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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JULY 2, 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; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; 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 July 2, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Jennings led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Sheriff Fortune stated a letter is provided in the Sheriffs Handout from the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) stating they are going to sponsor the annual Police Officer Recognition Ceremony.  Sheriff Fortune said in the past, James River ASAP and the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) sponsored the ceremony., but the local chapter of MADD has disbanded; therefore, James River ASAP with support from the State Office of MADD will sponsor the event.  Mr. Wright questioned if Sheriff Fortune thought that drunk driving convictions would continue to increase with heavier penalties.  Sheriff Fortune stated that jails would be overcrowded because people wouldnt be able to afford to pay the fines.  

Mr. Barnes thanked the Sheriffs Office, Staff and Citizens for the professionalism and hard work in the successful search for two-year-old Matthew Hollis.  

STAFF INTRODUCTION

Mr. Lintecum introduced the new Parks and Recreation Director, Jane Shelhorse.  

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Wright stated the Board has received a notice from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for a permit renewal for the North Anna Power Station.  Mr. Wright said DEQ will be accepting public comment and if the Board agrees, Mr. Lintecum could send a letter supporting the renewal for the permit.  Mr. Wright added this is not a new permit; it is just a renewal of the current permit.  Mr. Barnes questioned if Mr. Lintecum or Mr. McLeod would be present at the public hearing to read the letter on behalf of the Board.  Mr. Wright said a Board member or Staff member would be present.  Mr. Harper questioned if the Board would be endorsing a renewal of the exact same permit.  Mr. Gentry stated the letter should state that the Board supports the permit renewal as proposed, with no changes.    

        
On motion of Mr. Barnes, Seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to send a letter to DEQ supporting the North Anna Power Station permit renewal as proposed based on no changes to the existing permit.  

Mr. Purcell stated he would like to add a brief discussion on water rates to Old Business.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to add a discussion of VPSA Bonds to Old Business.  Mr. Morgan stated he would like to add consultation with legal counsel to Closed Session.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to add a discussion of personnel reporting directly to the Board to Closed Session.  

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the July 2, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

VDOT Monthly Update
- Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator, provided an update of VDOT activities, which included the following:

Maintenance:

Construction: Land Use: Traffic Engineering:

Mr. Glass said included with the VDOT Update Report is copies of the revised citizen request input forms.  Mr. Barnes questioned if the forms were available online.  Mr. Glass stated he had electronic copies available that he would send to the Board.  

Mr. Wright questioned if the contract company that was cutting the grass was also going to be picking up trash.  Mr. Glass said typically they try to pick up trash before the grass is cut, but the mower crews have moved ahead of the litter crews, so the litter crews are coming behind the mower crews.  

OLD BUSINESS

Resolution - Approval of the IDAs authority of issuing up to $159,500,000 of its pollution control refunding revenue bonds - Virginia Electric and Power Company

Mr. Lintecum said the Board has already adopted this resolution, but it has to be redone.  Mr. Lintecum introduced Mr. Warren Greth with McGuire Woods to explain the situation.  Mr. Greth stated they are asking the Board to re-adopt the resolution because there wasnt a quorum present at the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) meeting from which the first resolution was adopted, so the meeting had to be rescheduled.  Mr. Greth indicated the IDA re-approved the issuing of the pollution control refunding revenue bonds after a quorum and a valid public hearing, which was held on June 19.  

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the Industrial Development Authority of the Town of Louisa to issue up to $159,500,000 of its Pollution Control Refunding Revenue Bonds to Virginia Electric and Power Company.

Discussion - Longevity House

Mr. Harper said the Longevity House is getting worse and he thinks the building needs to be fixed or torn down.  Mr. Gentry said Mr. Lintecum and himself have spoken with members of the Mineral Historical Society to see if they would have any use for the building.  Mr. Lintecum said he spoke with a member, Mr. Doug Whitlock, last week and he stated the Mineral Historical Society doesnt have the capacity to do anything with the building.  Mr. Wright questioned if it would be feasible to use the house as a fire training mechanism for the Fire Department.  Mr. Linhares said there are trees located around the house and he would not recommend using the property for fire training because it is a safety hazard.  

Mr. Gentry said he thinks the building should be demolished but he would like pictures taken of the house before it is destroyed and to have the property marked where the building is located.  Mr. Gentry added the Longevity House has significance because it was part of the original Harris Plantation.  Mr. Havasy questioned when the building was built.  Mr. Gentry said he understands it was built in the 1850s where it started as a one room house, but it has since then been remodeled several times.  Mr. Havasy said he thinks a 45-day clause should be put on the house before demolishing it to give anyone an opportunity to restore the building.  


        
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to proceed in demolishing the Longevity House, but to allow 45 days for someone to come forward with definite specifics for the property and to take pictures and mark the property to establish where the building sets for historical purposes.    

Discussion - Process to amend the Comprehensive Plan

Mr. Coffey stated he included a memorandum in the Board Packet for the Boards review of his recommendations for a formal Comprehensive Plan amendment process.  Mr. Barnes said the process Mr. Coffey has proposed allows for non-landowners to be in control over a certain factor and he would like to see more control from the landowners when it comes to requesting amendments.  

Mr. Gentry questioned if citizens could currently request a Comprehensive Plan amendment at any time.  Mr. Coffey said that is true, but it would have to come through the Board.  Mr. Gentry clarified that there is a process now.  Mr. Coffey indicated that there is not a defined process.
 

Mr. Havasy said Mr. Coffeys memorandum states that the requestor submits amendment information, an application, and a fee to the Community Development Department at any time.  Mr. Havasy said he would like the fee to be collected at the time of submittal because he doesnt want the amendments to come before the Board without the fee being paid.  Mr. Coffey said the intent is to say that an amendment can be applied for at anytime but a non-refundable fee would have to be paid at the time of submittal.  

Mr. Harper questioned if “requestor” was changed to “landowner” would that be a Louisa County landowner or a site-specific landowner.  Mr. Purcell said he doesnt think it is right for someone who doesnt own a piece of property to come before the Board to request a Comprehensive Plan amendment.  Mr. Purcell said if a landowner submits an amendment to their particular piece of property, then he thinks it should be changed to Louisa County landowner.  Mr. Purcell said the Board reserves the right to bring up any amendment of the Comprehensive Plan at any time and that would be the process for a non-landowner who wants an amendment on a piece of property that doesnt belong to them.  Mr. Purcell indicated that is the same process that is in place now.  

Mr. Purcell said Mr. Coffeys memorandum states that the Board reviews the amendment request and determines if the request meets the established criteria.  Mr. Purcell recommended changing the statement to the Board reviews the amendment request and determines if the request merits consideration.  Mr. Purcell said Mr. Coffeys memorandum also states if the amendment is determined to meet one or more of the established criteria and suggested changing the statement to if the amendment request is to be considered.

Mr. Gentry questioned if Mr. Coffey had any problems with Mr. Purcells proposed changes.  Mr. Coffey said he doesnt have any problems with anything that the Board decides to proceed with.    

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted for the Planning Commission to review the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan changing the wording of “requestor” to “landowner” and to add “on his or her property” after “information” and to give the Board a recommendation at the first meeting in September.  

Discussion - Set Public Hearing Updated ordinance on Fees/Charges for false alarm calls

Mr. Morgan stated he included an updated ordinance in the Board packet reflecting the changes the Board requested at the last meeting.  Mr. Wright stated the Board requested “the fire marshal” be changed to “Emergency Services Coordinator” in section 61-18.  Mr. Wright said “the fire marshal” was listed in that section twice and only one of them were changed.  Mr. Morgan said he would make that change.  

        
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to set public hearing for an ordinance on fees/charges for false alarm calls.  

Discussion - Water Rates

Mr. Purcell said he has received a multitude of calls this past week regarding the increased water rates for the Town and County.  Mr. Purcell indicated that he just received the information on the increasing water rates, but he doesnt think the Countys fees are increasing as much as the Towns.  Mr. Purcell said if the Board is trying to encourage affordable housing, workforce housing and housing that hooks into water and sewer lines, the increase in the water rates becomes a deterrent to that.  Mr. Purcell said he was told that there was a law that says a locality can only increase the rates three percent annually and questioned if Mr. Morgan could look into that and advise the Board on what the law states.  

Mr. Barnes said there are graduated rates that developers get that can provide affordable housing.  Mr. Barnes said the water rates do affect the ability to provide affordable housing based on the hookup fees and he thinks the County should have a fair system that allows developers to provide affordable housing.  

Mr. Gentry stated he would like to see justification for the increases in the rates.  Mr. Gentry indicated that there has to be a way to waive fees to provide for affordable housing.  

Mr. Wright said the Board needs to come up with a consistent definition for affordable housing.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks it is based on minimum income and the Affordable Housing Committee probably has a definition that they are working on.  

Mr. Harper said he doesnt think the water rate increases are intended to be a penalty on developers; they are an attempt to recover costs.  Mr. Harper said some of the cost may be depreciation that hasnt been done in the past, but someone is going to have to pay the price.  Mr. Harper indicated that the increases to the rates are considered as user fees and capacity fees and the rest is to recover the costs.  

Mr. Jennings said when the Water Authority meets again, he will share the Boards concerns about the rates.  Mr. Jennings indicated that part of the increase to the water rates is because Louisa has to build another plant to increase the capacity.  

Mr. Wright questioned if Mr. Jennings could get justification of the increased rates from the Water Authority.  Mr. Wright questioned Mr. Purcell what the effective dates were.  Mr. Purcell said he thinks the Town rates went into effect on July 1 and the County rates will be effective on July 12.  Mr. Lintecum said July 12 is for public hearing for the County rates.
 

Discussion - Moss/Nuckols Elementary School


Mr. Gentry said he understands why the architect and the construction management contracts were cancelled, but he doesnt understand why the site contractor contract was cancelled and he feels like he needs more details on that particular contract.  

Mr. Havasy said he still has questions about how the architect and the construction management firm were paid $2 million and the County has absolutely nothing to show for it.  Mr. Wright said it was his understanding that was the quoted interpretation of the School Boards Attorney when the contracts were reviewed after the fact.  Mr. Purcell said he gave a thorough read-out on what the contract said to Mr. Lintecum and there were many clauses in the contract that allowed the firms to charge what they charged.  Mr. Purcell said at this point, he thinks the Board needs to know where they are going from here and how much they are willing to put forward in the construction for the school to keep the process moving forward.  Mr. Wright said one concern is always going to be that the contract for the architect is written by the American Institute of Architects, so, logically, the contract is going to protect the architect.  Mr. Havasy questioned what is to make the Board think that this wont happen again.  Mr. Wright questioned Mr. Morgan if the Board had any control over the wording of the contracts.  Mr. Morgan said that is strictly a School Board issue.  

Mr. Purcell said there are contracts that are written that have a “cost not to exceed” and if the cost is exceeded, the burden of the excess cost goes onto the contractor.  Mr. Purcell questioned if the Board could appropriate money and include in the appropriation “a cost not to exceed” even though the Board couldnt draw the contracts.  Mr. Morgan said the contract is completely up to the School Board.  Mr. Wright questioned if a caveat could be put into the appropriation that the cost couldnt exceed a certain amount.  Mr. Morgan said he thinks that probably could be done, but the Board may have to reconsider it again if there is evidence that the amount needs to exceed.  Mr. Purcell said the only other option would be a dual statement content by both Boards through mutual consideration by both parties.  Mr. Purcell added they would basically need a Memorandum of Understanding.  Mr. Wright questioned if Mr. Morgan could look into the Boards legal options.  

Mr. Gentry said he doesnt think there needs to be an elaborate agreement; however, he was disappointed in the other process because although the Board allocated $16 million, he never heard the School Board come down on the architect and the construction manager reminding them that the Board only appropriated $16 million.  Mr. Gentry added if that would have been done on the past process then he thinks things would have worked out and we wouldnt be where we are now.  Mr. Gentry said he needs to make sure that the public understands that the School Board was in charge of the contracts.  Mr. Gentry added it is important that the public realizes that the Board is not in control of anything other than appropriating the allocation.
 

Mr. Barnes stated that the point is the County needs a school.  Mr. Barnes said the Citizens are concerned about when a school is going to be built and if the Board is serious about opening a school in fall 09, action needs to be taken as soon as possible.  Mr. Barnes said it is upon the Board to be proactive and to move forward with the project.  Mr. Barnes questioned Mr. Linhares if the budget he presented to the Board at the last meeting took into consideration if the speed limit was not reduced on Courthouse Road (Rt. 208).  Mr. Linhares said he thinks the school could still be built within that budget even if modifications had to be made to the road.  Mr. Linhares said $1.3 million was spent on site work, not including potential profits or the cost to close out the contract.  Mr. Linhares said he included an additional $1.8 million in his presentation for additional site work and $1 million for contingency cost.  Mr. Gentry indicated that he thinks the speed limit reduction will happen.  

Mr. Wright said he thinks the Board should have a joint meeting with the School Board before deciding on an amount to allocate.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks that both Boards should do some research and have an amount that they think the school should be to discuss at the joint meeting.  Mr. Gentry said otherwise, there would only be a lot of discussion and he doesnt think the Board would be prepared at that point to take action, which would delay the decision again.


Mr. Havasy said he thinks a whole different approach will be taken with the school this time.  Mr. Havasy said people are saying they need a school built and he agrees with that, but before he will talk numbers, he needs assurances from the School Board that the financial commitment will be adhered to.  

Mr. Purcell said the authority of the Board is to set the number and he thinks the Board needs to do research to come up with an amount for the school and meet with the School Board.  Mr. Purcell said he thinks the Board is about a meeting away from getting this project rolling.  


It was consensus of the Board to have a joint meeting with the School Board at the Betty J. Queen Intergenerational Center on July 23 at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the funding for Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.  

Discussion - Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Bonds

Mr. McLeod said he doesnt think the Board is ready to discuss this topic yet because when the application is completed for the VPSA Bonds, a specific borrowing amount has to be known.  Mr. McLeod noted that the VPSA deadline for the bonds application is August 23.  Mr. McLeod said the first debt service payment will not be due until July 15, 2008; therefore, the money the Board has set aside to pay for the school debt for this year will not be required and can be rolled over into next year.  

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion - Best use of County Property surrounding Administration Building

Mr. Pauley said he has performed some preliminary evaluations of the property surrounding the County Administration building for how to best serve the current and future parking demands.  Mr. Pauley said he has included a preliminary layout, which provides between 50 to 60 additional parking spaces and would still allow for placement of future County government buildings on the current County property.  Mr. Pauley said a parking area of this size could be constructed within the currently budgeted funds of $150,000, as long as there are no geotechnical difficulties with the soils where the paving would be placed.  Mr. Pauley added the suitability of the soils would be determined early in the design stage to assure the cost and feasibility of the project.

Mr. Gentry said the Board has had concerns about how the exit would eventually be used to connect the roads and this layout allows the exit to be used at some point.  Mr. Harper said he would like for part of the new spaces to be designated as employee parking to allow for the public to park near the front entrance of the building.  Mr. Purcell said he would like for more spaces to be designated as handicapped parking.    

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board authorized Mr. Pauley to proceed with procuring engineering, design, and construction of this project.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Harper, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:39 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

1.        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. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell abstaining, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 2nd Day of July 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 2nd Day of July 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.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing - To amend the Louisa County Code, Sec. 74.1. Adoption of state law (Motor vehicle law provisions) by reference; maximum penalties.  

Mr. Morgan stated this is the Criminal Code that allows the Sheriff to charge violations of the Motor Vehicle Code as County Code violations.  Mr. Morgan said this is important because when the fines are charged to County violations, the fines go to the Countys treasury rather than the States treasury.  Mr. Purcell questioned if Mr. Morgan was talking about the fines that are on the books now or the fines that will be voted on later.  Mr. Morgan said this ordinance is for the fines that are normally set forth in the Motor Vehicle Code.  Mr. Lintecum said he thinks the Board is concerned about are the extra fees that are going to be added onto the tickets.  Mr. Morgan stated that part still goes to the State.  

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend Louisa County Code 74-1 to adopt by reference all motor vehicle law provisions under the Code of Virginia that becomes effective on July 1, 2007.

Public Hearing - To amend the Louisa County Code, Sec. 54.15. Adoption of state law (State criminal code) by reference; maximum penalties.

Mr. Morgan stated this ordinance does approximately the same thing as the previous ordinance.  Mr. Morgan said this would incorporate any changes into that portion of the State Criminal Code that the County can adopt as a County ordinance so that there are some other avenues for the Sheriffs Department to charge some violations of State Code as County Code violations.  Mr. Purcell questioned if this is where the extra fees come in.  Mr. Morgan said if they are charged as County Code violations, the fees are already set by the State Code.  Mr. Purcell said he will support this because the County has no control over the fees, but the Louisa District Supervisor and his constituencies are completely opposed to the increased fees regardless of which Department they go to.  

Mr. Barnes said the Governors Office has been getting feedback about these fees and they are in the process of tweaking them.  Mr. Wright questioned if Mr. Lintecum could write a letter advising the Governors Office that the Board is concerned about the increased fees.  

Sheriff Fortune, Patrick Henry District, stated the fees are being raised to keep the roads up.  Sheriff Fortune indicated that the Governor is trying to work the fees down to a more minimum cost.  Sheriff Fortune said the increased fees would end up overcrowding the jails because people would not be able to afford the fines.    

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to adopt by reference sections of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia and instructed Mr. Lintecum to write a letter voicing the Boards concerns about the fines.
 

Public Hearing To amend the Louisa County Code concerning tax relief for the elderly or totally disabled, Sec. 70-33. Same - Requirements - to adjust the criteria for determining who will qualify for tax relief and Sec. 70-35 Same - Amount - increasing the amount of tax relief available to qualified elderly and disabled.

Mr. McLeod stated prior to CY 04, the income level was $22,000, the net worth was $75,000 and there was a fifty percent exemption with maximum of $200.  Mr. McLeod said for CY 04, the exemption was changed to seventy percent with a maximum of $500.  

Mr. McLeod said the following chart shows the tax relief plan for CY 05/CY 06.

    Net Worth ($)

  


Income ($)

0-25,000

25,001-45,00045,001-65,00065,001-85,000

Louisa

35,000

85,000

0-15,000100%90%80%75%

Relatives

6,500

15,001-25,000

90%80%70%70%

25,001-35,000

70%

60%50%50%

Limit Max

800

     

Mr. McLeod said there were 282 qualified applicants in FY 04, 362 qualified applicants in FY 05 and 468 qualified applicants in FY 06.  

Mr. McLeod said the
following chart shows the current tax relief plan for CY 07.

    Net Worth ($)

  


Income ($)

0-25,000

25,001-50,00050,001-75,00075,001-100,000

Louisa

35,000

100,000

0-15,000100%90%80%75%

Relatives

6,500

15,001-25,000

90%80%70%70%

25,001-35,000

70%

60%50%50%

Limit Max

1,000

     

Acreage

10

     

Mr. McLeod stated the State Code maximum values are as follows:

Mr. McLeod said the suggested changes for CY 08 would be to increase the income level from $35,000 to $40,000.  Mr. McLeod said the relatives income, the net worth and the maximum limit would remain as they currently are.  Mr. McLeod said the following chart shows the suggested tax relief changes.

    Net Worth ($)

  


Income ($)

0-25,000

25,001-50,00050,001-75,00075,001-100,000

Louisa

40,000

100,000

0-18,000100%90%80%75%

Relatives

6,500

18,001-29,000

90%80%70%70%

29,001-40,000

70%

60%50%50%

Limit Max

1,000

     

Acreage

10

     


Mr. Havasy questioned why citizens with an income level of $40,000 need help paying their taxes.  Mr. Barnes said this relief program is only for the elderly and disabled citizens.  Mr. Wright said the net worth is also included.
   
Mr. Barnes said the numbers suggest that people are taking advantage of this and the program is working.  Mr. Barnes said a lot of people say that their assessments are affecting them and this is the only way to provide for some tax relief.  Mr. Barnes said the public needs to be educated that this program is available.
 
Mr. Wright said this relief program is for real estate tax only and does not include personal property taxes.  Mr. Wright indicated there are a lot of elderly people that struggle with paying their taxes.  Mr. Barnes added that not everyone qualifies for 100 percent of the relief.
 
Mr. Purcell questioned if Mr. McLeod is of the opinion that the Board making this change will do fairly little as far as the County is concerned, but could potentially do a lot for the peoples concern.  Mr. McLeod said last year, the collective 468 people saved less than a total of $300,000, which is not a lot of money for the County.  Mr. Purcell said it seems to him that this is relatively small as far as the Countys coffers are concerned in money revenue loss, but could make a big difference to the people who qualify.

        
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Havasy voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board adopted a resolution to amend sections 70-33 and 70-35 of the Louisa County Code.
 
 
The NACo Prescription Discount Card Program

Mr. Harper said at the last meeting, he gave Board members a copy of an article about the NACo Prescription Discount Card Program.  Mr. Harper added this program is a way to help everyone and it doesnt cost the County anything.  Mr. Harper said he thinks the County should do what it takes to get into the program to offer people prescription discounts.
 

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to move forward with the process for Louisa County to get into the NACo Prescription Discount Card Program.
 

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - To award a contract for a new IBM Series i server

        On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to award a contract for a new IBM Series i server.  

Discussion - Sheriffs Department initiative for electronic documentation

Major Lowe said the 911 switch and the position phones are currently outdated and parts are not readily available.  Major Lowe said the Sheriffs Department had to borrow a phone from another county when the last one broke because Verizon didnt have any in stock.  Major Lowe said the maintenance continues to increase each year as the equipment gets older.  Major Lowe added the maintenance cost is currently $37,500 per year from Verizon.  Major Lowe said Verizons switch quote was approximately $238,000, of which the Wireless Board grant would pay $150,000 leaving the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) request of $88,000, which has already been approved.

Major Lowe stated Positron, which was recently purchased by IPC, is one of the two major leaders for 911 phone systems in Virginia.  Major Lowe said their quote for the 911 switch and new phones is only $180,000, of which the Wireless Board would pay 80 percent or $120,000.  Major Lowe added Louisas share from the $88,000 requested in the CIP would be $60,000.  

Major Lowe said to go along with that is a new software system justification, which is all part of the same system in the Departments technology program.  Major Lowe stated the Department had not been satisfied with Visionairs support because the maintenance contracts are high, where they are paying about $16,000 per year, and the Department is not getting the service they feel they need to get.  Major Lowe said the project started with the goal of integrating the new tablet PCs that were purchased for the officers in order to keep more officers on the road.  Major Lowe said once the entire new tablet PC technology program is finished, it will save the officers about one to two hours of administrative time per day that they will be able to spend on the roads.  Major Lowe indicated that this doesnt mean the Department will not ask for more personnel, it will just make the Department more efficient by decreasing administrative time with the deputies they currently have on staff.  Major Lowe said the software the Department needs for incident reporting and other in-field use needs to be compatible with the Records Management System (RMS), which is currently Visionair.  Major Lowe added the RMS must also be compatible with Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), which is also Visionair, and used by the dispatchers.    

Major Lowe said Positron and IPC currently have two product lines since they just merged in March.  Major Lowe indicated that by next year, they will be selling a single version of each of their packages and if the County is able to use them, we will still get that version with an upgrade service.

Major Lowe said Staff initially saw and liked the Positron products called Power/911, Power/CAD, Power/RMS and Power/Field.  Major Lowe said after hearing and seeing Staffs responses to the Power products, the sales reps felt the IQ product line from IPC would fit Louisa better.  Major Lowe a
dded that they offered the more expensive IQ line, which cost $464,000 to the County for the same price quoted for the Power products, which cost $314,000.  Major Lowe indicated that these prices include five years of Software support and upgrades.  Major Lowe stated in addition, this software would also eliminate the need for the MSAG Eagle system.  Major Lowe said the Department is currently paying $15,000 per year for address changes to MSAG as well as $6,000 per year for annual support.

Major Lowe said if the County was seriously considering the Positron products, we would have an annual savings of $37,500 from Verizon, $15,800 from Visionair and $21,000 from MSAG, which totals a savings of $74,300 per year.  

Major Lowe said the Positron 911 system would cost $180,000 and $120,000 would be covered by the Wireless Board grant, which would leave a $60,000 match from the County.  Major Lowe said since $88,000 has already been approved in the CIP, that money could be used and $28,000 would still be saved for that system.  Major Lowe said the CAD/RMS/Field Reporting system would cost $314,000 where $82,000 would be covered by the Homeland Security Grant and $19,000 or more from the Byrne Grant.  Major Lowe said after $28,000 is subtracted from the leftover CIP monies, the cost would be $185,000 and the County would offset by saving $74,000 per year.

Major Lowe said due to 911 and Field Reporting deadlines, the Department would like the Boards approval for the entire project.  Major Lowe said they would continue to pursue grant funding from the Wireless Board and from Congressman Cantor to reduce the requested $185,000.  Major Lowe also requested the Boards approval for a resolution for the participation in the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) cooperative buying agreement.  Mr. Hardy stated the HGAC buying agreement is a vehicle for County, State and Federal Governments to do purchase agreements without having to go through the bid process.  Mr. Hardy said the Council gets the bids from vendors in critical governmental areas.  Mr. Hardy stated that Positron was able to offer the County a five percent savings over what they directly quoted by using the HGAC vehicle.  Mr. Hardy said HGAC then charges the County a 1.5 percent fee so the County saved 3.5 percent over the original quote from Positron.  

Major Lowe said the County would come up with a net result by spending
$273,000, $88,000 of which will come from the CIP and $185,000 of the Boards consideration for supplemental funds.  Major Lowe added the County would be getting over $640,000 worth of equipment and software, which includes 911, CAD, RMS, and Field Reporting.
 Major Lowe said the County will also be saving $74,000 per year of which is currently being paid to Verizon, MSAG and Visionair, which totals $370,000 over a five year period.  

Mr. Wright questioned what would be the net amount of money the County would be spending upfront.  Mr. Hardy said a maximum of $273,000.

Mr. Harper questioned how this system would work.  Major Lowe said this system would allow the deputies do all field reporting out in the field on-site.  Major Lowe said currently, the deputies are handwriting the notes and having to come back into the office during their shift to compile the information into the computer to generate an offense report and a supplement report that goes with it.  Major Lowe said this new technology would allow the deputies to enter information into the computer, which would automatically go into the system, and to provide a copy of the report on-site.  Mr. Harper questioned if this new system would have to interact with the radio system.  Major Lowe said this system would not have anything to do with the radio system.  Mr. Harper questioned if the 911 system was for inbound and record keeping only.  Mr. Hardy said yes because the radio system is a separate system.  

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the spending of $273,000 for the Positron IQ product line of equipment and software for the operation of 911, CAD, RMS and Field Reporting and a resolution for the participation in the Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) cooperative buying agreement.

Discussion - Build-out Analysis Process and Presentation

Mr. Cockrell said Staff completed the first draft of a preliminary build-out analysis for the County as a whole.  Mr. Cockrell said the process is not necessarily what will happen, but what is allowed to happen under the current land use law plans and policies in the County.  Mr. Cockrell said Staff is looking to the Board for guidance for how and when to give a formal presentation on the build-out.  

Mr. Purcell said lots that are on record are usually used in a build-out analysis and those lots are never going to be built on and questioned if that was considered in the build-out analysis.  Mr. Cockrell said Staff used lots that were listed on the GIS system and factored in road frontage, shrink/swell soil, flood plains, parent parcels for the A-2 lots and other information.  Mr. Cockrell added Staff tried to factor in as many variables as possible.  Mr. Purcell questioned if lots were used that were on record in the Clerks Office, but have not been built on in already existing subdivisions.  Mr. Cockrell said Staff didnt account for that because it is so detailed.  

Mr. Purcell questioned if Staff assumed where by right development might occur in the Agricultural zone.  Mr. Cockrell said Staff considered parent parcels and road frontage and assumed they would all be developed.  Mr. Cockrell added a true build-out is based on what can occur instead of what will occur.  Mr. Purcell questioned if Staff just went with zoning in A-2, but if it was a big mixed use area, Staff has no idea how many more units it could be.  Mr. Cockrell said Staff made a lot of assumptions on lots per acre and the split between commercial and residential.  Mr. Cockrell added with Zion Crossroads, Staff assumed under the future land use map that if it is mixed use, it would go into a PUD of some kind and in that area, there would be more commercial than residential.  Mr. Purcell questioned what the practical application of a planning tool is of the build-out analysis.  Mr. Cockrell said the build-out analysis is a big picture tool where it would be used for policy issues.  

Mr. Harper said the build-out analysis is another tool in the process of what is done.  Mr. Harper said there is a lot more that needs to be developed, but he recalls Mr. Havasy stating that 90 to 95 percent of the people in Louisa County want the County to stay rural and agricultural.  Mr. Harper said if this were something the County wants, it would seem to him that you would say ideally, that would equate to so many people per acre in Louisa County.  Mr. Harper added if that was done, then there would be something to work towards, but now we are working towards an unknown, which is the maximum build-out.  Mr. Harper indicated that these are tools that are needed in the tool kit to measure as you go along.  Mr. Harper added he is looking forward to seeing this model and he agrees that it is a very needed tool.

Mr. Barnes said land use planning is needed and this is a good guide, but it isnt as simple as we would like to make it.  Mr. Barnes said we need to plan our growth where we want it to occur.  

Mr. Wright said he thinks the build-out analysis is a good tool.  Mr. Wright said Mr. Coffey suggested that Board members and their respective Planning Commission members come into the office jointly for Staff to present and discuss the details of the analysis.  

Mr. Gentry said he has been exposed to a lot of the discussions on this process and he thinks it is a major working tool that allows for long range planning.

Mr. Coffey said the importance to him of trying to get Board members and Planning Commission members to come into the office is because it is very detailed and based on a lot of assumptions.  Mr. Coffey said he wanted to make sure there is a reasonable comfort level or understanding of all of the assumptions before presenting it to the Planning Commission and the Board.

Mr. Purcell said he thinks the analysis should be used as a guide only.  Mr. Wright stated this is a growth measurement tool instead of a growth marketing tool.  Mr. Harper said it is not a rigid planning tool; it is a guide and nothing more.  Mr. Wright encouraged the Board to go into the office and look at the build-out analysis within the next two weeks.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Barnes said Mr. Havasy and himself are on the Economic Development Committee and they met with the new Thomas Jefferson Partnership Economic Development Director.  Mr. Barnes said they expressed their concerns that they felt, in the past, Louisa County was not getting its fair share of representation from the group.  Mr. Barnes said he felt it was a very productive meeting and that the new director understood their concerns and is willing to work with Louisa County.  Mr. Barnes said he thinks the Board needs to redefine and be more specific about what they want as far as economic development.  Mr. Barnes said it is an advantage to have rail sites ready and already zoned.  Mr. Havasy said if the County is going to have a rail park, then it needs to be advertised and promoted.  Mr. Havasy added education for the County links in with economic development and workforce.

Mr. Barnes said Mr. Havasy and himself had another economic development meeting where they met with a gentleman who is part of the expert in the State of Virginia on Community Development Authorities (CDAs).  Mr. Barnes said these are ways that localities are being asked by developers to help fund infrastructure needed for projects.  Mr. Barnes said the bonds are no cost or liability to the County and the bonds can be used for schools and other areas.  Mr. Barnes questioned if the Board would like for the gentleman to do a workshop with the Board about CDAs.  It was concurrence of the Board for Mr. Lintecum to set up a meeting.    

Mr. Gentry said Mr. Barnes and himself met with the Public Works Committee and they are looking at the Landfill contract as well as the possibility of changing the fees.  

Mr. Jennings said the pool project is on schedule and within budget.  

Mr. Jennings said he met with the Buildings and Grounds Committee and the Courthouse fence is up and Social Services is moving along with the Bunting House.  Mr. Jennings said there have been questions about the exact uses of the old Library and the Committee is still debating what to do with that building.  Mr. Jennings added that the
installation of front entrance vestibule will be started on Wednesday.  

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum said there is a letter from Mr. John Davies included in the Board packet regarding the ramp improvements on I-64.  Mr. Barnes added $500,000 was approved to be included in the Six-Year Plan for the ramp improvements.  

APPROVAL OF BILLS

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, with Messrs Barnes and Wright abstaining on bills pertaining to them, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of June 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $538,886.71.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the June 18, 2007 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:28 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.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:58 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, 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 2nd Day of July 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 2nd Day of July 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. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the July 2, 2007 meeting at 8:59 p.m. until July 23, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.



BY ORDER OF



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