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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JULY 23, 2007
6:00 P.M.



Board of Supervisors Present: *Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell and Jack T. Wright
School Board Present: Robin L. Horne, Vyvyan P. Rundgren, Gail O. Proffitt, Harold A. (Hal) Schaffer, Sherman T. Shifflett, Gregory V. Strickland
School Board Absent: Brian M. Huffman
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk; Deborah Pettit, Superintendent; Ralph Moore, Assistant Superintendent for Administration; Halsey Green, Director of Finance; David Szalankiewicz, Director of Maintenance; and Becky Fisher, School Board Clerk

*Fitzgerald A. Barnes arrived at 6:32 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Wright called the July 23, 2007 meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m.  Mr. Harper led the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Gentry questioned Mr. Wright if the Board could have a closed session after the joint meeting with the School Board.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to go into closed session after the joint meeting for the purpose of discussing business not yet announced.

SCHOOL BOARD CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Horne called the July 23, 2007 meeting of the Louisa County School Board to order at 6:00 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING

On motion of Ms. Rundgren, seconded by Mr. Strickland, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the following resolution was adopted:

WHEREAS
, the Louisa County School Board has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provision of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and

WHEREAS
, Section 2.1-3712(D) of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by this School Board that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
, that the Louisa County School Board hereby certifies 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 applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered.

Ms. Horne questioned if there were any motions of closed session.

        On motion of Mr. Strickland, seconded by Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Shifflett, Ms. Rundgren and Ms. Proffitt, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the School Board voted to set a contract that was legally agreed upon between the Louisa County School Board and Dr. Deborah Pettit naming her the new Superintendent of the Louisa County School District.  

Discussion - Moss-Nuckols Elementary School

Dr. Pettit discussed the space requirements for the instructional program for Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.  Dr. Pettit stated she looked at the current program that the three existing elementary schools already have to determine the space requirements for the new elementary school.  Dr. Pettit stated the School Board projected that 30 regular classrooms, two at-risk pre-k classrooms and one special education pre-k classroom would be needed for the new elementary school.  Dr. Pettit added that eight additional classrooms could also be needed for special education students.  Dr. Pettit indicated that one Reading Resource classroom and one Title I/PALS Reading classroom would be needed in the school as well.  

Dr. Pettit stated six resource classrooms would be needed for Art, Music, Physical Education, Library, Science Lab and Computer Lab.  Dr. Pettit said space for an office suite for support services areas would be required, which would include areas for a psychologist, social workers, a principal, an assistant principal, secretaries and textbook storage.  Dr. Pettit added space would also be needed for a cafeteria, guidance, two conference rooms, two teacher workrooms, a clinic, in-school suspension, chair storage and a Parks and Recreation office.  

Dr. Pettit said for the new elementary school to serve 700 students using state averages of 108 square feet per student, the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School would have to be 85,000 square feet.  

Dr. Pettit indicated that the quality of the new elementary school is very important.  Dr. Pettit said instructional achievement is affected by HVAC, lighting, security and proximity of storage materials and restroom facilities because of time.  Dr. Pettit said Moss-Nuckols Elementary School needs durable and efficient systems that create a climate conducive to work and learning.  Dr. Pettit added that durable and efficient systems minimize disruptions to the classrooms, costs for maintenance and operating costs to maximize funds available for instruction.  

Mr. Strickland indicated that both Boards have common ground and agree on similar points.  Mr. Strickland said both Boards concur that a new elementary school is needed as soon as possible.  Mr. Strickland stated that both Boards want the costs of the elementary school to be as low as possible without compromise in quality and for the school to be similar in size, function and durability as the current elementary schools.  Mr. Strickland added that the Boards also agree on many of the cost estimates.  

Mr. Strickland said when determining the amount of classrooms needed, the School Board referred to 700-seated students, which gave an allowance for the special education population and provided for a student to teacher ratio of 20:1 for kindergarten through third grade.  Mr. Strickland added that additional state funding is attached to the smaller student to teacher ratios; therefore, the school would have to be approximately 85,000 square feet in order to comply with the state funding requirements.  

Mr. Strickland said when comparisons were looked at over the last year, the construction costs that both Boards have discussed with their respective staff members are similar.  Mr. Strickland added that the School Board and the Board of Supervisors also agree on the contingency allowance for shrink/swell soil, construction contingency, the architects fee and the furniture and fixtures, except for the kitchen equipment, which is possibly a $320,000 difference unless it is included in the construction cost.    

Mr. Strickland stated both Boards have differences and questions that need to be addressed.  Mr. Strickland said $1 million of $3.3 million of site costs have been completed to date, which leaves a balance of $2.3 million still needed.  Mr. Strickland added there is a $500,000 difference from what the Board of Supervisors has calculated.  Mr. Strickland said the Boards have estimated a difference of $300,000 for owner testing/permits and there could be a $320,000 difference for furniture and fixtures, depending if the Board of Supervisors has included kitchen equipment in the construction costs.  Mr. Strickland stated that there is a $270,000 difference for the Computer/IT budget because of the telephone, security and AV system costs.  Mr. Strickland added that the School Board estimate is higher because there needs to be consistency with all of the elementary schools.  Mr. Strickland stated for the owners contingency, the standard is typically between five and ten percent and the School Board assumed a 6.5 percent contingency, which is about a $500,000 difference.  Mr. Strickland noted that the amount for the different estimates total $1.79 million.    

Mr. Strickland indicated that he thinks both Boards have made tremendous progress and a great effort to understand the costs of a new elementary school.  Mr. Strickland said the School Board recommended that the staffs of both Boards should meet and discuss the differences and to continue to be respectful of each other and keep the lines of communication open.    

Mr. Wright questioned if the Board of Supervisors wanted to discuss specific numbers or if they wanted to follow the recommendation of the School Board.

Mr. Gentry said the School Boards presentation states areas that the Board of Supervisors and the School Board agree on.  Mr. Gentry indicated that he doesnt recall the Boards discussing specific areas and questioned if the statement meant that the staffs agreed instead of the Boards.  Mr. Strickland said the slide in the presentation was his interpretation from conversations that have taken place.  Mr. Strickland added that neither Board nor neither staff have officially agreed on the areas.  

Mr. Barnes arrived at 6:32 p.m.

Mr. Purcell said it seems to him that both Boards and staff need to assess the areas of differences.  Mr. Purcell indicated that if both Boards can come to an agreement on the items in the presentation, he doesnt think the $1.79 million would be hard to navigate.

Mr. Wright indicated that the deadline for all paperwork to be submitted for the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Bonds is August 23.  Mr. Wright added that the application requires specific figures for finance purposes and applications could only be submitted every six months.

Mr. Schaffer questioned if it would be possible to use a low number for financing for the application for the VPSA Bonds now and re-apply for the difference next year.  Mr. Morgan stated the resolution has to be specific, but it might be possible to amend the resolution.  Mr. Green said the bonds can be applied for multiple times for the same project, but the amount of money for each deadline has to be specific.  Mr. Green indicated that when the money is borrowed, it has to be spent within 18 months.  Mr. Green said Mr. McLeod suggested applying for $4 million for financing for this deadline, which would replenish the local funds that have been used to date to fund the project.  Mr. Wright questioned if the application for additional funding could be turned down next year if the Board only asked for funding of $4 million now.  Mr. Green stated he has never heard of them turning down a political government.  Mr. Morgan indicated that he doesnt think they have that authority.        

Mr. Harper stated he has several questions and he thinks it would be better suited if each Board member had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Lintecum, Dr. Pettit and the two construction specialists one-on-one to address their questions.  Mr. Harper added that he thinks it is important to set aside a time to meet with each individual Board member to discuss their concerns about where the project is going.

Mr. Wright questioned how long it would take to complete the application.  Mr. Green stated the application is basically completed, but both Boards have to adopt a resolution for the funding before August 23.  Mr. Harper said he would be inclined to go with the recommendation of submitting the initial application for $4 million and to apply for the balance next year.  

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to submit the initial application of the VPSA Bonds for funding of $4 million before the deadline of August 23 and to apply for the remaining funds next year.  

Mr. Gentry stated his concern is that he only knows the updated averages that Mr. Linhares provided to the Board on June 18.  Mr. Gentry indicated that if the two staffs have been discussing numbers, he doesnt know what they are and there is a missing link between the items that Mr. Strickland referred to both Boards agreeing on.  Mr. Gentry agreed with Mr. Harper and stated that he has questions he would like addressed in a one-on-one meeting.  Mr. Strickland indicated that he didnt mean to infer that the staffs had made any informal agreements between them.  

Mr. Wright stated there would have to be seven one-on-one meetings with the staff, which would take time.  Mr. Wright suggested that two Supervisors meet together with staff for a maximum total of four meetings.  Mr. Schaffer suggested Board members present their questions to their respective staffs without meeting with them and the staffs could get together and reconcile the differences.  Mr. Schaffer said hopefully, that would save some time.  

Mr. Wright questioned if it was consensus of the Board to allow for the staffs to meet with the Supervisors to answer questions they might have.  It was agreeable of both Boards for Mr. Lintecum and Dr. Pettit to work jointly with their respective staffs and give Board members the dates and times of the meetings.  

Discussion - Louisa County Public Schools Construction Manager

Ms. Horne indicated that she attended meetings where the Board of Supervisors suggested that the School Board hire a construction manager.  Ms. Horne added that Mr. Barnes also stated that the Board of Supervisors should fund that position.  Ms. Horne said in all fairness, the School Board is asking the Board of Supervisors to pay for only half of the salary and the School Board would pay for the other half for this year.  Ms. Horne added next year, the salary for the position could be absorbed in the Schools budget.  Mr. Barnes indicated that in the Board of Supervisors discussion, he said that if the School Board agreed to a project manager, the Board of Supervisors should fund the position in the operational budget.  Mr. Wright questioned if the project manager would be hired for only the new elementary school project or if their position would be continuing.  Ms. Horne said the School Board hopes for the position to be continuing, but it depends on funding.  

Mr. Gentry questioned if the construction manager would be hired as full-time staff for the schools or job specific, which would be for Moss-Nuckols Elementary.  Ms. Horne said right now, the objective is not to hire a staff member; it is to hire a project manager.  Mr. Jennings indicated that Louisa County needs a continuous project manager.  Mr. Wright questioned if a project manager would replace a construction management firm.  Ms. Horne said yes.  Mr. Wright questioned what the salary range would be for a project manager.  Mr. Barnes said he thinks a project manager could be hired for a salary between $75,000 to $100,000, including benefits.  

Mr. Purcell stated there are several projects within the County and questioned if the construction manager would be strictly for the Schools.  Mr. Wright said yes.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Jennings, with Messrs Gentry, Purcell and Havasy voting against, which carried by a vote of 4-3, the Board voted to take money from the contingency funds to hire a construction manager of an amount not to exceed $100,000, including benefits.  

Discussion - Future Meetings Between Boards Regarding Budget and Other Matters

Ms. Rundgren questioned if it would be advisable for both Boards to plan to start meeting quarterly.  Mr. Gentry indicated that the Boards could establish a meeting and there might not be any issues to discuss.  Ms. Horne said she thinks that quarterly meetings would be a good thing to have because they would set communication between the Boards.  

Mr. Schaffer said some Board of Supervisors attended meetings last year when the School Board discussed the evolution of the Superintendents budget, which allowed for questions to be answered sooner.  Mr. Schaffer invited Board members who have the opportunity to attend as many of the School Boards budget meetings as possible.


Mr. Barnes indicated that school budgets are very difficult to understand.  Mr. Barnes said the future of the County is going to depend on coming up with a constant staffing formula for funding based on enrollment figures.  Mr. Barnes indicated that neighboring counties are using this method and he would suggest leaving it up to staff to determine a staffing formula that gives consideration for enrollment.  Mr. Wright added that a staffing formula would identify the allocation of the resources.  Mr. Gentry stated that the quality of a staffing formula would depend on the accuracy of the enrollment predictions.    

Mr. Barnes indicated that once the new elementary school is built, he thinks both Boards need to be futuristic because the County has capital needs.  

Mr. Wright questioned if it was consensus of the Board to conduct joint quarterly meetings between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board.  The Board agreed.
Mr. Barnes stated he would like to see staffs work together more as well.  

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 7:38 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

1.        In accordance with 2.2-3711 (a) (5) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing business not yet announced.

SCHOOL BOARD ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Schaffer, seconded by Ms. Rundgren, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the School Board voted to adjourn the July 23, 2007 meeting at 7:38 p.m.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:34 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Barnes, 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 23rd 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 23rd 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.

RECESS

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the July 23, 2007 meeting at 8:35 p.m. until August 1, 2007 at 2:00 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


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