletins.  Ms. Jacobs stated a press release was also sent to The Richmond Times, The Daily Progress, The Central Virginian, The Lake Anna Observer, The Virginia Review, The Free Lance Star, Channels 6, 8, 12, 29, 19 and 7, and radio stations 105.5 and 103.1.  Ms. Jacobs said she would be just as proactive in advertising for the upcoming meetings.

Ms. Jacobs said she attended an AARP meeting and gave a presentation to educate members about the revenue recovery program.  Ms. Jacobs said she has also scheduled to meet with JABA and the Commission on Aging at the end of this month and into next month to do the same.

Ms. Jacobs said she would like to request the Boards final approval to continue the EMS Revenue Recovery program.

Mr. Harper asked Ms. Jacobs to explain the EMS waiver of $195 that was in the report.  Ms. Jacobs said the EMS waivers were for any rescue, fire or deputy personnel.  Ms. Jacobs said three personnel had submitted their applications and the $195 was the amount that would be waived.

Mr. Harper asked what was the deadline to pay the subscription plan.  Ms. Jacobs said August 31, 2008.  Mr. Harper said after that would the citizens pay per incident.  Ms. Jacobs said yes unless they were new to the county.

Mr. Byers asked what was the difference between payment waiver and write off.  Ms. Jacobs explained write off would be if someone could not afford to pay at all and a waiver was if someone called and asked for a payment plan or if they could do a partial pay.

Mr. Byers asked would there ever be double posting of those amounts.  Ms. Jacobs said no.

Mr. Gentry said there were already 39 families involved.  Ms. Jacobs said yes as of May 31

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Harper voting against, the Board gave final approval to continue the EMS Revenue Recovery program.

Discussion RFC audit requirements

Mr. Matt McLearen said he was representing Robinson, Farmer and Cox.  Mr. McLearen said he was at the meeting to inform the Board of changes in the auditing profession, mainly new standards that have been approved and started this year.

Mr. McLearen said the first thing he would discuss was SAS (Statement on Auditing Standard) number 114 which labeled communication with those in charge with g
overnance.  Mr. McLearen said SAS 114 encouraged open and candid communication between the governing body and the auditors.  Mr. McLearen said this would be an opportunity for the representative of or members of the governing body to inform the auditors of changes in policies and procedures, personnel and areas of risks, among other topics. Mr. McLearen said most localities had formed auditing committees that met with the auditors.

Mr. McLearen said the auditing industry was going to a risk base approach.  Mr. McLearen said r
isks are mitigated by internal controls.  Mr. McLearen said there were five components of internal controls, two of the five components of internal controls are communication and monitoring.  Mr. McLearen said those two components fell a lot on the governing body.  Mr. McLearen said by the governing body communicating with staff the duties, checks and balances to be performed and then monitoring the activities and financial information of the government to ensure that the controls were in place and properly functioning.

Mr. McLearen said Statement on Auditing Standards numbers 104-111 had been termed the risk assessment standards.  Mr. McLearen said those standards affected the auditor and the job they had to do.  Mr. McLearen said the risk assessment standards require the auditors to document risks and furthermore document the internal controls to mitigate those risks.  Mr.  McLearen said the auditors were expected to evaluate the internal controls, such as segregation of duties, oversight, etc. and disclose possible areas of deficiencies in the internal controls.

Mr. McLearen said there were numerous oversight boards that auditors must comply with.  Mr. McLearen said first there was the Auditing Standards Board which issued, Statement on Auditing Standards or SASs.  Mr. McLearen the second was GASB which stood for Governmental Accounting Standards Board.  Mr. McLearen said lastly there was Auditor of Public Accounts which was specific to Virginia, and provided specifications of how the audit was performed and what needed to be presented in the report.

Mr. McLearen said SASs are basically guidance on how the auditor was suppose to perform the audit and what needed to be included.  Mr. McLearen said GASB provided what needed to be recorded in the actual financial report.

Mr. McLearen said GASB 45 was the Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for post-employment Benefits other than Pensions.  Mr. McLearen said GASB 45 was requiring if the government was offering post-employment benefits, such as healthcare to retirees the liability be recorded in the financial statements. Mr. McLearen said this new reporting standard would effect Louisa June 30, 2009.  Mr. McLearen said the reporting standard required an extra evaluation of the liability and it would then be reported on the balance sheet and the statement of net assets for the county.

Mr. McLearen said some local governments would be attempting to fund the liability, meaning they would set aside funds to pay the future liability.  Mr. McLearen said the liability had always been there and just been pay as you go.

Mr. McLearen said Robinson, Farmer and Cox started their fieldwork the week of May 26, 2008 for the county.  Mr. McLearen said they discussed internal controls and some areas that would be changed a little.  Mr. McLearen said the internal controls they found were solid and a good job was done mitigating the risks.

Mr. Harper asked what was the purpose of the audit.  Mr. McLearen said the audit was required by the Code of Virginia.  Mr. McLearen said the purpose was to express an opinion on the financial reports of the locality and if the reports were materially correct.

Mr. Harper asked what qualifies for inclusion in a management letter. Mr. McLearen said management letters were pretty informal communication.  Mr. McLearen said the letter could be anything from telling about a new standard to what would be termed a control deficiency.  Mr. McLearen said a control deficiency could be anything from this person wasnt issued a receipt on a regular basis to RFC suggesting a payment be made at the Treasurer Office.

Mr. Harper asked what was biggest control device of the Board.  Mr. McLearen said the review of the financial reports provided by staff.

Mr. Harper said last year the county spent $300,000 over budget and the Board didnt know about it until the audit was done.   Mr. Harper said was that tight internal control.  Mr. McLearen said he was speaking the auditing of 2008.

Mr. Harper said he didnt think RFC discussed anything with the Board in two years.  Mr. McLearen said he would have to refer that to Robert Huff.

Mr. Harper said RFC was suppose to assess risks and he thought an overrun of the budget was certainly a risk.  Mr. Harper said the responsibility falls on the governing body, however the county paid good money to have people point out things to the Board.

Mr. Gentry asked who tells the Board they had to listen to statement 45. Mr. McLearen said it was a standard by the Government Accounting Standards Board.  Mr. McLearen said it was similar to the GASB 34 that the county implemented a couple of years ago.

Mr. McLeod said this was the OPEB the Board had discussed in the budget the last two years.  Mr. McLeod said this could impact the county up to a penny in operational cost.  Mr. McLeod said the idea was to continue to pay as you go.  Mr. McLeod said it didnt affect the budget on a year to year basis, but it did effect the financial report.

Mr. Gentry asked who generated the statement 45.

Mr. McLeod said the Board authorized him to hire an Actuarial to have a study done by Wachovia which gave the numbers Mr. McLearen was speaking of.

Mr. Gentry said he wasnt use to working with statements, he was use to working with bills and regulations.

Mr. McLearen said the Government of Accounting Standard Board was formed by the Government Accounting Office, the Comptroller of the United States of America.

Mr. Harper asked that Mr. McLearen tell the Board what was included the post-employment benefits.  Mr. McLearen said healthcare was the only one he had seen so far.

Mr. Byers asked were employment practices looked at during the auditing process. Mr. McLearen said no.

Mr. Byers asked who did they discuss their first findings with.  Mr. McLearen said the Director of Finance and the County Administrator.  Mr. McLearen said they are now required to discuss that with an audit committee.

Mr. Byers asked did RFC plan to have an informal session with the Board to discuss things in detail.  Mr. McLearen said he thought that would be ideal.

Mr. Harper said they had already started the process.  Mr. McLearen said the bulk of their work was done in the fall when the books were closed.

Mr. Wright said GASB 45 was a way of keeping the Board informed so they werent blindsided.

Mr. Harper said the Board members should come up with some concerns or questions for the auditors.

Resolution To appropriate the FY 2008-2009 Operational budget

Mr. McLeod said the Department of Planning and Budgeting had modified Louisas part of the $50 million state cut as of June 4, 2008.  Mr. McLeod said it was now $142,972.  Mr. McLeod said there were two major changes, they removed the Constitutional salaries from the base of eligible reductions and incorporated the reductions of the Regional Jail to participating counties.  Mr. McLeod said because Louisa was a member of the Central Virginia Regional Jail we received almost an additional $30,000 cut.  Mr. McLeod said we lost some on the Constitutionals and added some with the jail.

Mr. McLeod said the June 4, 2008 change was not in the appropriated budget.  Mr. McLeod said he didnt know if the Board wanted to appropriate half the budget and modify it as the year went on.

Mr. Harper said he thought it was good idea to appropriate a portion of it and not all to give the Board flexibility.  Mr. Byers asked if Mr. McLeod knew if there would be additional changes.  Mr. McLeod said he did not know.  Mr. Harper said because they didnt know if their would be additional changes, it would be best not appropriate it all at one time.  Mr. McLeod said there would be some things that had to be appropriated in full.  Mr. Wright said it would not be pure 50 percent.

Mr. Barnes said the Board may need to hold back 10 percent.  Mr. Barnes said 10 percent would be a significant amount of money.  Mr. Barnes said the Board would let the departments know that 10 percents of their budget could not be used until the Board decides to release it.

Mr. McLeod said if the Board decided to do what Mr. Barnes suggested it would not be an clean 90/10 split because some things  would still have to be paid upfront.

Mr. Harper asked what things had to be paid up front.  Mr. McLeod said the volunteers and others that were contracts he would have to go back and look at.

Mr. Byers asked why 10 percent opposed to 25 percent.  Mr. Barnes said he thought 10 percent was less intrusive.  Mr. Barnes said 10 percent of $81 million was pretty  sufficient.

Mr. Barnes asked how would the partial appropriation effect the Schools.  Mr. McLeod said a lot of their debt payments were no longer in their budget and the county would have to continue budgeting all the debt and their contracts.  Mr. Barnes asked how would the appropriation effect their operations.  Mr. McLeod said he would have to check on that.

Mr. Barnes said he was going to vote against the partial appropriation because of the uncertainty of who it would hurt.  Mr. Gentry said he was voting against for the same reason.

Mr. Barnes disclosed that his wife was a school employee.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 4-2, with Messers Gentry and Barnes voting against, the Board adopted a resolution to appropriate approximately 50 percent of the FY 2008-2009 operational budget.

Resolution Recognizing the 2008 Que and Cruz Festival

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing the 2008 Que and Cruz Festival.


Public Hearing - REZ17-07; Douglas E. Darling, Applicant; Orchard Vista 11-76 LLC, Doctors Green 11-78 LLC, Ledyard Estates 11-79 LLC, Piedmont Overlook 11-80 LLC, Pine Glen 4-8 LLC, River Bluff 4-12 LLC, Timber Hills 4-13 LLC, Anna Overlook 4-14 LLC, Fox Vale 4-15 LLC, Owners; request conditional rezoning of approximately 1072.3302 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Rural Estate (RE).  The property is located on the north side of Route 639 (Doctors Road), east of the intersection with Route 794 (Ponderosa Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcels 11-76, 11-78, 11-79, 11-80, 4-8, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14 and 4-15, in the Green Springs Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.

Conditional rezoning of approximately 1072.33 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Rural Estate (RE).  The property is located on the north side of Route 639 (Doctors Road), east of the intersection with Route 794 (Ponderosa Road).  Green Springs voting district.  Surrounding land uses are predominantly (A-2).    There are large open and forested parcels in the area, along with existing single-family residential uses.

The subject property is designated in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential and is not located in a designated growth area.

The Rural Estate District is intended to accommodate very low-density residential uses while preserving the Countys rural character.  The regulations for this district are designed to protect the heritage of agricultural areas, by promoting permanent open space and encouraging the thoughtful placement of housing that is compatible with the rural environment.  The uses of development setbacks, shared access and roadside buffers are encouraged to retain the rural character of the county along side the open farm activities prevalent in the county.

The minimum lot size requirement is 6 acres, unless at least 50% of the site is in dedicated open space, with a 3-acre minimum lot size.  This plan is proposing a minimum of 549 acres (or 51% of the site) in permanent open space including passive and active uses, such as vegetative buffers at project boundaries and along the North Anna River, equestrian activities, and a community site such as a park or church.

The lots would be served by individual water and sewer systems as approved by the Virginia Department of Health.

The applicant has submitted a set of twelve (12) voluntary proffers as a part of the rezoning request, summarized as follows:

-        RE District Master Plan
-        Development Density and Characteristics
-        Cash Proffer Contribution
-        Open Space, Equestrian, and Community Improvements
-        Traffic Impact Study and Transportation Improvements
-        Adequate Ground Water Supply
-        Church and Community Site
-        Environmental and Landscape Master Plan Improvements
-        Establishment of a Homeowners Association
-        Architecture and Community Design Guidelines
-        Notification of Potential Lot and Home Purchasers
-        Open Space Easement Feasibility Study

There were four people (not including the applicant and representatives) present for the Neighborhood Meeting held on October 10, 2007.  No one spoke in direct opposition to the request and the following items were discussed:

-        Controlling run-off from the development
-        Existing activities surrounding the development and notification of potential purchasers
-        Concerns with only one access for the development
-        Traffic increase on Route 639 and at intersection with Route 33
-        Minimum dwelling size requirements
-        Interior road standards
-        Public golf course

The Development Review Committee met on October 24, 2007 to review this application. The Development Review Committee voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of denial to the Planning Commission indicating that more information was needed on the impacts of this project, especially related to the increased traffic.

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on November 15, 2007.  The request was tabled at both this meeting and the January 2008 meeting due to the number and types of public comments received during the public hearing, along with the additional information submitted by the applicant regarding the initial Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and other issues.

All transportation infrastructure issues appear to have been covered in the revised Traffic Impact Analysis which also reflects VDOTs input, and the transportation related proffers appear to adequately mitigate the anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed project.

The Planning Commission determined at its February meeting that the storm water improvements as proffered were adequate and will be well regulated by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR).    Additionally, staff believes that the development, as proposed, may actually improve the storm water run-off in the area by stabilizing the entire site and providing for functional regional storm water ponds (either wet or dry).  The proposed overall storm water measures combined with the on-site measures for each lot should result in a net benefit to the surrounding community in terms of storm water run-off and erosion.

The Planning Commission again tabled a decision on the rezoning application until the March meeting.  This decision was primarily due to the fact that the Green Springs Commissioner was absent due to illness and still had questions concerning storm water and traffic.

On March 13, 2008, the Planning Commission discussed this application further with specific emphasis on the possibility for a conservation easement over the projects open space, minor clarifications on several proffers, and general comments on the size of the project.

The Commission voted 6-1 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors with the proffers as submitted by the applicant dated January 30, 2008.  The motion included the proviso that there be significant progress on the conservation easement prior to submission to the Board of Supervisors.

The concept of a Rural Estate Zoning District is compatible with the Comprehensive Plans designation of Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.   This would be an isolated zoning district compared to the surrounding agricultural districts; however, the district was developed for the non-growth areas of the county, and the proposed land use pattern would not be substantially different from existing residential land uses.

The area is not located in a designated growth area and should remain mostly rural in nature. This includes both agricultural uses as well as very low density residential as proposed.  The open space included in the project, along with the equestrian use, also conforms with the rural character of the area.

The RE zoning district is specifically designed to preserve the rural character of the county, while allowing for some very low density residential growth to occur outside of the countys designated growth areas.

The rezoning is reasonably related to the existing land use pattern even though the Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.  The proposed development offers a mix of land uses, which include provisions for open space and some recreational improvements along with high-end residential lots.

The Board should consider possible impacts of this proposed rezoning, whether the proffers add significant value to the overall project, and if they adequately mitigate the adverse impacts that the development may cause including, but not limited to, storm water, traffic generation, schools, and public safety.

Mr. Harper asked how could all the open area be guaranteed not to be brought back to the Board to be used for something else.  Mr. Cockrell said the developer would sell their rights to develop that land to a third party.   Mr. Harper asked was that being proffered.  Mr. Cockrell said yes it was included in the proffers with the feasibility study for the easements.

Mr. Gentry asked if the applicant had done anything concerning the easements.  Mr. Cockrell said he hadnt discussed it with the applicant, but the applicant was there at the meeting.

Mr. Byers asked what did general compliance with the comp plan mean.  Mr. Cockrell said the comp plan shows very low density residential and this request would fit the definition under the comp plan.

Mr. Byers asked if all the parcels were agricultural.  Mr. Cockrell said yes.

Mr. Havasy asked when a development goes in and there are water issues, was it standard language that a certain distance from the property that all wells would be covered if there was a problem.  Mr. Havasy said the way the proffers were written the developer wouldnt start the water study or talk to neighbors until zoning had been approved.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to see a statement made that within ¼ mile of the development, if there were any water problems they would be taken care of.  Mr. Havasy asked how would the Board know what was going on and how would they protect the citizens that were there and established.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Mr. Frank Cox said he represented the applicant.  Mr. Cox said the way the proffer on the water issue was written was to insure the project would not start until the full study was done.  Mr. Cox said the study would cost about $75,000 and they were hoping to get the zoning approved prior to doing the study.  Mr. Cox said they would not be putting any plats to record until the water study was done.  Mr. Cox said if any problems occurred once the project was done, they would be corrected.

Mr. Havasy said if citizens refused to allow the applicant to test their water and something happened that was the applicants fault then according to what had been written the applicant would not take responsibility to take care of it. Mr. Cox said they would default them to the Health Department.

Mr. Cox said the applicant had offered to come in under a lower density than the recorded lots in the area.  Mr. Cox said it would be one unit per every 10 acres.  Mr. Cox said there would be over 500 acres of open space.  Mr. Cox said they had been in contact with the Virginia Outdoor Foundation about the conservation easement.  Mr. Cox said the applicant would not apply the easement until the plat was presented.  Mr. Cox said when the open space easement was recorded it would give the property owner a tax advantage but the transaction needed to be a post zoning transaction.

Mr. Cox said they changed the proffers that made the county have any obligation or participation for any transportation improvements.  Mr. Cox said the applicant has had continuous conversations with VDOT about the Route 33 and Doctors Road intersection.  Mr. Cox said the applicant had spoken with some property owners and at this point they were not interested in giving or selling any right-of-way.  Mr. Cox said they proffered that if VDOT wanted to move ahead with the improvement at some point and if the Board agreed, they would be willing to pay for the engineering.  Mr. Cox said they have already gone out and surveyed everything.  Mr. Cox said some of the turn lanes could be put in with what was there now.

Mr. Troy Dugger Green Springs District stated the established neighbors were not just looking out for themselves but the people who would buy those properties, because once this was approved they would be in the same predicament as the current owners.  Mr. Dugger said the traffic was going to be really bad.

Mr. Rick Gibson Green Springs District stated he opposed the project because of the taxes.  Mr. Gibson said his property in Orange County went up after something like this happened there.  Mr. Gibson said not just the traffic after the development but the traffic during the process would be bad.  Mr. Gibson said the road was just surfaced, not paved and there would be heavy trucks and they would break up the road.

Ms. Wendy Craig Green Springs District stated the applicant had tried to make it sound like they are preserving the rural character of the county, which was the purpose of the comprehensive plan and the county already has that.  Ms. Craig said the county has open space, green space and forestry there now.  Ms. Craig said if it was really about building this nice community it should be in the area designated for that type of growth.  Ms. Craig said the citizens that are there now have something to preserve as well.  Ms. Craig said traffic and safety had become the heart of the issue.  Ms. Craig said in the application the traffic study said “ the proposed traffic to be generated by Patriots Crossing project does not cause reduction of the function and capacity of existing public road facilities” and in the next paragraph it said “to improve traffic flow conditions and based on existing traffic without the proposed project, the traffic study recommends construction of a left turn lane at Route 33, a right turn lane and taper, a right turn lane on Route 33.”  Ms. Craig said they are admitting that there already was an existing problem.  Ms. Craig said there was another subdivision going in now at the other end of the road.  Ms. Craig said that would be another 10 to 12 cars and children riding school buses.  Ms. Craig said those were safety issues for those who had to be on that road every single day.

Mr. Bill Craig Green Springs District stated Mr. Darling and his investors knew what they were buying.  Mr. Craig said they took a risk on buying this thinking they would develop it on the back of the citizens of Louisa County.  Mr. Craig said he was opposed to the development.

Ms. Jacqueline Washington Greens Springs District stated she was opposed to the project and agreed with everything that had been said so far.  Ms. Washington said changing the district from Agricultural to Rural Estate was a non-necessity.  Ms. Washington said if the gentleman wanted to be presumptuous and purchase the property ahead of time and say to himself this was a done deal if he did all the county asked in order to bring the project to fruition.  Ms. Washington said the applicant was rolling the dice and coming up with crap and that was why there have been so many turnovers for these meetings.  Ms. Washington said most people dont purchase property assuming they would get a go; most people have a contract with a condition.  Ms. Washington said buying the properties and then making a cluster for a contingency for a potential community would have been the best out for him but not the citizens who live there now.  Ms. Washington said the citizens like the agriculture community that they have there now.  Ms. Washington said traffic was a problem now, water was a countywide problem, and schools were already over crowded.  Ms. Washington said Louisa was a small community that was trying to advance, which was fine, but it needed to be done in measure.  Ms. Washington said she went by the rules when she came to Louisa and she did not presume.  Ms. Washington said her business had a contingency of the approval of the Board.  Ms. Washington said he brought the property agricultural, so it should be kept agricultural.  Ms. Washington said if he wanted to do by-rights that are okay.  Ms. Washington said the citizens were already in a low-density agricultural community and did not need another community to come in and tell them what was best for them.

Mr. Darius Washington Jr. Green Springs District stated he was opposed for all the reasons everyone else had mentioned.  Mr. Washington said he didnt see where the citizens of Louisa would benefit.  Mr. Washington said by keeping everything rural would have its advantages and that was one the reasons he moved to Louisa.  Mr. Washington said he would like to see the landscape stay somewhat rural.

Ms. Marsha Burnette Green Springs District stated she was opposed because it was not going to add to the rural character of the community.  Ms. Burnette said it would add traffic, cause water problems and add to the over populated schools.

Ms. Tammie Ragland Green Springs District stated she opposed the development for all the reasons the others presented like increase in taxes and traffic.

Mr. Stephen Carter Green Springs District stated the way the proffers looked to him county tax dollars would still end up being used. Mr. Carter said the county could not afford to spend more than needed, especially for someone else gain.  Mr. Carter said he was opposed to the project.

Ms. Susan Carter Green Springs District stated she was opposed to the rezoning of the rural estate and she also has problems with the proffers.  Ms. Carter said taxpayers monies would used to make road improvement needed for safety on Doctors Road.  Ms. Carter said traffic and safety on this road was an issue.

Mr. Gary Verling Green Springs District stated in 1985 he opened up a foxhound training reserve.  Mr. Verling said his property adjoined Mr. Darlings property by 3500 feet.  Mr. Verling said the noise from his business would be problem for some of the people buying those million dollar homes.  Mr. Verling said the traffic on Route 639 would be one of the biggest problems.  Mr. Verling said there were truckers now who cut through going to Orange to dodge the scales.  Mr. Verling said people who live in Blue Ridge Shores use that road to get to Gordonsville and Orange.  Mr. Verling said there would be a need for another school and he was opposed to the project.

Ms. Maureen Tanner Green Springs District stated opposed because it would cause a dramatic increase in traffic.

With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.

Mr. Cox said they did not feel like the proffers were going in circles.  Mr. Cox said there was limited road frontage and most of the road frontage had been chewed up already and this was an opportunity to create a single access point.

Mr. Cox said they have done everything they could to adhere to Staff and the Board. Mr. Cox said this project was not going to happen overnight and could be a six to ten year project.  Mr. Cox said this wasnt a typical subdivision and would create a lot of tax benefits.

Mr. Cox said he wanted Mr. Verling to recognize that they had made a substantial revision to the land use plan to pull all the residential lots that would have been fairly close to his property a pretty significant distance.

Mr. Cox said they had presented the best they could and they would respect the Boards decision.

Mr. Barnes said it always a very tough decision when you talk about growth.  Mr. Barnes said the county was changing.  Mr. Barnes said the county was going to have to be able to provide for those who make $10,000 a year, those who make $1,000,000 and those in the middle.

Mr. Barnes said anyone that knew anything about planning would tell you there were nothing wrong with the project and this would what the county should want.

Mr. Barnes said this type of development would not flood the school with children.
Mr. Barnes said yes it would probably affect some peoples home values.  Mr. Barnes said if his property went up he would sell it.

Mr. Barnes said the developers have done what the countys comprehensive plan has asked.  Mr. Barnes said the developers did not come up with the RE zoning.

Mr. Barnes said he was sympathetic with the citizens concerns but some the traffic problems brought up would still have to be dealt with.

Barnes said there are two type of developers; good ones and ones that dont care. Mr. Barnes said these developers have been willing to meet and meet with staff and the Board.  Mr. Barnes said from a planning perspective there was nothing wrong with the project.

Mr. Gentry said the Board of Supervisors created the RE district for the purpose of creating some open space, which this developer had done.  Mr. Gentry said the county approved the new zoning for this reasons seen on paper however; he still was not satisfied with proffers.  Mr. Gentry said he would have to eliminate some of the proffers before he could vote to approve this.

Mr. Byers asked how many houses by right could be put on this property.  Mr. Cockrell said a maximum of seven under A-2.  Mr. Cockrell said he thinks they would limit to the seven division rights.

Mr. Byers said he had quite a bit of concerns about the VDOT improvements on Route 33.

Mr. Harper said he liked the project but his biggest concerns were that the proffers were not very clear.

Mr. Havasy said there were a lot of good things in this project but since the last meeting he has had a lot conversation with the citizens in his district.  Mr. Havasy said Green Springs was proud to be preserving land in the county to preserve the future. Mr. Havasy said Green Springs have allowed Zion Crossroads to develop and be a growth area and parts of Gordonsville to be a growth area.

Mr. Havasy said there had been a lot work done on the Planning Commission especially on the comprehensive plan and he realized it was only a guide.  Mr. Havasy said the comprehensive plan was a guide prepared by the citizens of Louisa County.  Mr. Havasy said there were hundreds of people involved in writing the comprehensive plan and they expressed their wills and thoughts on what they wanted to preserve.

Mr. Havasy said the State Code of Virginia 15.2-22 23 stated “in the preparation of the comprehensive plan the Commission shall make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth and probable future territory and inhabitants.  The comprehensive plan should be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated adjusted harmonious development of the territories which will in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources best promote the healthy, safety, morals, water, convenience, prosperity and the general welfare of the inhabitants.”

Mr. Havasy said that was talking about preserving it for the people who live here.   Mr. Havasy said the comprehensive plan for Louisa County provides for growth in the designated growth areas to protect and preserve the rural character of the county.  Mr. Havasy said these were the thought of all the districts when the comprehensive plan was put together.

Mr. Havasy said he thought this project was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan because it was not in a growth area.

Mr. Havasy said Doctors Road would dangerous by the railroad.  Mr. Havasy said VDOT standard said there are 10 trips per day per household.

Mr. Havasy said the owners of those million dollars home were not going like hearing the foxhounds at 2:00 a.m.  Mr. Havasy said storm water was still a concern. Mr. Havasy said the developer should go to the grow areas.

Mr. Havasy made a motion to deny the request for the conditional rezoning of approximately 1072.33 acres from agricultural (A-2) to rural estate (RE).  Mr. Wright seconded the motion.

Mr. Gentry said he could not accept the project with the proffers written the way they were.  Mr. Morgan said the proffers were a voluntary condition offered by the applicant.  Mr. Morgan said all the proffers did not have to be accepted by the Board, there was the ability to accept some and reject others.   Mr. Morgan said at the moment whatever the Board did it would be as they written.  Mr. Morgan said if the Board could not accept them as they are written then they may have to do another continuance.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Morgan if he was satisfied that the conservation issue was locked in place.  Mr. Morgan said yes he was.  Mr. Harper asked did both parties have to agree to the VDOT issue.  Mr. Morgan said yes they would.

Mr. Byers said if the property owners were not willing to sell for the right away would there be a condemnation.  Mr. Morgan said if they were not willing to sell then condemnation would be the only alternative.

Mr. Barnes asked if an applicant meets all the requirements and its denied how would that effect the project.  Mr. Morgan said the applicant could challenge the decision of the Board in a court of law.  Mr. Morgan said if it met the requirement of the comprehensive plan and the zoning district it would be difficult to defend in court.
Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Morgan in his opinion had that happen with this project. Mr. Morgan said that would be for the Board to decide.  Mr. Morgan said not being in the county fulltime he hadnt had the opportunity to review the proffers as well as he would have liked.

Mr. Gentry asked if he liked the project but not the proffers, should he abstain.  Mr. Morgan said they could move to accept with certain proffers.

Mr. Harper asked if a substitute motion could be offered.  Mr. Morgan said a motion could be withdrawn and there could also be a substitute motion.

Mr. Barnes offered a substitute motion to approve the project pending the standards from VDOT.  With no one seconding the motion failed.

Mr. Gentry said all his concerns were with transportation.  Mr. Gentry said the proffers he wants to eliminate did not affect the project.  Mr. Gentry said the proffers are supposed to be what the developer has to offer without involving the county.

Mr. Harper asked if the motion fails was there an option of going back.  Mr. Morgan said if that motion fails it didnt mean that the property would rezoned and to act, the Board would have to have some motion to approve or continue.

Mr. Harper asked if they continue and remove proffers would there need to be another public hearing.  Mr. Morgan said if the proffers are removed no but if the Board asked the applicant to further amend them then yes it would be.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Havasy motion to deny the request for the rezoning.

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

With the votes reflecting 3-3, the motion failed to deny the request of the conditional rezoning of approximately 1072.33 acres from agricultural (A-2) to rural estate (RE).

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Morgan if the Board continued this and could the Board appoint two members to work on a proposal to bring to the Board to eliminate some of the proffers that concerned the Board.  Mr. Morgan said yes that could be done.

Mr. Gentry said he would like to make a motion for a continuance, to allow two Board members to be appointed to work on the elimination of proffers that have cause concern to the Board.   Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote.

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

With the votes reflecting 3-3, the motion failed to table to allow two Board members to be appointed to work on the elimination of proffers that have cause concern to the Board.

Mr. Morgan said until September the Board could bring this rezoning up at any of the Board meetings, there would not be a need for a public hearing, provided there were no more amendments to the proffers.

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Code  (Chapter 74.  Traffic and vehicles) as they pertain to the Louisa County vehicle license tax as follows:
-        Sec. 74-71:  Vehicles subject to tax.  (The Board may consider exemptions to the license tax as shown in proposed Sec. 74-71.)
-        Sec. 74-72:  Annual license tax imposed; amount of tax; driving unlicensed vehicle prohibited.  (Eliminate the requirement that vehicles, trailers or semitrailers          bear a county plate, tag or decal when operating on any street in the county.  The license tax shall be levied and collected in the same manner and in addition to          the personal property tax.)
-        Sec. 74-73:  License tax year.  (Amend the license year.)
-        Sec. 74-74:  Proration of tax for part of license year; when licenses expire.  (The Board may consider prorating the 2008 license tax and/or consider prorating          future years.)
-        Sec. 74-75:  Refunds for unused portion of license tax.  (Amend the license year and/or not provide for refunds in future years.)
-        Sec. 74-76:  Application for license; issuance and display of license plate, etc.; transferability of license to another.  (Repeal and reserve.)
-        Sec. 74-77:  Duplicate plate, etc., for one lost; transferability to another vehicle of same owner.  (Repeal and reserve.)

Mr. McLeod said the vehicle license tax would follow the same rules of the Personal Property Tax; it was anticipated to be tax neutral and would start January 1, 2009

Mr. McLeod said the
Following vehicles would be exempt; vehicles owned by volunteer rescue squads or volunteer fire departments, Vehicles owned by all active county volunteer firefighters, rescue workers, auxiliary, and associate members would get one exemption, vehicles owned by former members county volunteer rescue squads and volunteer firefighters who served for at least 10 years would get one exemption, vehicles owned by disabled veterans who have received a special disabled veterans license, vehicles owned by members of the Virginia National Guard who have received a special National Guard license (currently they pay ½ of a license - $12.50),vehicles owned by any person who is 65 years old or older and who qualifies for a real estate tax exemption would get one exemption, trailers < 10,000 pounds including but not limited to, camping trailers, boat trailers, & utility trailers,
Antique motor vehicles; must be owned as collectors item and have issued license plate and
non-active vehicles that are licensed, assessed, and levied for personal property taxes, but are not operated on any street, road or highway in the county. Effective date for qualifications for purpose of this exemption will be January 1st of each calendar year.

Mr. McLeod said the Committee thought it would be better not to prorate the tax because personal property was not prorated.  Mr. McLeod said if a
resident establishes residency during the year; personal property & the vehicle license tax would not be due the first year unless their first day is January 1st

Mr. Wright asked did the county currently contact the former volunteers with at least 10 years of service because as far he knew it was not advertised.  Ms Layne said they all were advertised.

Ms. Layne said the free decal was only given to the active.  Ms. Layne said at one the Board meeting it was voted on to list everyones name even if they did not receive a free decal.

Mr. Wright said with the vehicle license tax it said the former volunteers with at least 10 years of service would be exempt and that was new.  Ms. Layne said yes that was new.

Mr. Wright said it didnt say the antique vehicle had to be licensed.  Mr. McLeod said it does have to be license.

Mr. Wright asked who would certify the volunteers.  Mr. McLeod said the volunteers would get the information to the Fire Chief and the Chief would pass that information on to the Commissioner.

Mr. Byers said it seemed reasonable eliminate the tax for the antique vehicles and the National Guard.   Mr. Byers said it should be incumbent upon the Fire Chief to designate the former volunteers.  Mr. Byers said on page two of the matrix it should say, “auto dealer” oppose to just dealer”.

Mr. Barnes asked would church vehicles be exempt.  Mr. McLeod said because this tax follows the personal property, if they were exempt from personal property tax they would be exempt from the license tax.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Mr. Gerald Harlow Green Springs District stated his only concern was the antique vehicles he didnt know if the license tax was going to be exempt for those.

With no one else wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.

Mr. Wright said the license vehicle tax should be prorated only for the first year.  Mr. Wright said the citizens that had a decal should only be charge $15 the first year, otherwise they would be double taxed for three and a half months.

Mr. Byers asked if the antique vehicles were exempt.  Mr. McLeod said yes they were in the proposal.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adopt a resolution to amend chapter 74. traffic and vehicles, sec. 74-71 as discussed, with the first year being $15 and $20 for each subsequent year.


Resolution To appropriate the FY 2008-2009 annual budget

Mr. Barnes disclosed that his wife was a school employee.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution to appropriate the FY 2008-2008 Capital Improvement Plan Budget.

Resolution - Authorizing a contract for Pest Control/Inspections Services with Ferrell's Termite and Pest Control Inc.

Mr. Gentry asked did the contract cover the recycling centers.  Ms. Faye Stewart said yes it covered all the recycling centers.

Mr. Gentry asked would they just show up at the recycling centers and not do anything.  Ms. Stewart said the current contract was not with the same company.

Mr. Harper asked if the recycling centers were on the list.  Ms. Stewart said each one was listed.

Mr. Havasy said the recycling centers should be inspected every month.

Mr. Gentry said it wasnt about inspecting them it was about doing something once they came.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a contract for pest control/inspections services with Ferrells Termite and Pest Control Inc.

Discussion Board of Supervisors summer meeting schedule

Mr. Harper said at the first of the year the Board said they would have two meetings a month in July and August.

Mr. Wright said he didnt think the Board should change it because Mr. Lintecum made a statement to him last year that having one meeting a month made the agenda too heavy the next month.

Mr. Harper said not hearing anything there would be two meetings in July and August.


Mr. Byers said he and Mr. Gentry have gotten very little input for the School Board Committee.   Mr. Harper said to move ahead if they didnt get anything from the Board members soon.


Mr. McLeod said there was letter from Dr. Pettit regarding the playground equipment at the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School asking for $180,000.

Mr. Harper asked was that the missing $180,000.  Mr. McLeod said that it appeared to be a different $180,000.

Mr. Harper asked if the obligation was made before June 30, 2008 it would be taken out of this years budget.   Mr. McLeod said no it would be out of their 2009 budget and they needed to put a purchase order in prior to the end of 2009 year.

Mr. McLeod stated the Community Development summary of activities for May 2008, Louisa County Land Disturbing Activities May 2008, Analysis of O & M budget May 2008 and Facilities Management Department monthly summary were all included in the Board Packet.  Mr. McLeod said there were three departments that have issues going forward.  Mr. McLeod said one would be resolved shortly because the Board approved the appropriation at the June 2, 2008 meeting.  Mr. McLeod said the other two were Sheriff Courts and Animal Control.  Mr. McLeod said it was his projection one would be over $1,100 and the other $14,000.  Mr. McLeod said if he looked at the total budget for the Sheriffs Department they would be under $111,000.

Mr. Harper said the Board had made a supplemental appropriation for the Sheriffs Department.  Mr. McLeod said yes and that was why collectively they would be under.


Resolution - For a supplemental appropriation to the sheriffs department for funds donated and registrations taken for the summer dare camp program

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the sheriffs department for funds donated and registrations taken for the summer dare camp program.

Resolution - For a supplement to the County Administrators Department for
employee recognition

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplement to the County Administrators Department employee recognition.

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for vehicle repairs

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for vehicle repairs.

Resolution - For a supplemental appropriation to the animal shelter for funds donated

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the animal shelter for funds Donated.

Resolution - For a supplemental appropriation to the Social Services Department for additional State and Federal funds for March 1, 2008 through May 31st, 2008, (4th quarter).

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Social Services Department for additional State and Federal funds for March 1, 2008 through May 31st, 2008, (4th quarter).

Resolution- For a supplemental appropriation for operational expenses for the Tourism Center.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation for operational expenses for the Tourism Center.


Mr. Harper said there was a letter from DEQ and they would be holding public hearings on the Cutalong project on July 10, 2008, 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Louisa County Middle School.

Mr. Harper said there was a letter from VDOT and there were some projects that had been pulled and others that got delayed.

Mr. McLeod said the Health Department was increasing rates as of July 1, 2008.  Mr. McLeod said some of the increases were very large and they had not giving much notice.  Mr. McLeod said the rates had been posted in Community Development to inform citizens.

Mr. Harper said this was another case of the state shifting responsibilities.  Mr. Harper said if the Board agreed, the state cuts the county would cut also.

Mr. Havasy asked could what was sent to the state be cut.  Mr. McLeod said the state would get their money regardless.

Mr. Barnes said there was a letter with concerns from the Commonwealth Attorney because of state cuts.  Mr. Barnes said the letter was asking the county to waive $10,000.   Mr. Barnes said the Commonwealth Attorneys reason for the waiver was, if the county implemented that DUI adjustment in fees the locality would incur more then the $10,000 he was requesting.

Mr. Harper said as it was generated it would be supplemental appropriated.  Mr. Harper said it had to be generated first.

Mr. Byers asked what would be the timeline in order to get the amendment put in the county ordinance or changed.

Mr. Harper said the county should wait to get a County Attorney.

Mr. Harper said as far as the request letter from the Circuit Court Clerks Office,  if the state made a cut, the county was not replacing the amount.  Mr. Harper asked did the county get the excess revenues from the Clerks Office.

Mr. McLeod said he still thought it came to the county and he would double-check.
Mr. Harper said to get confirmation on that because he thought at one point the state was going to keep the excess revenue.

Mr. McLeod said at some point the Board would have to decide if they would go with the Department of Planning and Budgetings latest recommendation, any future recommendation or the first recommendation.

Mr. Harper said they would go with any future recommendation. Mr. Harper said the county could not absorb everything.  Mr. Harper said he could not speak for the rest of the Board but the burden needed to go back to the state.

Mr. McLeod asked if the Board wanted to match the latest recommendation, if there was a change.  Mr. Harper said to just let the Board know about it.

It was consensus of the Board that the county would match the latest recommendation from the Department of Planning and Budgeting concerning the Aid to Locality Reduction.

Mr. Gentry read the card from Ms. Debbie Gentry thanking the Board and Staff for their thoughtfulness and flowers at time of her mothers death.


On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Messrs Gentry and Byers abstaining from billing pertaining to themselves, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of June 2008 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $ 172,428.00.


On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the May 14, 2008 budget workshop.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the May 19, 2008 meeting.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the June 2, 2008 vehicle license tax workshop.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the June 2, 2008 meeting.


On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:54 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (1) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the Board of Supervisor.


On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 9:56 p.m.


On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 16 day of June 2008, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and

WHEREAS, §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 16 day of June 2008, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.


On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adjourn the June 16, 2008 meeting at 9:57 p.m.