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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008
6:00 P.M.



Board Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright

Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Sharon Pandak, Acting County Attorney; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dube, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Zuwana Morgan, Deputy Clerk and Brittany Spaur, Records Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the September 2, 2008 regular 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.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board accepted the outstanding amounts for Personal Property and Real Estate Tax given by the Treasurer.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

Marsha Staples Louisa District stated the last Board of Supervisor meeting was her first meeting and she has lived in Louisa for two years.  Ms. Staples said she was a registered nurse.  Ms. Staples said she had just became interested in local politics.  Ms. Staples said she was quite appalled of what went on at that meeting.  Ms. Staples stated she had come to support Gail Massey who was her landlord and a good mother to two children she adopted from Social Services.  

Ms. Staples said Mr. Oswell called a license professional incompetent and the Board members laughed.  Ms. Staples said if Mr. Oswell was representing Louisa County he should be careful how he slanders a licensed professional in a public forum.  

Ms. Staples said it seemed to her the Department of Social Services needed to be micro-managed.  Ms. Staples said it was not a conflict of interest that the Masseys sued DSS and lost.  Ms. Staples said DSS has been placing children in homes that were not licensed.  Ms. Staples said the children the Masseys adopted were doing very well and have a chance that they would not have had.  Ms. Staples said now the Louisa DSS would not be allowing any other children to go to the Massey home and they should be ashamed.  Ms. Staples said she only saw one Board member show interest in the Massey situation.  Ms. Staples said the Board spent more talking about a puppy mill in Mineral.  Ms. Staples said she was not impressed with local politics and she hopes it would get better.

Douglas Darling stated he represented the Patriot Crossing project.  Mr. Darling said he would like to formally request the project be sent back to Planning Commission.  Mr. Darling said there were a few issues that needed to be taken care of and hoped it could be accomplished by working with the Planning Commission and staff.  Mr. Darling said they had a very good relationship with county staff up until recently.  Mr. Darling said Darren Coffey played an important part to the relationship that they had with the county.  Mr. Darling said when Mr. Coffey left something got lost and it was at a critical point of the project.  Mr. Darling asked again for the Board to send the project back to the Planning Commission.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper stated he would like to add two closed sessions to the agenda.  Mr. Spencer stated he would like to add a discussion on set back lines

        On motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the September 2, 2008 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

Presentation - Regional Housing Status

Mr. Howard Evergreen stated last March the TJPDC sponsored a regional  housing conference held in Charlottesville.  Mr. Evergreen said in the conference four pages of items were developed that were thought would improve the quality of housing in the area.  Mr. Evergreen said the group condensed the four pages into a one page list that was included in the Board Packet.  Mr. Evergreen stated there was a resolution passed by TJPDC asking each Board to pick at least one item off the list to improve on.  

Mr. Evergreen said at the meeting Louisa ranked high among the other local jurisdictions in their housing efforts. Mr. Evergreen said there had been many good things that came from Louisa County like the down payment fund and real estate tax relief.  Mr. Evergreen said Ms. Nancy Pleasants does a great job getting the information about the real estate tax relief out to people.

Mr. Evergreen said everyone walked away with an assignment.  Mr. Evergreen said he needed to do better at the outreach for first time home buyers.  

Mr. Evergreen said the Board was being asked to come up with an item and then someone from the Board or
the County would make a presentation at the next conference at the end October.

Mr. Barnes said he would like to thank Mr. Evergreen.  Mr. Barnes said he was glad Mr. Evergreen mentioned the educational part
.  Mr. Barnes said he had come in contact with a lot of young couples and first time homebuyers that dont know about the down payment assistance.  Mr. Barnes said the educational piece was a big part.

Mr. Spencer asked how much money was in the down payment assistance.  Mr. Evergreen said over $200,000.  

Mr. Spencer said he didnt see much on the list that the County could do, unless the Code was changed and the Code was there to help people.  

Mr. Evergreen said Louisa was voted to most improved.  Mr. Evergreen said if the Board wanted a suggestion, he would suggest the field of transportation, how transportation related to housing, how the comprehensive plan addressed transportation, etc.  Mr. Evergreen said although Louisa was doing really well there would always be an area that could be improved.  Mr. Evergreen said he was asking for the resolution to be adopted and one area be chose that the Board felt was worthy for action to be taken on

Mr. Gentry made a motion to adopt the resolution to support of the regional action agenda for housing for the following item; use Public Service Announcements and other marketing approaches to alter perceptions of affordable housing, educate the public on housing needs in our community, and increase awareness of existing programs, seconded by Mr. Barnes.

Mr. Barnes said when new orientation was done for new employee the down payment assistance program be mention so the employees and citizens would know it.

Mr. Byers said he suggest
ed someone be selected that had background in planning.

Mr. Harper said if he support
ed the resolution it did not mean he supported all areas.

Mr. Spencer said he was going to support Mr. Gentry motion but didnt think the rest needed to be changed.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board voted in support of the regional action agenda for housing for the following item; use Public Service Announcements and other marketing approaches to alter perceptions of affordable housing, educate the public on housing needs in our community, and increase awareness of existing programs.

It was a consensus of the Board for Mr. Barnes to be the spokesperson for Louisa County.

Presentation - JAUNT Annual Report

Ms. Donna Shaunesey stated like housing Louisa was the County JAUNT bragged about. Ms. Shaunesey said Louisa had a 14 percent increase of people using the service more than any other county that JAUNT provided service for.  Ms. Shaunesey stated the commuter service increased 85 percent.  Ms. Shaunesey said the new Saturday service was a success from day one.  Ms. Shaunesey said the mid-day services increased 20 percent and because it had increased so much they have had to turn people away.  Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT was hoping that service could be increased so no one would have to be turned down.  Ms. Shaunesey said more people were using the intra-county service to get to work..  Ms. Shaunesey said the adult age group increased 18 percent.  

Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT has had lots of improvements this year.  Ms. Shaunesey said they have been on time, turned down less people for service, reduced preventable accidents by 10 percent and reduced the turnover rate to 13 percent.  Ms. Shaunesey stated the turnover reduction rate in Louisa County was even lower than 13 percent.  

Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT would being having their annual Safety Award meeting on Saturday.  Ms. Shaunesey said six Louisa drivers would be receiving safe drivers awards and two would be receiving perfect attendance awards.  

Ms. Shaunesey said this past year JAUNT received a grant and changed the look of their vehicles.

Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT was in the process of developing a transit development plan.  


Ms. Shaunesey said next month JAUNT would be kicking off a another new program called the Mobility Management program which would be working with Human Service Agencies throughout the planning district and beyond.  

Ms. Shaunesey
stated they didnt have a member on their board from Louisa.  Ms. Shaunesey said they need a voice from Louisa.

Mr. Harper asked
did it have to be a citizen or a Board of Supervisor member.  Ms. Shaunesey said it could be either.  Mr. Harper said Mr. Spencer said he would do it.

Mr. Harper asked what did “number of trips by service time mean. Ms. Shaunesey said thats was the number of trips for one passenger going one way on a bus.

Mr. Byers asked would there a cost analysis. Ms. Shaunesey said yes.

Mr. Gentry said thanked Ms. Shaunesey for a job well done and for providing a service needed in Louisa County.

Presentation - Regional Water Supply Study update

Mr. Skip Notte stated he brought with him Heather Campbell and Bar Delk.  Mr. Notte said he provided a memo in the Board Packet. Mr. Notte said a draft memorandum was sent to the County, Town of Louisa, the Town of Mineral and the Water Authority for review and comment.  Mr. Notte said he was looking to set up a meeting in the next two weeks to get feedback on the memo.   Mr. Notte said that was the foundation to finishing off the plan.  Mr. Notte said once the population and resources were identified Dewberry would look at getting it signed off by DEQ.    Mr. Notte said the plan would be used to look at the resources and to indentify potential long range resources to support the growth of the county.  Mr. Notte said he anticipated a draft to come out at the end of fall or early winter for review.

Mr. Harper asked
was Dewberry looking for new resources.  Mr. Notte said that was part of the final DEQ report preparation statement of need.

Mr. Byers asked
was Lake Anna covered under the water demands. Mr. Notte said yes.  Mr. Notte said this memo was the stepping stone that walked through areas like Lake Anna.

Mr. Byers asked at some point would there be a definitive number to give to DEQ as to what Louisas needs would be.  Mr. Notte said yes.

Mr. Gentry asked did he hear Mr. Notte say Dewberry was considering Lake Anna as a resource.  Mr. Notte said no he did not say that.  Mr. Gentry said why not.  Mr. Notte said right now Dewberry was in the process of firming up projections for both population and demand.  Mr. Notte said once that was established they would look at what Louisa has now and they would began to put place holders in the existing resources.  Mr. Notte stated at that point Dewberry would look for the data, what was needed and where was it needed.  Mr. Notte said then Dewberry would work closely with Mr. Lintecum and the towns to come up with the short list of potential users.  Mr. Notte said the goal of the plan was to indentify potential places to draw from.

Mr. Gentry said about two years
ago he asked for a plan to see what the potential resources could be and he was told that would be part of this plan.  Mr. Gentry asked was part of the study showing those potential sites because the county needed to be planning for those potential site.  Mr. Gentry asked was he hearing that the county wasnt that far into the plan.  Mr. Notte said Dewberry would be creating a list of potential sources and one them may be Lake Anna.  Mr. Notte said he hadnt had the opportunity to sit down with the different entities to discuss what that short list would be.  

Mr. Gentry asked would the list be detailed to say where the best places would be.  Mr. Notte said Dewberry would provide a list.  Mr. Notte said his recommendation was not to put too much information in at this point because DEQ did not required it.

Mr. Gentry said he was looking for one thing and it seemed that this study was for what DEQ was looking for.  Mr. Notte said they were all headed in the same direction.

Mr. Gentry
asked was there a reason why Louisa didnt get the grant.  Mr. Notte said they had not heard back from DEQ as to why they did not receive the grant.

Mr. Harper said what was being done now was to meet DEQ requirements and a plan needed to be in place.  Mr. Notte said yes.  


Mr. Byers said he didnt know how the board would make necessary decisions withou
t having the information Mr. Gentry spoke of.

Mr. Notte said this plan would not only talk about what the projection would be for population and demand but it would also sight it within the county.   Mr. Notte said they could overlay where the countys existing resources were.  

Presentation - James River Water project update  

Mr. Lintecum said the calculations were done conservatively, so they used the $45 million as the cost.  

Mr.
Joe Hines of Timmons said they went to the public information meeting and minimum people showed up in Louisa but, Fluvanna had some good questions.  

Mr. Hines said he recommends that counties go with the Western most route because that that allows for certain system benefits as well as engineering benefits for the project.  

Mr. Hines said they would be meeting with Fluvanna Board of Supervisors tomorrow night for a work session.  

Mr.
Hines said they still recommend the water treatment site at Pleasant Grove as the most cost effective.  Mr. Hines said they were still in the range of $40 to $45 million estimated cost.  

Mr. Hines said they
would run some of the wholesale rates.  Mr. Hines said they were operation and maintenance plus 15 percent debt service capital recovery. Mr. Hines said the Memorandum of Understanding with Fluvanna states Louisa would sign a wholesale rate which included operation cost, maintenance cost and replacement capital cost.  

Mr. Hines said a system that appears to be reasonable and potentially financially viable for these types of systems
would go in place.   Mr. Hines said the wholesale rate would start around year three. Mr. Hines referred the Board to the graph provided in the Board Packet.

Ms. Sheryl Stephens said the wholesale rate covered O&M and capital but not debt services which would be approximately $3.00 per thousand gallons.  Ms. Stephens said the county would be responsible for approximately $1.5 million for debt services annually.

Mr. Harper asked if the graph included in Board Packet included debt services.  Ms. Stephens said it simply reflected the rates in existence in the communities. Ms. Stephens said that was a separate analysis from the $3.00 per thousand gallons.  

Mr.
Harper asked what was the $3.00.  Ms. Stephens said the authority would be a wholesale authority that would produce water and sell it to the two counties. Ms. Stephens said the rate that it would be sold would be around $3.00 based on the cost being looked at, at this point.

Mr. Harper asked did that include the debt service.  Ms. Stephens said the $3.00 was the cost to buy the water.  Mr. Harper said so the answer was no.  Ms. Stephen said that was correct.

Mr. Spencer asked what would be Louisas portion of the cost.  Ms Stephens said 50 percent.

Mr. Spencer asked who would own what. Ms. Stephens said their concept was the assets that would be owned by the joint wholesale authority.  Ms. Stephens said this Board and the Fluvanna Board would be the ones who create that authority.

Mr. Spencer asked what would the Board have to do with the authority.  Ms. Stephen said the Board would set rates, manage the systems or hire someone to manage the systems.

Mr. Spencer asked what authority would the Board of Supervisors have.  
Mr. Hines said the authority would have a certain number of members that would be appointed by Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Ms.
Stephens said they were anticipating that some of those people appointed to the Board would be the current County Administrators and a Board member from each county.  

Ms. Pandak said under State Law a joint authority had to be set up pursuant to certain requirements.  Ms. Pandak said they were following the procedure set up by through State Law.

Mr. B
yers asked what would be the projected pay back time.  Ms. Stephens said they used 30 years for these projections.

Mr.
Fred Pribble said during the process the different options for the management structure had been discussed.  Mr. Pribble said the most viable option was the joint water authority.  Mr. Pribble said the reason that was most viable was because there would be two customers, Louisa and Fluvanna.  Mr. Pribble  said all the others would be retail customers to one of the counties.  Mr. Pribble said each county would have control of where lines were extended and who was serviced in the county.  

Mr. Pribble said in
the Board Packet included the information of what was needed to form a joint water authority.  Mr. Pribble said all the forms were drafts and needed to be reviewed by the attorney. Mr. Pribble said the joint authority was for water only and if either county wanted something else it would have to come before each Board of Supervisor before that change could be made.

Mr.
Pribble said a six member Board of Directors would be set up.  Mr. Pribble said it would be three members from each locality;  a Board of Supervisor member, County Administrator and a citizen.  

Mr. Lintecum stated
the two Chairmen and County Administrators would be meeting to discuss how they felt about the draft.

Mr. Pribble said the steps were fairly simple.  Mr. Pribble said each board would authorize a public hearing that would have to be publicized twice in a 30 day period.  Mr. Pribble said when the public hearing was held the county would be acting on the resolution and initial articles of incorporation.  Mr. Pribble said service authorities had been adopted at the public hearing.  Mr. Pribble said the counties would have to have their own meeting or they could have a joint meeting.  Mr. Pribble stated he suggested that each Board had their own meeting because that would be the easiest way.  Mr. Pribble said once each Board had adopted the resolution and the initial articles of incorporation they would be sent to the State Corporation Commission, then a certificate would be sent back saying it had been approved.  

Mr. Pribble said prior to doing any business
, a organizational meeting needed to be set up to determine a Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary and a Treasurer and the person who would taking care of the day to day business.  Mr. Pribble said the bylaws would be adopted at that point.  Mr. Pribble said once the authority had been established then business could start, the adoption of rates and fees, authorization to move forward with the design of the project, authorization of acquisitions of easements and any funding moving forward.  

Mr. Byers asked did the
$40 to $45 million included the easement procurement.  Mr. Hines said yes.

Mr. Gentry said it looked like
the plans were 30 days off the schedule.  Mr. Lintecum said yes we were.

Mr. Harper said there were some things that needed to be addressed before bringing it back to the Board.  

Mr. Byers asked was anything anticipated between the counties that would slow this down.  Mr. Hines said at this point in time it looked workable.

Mr. Havasy asked could the Board get an email about the meeting with the Fluvanna Board.  Mr. Hines said yes.

OLD BUSINESS

Decision - REZ17-07; Douglas E. Darling, Applicant; request conditional rezoning of approximately 1072.3302 acres from Agricultural (A-2) to Rural Estate (RE)

Mr. Gentry said he was concerned with the
latest actions of the developer.  Mr. Gentry said the developer was asking for more time and he thought there had been sufficient time for everything to be done.  Mr. Gentry said he was particularly concerned with some of the proffers that had been taken away that the public and the neighbors were really concerned about.          

Mr. Gentry made a motion to deny the approval of the conditional rezoning of approximately 1072.33 acres from agricultural (A-2) to rural estate (RE).

Mr. Barnes said understands the concerns the citizens had however anytime dialog is shut down something would be taken away.  Mr. Barnes said he didnt think postponing it was unfair because the application fee was $12,000.  Mr. Barnes said he would like to see the project go back to the Planning Commission.  

Mr. Spencer said
he was happy when Mr. Darling had in the proffers that they would notify everyone that bought a lot that Mr. Verling had the fox pen next door so there wouldnt be any problems.  Mr. Spencer said his second concern was the water situation.  Mr. Spencer said the proffers were great and now it seemed they all had been dropped.  Mr. Spencer said they were now asking for more time but it had been a long time already and that was why he seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper said he had some real issues with the proffers,
especially the transportation side of it.  Mr. Harper said he agreed with Mr. Spencer and Mr. Gentry and some of the proffers would have to be back for him to support it in the future.  Mr. Harper said he would not support this motion but if there was a motion for it to go back to the Planning Commission he would support that.

Mr. Havasy said when
a Developer goes out their way to write proffers to protect your neighbors, the neighbors tend to get more in line with the project.  Mr. Havasy said in all fairness it should be sent back to the Planning Commission to be worked out.  Mr. Havasy said he thought it was mistake to remove all the proffers.

Mr. Harper said his biggest con
cern was not in the development.  Mr. Harper said the county had an opportunity to put 500 acres in some type of easement and if they missed that opportunity the next Board that comes behind them may allow 800 homes in that development.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call on Mr. Gentrys motion.

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

With the votes reflecting 3-4, the motion failed to deny the approval of the conditional rezoning of approximately 1072.33 acres from agricultural (A-2) to rural estate (RE).

Mr. Havasy made a motion to send REZ17-07 back to the Planning Commission, Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper  requested a roll call.

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


With the votes reflecting 4-3, the motion passed to send REZ17-07 back to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Byers asked who paid the fees associated with it returning to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Harper said the applicant starts all over again.

Discussion - Funding request for Gordonsville Library

Mr. Lintecum said the Board had heard the prior request of the Mayor of Gordonsville and they needed to take action.

Mr. Havasy said in speaking
with Ms. Faye Rosenthal, she indicated that legally the county could not give money to a Town outside Louisa County.

Mr. Byers said there were other areas of the county that were served by adjoining counties and if the Board made this exception it look like they were starting a pattern.


On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board denied the request to fund Gordonsville Library.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum to communicate to Gordonsville that Louisa wishes them the best in their efforts.

Discussion - CSA

Mr. Paul Oswell stated he was responding to four questions the Board asked at the last meeting.  The first question was; can you provide the Board with the Cost Containment Study for Fluvanna County.  Mr. Oswell said the 68 page study was included in the Board Packet, with the CSA Cost Containment Implementation Plan and another 15 page document.  

Mr. Oswell said he was requesting that the Board reconsider having the study done on CSA cost effectiveness.

Mr. Byers asked was there data on the results of the cost reductions spoke of on page 117 of the Board Packet.  Mr. Oswell said
he hadnt gotten anything from Fluvanna.

Mr. Byers asked at this point was a cost reduction anticipated.  Mr. Oswell said yes.

Mr. Gentry said he was normally against studies but there was so much about CSA that wasnt known.  Mr. Gentry said he thought Mr. Oswell did an excellent job getting the information to the Board and planned on supporting the study.

Mr. Barnes asked how long would it take for the study to be completed.  Mr. Oswell said about three months.

Mr. Havasy asked how did Louisa County compare cost wise to surrounding counties with CSA.
 Mr. Oswell said Louisa was comparable, maybe more Statewide but a small amount.

Mr. Havasy asked was there anything local government
s were overlooking that could get a handle on this.  Mr. Oswell said his hope was that the study would show where Louisa was and what efficiencies could be put in place to reduce cost.  

Mr.
Havasy asked what percentage of reduction in cost did Fluvanna come up with in their study.  Mr. Oswell said he had not seen those figures.  Mr. Oswell said he understood the process in Fluvanna had improved and when that happens efficiencies go up and thats when it becomes more effective.

Mr. Barnes said he wasnt much on studies
either but Louisa needed the numbers to see where the County stood.

Mr. Byers asked was there assurance that the study would be objective and the findings would be what actually was there.  Mr. Oswell said that was why he requested a Board of Supervisor member be part of the study team because the group would set the parameters for the study.  

Mr. Spencer said he sent an email to Brenda McLaughlin and had her response and he read her response.  

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board authorized the study of the Louisa CSA.

Mr. Oswell stated the second question was; what were the numbers of children in Louisa County with IEPs (Individualized Education Plans).  Mr. Oswell stated Louisa County currently had 786 students with IEPs,  and 13 students were in day placements outside of the county being paid for by CSA.

Mr. Barnes asked was the current cost those 13 children.  Mr. Oswell said the 13 was the current number.  Mr. Barnes said he just wanted everyone to see the cost.

Mr. Oswell stated the next question was; what were the factors that influenced the increased cost of CSA in 2003 over 2002.  Mr. Oswell said the excel spreadsheet included in the Board Packet listed expenditures from child information from 1998 to 2008.  Mr. Oswell said in 2002, the CSA expenditures were $443,090 and in 2003 they were $525,783.  Mr. Oswell stated the $82,693 increase can be attributed the following: CSA special education costs rose $66,571 and certain foster care expenses rose $55,515. Mr. Oswell said these increases account for more than the yearly increase as other expenses were reduced.

Mr. Oswell stated the final question was; what were some of the root causes for the problems in CSA.  Mr. Oswell said from his perspective, one of the root causes of problems in CSA related to the high number of child protective service (CPS) complaints DSS received. Mr. Oswell said for FY07, DSS received 191 CPS complaints resulting in 48 investigations and 120 family assessments. Mr. Oswell said for FY08, DSS received 168 complaints resulting in 45 investigations and 108 assessments.  Mr. Oswell stated most children who come into foster care come in as a result of a CPS complaint.

Mr. Harper asked where were most of the CPS complaints coming from.  Mr. Oswell said the Schools.

Mr. Harper asked what agency had the ability to make a difference.  Mr. Oswell said no one agency could make a difference.  Mr. Harper said then who could make the difference.  Mr. Oswell said the citizens.  Mr. Harper asked how.  Mr. Oswell said the parents can make a difference.  

Mr. Harper
said he thought he heard Mr. Oswell say the General Assembly had the power to make rule changes that would effect CSA.  Mr. Oswell said he had said in the past he thought there had been a substantial cost shift from State funds to Local funds.

Mr. Harper asked could the General Assembly address the process. Mr. Oswell said he believed they could address the process.

Mr. Harper said Richmond needed to step up and address this to keep localities from bankrupting themselves with the process.

Mr. Harper said when general services start being cut the citizens needed to know its because of the cost CSA.

Mr. Harper said it was his understanding that funds that could be recovered would
be, but little funds were being recovered.  Mr. Oswell said that was true, any child that comes into the foster care their parents were automatically referred to the Division of Child Support Enforcement for recovery, but little fund were being recovered.

Mr. Havasy read the last paragraph on page 119 and then asked was DSS doing anything to make sure the parents spoke of in that last paragraph were paying their dues for abusing the children.  Mr. Oswell said most of the complaints dont raise to the level of court action.

Mr. Havasy said he didnt understand how the county was paying so much money to house the children in these schools and the parents were walking around free. Mr. Havasy asked why werent the parents being prosecuted.  Mr. Oswell said in some cases they were.  Mr. Oswell said DSS didnt decide what cases were prosecuted.

Mr. Wright said the reports have been shifted to the localities as well.  Mr. Wright said that takes away from the time the Case Worker could work with the child and the family.

Mr. Byers asked what happens when
the county runs out of monies to fund these programs.  Mr. Harper said funds would be taken from somewhere to help.

Mr. Gentry said he appreciated Mr. Oswell mentioning in question #4 trying to get to the root causes.  Mr. Gentry said he hoped it was one of the main items in the study.

Mr. Spencer said the children were being taking out the homes where poor parenting was the problem and sent to the schools and then sent back to the same home.  Mr. Spencer said that was why home based counseling was needed.  Mr. Spencer said the parents were required to pay a co-pay and he didnt see where that was being collected.

Mr. Spencer said the Board approved
two new Social Workers for CSA and asked were they both doing CSA work.  Mr. Oswell said one was doing foster care work and the other had not been hired. Mr. Barnes said its going to take a collective approach.  Mr. Barnes said the county needed to let Delegate Janis and Senator Houck know that as local officials they expect them to start drafting some bills to help us with these State mandates.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum to send a letter
to Delegate Janis and Senator Houck.

Mr. Byers said if the State of Virginia could suspend your license for smoking marijuana,  why couldnt that use actions such as that to deal with parents.

Mr. Spencer said he received an anonymous letter about child molestation and asked if there was a parent that molested their own child should they be allowed to come back into that family or would CPS prevent it. Mr. Oswell said it depends on a number of factors.

Mr. Harper asked that the study got started and that Mr. Lintecum send the letter to the Delegate and Senator and to mention Mr. Byers suggestion in the letter.

Mr. Oswell said
he needed another appropriation for FY 08.  Mr. Oswell said the Board appropriated $1.835 million in May and they needed a total of $1.937. Mr. Oswell said DSS was $102,000 short.  

Mr. Harper asked was that
amount to wrap up last year and Mr. Oswell said yes.

Mr. Oswell it would $45,000 in local dollars $57,000 in state.

Mr. Gentry asked what if the county said no.  Mr. Oswell said then the county would pay full $102,000 because it wouldnt get the State match.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 4-3, with Messrs Byers, Gentry and Spencer voting against, the Board approved a supplemental appropriation for contractual services related to Comprehensive Services Act.

Mr. Gentry said the Board had said they were going to start saying no when agencies or departments went over their budget for any reason and that was why he voted against.

Mr. Spencer said this was a continuous thing.

Mr. Harper said there were some things that could be
handle like that but he didnt believe this was one of them.

Discussion - Revenue Recovery Compassion Policy

Ms. Lowe said at the last meeting she was asked to put together a Compassionate Billing Policy for the Revenue Recovery Program.

Ms. Lowe said after reviewing the compassionate billing polices from several Virginia localities, she put together a policy that allows for a reduction or waiver of charges based on the patients income level as follows;

Range of Annual Household Gross Income                 Actual Reduction

$ 0 - $20,000                                                                        100%
$20,001 - $30,000                                                                75%
$30,001 - $40,000                                                                50%
$40,001 - $50,000                                                                25%

Ms. Lowe said with this policy if the county had not been contacted regarding a Hardship Waiver and the account was unpaid after three notices, the Treasurers Office would be notified and begin pursuing collections. Ms. Lowe said once an account goes into collections, a $30 administrative fee would be added to the total amount of the bill.

Ms. Lowe said
some localities request documentation to verify the household income.  Ms. Lowe said her policy didnt include that however, if the Board wanted that added it could be.

Ms. Lowe said she would need the Boards approval to enact this policy.

Mr. Havasy asked what was the co-pay for Medicare and Medicaid.  Ms. Lowe said she was told Medicare would pay 80 percent of the bill as long as it was deemed medically necessary and she believed Medicaid was 50 percent.

Mr. Havasy said it would be wise to get the subscription.  Ms. Lowe said she would think so.

Mr. Harper asked does the Medicare recipient get the reduction on the 20 percent not paid by Medicare.  Ms. Lowe said yes.

Mr. Wright said he didnt see any appeal process.  Mr. Wright said there would situations where there would be grounds for appeals.  Mr. Wright said he would like to see an appeal process.

Ms. Lowe asked was he speaking of an appeal process for the insurance company.  Mr. Wright explained he was talking about for a citizen that may want to appeal if they got turned down for a hardship.  

Ms. Pandak said she worked with Ms. Lowe and they put the policy in standard black and white so there wouldnt be challenges that were discriminatory to anyone.  Ms Pandak said if there were other factors in addition to household income the county may need some other revisions to the policy and it wouldnt simply be an appeal.  

Mr. Wright said he would like to have some type of appeal process.


Ms. Lowe said anyone could request a payment plan no matter what your household income was.

Mr. Harper asked was there any procedure in place to verify what the citizen said their annual income was.  Mr. Lowe said she didnt have anything now but if the Board wanted her to add that she would ask for tax documents or pay stubs.

Mr. Byers said he would suggest adding a statement to have pay stubs or something to verify the household income.

Mr. Harper asked did the policy say after billing three times it would be written off.  Ms. Lowe said no, if its billed three times and the citizen does not respond it would go to the Treasurers Office for collections plus an additional $30 administrative fee would be added to the bill.

Mr. Harper said Mr. Wright has asked that the appeal process be looked into.

Discussion - Reduction in workforce policy


Mr. Byers asked what did the statement “Responsibility for Layoff No Changes-Recommend Deleting” mean.

Mr. Lintecum said he thought the whole policy needed to examined.  Mr. Lintecum said something needed to be drafted and brought back to the Board.

Mr. Wright said there needed to
be better definitions.

Mr. Spencer said on the top of page 217 of the Board Packet it said “It is the responsibility of the County Administrator to manage the size of the workforce in the best interest of the County as needs dictate.”

Mr. Harper asked was that happening.  Mr. Lintecum said he tried to.

Mr. Havasy asked was there some reason the county was looking at this policy.  Mr. Harper said it was a good time, cause if the county needed it would be in place.

Mr. Havasy said this
shouldnt be something going through county staff because it wouldnt do much for moral, which wouldnt do much for production.

Mr. Barnes said this was just the implementation of policy.  Mr. Barnes said if the county did have to go to this policy it would be in place.  

Mr. Wright said he would suggest looking at page 224 section E, page 229 section D.  Mr. Wright said those were sections from other counties but he thought they were something to be looked into.

Mr. Gentry said he would like to ask Mr. Lintecum to look at essential employees.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum to have a draft of the policy ready at the October 6, 2008 meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - Awarding the contact for the Animal Shelter roof upgrades and appropriate remaining 50% of FY 09 funds

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Harper voting against, the Board adopted a resolution awarding the contract for the animal shelter roof upgrades and appropriate remaining 50 percent of  FY 09 funds.

Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Linhares where was the county with the Battlefield Pull Offs.

Mr. Linhares said they were ready to go out for bid and he was just waiting on word to send it out for bid.  Mr. Linhares said it was an enhancement program which meant 80 percent would be paid by State funds and rest by County funds.

Mr. Barnes asked what would be the countys cost.  Mr. Linhares said about $9,000.

Mr. Barnes said he had stopped at the Visitors Center and there were several people going to see the Battlefields.  Mr. Barnes said if the county could get 80 percent reimbursement from the State he would like to county to move forward.

Mr. Linhares said because it was an enhancement program that meant it was a reimbursement program and the county would pay the bills upfront.  Mr. Linhares said the whole project would cost around $40,000 to $42,000.

Mr. Havasy said tourism was a big part of Economic Development.  Mr. Havasy said Bob Gibson and Carolyn McCray were trying to get Louisa in some the tourist books so people who dont know we were here would.   Mr. Havasy said people would come to see those Battlefields.

Mr. Wright said two or three years ago the State said Louisa did not meet the criteria for a animal shelter and it needed to be called an animal pound.  Mr. Wright asked had that change.  Mr. Linhares said no it was a pound.

Mr. Linhares said he would like to make a request to go out to bid for the Trevilian Battlefield Station Project.

It was consensus of the Board
for Mr. Linhares to proceed with the bid process with the understand he would come back to the Board before proceeding further.

Resolution - Re-appropriating encumbrances and grants for FY 08-09

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution re-appropriating encumbrances and grants for FY 08-09.

Mr. Harper said any item had to come back to the Board prior to being done.

Resolution - Re-appropriating Capital Improvement Projects for FY 08-09

Mr. McLeod explained the funds that were appropriated for the CIP.

Mr. Harper said once again the projects would come back to the Board prior to any construction.  Mr. McLeod said yes, except for the schools.

Mr. McLeod
explained there were not any funds on the School construction because none had been borrowed.

Mr. Byers asked if the Board acted on page 260 of the Board Packet would that include pages 264 and 265.  Mr. Byers said at the last meeting the Board said if there were areas which included any type of funding someone needed to be at the Board representing the agency or department if the Board had any questions.

Mr. Gentry said the items on pages 264 and 265 in references to the Schools carryover concerned him quite a bit and he was going to suggest those be sent to the Committee with Mr. Byers and himself to ask questions.

Mr. Harper said the resolution would cover everything except the Schools.

Mr. Barnes said he was concerned if the Schools had already obligated this money.

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 5-2, with Messrs Barnes and Byers voting against, the Board adopted a resolution re-appropriating Capital Improvement Projects for FY 08-09, with everything except the Schools.

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Aquatic Facility from earned income

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

Update - Economic Development in Louisa County

Mr. Robert Gibson stated he would like to thank the Board for their action on the Trevilians Pull Off.  Mr. Gibson said he thought Trevilians Battlefield Station would be one the biggest historical tourist attractions for Louisa County.  Mr. Gibson said he would take monies that he raised to make a CD for tourist listen to as they went through the battlefield.  

Mr. Gibson said would be talking about the present the status of Economic Development and discussing the 4 primary focuses of economic development; Existing Industry, Small Business & Entrepreneurs, New Business Recruitment and Future.   Mr. Gibson said there were many overlapping activities and relationships between these primary focuses, but that was how it should be in a successful economic development program.

Mr. Gibson said A politician once said, “It takes a village to raise a child”.  Mr. Gibson said in Economic Development, It takes a team to close a deal” and here was no “I” in economic development!

Mr. Gibson stated the first focus was
existing industry,  according to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, 80 percent of new investment and job growth comes from our existing industry. Mr. Gibson said it was imperative that Economic Development have a strong relationship with existing industry and that Economic Development be the first person a company calls if there was a concern or an opportunity.  Mr. Gibson said the following was what was being done in Louisa to make sure;  first there is the database.  Mr. Gibson said Economic Development maintains a database of all manufacturers and significant companies in Louisa County where all contacts and information was maintained on a real time basis. Mr. Gibson said they were in contact with these companies a minimum of once per year and in most cases several times per year. Mr. Gibson stated with this information Economic Development had a history of any issues with our companies, how we responded and when to follow up.        

Mr. Gibson said secondly was our partners.  Mr. Gibson said they maintained a good relations with the various state, regional and local allies that can provide assistance or information when needed by our local industries. Mr. Gibson said these include state agencies such as VDOT, Department of Rail, Department of Business Assistance, PVCC and J. Sargeant Reynolds Community Colleges, VEC, Piedmont Workforce Council, TJPED and local service providers such as Louisa County High School Career Training and the IDA. Mr. Gibson said each year we host the top executive of all our manufactures and the President of the Virginia Manufacturers Association to discuss the issues impacting manufacturers in Louisa County.

Mr. Gibson said next was support, Economic Development was currently working with local companies that are planning to invest new capital in Louisa County or create new jobs or both. Mr. Gibson stated MWC has announced up to 50 new jobs and $4.5 million in new equipment. Mr. Gibson said they were working local employers one who was looking to double in size and employment.  Mr. Gibson said they were working with PVCC, Louisa Employment Center and Louisa County High School to create an apprenticeship type program to enhance the companys labor base of trainable future workers. Mr. Gibson said they assisted a local retail company relocating to a larger building.

Mr. Gibson said finally through TJPED they stated a business first that would be kicking off in October.  Mr. Gibson said this program would go several steps beyond the capability of our current database. Mr. Gibson said as they continue to meet with local industry and update their information into Business First, that information would be sent to a regional database at TJPED.  Mr. Gibson said TJPED would put our information with the other local counties and cities in our region and be able to provide regional information in the aggregate.  Mr. Gibson said TJPED would then provide this regional information to the state where they could then provide statewide information in the aggregate. Mr. Gibson stated this program would identify issues and opportunities on a local, regional and state level for action to be taken.  Mr. Gibson said it had the potential to identify industry trends that can be used for future company and county planning.
Mr. Gibson said the next area small business & entrepreneurship.  Mr. Gibson said Louisa did not have a small business program department like some of the other larger counties.

Mr. Gibson stated the United States Department of Commerce states that small business is the backbone of America.  Mr. Gibson said Their individual investment was usually small as was their employment; however their collective numbers were enormous. Mr. Gibson said since Louisa County does not have a designated small business division as larger counties and cities, Louisa has to use its federal, state and local allies. Mr. Gibson said Louisas primary ally was the Central Virginia Small Business Development Center.

Mr. Gibson
said this organization has met with over 50 Louisa County Small Business people and provides extended counseling for 6 Louisa businesses. Mr. Gibson said they provide seminars on “how to start a business”, how to develop a business plan and potential sources for financing.

Mr. Gibson
said we also have the support of SCORE, Virginia Small Business Financing Authority, SBA and DBA, Women and Minority Business Division, Virginia Procurement Technical Assistance Program (PTAP) support local small business in applying for state and federal purchasing as well as the HUB ZONE status of Louisa County. Mr. Gibson said we actively collaborate and participate with and the Louisa Chamber of Commerce.  Mr. Gibson said he and Stacey spend a lot time developing a personal relationship with Louisa Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Gibson
said Louisa has helped a long-time Louisa family owned business through a difficult period, supported a local businessman purchase and expand an existing business, assisted a florist and fitness center, among other small retailers start a business.

Ms. Stacey Richardson passed a handout to the Board members.

Mr. Gibson said the third category was new business recruitment.  Mr. Gibson stated like other smaller counties Louisa County does not have the financial resources to support a comprehensive advertising and marketing campaign alone.  Mr. Gibson stated we must partner with the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development for state, national and international marketing exposure. Mr. Gibson stated for this to be successful it was critical we maintain constant contact with key personal at both organizations to keep them aware of opportunities in Louisa County as well Stacey constantly maintaining data to keep it current.  Mr. Gibson stated key state marketing and site officials were invited to Louisa County twice each year and regularly attend the IDA Industry Appreciation Picnic.  Mr. Gibson said he also visited State marking officials at their office at least twice per year and participate in monthly marketing meetings with TJPED at their office in Charlottesville.

Mr. Gibson said more and more consultants and business owners are using a localitys web site to investigate location opportunities. Mr. Gibson said most of the people we have spoken with have already been to our site. Mr. Gibson said it was absolutely imperative that information be current and correct or we will lose prospects without ever knowing it. Mr. Gibson said at present Stacey makes changes on a real-time basis and updates the entire site monthly.

Mr. Gibson said he calls them multipliers, these were people the county could use to help find prospects like consultants, realtors, accountants and site location specialist.

Mr. Gibson said
larger projects almost exclusively use consultants and was trending more in that direction.  Mr. Gibson said he maintains personal contact with many of these individuals on a regular basis to increase the awareness of Louisa County.

Mr. Gibson said he would discuss product development next.  Mr. Gibson said the Louisa Air Industrial Park has just increased it size by an additional 50 acres. Mr. Gibson said the 50 acres would give the county five new building sites for prospect.  Mr. Gibson said the sites would be in a better position for success if they were designated “Ready Sites” by VEDP and have a VEDP approved “Virtual Shell Building”.  Mr. Gibson said as these sites are sold, we should begin the planning for new sites and not again be in a position of not having available sites in the industrial park.

Mr. Gibson said Cooke Rail Park/the Cooke Foundation had expanded the contiguous holdings for this park to over 1,250 acres.  Mr. Gibson said VEDP had designated it as a “Virginia Mega Site” and it was one of only a half-dozen throughout the state. Mr. Gibson said this site brings attention to Louisa County and increases the awareness of Louisa to the state and consultants, etc. Mr. Gibson said this location was considered for the $500 Million Rolls Royce project announced last year by Governor Kaine, Louisa didnt get but it put a lot of information out on Louisa.  

Mr. Gibson said t
he Zion area was very well positioned for commercial and retail growth. Mr. Gibson said there are numerous sites with various owners available for sale or lease. Mr. Gibson said however, Louisa was very limited regarding industrial sites because the price of  land has risen to a level beyond industrial use. Mr. Gibson stated light and medium industrial sites were needed now at Zion.
Mr. Gibson said commercial activity at Zion continues to be active, but has changed in nature over the past year because of economic conditions.  Mr. Gibson stated large developers as represented by the Merchants Walk Outlet Mall had pull back due to the tightening capital markets and bank funding. Mr. Gibson said the big box stores have also slowed expansion on a general level, but some are still being built as represented by the Wal-Mart Super Center announced at Zion.

Mr. Gibson said h
owever, activity from smaller local, regional and national users such as home furnishing, pizza shops, dry cleaners, nail salons, etc has continued at a steady level.  Mr. Gibson said responding to this activity, the Shoppes at Spring Creek will soon begin construction of up to 20,000 square feet or retail space for this market.  Mr. Gibson said other types of businesses looking at Zion include banks and other financial institutions, medical and dental offices, hotels, veterinarians, medical supplies, convenience stores and restaurants.  Mr. Gibson said the home runs would likely remain slow for the next year, but there were still a lot of singles and doubles in the marketplace for Louisa County.  Mr. Gibson said he was furthered encouraged that commercial activity would continue at Zion because housing sales at Spring Creek have continued at a healthy level during the current economic slowdown.

Mr. Gibson said in the Louisa and Mineral area we should actively work with both towns to increase their commercial base. Mr. Gibson said with the future construction of North Anna three, there was a window of opportunity for commercial and retail growth here, especially in Mineral. Mr. Gibson stated both towns had a meals tax and as more restaurants open and more people come to shop and eat, this revenue source would increase in importance.  

Mr. Gibson stated next he would discuss industrial;  Louisa was currently actively working to locate five companies in Louisa County. Mr. Gibson stated of these companies, he felt Louisa was in very good position with three companies would be able to have good news for in the near future.  Mr. Gibson stated the leads for these companies came from TJPED, our web site and his direct contacts. Mr. Gibson said VEDP had also given us leads, particular projects with rail requirements. Mr. Gibson said he should point out that these five companies were individually focused on various locations around Louisa including industrial park, rail sites and Zion.

Mr. Gibson said the economic slowdown has decreased the number of prospects on a national basis and that is reflected downstream to the state and local level such as Louisa. Mr. Gibson said however, Louisa would continue to market and network our product in the Louisa Air Industrial Park and rail sites to get more than our share of the prospect flow.

Mr. Gibson said this was what he thought of the future, Louisa has done many things right over the years, including the North Anna Nuclear Reactors, Louisa Industrial Air Park, comprehensive planning of growth areas, Louisa Employment Center and bringing water and sewer to Zion Crossroads. Mr. Gibson stated however, success in the future requires that more be done. Mr. Gibson said at the interstate the water line to the James River must be constructed; industrial sites through purchase or partnership should be created on Route 250 east of Zion, planning for Gum Spring infrastructure and development should begin, a meals tax initiative should be supported to capture the significant non-Louisa revenue coming from the interstate market. Mr. Gibson said this alone would pay for a comprehensive economic development program several times over. Mr. Gibson stated in the last fiscal year the Town of Louisa collected almost $500,000 in meals tax revenue according to Mayor Artz.

Mr. Gibson stated in the Louisa/Mineral area of the county we should start looking for additional Industrial park sites and have them prepared before the current expansion was sold out.  Mr. Gibson said the county should partner with rail site owners to ensure road and utility access because 35 percent of consultants now rank rail as an important location factor, this was up from 10% only 2 to 3 years ago and will only increase with higher transportation cost.

Mr. Gibson said there must be a commitment to economic development; it doesnt just happen. Mr. Gibson stated he and future economic development directors needed the support of this board and future boards. Mr. Gibson said adequate staff was required to keep information current, an up-to-date web site, to provide existing industry, small business and marketing support and to quickly respond to prospect inquiries.  Mr. Gibson said product, including interstate, rail and non-rail, must be available.

Mr. Gibson stated he believed the future of Louisa County was very bright. Mr. Gibson said Louisa was blessed with a central location between Richmond, Charlottesville and Fredericksburg. Mr. Gibson said if the county was prepared and committed to “Connect the Dots”, Louisa County would have a prosperous economic base providing good jobs for our citizens and revenue for our schools and other services for many years to come.

Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Gibson how important did he see a new industrial park to the tax future of this county.

Mr. Gibson said there would be industrial parks in Zion Crossroads it would just need to be determined which county they were in.  Mr. Gibson said when the James River waterline comes Louisa would probably be at a disadvantage as things stand now.  Mr. Gibson said with the cost of land at Zion the county would probably need to find a landowner to partner with.

Mr. Gibson said there was
a difference between Zion Crossroads and Airport Industrial Park, Zion was market driven you just needed the product.  

Mr. Barnes said there were several Louisa resident traveling to Charlottesville, Fredericksburg and Richmond for work, did the county need to look at putting those types businesses at Zion.

Mr. Gibson said he thought that would certainly be one of the markets at Zion.

Mr. Gentry said the presentation was very good.  Mr. Gentry said he needed more information on some of the topics.

Mr. Gibson said he would love to have Board member come and sit in on some the meetings.

Mr. Barnes said he thought having a rail park was going to be a benefit for Louisa        

Mr. Byers said the fact sheet was really good and he appreciated it.

Discussion - Set Backs

Mr. Spencer said a house was built 25 feet off the set back.  Mr. Spencer said he would like to make a motion that said Mr. Lintecum would meet with the Building Inspectors and have them sign off that they would look at the plat and measure the closest property line to the foundation.

* Mr. Wright left meeting at 8:40 p.m.

Mr. Gentry
said he understand the Code of Virginia said it was the property owners responsibility to get off the set back line.  Mr. Gentry said was this putting our Inspectors in a position that we dont want to put them in.

Ms. Pandak said the Inspector could only say to the best of their knowledge if it looks like a violation or not.  Ms. Pandak said it was the property owners responsibility to be in compliance.

Mr. Harper said he thought the county would be doing that homeowner a favor catching it at the foundation.

Mr. Byers asked could the builder put something on the drawings submitted to the county what the distance was.  Mr. Harper said he thought it was on there.

Mr. Lintecum said the county doesnt require a survey but some of the financial institutions did.

Mr. Harper said he brought it up because he thought it was worth looking into.  Mr. Harper said if Mr. Spencer wanted to remove his motion he could.

Mr. Spencer said he was going to leave the motion on the table.  Mr. Spencer said the Board was here for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens.  

Mr. Spencer made a motion for Mr. Lintecum to speak with the Building Department about instituting a program that would do a preliminary check on
the footer to make sure there was proper set back, Mr. Byers seconded the motion.

Mr. Barnes said agreed with Mr. Gentry and that the Board may be setting up the Building Inspectors.  Mr. Barnes said as homeowners its their responsibility.

Mr. Byers asked would it create more of a legal liability.

Ms. Pandak said no as long as its clear that it was the homeowner was responsibility.  Ms. Pandak said as long as the Inspector was just giving general advice.  Ms. Pandak said she would glad to work with Mr. Lintecum and the Building Inspectors on it.

Mr. Harper said a note could be put on the building permit that the homeowner was advised.

Mr. Havasy
asked what if the Building Inspector said it met the requirements and it didnt.  

Mr. Havasy said about three years ago the Planning Commission had a discussion on whether or not building foundations should be surveyed for this very purpose. Mr. Havasy said didnt want to add any
extra expenses to building a house.  Mr. Havasy said they did brought it before the Board and the Board thought it was an additional expense that would be brought on the homeowner.  Mr.  Havasy said the Board had already spoken on this.  Mr. Havasy said he agreed with Mr. Spencer about taking care of the citizens but this was private business and they need to take care of themselves.

Mr. Harper said to Mr. Lintecum in the event the motion passes, it not was not for the Building Inspector to suggest if they see something but just that the homeowner take a look.

Mr. Barnes said when it doesnt go as planned be prepared for a case.

Mr. Gentry said could the county handle the same awareness by putting something on the permit itself.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call.

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

With the votes reflecting 3-3, with Mr. Wright being absent, the motion failed, for Mr. Lintecum to speak with the Building Department about instituting a program that would do a preliminary check on footer to make sure there was proper set back

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Gentry said on the handouts given to the Board of the minutes from the School Board/Board of Supervisors Committee meeting he wanted to make a correction.  Mr. Gentry said on item #3 where it said Willie said the Board of Supervisors agreed in a motion.  Mr. Gentry said there wasnt a motion and the Board agreed in a discussion.

Mr. Gentry said the Committee has had very good discussion and he believes a lot of good would be coming from that Committee.  

Mr. Gentry said he would like the Boards support in taking
the carryover from the CIP and the school bus cost to the Committee.

*Mr. Wright returned to meeting at 8:50 p.m.

It was consensus of the Board for Mr. Gentry to take the discussed subjects to the Committee.

Mr. Byers said there was
a meeting on customer service survey.  Mr. Byers said there should be a draft in the next 30 days.

Mr. Harper said
he thought it was good to keep it simple.

Mr. Harper said Virginia Regional Jails w
as moving ahead with the plans to come back to the different counties to suggest that it goes to an authority instead of a jail board.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Gentry stated he would like to appoint Mr. John Nedza to the Board of Building Appeals as the engineer.  Mr. Spencer stated he would like to appoint Mr. Steve Lucas to the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee.

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Mr. Nedza to the Board of Building Appeals and Mr. Lucas to the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee.

Mr. Gentry said on the Commission on Aging he would like it say “up to two” members opposed to having to be “two” members.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum to look into that to see if that could be changed.

Mr. Barnes asked was there anyway to do the meal tax by district and just do it for the Zion Crossroads area. Ms. Pandak said she did not think so but she would check into it.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum stated he had prepared the enclosed memo regarding staff openings and the most critical was County Engineer.

Mr. Gentry asked with the Code Enforcement Officer not being filled, did Mr. Lintecum feel the work was being done.  Mr. Lintecum said it was being done better now then ever and felt comfortable with it.  Mr. Lintecum said if it increased he would come back to the Board and let them the position was needed.

Mr. Barnes said he wanted to make sure the county had enough Commercial Building Inspectors.  Mr. Lintecum said he was still examining it.

Mr. Harper asked didnt the county at one time contract out Commercial Inspectors.  Mr. Lintecum said the county has on occasion.

Mr. Lintecum said he also met with the Landfill Engineer and he would getting back to him.

Mr. Harper said Mr. McLeod would like to schedule a pre-budget meeting for September 10, 2008 at 6:00 pm.

It was a consensus of the Board to have the pre-budget meeting on Monday, September 29, 2008 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Lintecum intro
duced Jeremy Camp as the new Community Development Director.  The Board welcomed him.

Mr. Lintecum stated at the August 18, 2008 Board meeting, the Board asked for more information about the vehicles taken home by employees in Tourism and Facilities.  Mr. Lintecum said the enclosed memos address those vehicles.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Sheriffs Department for the DMV Ark Angel Highway, Alcohol, Speed and Seatbelt Enforcement grant

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Sheriffs Department for the DMV Ark Angel Highway, Alcohol, Speed and Seatbelt Enforcement grant.

APPROVAL OF BILLS
        
Mr. Byers said looking through the bill for this cycle there was about $5,000 for conferences, about $1,000 for dues and subscriptions and a fair amount for training.  Mr. Byers said he would encourage the Board to look closer next year during the budget process.  

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod would he regard that as a typical month.  Mr. McLeod said no.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of August 2008 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $ 297,056.49.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the August 18, 2008 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 9:13 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

1.         In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on probable litigation (specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel).

2.         In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on actual litigation Board of Supervisor versus Board of Equalization.

REGULAR SESSION

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

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, 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 2nd day of September 2008, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and

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

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 2nd day of September 2008, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

It was a consensus of the Board that Mr. Wright work with DSS as a part of the CSA Study Team.

RECESS

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the September 2, 2008 meeting at 9:29 p.m.

BY ORDER OF


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