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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JUNE 18, 2007
5:00 P.M.



Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell and Jack T. Wright [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager and April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Wright called the June 18, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Harper led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Wright recognized members present from the School Board and the School Administration Office.  

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Major Lowe stated there was a life threatening shooting on Mica Road (Route 700) this morning.  

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

Mr. Charles Purcell, Patrick Henry District, stated he noticed that under item five of the agenda, Discussion of Planning and Zoning Issues, the Board has five major sub-topics to discuss tonight.  Mr. Purcell said he was concerned that the Board had these topics for discussion because he knows that Board members are very good about letting everyone in their districts know about land use issues that may affect them.  Mr. Purcell said he thinks that the Board would want more time to let their constituents know about these important topics.  

Mr. Purcell stated the Board got a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan every year and he thinks that Board members who participated in the five-year Comprehensive Plan amendment knows that was a tremendous process.  Mr. Purcell said he thinks very good work came out of the amendment, but he thinks it is impossible to amend the Plan once a year. Mr. Purcell stated secondly, it looks like the Board is going to consider amending the Subdivision Ordinance every year as well.  Mr. Purcell said if the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance are amended every year, it doesnt allow for someone to plan based on what the law is.  Mr. Purcell said basically, it takes almost a year for someone to get a rezoning or plan completed and then the rules could change, which wouldnt be fair to anyone.  

Mr. Purcell stated for most counties, if an amendment is proposed to a designated growth area for a rezoning, they take up the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan the same time they take up the rezoning.  Mr. Purcell added if the Board wants to amend the Comprehensive Plan then they do so and the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Purcell said he understands that the proposed process to amend the Plan is done every November, whereas, the Board may have a situation in January where someone wants to put a business just outside of the designated growth area in Zion Crossroads that the Board wants and the Comprehensive Plan cannot be amended until November.  Mr. Purcell said if the rezoning is granted, someone might contest whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Purcell added he doesnt think that is exactly what the Board wants.  Mr. Purcell suggested that more time and thought from not only the Planning Staff, but also from the Board and members in their respective districts be taken before any decisions are made.  
 

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Eric Purcell stated he understands that the five major sub-topics listed on the agenda under planning and zoning Issues are for discussion only; however, those five issues are very important and he doubts that the Board has had time to talk to constituents about it.  Mr. Purcell said he thinks before a lot of work is done, the Board needs to take more time to read and discuss the five sub-sections before making any decisions.  Mr. Purcell added he would agree to discuss the topics briefly, but if the Board is going to make a decision about sending it back to the Planning Staff or setting anything for public hearing, he recommends it be removed until further discussion.  

Mr. Harper stated he would like to add discussion of the right-of-way on CCC Road (Route 789) to New Business.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to add discussion of workforce realignment to New Business.  

Mr. Barnes said he agrees with Mr. Purcell that he would like to see the planning and zoning issues brought along at a slower pace because they are a great importance to the County, which would involve much more conversation.  Mr. Barnes added he would like the Board to reconsider discussion on those items.  Mr. Barnes stated he would like to add discussion of affordable housing to New Business.  

Mr. Gentry said the planning and zoning issues are very important, however, the Board should realize that a couple of the items have been talked about for a while.  Mr. Gentry said he also thinks it is important that the Board cover the items very briefly to give coverage in the newspaper so more of the public can respond to the Board.  Mr. Purcell questioned if it would be the Boards right to leave the items of discussion on the agenda with the knowledge that there will be no direction given to staff.  Mr. Gentry said he doesnt think there is any intent to make a decision tonight.  Mr. Wright stated he thinks the Board needs to hold a work session on the items before the Planning Commission is given the direction to proceed, however, he thinks Mr. Coffey should present each topic for the Board to find out exactly what the items are and to give word to the public.  Mr. Gentry said he believes the Board needs to move quickly because the Planning Commission has gone over some of these issues several times and they are waiting for direction, but, at this point, the items need to be discussed briefly.  Mr. Wright said priorities and a timeline need to be discussed in a work session.  

Mr. Lintecum stated he would like to move the Animal Control Report from the County Administrators Report to Consent Agenda Items.  Mr. Morgan stated he would like to add discussion for matter of litigation in the Mineral District to closed session.  

Mr. Purcell wanted to clarify that there will only be general discussion and no recommendation to the Planning Staff tonight on the planning and zoning issues.  Mr. Wright stated it would be the Boards decision after the presentations are made.  

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Messrs Barnes and Purcell voting against, which carried by a vote of 5-2, the June 18, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion - Funding for Moss Nuckols Elementary School


Mr. Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management, stated in January, he gave a thorough analysis of what the average cost were for elementary schools being bid or awarded since September 2006.  Mr. Linhares said he is here to update the Board on information that he has received from the Virginia Department of Education of the latest schools that have been bid on or awarded.    

Mr. Linhares referenced a handout that he provided to the Board and said the first page shows the building cost for elementary schools that have been bid on or awarded since September 2006, as of last week.  Mr. Linhares said the average building cost is around $14 million, the average square footage is around 90,000 and the average cost per square foot is around $158.

The following is a summary of building costs for the above information:

  • Loudon County Sycolin Creek
  • Loudon County New Arcola
  • Hanover County New Elementary
  • Caroline County Ladysmith Elementary
  • Loudon County Rosa Lee
  • Prince William County Brightwood
  • Spotsylvania County Massaponax
  • Williamsburg Matoako Elementary
  • Poquoson City Poquoson Elementary
  • Portsmouth City Parkview Elementary
  • Prince William County Mill Park Elementary
  • Average Elementary School Cost

  • Mr. Linhares explained the following estimated construction/soft cost assumptions and conditions:

    1. This pricing scenario does not include any costs expended to date for the new elementary school.
    2. Based on an 85,000 square foot school. 700-student capacity/850 SOL.
    3. This pricing scenario is based upon competitively bidding to General Contractors. The “building cost” would be the General Contractors bid minus site work. The General Contractors bid (building cost) would include, but not be limited to the following: all subcontractor costs (i.e. concrete, masonry, metals, etc.), General Conditions (i.e. project superintendent, project manager, insurance, temporary facilities, etc.), kitchen equipment, telephone/data cabling and terminations, security cabling and terminations, audio/visual equipment and installations, inspections and testing during the construction phase.
    4. A contingency has been added to allow for the shrink/swell conditions that exist on the site as well as modifications to the site work already performed to accommodate a revised school design.
    5. Revised estimated site work cost allows for work required to finish the project. The balance of the site work would include, but not be limited to the following: modification/completion of utilities, modification of pad site to accommodate new school design, Package Water Treatment System including ground water wells/piping/associated equipment/appurtenance complete, Package Water Treatment System, Underground Fuel Storage system complete, concrete and asphalt paving, striping, signage, school entrance at Route 208, landscaping, completion of site grading, continued maintenance of erosion and sediment control devises.
    6. Construction contingency allows for potential change orders that may be incurred during the project.
    7. Architectural/Engineering Design Fees are based on selecting “off-the-shelf” elementary school designs to help expedite the design process.
    8. Architectural Administration costs have been included to provide for the Architects services during the construction process. No cost for “outsourced” Construction Management Firms have been included. This pricing scenario is based upon the school system hiring, on staff, a Construction Manager (Clerk of the Works) to see this project through from start to completion. Costs for this new hire are not included in this pricing scenario with funding for this employee being included under School System Operational Costs.
    9. Costs for Owner Testing and Inspection services are included for the remainder of the project. This cost is for services over and above what has already been paid for.
    10. Furniture and Furnishings cost is based on Schools allowance, less kitchen equipment, which is included under building costs.
    11. Computer/IT Budget based on Schools allowance.
    12. Providing Owner Contingency of $500,000 for additional unforeseen owner costs.

    Mr. Purcell questioned why additional site work would have to be done if the design of the school is changed.  Mr. Linhares said site utilities follow the contour of the building so if the design is changed, the pad and some existing utilities will have to be modified in order to accommodate a new design.  

    Mr. Linhares said a revised summary of the estimated construction/soft costs are included in the handout based on averages and what is known about the project.  Mr. Linhares said he used an average of $158 per square foot for the building costs, which is totaled at $13,430,000.  Mr. Linhares said he included a contingency allowance of $970,000, which is an additional $11.41 per square foot.  Mr. Linhares said $1,850,000 is the estimated cost for the completion of the site work and he added in $418,500 for construction contingency.  Mr. Linhares stated the actual building costs, including site work and contingency is $16,668,500.

    Mr. Linhares said soft costs are also included in the total project cost.  Mr. Linhares said $700,000 is figured for architectural/engineering design fees, which is for “off-the-shelf” plans with modifications that will be needed.  Mr. Linhares said $135,000 has been figured for architectural administration fees throughout the duration of the project.  Mr. Linhares said $100,000 has been added for owner testing/inspections for a balance of any third party inspections that may be necessary.  Mr. Linhares said $540,000 has been included for furniture and furnishings minus kitchen equipment, $360,000 has been included for computer/IT budget and $500,000 has been included for owner contingency, which brings the soft costs total to $2,335,000.  Mr. Linhares stated the total project cost, which is not inclusive of any cost paid to date, is $19,003,500.

    Mr. Linhares said when you bid to a general contractor, they include a general conditions line item.  Mr. Linhares stated included in the general conditions line item is a project superintendent, project manager, project administrator, temporary facilities, small tools and supplies, site trailer/office, temporary roads, weather protection, temporary scaffolding and shoring, hoisting provisions, temporary utilities to include electric, water and heat, temporary toilets, dumpsters/trash removal, daily clean-up, final cleaning, protection and safety, site fencing, traffic control, protection of existing structures, first aid, office equipment and supplies, site telephone/copier and fax, progress photographs, surveys, general liability insurance, workers compensation, builders risk insurance, automobile insurance, payment and performance bonds, project engineering, purchasing, scheduling, accounting, clerical, estimating services, general labor, submittals, close-out, miscellaneous deliveries, and warranty work.  Mr. Linhares added these are typically included in general contractors, if that route is taken.  

    Mr. Linhares stated he has also included a handout of Parkview Elementary School in Portsmouth.  Mr. Linhares said he thought this was a good example to show the Board what can be done and the prices that can be obtained with a little work.  Mr. Linhares stated this school is 80,000 square feet, which is a little less than what Louisa County is proposing, but it has a 700-student capacity with 35 classrooms, 20 students in each class.  Mr. Linhares said the SOL number of students would be greater than 700.  Mr. Linhares added this school includes Pre-K through sixth grade.  

    Mr. Linhares said the exterior building features include brick, insulated glass in aluminum curtain-wall and storefront, precast stone panels (accent), insulated windows, and a standing seam metal roof.  Mr. Linhares said the interior building features include 35 classrooms, an art room, a science room, a music room, a media room, a gymnasium (multi-purpose with a stage), a cafeteria, a servery area, a kitchen, an administration area, and support spaces.  Mr. Linhares indicated that the building only cost $10,526,652, which is $131.58 per square foot.  Mr. Linhares added that the award date to the general contractor was January 2007.  

    Mr. Linhares said he compared the educational/building requirements between Louisa Elementary and Parkview Elementary and the educational/building requirements are essentially the same with the exception of Louisa requiring two additional classrooms.  Mr. Linhares noted that the square footage of this building is a little less than what Louisa is proposing, but it still meets the requirements of 700-seated students.  Mr. Linhares said a layout of the design and floor plan is also included in the handout for the Boards review.  

    Mr. Linhares said he wanted to show the Board this elementary school because with a little work, we can get down to the numbers that we want.  Mr. Linhares stated the average hasnt changed much since his last presentation, it has only gone up a little and it will continue to go up the longer this project is put off.  Mr. Linhares said he feels that a decision needs to be made and we need to move forward with the project.  

    Mr. Gentry said one of his concerns all along has been the square footage.  Mr. Gentry stated Loudoun County has a square footage of 79,468 and Parkview has a square footage of about 80,000.  Mr. Gentry said if Louisa could cut off about 6,000 square foot, it would save almost $1 million based on square footage costs.  Mr. Gentry questioned how one school can have 79,000 square feet and another have 85,000 square feet and they both accommodate 700 students.  Mr. Linhares said some schools might have more storage area.  Mr. Linhares said Louisa wants a guidance testing area and a guidance conference room.  Mr. Linhares said the square footage is based upon keeping what the School Board wants in the school.  Mr. Gentry questioned if the County is getting any credit for over $2 million that has already been spent on the site work.  Mr. Linhares said the original site work contract was $3.4 million and, in his presentation, he included $1.85 million for additional site work.  Mr. Linhares added he didnt include any cost that have already been expended.  

    Mr. Barnes said he is concerned about if the Board was to appropriate the amount of money that Mr. Linhares has estimated, would that include the amount to settle the contract between the architect and general contractor.  Mr. Barnes said the longer the Board waits to make a decision, the more the costs will increase.  Mr. Barnes said the only thing that would prevent him from supporting this now is the unknown of what the contract matters are that the School Board has lingering.  Mr. Linhares said his estimation is strictly based on what he sees the school being built at now, it doesnt include any cost for settling the contract between the architect and general contractor.

    Mr. Wright questioned how Mr. Linhares came up with 85,000 square feet.  Mr. Linhares said that square footage came from the committee meeting and the school was originally planned to be an 85,000 square foot school.  Mr. Linhares added that he knows 700 students in the seat and the SOL requirements can be met with an 85,000 square foot school.  Mr. Wright reminded the Board that they dont have the prerogative to set the square footage of the building.  Mr. Linhares said based on the Virginia Department of Education and the SOL requirements, student to teacher ratios are as follows:  Pre-K 16:1, Kindergarten to Third Grade 24:1 and Fourth to Fifth Grade 25:1.  Mr. Linhares said the intention and where the variances occur is for Louisa to be at a student to teacher ratio of 20:1 to get the classroom size down to provide for a better learning environment.  

    Mr. Barnes questioned what the latest could be for the Board to authorize expenditures to meet a Fall 09 opening for the School.  Mr. Linhares said construction would have to be started by January 08.

    Mr. Purcell said he likes the elementary schools used in the comparison because there is a good cross section to compare.  Mr. Purcell said Mr. Linhares still came up with what he considers a very reasonable building cost, square footage and cost per square footage.  Mr. Purcell said he thinks it is in the Boards best interest to proceed forward as quickly as possible.  Mr. Purcell said he thinks the monetary figure that the Board decides on needs to be a “cost not to exceed” because Mr. Linhares has already included contingencys for costs overruns.


    Mr. Harper said he would like to know the total amount to settle the contract between the architect and general contractor before another figure is decided upon.  

    Mr. Gentry agreed with Mr. Harper and stated there is still an unknown figure that the Board needs to know before deciding on an amount to appropriate.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks the square footage of the school could be reduced somewhat.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks it would be easy to decide on an amount for the School when the School Board gives the figure of the damage that has already been done.    

    Mr. Barnes said he thinks it would be very prudent of the Board to be ready to move forward by next month if the total payoff is received to settle the contract between the architect and general contractor.  Mr. Barnes said he supports an 85,000 square footage school because he thinks that a student to teacher ratio of 20:1 for an elementary school is ideal.  Mr. Barnes said he hopes the School Board can get the information of the payoff figures to the Board because they want to move forward.  

    Mr. Barnes said Mr. Linhares has specified that the way he has outlined the estimation cost is based on a project manager versus a general contractor and he wants the Schools and the public to understand that.  

    Mr. Wright questioned if it was consensus of the Board for Mr. Lintecum to get the unknown figures from the School Board to provide to the Board of Supervisors and, if provided, for the Board to make a decision for student capacity and funding for the new elementary school at the July 2 meeting.  The Board agreed.  

    NEW BUSINESS

    Update - Regional Foster Care Home

    Mr. Paul Oswell, Director of Social Services, stated he hired an emergency Principal Social Worker, who has over 30 years experience with Community Attention out of Charlottesville.  Mr. Oswell said he is going to be working on developing the Bunting property as a regional specialized foster home.  Mr. Oswell said Louisa has commitments from five other counties, Buckingham, Cumberland, Fluvanna, Goochland and Powhatan, to support this and they are contributing $2,000 each to pay for this position.  

    Mr. Wright asked Mr. Oswell to explain the difference of what the property was going to be initially used for and what it is going to be used for now.  Mr. Oswell stated he had originally talked about the possibility of using the property as a group home and now they are looking at a specialized foster home, due to substantial licensing requirements and the States feelings about group homes versus specialized foster homes.  Mr. Oswell said there is a greater motivation where someone would be living there and they would take in kids and provide more family like residents as opposed to more of an institutional group home.  

    Mr. Oswell said Louisa Department of Social Services could fill this home themselves, but they took it on as a regional project and want to keep it that way.  Mr. Oswell said a template will be produced so the other five counties will have the “tool kit” to do these homes in their own counties and would share all of the homes as they see fit.  Mr. Wright said that would give more flexibility than what we already have.  

    Mr. Gentry thanked Mr. Oswell for going forward with this project.

    Discussion - Workforce Realignment

    Mr. Wright stated Louisa County is in the region with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (TJPD), which consists of ten counties and the City of Charlottesville.  Mr. Wright said he is Chairman for the Workforce Council, which oversees the Workforce Board.  Mr. Wright indicated that the State is in the process of making changes in the workforce alignment of the areas.  Mr. Wright said unfortunately, the Governor is looking at realignment on the following two basis:  one, to follow the way the community college alignment are structured, whereas, the State structure shows Louisa County with J. Sargeant Reynolds; and two to follow the Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which includes Louisa with Richmond, Chesterfield, Henrico and Hanover.  

    Mr. Wright said Louisa County has nothing in common with the Richmond area and that the County functions with Charlottesville so it doesnt make any sense to change alignments.    

    Mr. Gentry said he is concerned because he has heard Board members talk about how Louisa County should not be with the TJPD and now we are talking about moving even more in that direction.  Mr. Gentry stated he is also concerned that with Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), Louisa is in the region that includes Culpeper, Spotsylvania, Stafford, Fauquier and Northern Virginia.  Mr. Gentry said he has already asked that Louisa be looked toward going to a situation with Fluvanna and Goochland when it comes time for the regions to be reviewed again.
     

    Mr. Wright stated he would like to have consensus of the Board for Mr. Lintecum to send a letter to the Governor and Daniel LeBlanc, Senior Advisor for Workforce, with copies to the House of Delegates and the State Senator, pleading the case for Louisa County to be left with the Charlottesville group.  Mr. Wright added it is much to the Countys advantage to stay where we are.

    Mr. Gentry questioned what counties are included in the workforce region with Louisa County.  Mr. Wright said Fauquier, Culpeper, Madison, Greene, Albemarle, Orange, Fluvanna, Nelson, Louisa, Rappahannock and the City of Charlottesville.  Mr. Gentry said his concern is that there are so many regions that overlap, but he agrees that Louisa needs to stay where we are in the workforce region.

    Mr. Purcell said he supports Mr. Wrights suggestion.  Mr. Havasy stated he agrees with what Mr. Wright has proposed.  Mr. Wright questioned if Mr. Lintecum would draft a letter.  Mr. Lintecum said he would draft a letter and send it to all Board members.  

    Discussion - Right-of-Way on CCC Road (Route 789)

    Mr. Harper stated he received a letter from Mr. Shifflett stating that he doesnt intend to close the road, that he is only requesting the right-of-way that the County holds be returned to him to transfer ownership.  Mr. Harper said if it is the Boards concurrence, Mr. Lintecum could set up public hearing for this issue in August, if necessary.  Mr. Harper said this issue is still being worked on and public hearing may not be needed.    

    Mr. Lintecum questioned Mr. Morgan the requirement for public notice on abandoning a piece of property.  Mr. Morgan said the notice would have be advertised at least 30 days in advance of a public hearing, if a public hearing is requested by the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Lintecum said Mr. Harper would have to advise him this week whether to set a public hearing.  


    Discussion - Affordable Housing

    Mr. Barnes stated he wanted to clarify that when the Board approved seven lots by right, he thought the Board sent it to the Planning Commission for density bonuses with a possibility of up to three lots, if the lots were going to be used for affordable homes.  Mr. Barnes said he hasnt heard anything about that and he wanted to make sure that Mr. Coffey understood the Boards direction.  Mr. Barnes said what brought that up was that other counties were starting to allow for density bonuses for affordable housing.  Mr. Barnes added the County cannot have local workforce jobs if people dont have a place to live.  Mr. Barnes stated hookup fees affect developers ability to provide workforce so some localities are giving breaks on proffers for age-restricted communities and affordable housing.   Mr. Barnes indicated that affordable homes are needed and he thinks Louisa needs to start looking at the hookup fees and how they break down to allow for affordable homes.  

    Mr. Wright said the true affordable home seems to be Habitat for Humanity and they have commented that the biggest problem with building homes is the lack of land to build on.  Mr. Wright added lots are so expensive that they cannot afford to build a house on the land for the price of Habitat for Humanity.  Mr. Wright said he previously mentioned to planning that some bonuses should be available for contribution of land to the Habitat for Humanity.

    Mr. Gentry said he thinks the Board has already said they would support the density bonuses of the additional three lots for affordable housing.  Mr. Gentry said it is about time to stop talking about it and do it.  Mr. Wright said he thinks the Affordable Housing Committee should be involved and have an opportunity to look at it.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks this issue is beyond a committee.

    Mr. Purcell questioned what happens when this is received back to the Board from Community Development and there is an open space requirement on it.  Mr. Purcell indicated he would like staff to be instructed for it to come back very simply.  Mr. Barnes said an additional three lots could be received on the seven by right lots for affordable housing under the same conditions so an open space requirement to add to that wouldnt be allotted to those seven by right lots.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks the only reason this is going to Community Development is to get it prepared for the Planning Commission to take direction on.  

            On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Harper voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board voted to proceed with the process of adding three density bonus lots on the seven by right lots for affordable housing.

    Discussion - JAUNT stockholder meeting and appointment of proxies

    Mr. Wright said JAUNT will hold its annual stockholders meeting to formally approve appointment of Board members and they need the Board to appoint a proxy to vote its shares at this meeting.  Mr. Wright added the County Administrator is normally appointed as the proxy.    

            On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to appoint Mr. Lintecum as the proxy to vote its shares at the JAUNT stockholder meeting.  

    Discussion - Fees/Charges for false alarm calls

    Mr. Morgan stated he was asked to look into the issue of creating an ordinance to establish fees for false alarms.  Mr. Morgan said the problem is that when the alarms go off, they take the deputys time and the services of the volunteer fire fighter and rescue personnel.  Mr. Morgan stated he has looked at what surrounding counties are doing in respect to charges.  Mr. Morgan said he broke the ordinance into two different sections; one dealing with false fire alarms and the other dealing with false burglar alarms.  Mr. Morgan said within a 180-day period, there would be no service fee for the first and second false alarm, a $100 fee for the third false alarm, a $250 fee for the fourth false alarm and a $500 for the fifth and subsequent false alarm.  Mr. Morgan stated he doesnt think it would be happening often and he doesnt think it would be a problem for many businesses to conform.  Mr. Morgan said a drafted ordinance is included in the Board packet.  

    Mr. Morgan stated there was a typo in the draft ordinance in Section 61-17 that should read “Section 61-18 and Section 61-19” instead of “Section 61-17 and Section 61-19.”  Mr. Morgan also pointed out in Section 61-18, “The fire marshal” should be “The Director of Emergency Services.”  Mr. Morgan stated anyone that installs or sells these alarms in violation of Sections 61-12, 61-13 or 61-14 shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor, which is a minor fine and no jail time.
     

    Mr. Morgan said the second part of the ordinance deals with false burglar alarms and is essentially like the first section.  Mr. Morgan said the fee schedule is a little different where there would be no service fee for the first and second false alarm, a $50 fee for the third false alarm, a $100 fee for the fourth false alarm and a $200 for the fifth and subsequent false alarm.  Mr. Morgan said he has put this in Section II and Section III of a Code chapter, which doesnt exist in the County Code at the moment.  Mr. Morgan said Section I is currently being reviewed in the County Administrators Office, which deals with recovery of ambulance transportation fees.  

    Mr. Purcell said he likes the concept of this because he has seen the abuses that can happen and he has spoken with citizens about this and they seem to want to have a policy in line with some surrounding counties.  Mr. Purcell said inevitably, there will be someone in disagreement about whether the call is false or not and questioned the grievance or appeal process for the individual.  Mr. Morgan said he has established a provision where the Board of Supervisors would be able to look at the situation and suggest if it is a case where we wouldnt charge fees or the Board may want to delegate that to the Coordinator of Emergency Services.  Mr. Purcell questioned if people would be notified each time that they have made a false alarm.  Mr. Morgan stated people would be notified by a letter.

    Mr. Barnes stated he thinks there should be an exemption for the School Systems because they probably have more false alarms than anyone.  Mr. Barnes said this ordinance seems to be in place for repeated offenders and questioned Major Lowe if the Sheriffs Department sees the same people calling in.  Major Lowe said he thinks it is very important that there is a strict definition between a false alarm and a nuisance alarm and inappropriate or misuse of an alarm.  Major Lowe said all of that should be addressed and looked at prior to a fineable offense.  Major Lowe stated there are repeat offenders that misuse the alarms, but once people start being fined, it usually stops.  
    Mr. Havasy questioned if deputies and fire and rescue personnel are being sent out to respond to these calls with blue lights and sirens.  Major Lowe said it depends on the call, but there are occasions when the calls come in as a duress alarm and when the deputies call the house there is no answer, which would require an emergency response.  Mr. Havasy said some false alarms put deputies at risk.  Major Lowe said deputies and the general public are put at risk.  Mr. Harper added deputies are being put at risk, as well as $500,000 equipment being put on the roads when false fire alarms go off and people will not fix them.  

    Mr. Wright said Mr. Morgan stated in Section 61-18 “The fire marshal” should be “The Director of Emergency Services,” but he thinks “Director” should be “Coordinator” instead.  Mr. Morgan agreed the sentence would read “The Coordinator of Emergency Services.”

    Mr. Gentry said he thinks the false fire alarms and the false burglar alarms should have the same fee schedule.  

    Mr. Morgan stated he would update the draft and bring it back to the next Board meeting with the changes that have been recommended and, if there arent any more changes, the Board could schedule public hearing for the ordinance.

    On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for Mr. Morgan to draft an update of the false fire alarm and false burglar alarm ordinance to reflect the following changes:

    1. In Section 61-18 “The fire marshal” will read “The Coordinator of Emergency Services.”
    2. False fire alarms and false burglar alarms will have the same fee schedule.
    3. The School System will be exempt from the ordinance.

    DISCUSSION - PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUES

    Discussion - Process to amend the Comprehensive Plan

    Mr. Coffey said the Board requested that staff work with the Planning Commission to examine what criteria might warrant the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Coffey said the idea is not to review the Comprehensive Plan every year in depth; it is just simply to allow for a process to amend it as amendments come in throughout the year.  Mr. Coffey said the Board could amend the Plan with a rezoning application if that is built into the process, but that is a more liberal policy than what is set out.  Mr. Coffey said it is up to the comfort level of the Board on how often to allow for people to apply to amend the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Coffey said typically, there are two amendments; a future land use amendment and a text amendment.  Mr. Coffey said the process that he has set out would allow for either type of amendment once a year.  Mr. Coffey added the Board reserves the right to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment at any time and if the Board feels it would be more appropriate to allow for applicants to apply for amendments in conjunction with a rezoning application, which could be done.

    Mr. Barnes said the concerns he has with an annual review and the application process that would take place in November is that landowners should have flexibility.  Mr. Barnes added if that guideline is followed, it does hinder somewhat.  Mr. Barnes said he thinks an annual amendment process is unfair to a private landowner.

    Mr. Purcell said the first page of Mr. Coffeys memorandum states that the request must be a creative idea or concept that will benefit the community and he thinks that seems subjective.  Mr. Purcell said the third page of Mr. Coffeys memorandum states that it is the applicants role to support their request and cite and prove the claimed criteria and staff is present to provide an objective analysis based on the existing Comprehensive Plan and questioned if staff will be providing an objective analysis based on the existing Comprehensive Plan or will they be subjective in listening to what request or what interest group is a good thing for Louisa County.  Mr. Coffey said it is up to the applicant to advocate the amendment and it is up to the Planning Commission and the Board to decide whether it is a valid argument.  

    Mr. Coffey said this process is not intended to limit the Board initiating amendments once a year; it is a process that will be primarily for the public and the development community, as well, to avail themselves of it once a year in a routine manner.  Mr. Coffey said this is also a vehicle for staff to update statistics, etc. and a mechanism for the Planning Commission, citizens, developers and the communities that he has seen it work in.  Mr. Coffey said it is up to the applicant to prove that this is a creative idea or concept that would benefit the community.  Mr. Purcell questioned if the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments have a chance to be shot down before the Board receives them.  Mr. Coffey said staff has no role other than to process the request, but the Planning Commission and the Board would make the decision.  Mr. Coffey said this is a way to keep the Comprehensive Plan relevant and up to date and to allow for some flexibility.

    Mr. Havasy said he came on the Planning Commission when they were going through the five-year plan and a lot of public was involved.  Mr. Havasy said he knows there is some disagreement with the Plan but he realizes it is a guide for the County.  Mr. Havasy said the Comprehensive Plan is the publics document and a way for the public to keep the County as they want it.  Mr. Havasy questioned the reaction from the public with the other counties that are doing this.  Mr. Coffey said the community that he has the most direct experience with avails themselves of the opportunity in a public meeting.  Mr. Coffey added that this is a very inclusive process and it makes the document a more publicly relevant document.  

    Mr. Wright said the Board can initiate amending the Comprehensive Plan at any time and questioned why citizens can only submit requests once per year when if the citizens bring it to a Supervisor, then the Supervisor will bring it to the Board.  Mr. Coffey said essentially, that is the system that the County currently has in place.  Mr. Wright said he isnt aware of any problems.  Mr. Coffey said in May, the Board asked staff to work with the Planning Commission to come up with criteria to amend the Comprehensive Plan.  

    Mr. Gentry said he doesnt think the public even knows about the five-year cycle unless it is advertised.  Mr. Gentry said he likes the idea of having a process for some criteria, but the general public is probably not aware that they can come in at any time to make a request.  Mr. Gentry added he doesnt like the idea of emphasizing acceptance of applications in November of each year.    

    Mr. Purcell said he has a philosophical belief that amending the Comprehensive Plan should be a big deal.  Mr. Purcell said he thinks it makes the Plan more important when it is only amended every five years.    

    Mr. Havasy agreed with Mr. Purcell and said developers and realtors are the two biggest groups that comment on the changing of the Comprehensive Plan.  Mr. Havasy indicated that they want a document that will be consistent a long period of time so they can deal with the public.  Mr. Havasy said the Comprehensive Plan is a very important document and he thinks it would be very poor of the Board to change it every year.

    Mr. Gentry said he hopes none of the Board members have the intention of changing the overall Comprehensive Plan every year because he doesnt think that should happen.  

    Mr. Harper said in Virginia, a Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a guide for future development and it is not an absolutely fixed plan; it can be changed or amended whenever necessary, but by State Law every five year.  Mr. Harper stated a Comprehensive Plan is intended to reflect the attitudes of the people for whom it is prepared, attitudes that change, as well as those that remain the same.  Mr. Harper said attitudes dont just exist among one group of people; it is the community and in some ways, a community is defined by its people.  Mr. Harper said it is a complicated process and he thinks if the right thing comes along at the right time, then the Board will do the right thing.

    Mr. Havasy said to be careful when the door is opened because once the word gets out there, this could be a never-ending battle.    

            On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to delay action on formalizing the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan until further discussion.

    Discussion - Industrial (I-3) Zoning District

    Mr. Coffey said the Board received a letter from the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) wanting an Industrial (I-3) Zoning District.  Mr. Coffey said Community Development Staff is in the process of meeting with people to talk about reclassifying the Industrial Zoning District and staff is looking for the Boards direction on the third classification for the district.  Mr. Coffey stated the next step, if there is one, with the Industrial rezoning classification is for the Board to formally initiate the rezoning action.  Mr. Coffey said he submitted a memorandum in the Board packet of information on I-3 districts that already exist.  

    Mr. Purcell said Industrial classification used to be done because it included several classifications under it because not everyone who was zoned Industrial wanted to put a factory on the land.  Mr. Purcell said he would not support the County going back and rezoning peoples property that is already zoned as Industrial.

    Mr. Purcell questioned why there was a desire to divide the Industrial district up at all.  Mr. Coffey said when the process first started, he sent a memorandum stating that the Planning Commission looked at this as part of uses and definitions that were being done a year ago and they decided to split off from that process.  Mr. Coffey said the current Industrial district requires a CUP if there is any adverse impact, however, any commercial is allowed to go in it.  
    Mr. Coffey said the statement of the intent of the Industrial district says heavy commercial and industrial only.  Mr. Coffey said in his opinion, the district is disfunctional and outdated.  Mr. Coffey said the people staff has met with, who are industries, dont like it because they are intentionally surrounded by people who are traffic generators and they dont want to be surrounded by commercial.  Mr. Coffey said the idea for this is to have a light industrial district and a medium or heavy industrial district.  

    Mr. Purcell questioned what Mr. Coffeys opinion is on the precedent of the Board going back and rezoning peoples property to new zoning classifications.  Mr. Coffey said elected bodies do it all the time.  Mr. Purcell questioned how the zoning is ever valid.  Mr. Purcell said people have to be able to rely that the zoning they got five years ago is not going to be changed.  

    Mr. Gentry said he understood that changes to the Industrial district are only if the property owner requests it, but the County doesnt require it.  Mr. Coffey said the Board has been very clear that they wouldnt be interested in rezoning a property to a designation that the owner isnt interested in.  Mr. Coffey said there have only been two or three situations where what the owners want is in conflict of what County staff has recommended.  


    Mr. Harper said he thinks I-3 is provided for through the CUP process and he thinks it is important that heavy industry is continued with that.  Mr. Harper said Mr. Coffeys memorandum states that if an I-3 district is created, it is recommended to be located at the Industrial Rail Park, which is the heart of the County.  Mr. Harper said he thinks the CUP process has to be in place so it can be decided if the heavy industry will be too much of an impact.  Mr. Harper added he thinks it is important to break the district down to get away from one class of Industrial.

    Mr. Havasy questioned how many parcels were classified as the I-2 designation.  Mr. Coffey said there was only a handful for I-2 and majority are for I-3.  Mr. Havasy questioned if the purpose of I-3 is to make the County more saleable to development in the future and if there is really a need for I-3 because everything else can be covered with a CUP.  Mr. Coffey said it is a valued judgment and that is why he wanted to discuss it with the Board.

    Mr. Gentry said he doesnt see a necessity for I-3 because there is a need for CUPs and he thinks they can be done under I-1 or I-2 without going to I-3.  Mr. Purcell said he doesnt think the district needs to be separated into any classifications.    

    Mr. Wright said the County should not dictate to a person of what their property should be zoned; it should be rezoned only with the permission and support of the property owner.  Mr. Wright said he prefers the CUP so that certain conditions can be applied on the piece of property or the operation.

    Mr. Purcell said he thinks there are several issues that are specific to I-3 and other zoning classifications, but it is obvious that more discussion is needed.  

    On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to delay action on the Industrial Zoning District until further discussion.

    Discussion - Transitional Residential (TR) open space requirement

    Mr. Coffey stated the memorandum included in the Board packet is to provide information to the Board about the open space requirement in the Transitional Residential (TR) district.

    Mr. Barnes questioned how Mr. Coffey came up with 75 percent of open space.  Mr. Coffey said staff came up with 75 percent through research from adjacent counties and observing what they do.  Mr. Coffey said adjacent jurisdictions have complicated ordinances and staffs intent was to make Transitional Residential a very flexible and simplistic ordinance that a developer could take advantage of at several levels.  Mr. Coffey said if someone rezones to a TR District, they get ten lots per parent parcel.  Mr. Coffey said if someone wanted to set aside open space, they could get a 30 percent density bonus for 50 percent open space.  Mr. Coffey added that 50 percent is a common trigger.  Mr. Coffey said the idea was if someone wanted to get a little more density and they have the right property with the right soils and the right size, they could set aside 75 percent of open space for a 50 percent density bonus.  Mr. Coffey said the TR District is intended to be a tool that the developer can use when they are speculating for land.  Mr. Coffey added the idea of TR was to try to keep the district simple and flexible.  

    Mr. Purcell said Mr. Coffeys memorandum states that the recent R-1 rezoning that referenced the TR district and the 75 percent open space criteria was too stringent and that the proposed project had too little acreage for a 75 percent open space dedication.  Mr. Purcell questioned how much acreage was the project.  Mr. Wright stated it was 280 acres.  Mr. Purcell said he realizes that open space is an incentive to get more lots, but he thinks the Board should seriously consider doing away with that requirement entirely and going to affordable housing density bonuses.  Mr. Purcell said 75 percent becomes price prohibited for the number of lots someone would get.

    Mr. Gentry said Mr. Coffeys memorandum states that It will be difficult to tell if the current open space standards set forth in the TR Zoning District are too stringent until a few rezoning applications are formally considered by the County.  Mr. Gentry questioned if developers are seriously talking abut this and what direction they are thinking about going with this.  Mr. Coffey said he has had several preliminary meetings with applicants that are interested and three meetings with one applicant that is serious about doing it.    

    Mr. Harper questioned if there is a title requirement for open space and who would own the title.  Mr. Coffey said there is no requirement but, generally, a homeowners or property owners association.  Mr. Harper said he is concerned about who would hold the title to the open space and what future changes would take place.  Mr. Coffey said there are ordinances that require it to be held in common trust.  

    Mr. Purcell stated if an application were coming forward, he would like to see the final form of what it will look like because he is very pleased that someone is taking advantage of that.

    Mr. Wright stated he still doesnt have a clear definition of what is considered open space.  Mr. Wright questioned what can be done with the open space.  Mr. Coffey said there is a definition of open space, which he didnt have with him, but it does not included roads, however, open space can include a park because it is usable by the public.  Mr. Coffey indicated that permanent open space can come in a variety of forms, such as wetlands, wooded forest, farms, active or passive recreational land and buffers.

    Mr. Gentry said he thinks TR is a great option for people, but he doesnt know if it is anything people will use.  Mr. Gentry added he thinks more experience is needed with this district.  Mr. Purcell said he thinks the Board needs to have discussion on this because these were originally invented because by rights were reduced and the Board wanted to give people other options.  

    On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to delay action on modifying the Transitional Residential (TR) Zone until rezoning applications have been received by Community Development, reviewed by the Planning Commission and come before the Board of Supervisors.

    Discussion - The States new Cluster development requirement

    Mr. Coffey stated planning staff is aware of State mandate and they are trying to come up with the least innocuous way that they can conform to it and not change what the County already has.  Mr. Coffey said staff would like time to talk with Board members individually and it would be appropriate if the Board wanted to have a work session on this issue.  Mr. Coffey added that there is an open space requirement, which is a requirement by right, but there isnt a requirement for density, the total number of units or the lot size.  

    Mr. Purcell questioned if the new law basically says that 40 percent of the unimproved land in a jurisdiction has to be cluster development or if the cluster development option has to be made available.  Mr. Morgan said the cluster development option has to be made available.  

    Mr. Gentry said he doesnt understand why the State is getting involved with laws that affect the growth of the County.  Mr. Gentry said Mr. Coffeys memorandum states that this requirement will not require major changes to the zoning ordinance and questioned how can something that is going to affect 40 percent of unimproved land not have a major change in the ordinance.  Mr. Coffey said staff may tinker with some existing zoning districts to set them up to meet the intent of the State code and it isnt going to be minor, but they are trying not to make a federal case out of it.  Mr. Gentry said Mr. Coffeys memorandum also states that these subdivisions must be allowed to occur by-right on at least 40 percent of the unimproved land in a jurisdiction and questioned the definition of unimproved land in a jurisdiction.  Mr. Coffey stated it is land available to be subdivided.  Mr. Gentry questioned how could the County allow 40 percent of unimproved land to be subdivided and still have any control of the growth of the County.  Mr. Coffey said State regulations do not mandate a number of dwelling units, minimum lot acreage or the size of a subdivision or housing units.

    Mr. Gentry questioned what would happen if this were ignored.  Mr. Morgan said the Right to Farm Act decided that Conditional Use Permits (CUP) couldnt be required for heavy agricultural uses.  Mr. Morgan indicated that the State has decided they want to preserve open space and provide for cluster housing.      

    Mr. Purcell said he understands the intent of the State and questioned if the County has a rule that says seven lots by right in Agricultural (A-2), who would take advantage of giving more land in open space.  Mr. Coffey said that is why some tweaking has to be done to try to make a choice.  Mr. Purcell questioned if this ruling from the State is going to have to affect the by rights in A-2.  Mr. Coffey said he doesnt know the answer to that, but it is his intent to use A-2 as the mechanism to achieve it.

    Mr. Barnes stated he would like Mr. Lintecum to draft a letter to send to Senator Houck, Delegate Janis and the Governors Office expressing the Boards concerns about this.  Mr. Havasy added he would like all Board members to receive a copy.      

    On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for staff to continue working on the States new Cluster Development requirement and for Mr. Lintecum to draft a letter expressing the Boards concerns on this issue.

    Discussion - Building Permit deposit for residential and commercial development

    Mr. Coffey said the Community Development Department is going to be experiencing continued growth and residential and commercial building permits.  Mr. Coffey said the Department currently has over 100 permits that have been processed that are sitting in the office waiting to be picked up.  Mr. Coffey said the Department is asking permission to collect 25 percent of the building permit fee up front as a non-refundable fee.  Mr. Coffey added this would not be a new fee; it is a portion of what the total amount of the permit fee is.  Mr. Coffey said it takes staff time and effort to process the building permits and people dont have any intention of coming back and picking them up.  Mr. Coffey said he thinks people would think harder about the application if they had to pay 25 percent of the fee up front.  

    Mr. Wright questioned the average amount of 25 percent of a residential building permit fee.  Mr. Coffey said a couple hundred dollars.  

    Mr. Purcell questioned if building permits can be denied.  Mr. Coffey said the only way a building permit wouldnt be issued would be due to some inactivity on the applicants part. Mr. Purcell questioned why, in Louisa County, someone cannot dig a well on a piece of property until a building permit is issued.  Mr. Coffey said the Virginia Department of Health requires a copy of the building permit application before they issue a health permit.

    Mr. Barnes questioned if it would it be easier to say if someone doesnt pick their plan up within 30 days then it will be disregarded.  Mr. Coffey said he doesnt think under law that can be done, but he would have to check the Code.
    Mr. Gentry said he thinks there should be some deterrent to stop some of this so he is very supportive of Mr. Coffeys proposal.  

    Mr. Purcell stated he doesnt believe that people would apply for a building permit and not pick it up because every builder he talks to complains about not getting the permits on time and questioned Mr. Coffey who applies for the permits without picking them up.  Mr. Coffey said some are people who camp at the lake and some are people who have financial reasons where the deal falls through.  Mr. Coffey said from an administrative standpoint, he needs to try and deal with it so the Department can stay as efficient as they can.  

    Mr. Barnes said he hopes the Board would give the public an ample warning of when the policy would go into effect.  Mr. Lintecum suggested September 1, 2007, which is the same time the other Community Development fees would be implemented.  

    Mr. Havasy questioned how long it takes staff to issue a building permit.  Mr. Coffey said it varies because commercial applications take longer than residential applications and larger residential applications take longer than standard residential applications.  

    Mr. Harper questioned if Mr. Coffey would ask the Health Department if the requirement of having a building permit before a health permit is issued is unique to Louisa County and why.  Mr. Coffey said yes.  


    On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, with Mr. Purcell voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board voted to require a building permit deposit of 25 percent for residential and commercial development and to start implementing the fees on September 1, 2007.  

    BOARD APPOINTMENTS

    Mr. Barnes stated he would like to appoint Faye Rosenthal to the Library Board of Trustees.  Mr. Gentry stated he would like to appoint Mary Kranz to the Board of Building Appeals.  Mr. Havasy stated he would like the Board to be aware that there is a vacancy for the JAUNT Board of Directors.  

            On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Harper, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Rosenthal to the Library Board of Trustees and Ms. Kranz to the Board of Building Appeals.

    COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

    Mr. Lintecum said the Board considered three positions in the Community Development Department, which are Building Inspector, Planner and Code Enforcement.  Mr. Lintecum said the position with the most critical need is another Building Inspector based upon what is coming in commercial development.  Mr. Lintecum recommended that the Board approve the Building Inspector immediately, advertise and fill the position with a qualified person as soon as possible.  Mr. Lintecum said as he examines the other two positions, he believes that both will be needed in the relative near future, as Louisa County continues to be one of the fastest growing communities.  Mr. Lintecum recommended keeping the positions in the budget, but not fill them at this time.

    Mr. Gentry said that he disagrees with Mr. Lintecum on this issue.  Mr. Gentry said he thought that when the positions were talked about throughout the budget process, that the positions were needed yesterday.  Mr. Gentry stated that the positions will require training and he thinks the Board should pursue in filling all three positions immediately.  Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Lintecum is in charge of personnel of the County and he would not support anything other than his recommendation.  Mr. Barnes said he thought that when the positions came up in the budget, the Board left it up to the County Administrator to justify the positions because some Board members had concerns with the additional positions because housing was slowing down.  Mr. Gentry said the housing market is slowing down and that would be a reason that the permit inspector be the least position to push.  Mr. Gentry said code enforcement is continuing to be an issue and a lot of time is spent with planning.  Mr. Gentry added he has had people complain that when they come to the Planning Department no one is available to discuss planning issues.    
    Mr. Havasy said he agrees with Mr. Gentry that all of the positions are needed, but he also feels that Mr. Lintecum knows the repercussions that if there are any delays, it falls on him.  Mr. Havasy said he thinks that leaving the decision up to the County Administrator is fine because Mr. Lintecum knows that he has a responsibility to the County to get the process moving and keep it moving.  

    Mr. Gentry indicated that it will take time to hire and train the new positions and it will be several months before the positions are useful.  

    Mr. Purcell stated that he understands Mr. Gentrys point, but the Board constantly gets on the Schools about enrollment figures not be justifiable and prefer them to change their budget to account for that.  Mr. Purcell added that he has no problem following Mr. Lintecums recommendation.  

    Mr. Wright said he understands that commercial development is picking up and commercial inspections take a lot more time than residential inspections so he can see where a Building Inspector is needed.  

    Mr. Gentry motioned to fill the three positions as soon as possible.  With no one seconding the motion, the motion failed.

    Mr. Barnes said he would like the inspectors to have a pre-construction meeting with commercial developers to set out parameters of the inspections so that everyone is on the same page.  

    On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Gentry voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board voted to approve the Building Inspector immediately, advertise and fill the position with a qualified person as soon as possible and to keep the other two positions in the budget, but not fill them at this time.  

    Mr. Lintecum said he believes the new, approved Community Development fees should be implemented September 1, 2007.  Mr. Lintecum said this will give the Community Development Department two months to notify everyone of the increase.

    On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to implement the approved Community Development fees on September 1, 2007.  

    CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

    Resolution - A supplement to the County Administrators Department for employee recognition

            On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplement to the County Administrators Department for employee recognition.

    Resolution - Authorizing supplemental appropriation for vehicle sale

            On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0,
    the Board adopted a resolution authorizing supplemental appropriation for vehicle sale.

    Resolution - Authorizing supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department Marine Unit

            On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department Marine Unit.  

    Animal Control Report

            On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0,
    the Board authorized payment of $400 for two sheep that were killed by unidentified dogs.  

    CORRESPONDENCE

    Mr. Lintecum stated he thinks the Board has already seen the letter included in the Board Packet from Daniel LeBlanc, Senior Advisor for Workforce.  Mr. Gentry said he sees correspondence from Butch Davies concerning road improvements, but, in the future, he would like to see the whole package of correspondence, including the letters sent from Mr. Lintecum.    

    APPROVAL OF BILLS

            On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, with Mr. Gentry abstaining from bills pertaining to him, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of June 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $274,009.23.

    APPROVAL OF MINUTES

            On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell abstaining due to being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, the Board adopted the minutes of the June 4, 2007 meeting.

    CLOSED SESSION

    On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:16 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

    1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the Board.
    2.        
    In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel.

    REGULAR SESSION

    On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 9:35 p.m.

    RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

    WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 18th day of June 2007, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and

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

    NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
    on this 18th day of June 2007, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

    ADJOURNMENT

    On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the June 18, 2007 meeting at 9:35 p.m.



    BY ORDER OF

    ________________________________
    JACKSON T. WRIGHT, CHAIRMAN
    LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
    LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA