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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
SEPTEMBER 8, 2009
5:00 P.M.

Board Members 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: Dale Mullen, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Greg Hoffman, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of General Services; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Paul Oswell, Director of Social Services; April Lowe, Revenue Recovery Administrator; Faye Stewart, Procurement Officer; Paul Snyder, Building Official; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration and Kimberly Smith, Records Clerk, Administration

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the September 8, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Harper led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper said he would like to add a resolution for a supplemental appropriation for the Virginia Commission for the Local Government Challenge Grant to the Consent Agenda and noted that this was pass-through money only.

Mr. Havasy
said he would like to add a discussion regarding issuing an invitation to all the elected officials.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to have the officials attend a meeting and explain the economy as they see it, where the economy is going and how it will affect the County.  Mr. Harper said that would be added under New Business.

Mr. Byers said he would like to add a discussion regarding the letter from the Commission on Aging in reference to the tax relief for the elderly.  Mr. Harper said that would be added under New Business.

        
On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the September 8, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

Presentation - Louisa Gators Swim Team

Laura Mawyer, President of the Parents of Gators Association (POGA), presented a “thank you” photograph to the Board.  Ms. Mawyer said the Gators had a great swim season and a larger turn out than expected.  Ms. Mawyer said there were almost 100 swimmers and she hoped that number would continue to grow.  Ms. Mawyer said she had a great time working with everyone from Louisa Parks and Recreation and thanked the Board.

Mr. Barnes said the Washington Post did an article last summer and one of the topics discussed was why he chose to run for the Board.  Mr. Barnes said the reason was a Parks and Recreation
bond referendum which included a pool.  Mr. Barnes said he would love to see an indoor swimming facility in the future so there could be a year-round swim team.

Presentation - Revenue Recovery Annual Report

Ms. April Lowe said the Revenue Recovery Program had been charging for almost one year and, as with any new program, it was hard to predict the performance from the beginning.  Ms. Lowe said the Revenue Recovery Committee originally predicted that $1.48 million would be billed the first year and $594,000 (40%) would be collected.  Ms. Lowe said as of July 31, 2009, about $1.26 million had been billed and $377, 864 (about 30%) had been collected.  Ms. Lowe said this did not include the subscription revenue that had been collected.

Ms. Lowe said the collection rate may appear low compared to what was originally projected, but there are still two more months to bill out until the program reaches one year and the County
was still collecting on transports that were rendered as far back as October 2008.  Ms. Lowe said DAB, the Countys billing company, has made great efforts to collect on the older accounts before writing them off.  Ms. Lowe said DAB recently implemented more improved collection efforts, such as working with a clearing house to perform a nationwide search for correct address and insurance information.

Ms. Lowe said the Department of Emergency Services has not seen any evidence that less people are calling for an ambulance because of billing and that calls have increased.  Ms. Lowe said Emergency Services has seen an increase in basic injury or illness calls where the patients just want to be checked out.

Ms. Lowe said she had heard a limited number of complaints
from citizens since the billing went into effect.  Ms. Lowe said most of the time, the insurance companies will pay; if not, citizens will call her or DAB with questions regarding their bill.  Ms. Lowe said she could help the citizen with a hardship waiver or a “time-to-pay” program agreement.  Ms. Lowe said a total of 24 hardship waivers had been received, which equaled $9,102.32

Ms. Lowe said the biggest challenge of the Program has been the electronic call reporting.  Ms. Lowe reported that this was progressing and significant progress had been made in the month of August.  Ms. Lowe said Bob Hardy had completed the re-creation of one database for all the agencies and final configuration changes were currently being made to the Toughbooks.  Ms. Lowe said
the 120-day trial period for electronic call reporting with the career staff should begin soon.

Ms. Lowe said electronic call reporting was expected to improve the accuracy of records, but was also expected to increase collections.  Ms. Lowe said the purchased software included features that allowed for patient information, such as name, address, date of birth, allergies, medications and insurance information, to be saved in case the patient was transported more than once.  Ms. Lowe said with electronic call reporting, the narrative would be more detailed and would be typed instead of handwritten.

Ms. Lowe said DAB was doing everything they could to minimize patient exposure, but yet keep them compliant with regulations mandated by insurance companies.  Ms. Lowe said Medicare required
that reasonable collection effort be made to resolve accounts.  Ms. Lowe said if an account has a balance after the insurance company has paid, the patient is billed three times; if no response is received, then the account is written off.

Ms. Lowe said DAB developed a new, more patient
-friendly insurance request form hoping to generate more response from the patients.  Ms. Lowe said there is also a website where patients can log on and submit their insurance information or request that a DAB representative call them.

Ms. Lowe said in FY 2009, a total of 937 households subscribed to the Subscription Program.  Ms. Lowe said 25 patients were transported and had a subscription write-off.  Ms. Lowe said that did not mean that only 25 patients who had a subscription were transferred, but it meant that 25 patients who had a subscription also had insurance companies who did not pay 100% of the bill.  Ms. Lowe said this totaled $5,675.84 in subscription write-offs.  Ms. Lowe said so far, 448 households have subscribed to the Subscription Program during this enrollment period, which would end September 30, 2009.

Ms. Lowe said on February 2, 2009, the Board adopted Resolution 09.019 to address the use of Revenue
Recovery funds.  Ms. Lowe said a committee had been formed to review standardizing ambulances and establishing a replacement schedule for the current ambulances in the County.  Ms. Lowe said the Committee had been meeting and making progress, but a final decision on a standardized unit had not been made yet.  Ms. Lowe said it was apparent that there were ambulances that needed to be replaced soon according to discussions of the Committee.

Ms. Lowe said per the agreement with the County for the creation of the Revenue Recovery Program and Resolution 09.019, the only authorized payout was to cover start
-up and operational costs of the Program.  Ms. Lowe said her plan was to provide the Board with a resolution in October to pay the General Fund back this fiscal year for the initial start up debt borrowed from the General Fund.  Ms. Lowe said after that happened, the Program would be in the clear by $170,070.

Mr. Byers
asked if the expenditures included the personnel costs.  Ms. Lowe said yes and noted that the expenditures included salary and benefits.  Mr. Byers said he knew Mr. Hardy spent a lot of time on this Program and asked if the expenditure included other staff time.  Ms. Lowe said no.

Mr. Spencer asked about the comment regarding collecting on accounts as far back as October 2008.  Mr. Spencer said if the plan was to send three bills and then write the account off, why were collections still taking place from as far back as October 2008.  Ms. Lowe said the older accounts were because of insurance hold-ups.  Ms. Spencer said he just wanted to make sure no one was being harassed for money.  Ms. Lowe said no.

Mr. Havasy thanked Ms. Lowe, Mr. Ha
rdy, Chief Dubé, the volunteers and the career staff for all the hard work put into making the Revenue Recovery Program a success.  Mr. Havasy said the County was saving money from the taxpayers and making the insurance companies pay their fair share.

Mr. Barnes said Ms. Lowe did a great job on her presentation and made it clear enough for no additional questions at the end.

Presentation - Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Biosolids

Mr. Neil Zarahdka, Manager of the Office of Land Application Programs at DEQ, thanked the Board for the opportunity to address their concerns.  Mr. Zarahdka said State Legislation transferred the oversight of all biosolids regulation from the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) beginning January 1, 2008.  Mr. Zarahdka said the Office of Land Application Programs was created and that Office developed an inspection program as outlined by the Legislation.  Mr. Zarahdka said the inspection program was doing well, but DEQ still urged localities to adopt local ordinances and keep the local monitor programs in place.

Mr. Zarahdka said when the rules transferred from VDH to DEQ, some rules changed and some stayed the same.  Mr. Zarahdka said the VDH regulation came over as is and was incorporated in to the DEQ regulations.  Mr. Zarahdka said the permits already issued by the VDH are still valid until they are replaced by a DEQ permit.

Mr. Zarahdka said he had been working closely with the local monitor, Ms. Cindy Draves, and had answered questions for her a few weeks ago.  Mr. Zarahdka said DEQ enforced State regulation and State law, but if there was something in the local ordinance that was not included in the DEQ regulations, the DEQ inspector would not be regulating those provisions.  Mr.  Zarahdka said the reimbursement program worked the same way and reimbursement would only occur for enforcement of State
law and regulation.

Mr. Zarahdka
said when DEQ took over the program, most of the questions and mistrust had to do with whether or not the rules were being followed.  Mr. Zarahdka said when the rules were followed, there was no problem with the health and safety of the biosolids practice.  Mr. Zarahdka said there was a lot of emphasis on whether or not the regulations were being followed and that is where the compliance program came into play.

Mr. Zarahdka said in calendar year 2008, over 1,300 inspections were conducted and close to 75% of the farms who use biosolids were visited.  Mr. Zarahdka said there has not been a big compliance problem and only 11 warning letters were issued in 2008.

Mr. Havasy asked what changes were proposed to be made to the biosolids program.  Mr. Zarahdka said most of the issues he dealt with were in regards to notification.  Mr. Zarahdka said most of the complaints were not in opposition to the biosolids practice, but were in regards to the notification that the practice was taking place.  Mr. Zarahdka said he was looking into the adequacy of the notifications.

Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Zarahdka what kind of notification DEQ was looking into for the biosolids program.  Mr. Havasy said the Country, as well as the State, was going through financial problems and asked if the applicant was going to be financially burdened with advertising in the newspaper months before the application.  Mr. Zarahdka said the minimum requirement per the Legislature was notification when first applying for a permit, notification when the draft permit was first issued and notification for modifying a permit.  Mr. Zarahdka said the new notification requirements would depend on the scale of the work being proposed.
 Mr. Zarahdka said he would like for the regulations to reflect what is effective in getting the residents notified.

Mr. Havasy asked how many tons of sludge is applied every year in Virginia or in the County of Louisa and what the cost effectiveness was for a farmer over buying commercial fertilizer.  Mr. Zarahdka said he did not have the tonnage numbers with him, but the percentage of agricultural land in Virginia where biosolids was used as fertilizer was less than 1%.  Mr. Zarahdka said the cost savings could be extremely significant.

Mr. Byers
asked if there was any intention of increasing the scope of what was regulated by DEQ, such as chicken litter.  Mr. Zarahdka said there were proposed regulations that would effect the land application of poultry litter.

Mr. Barnes said he had to agree with alternative ways to fertilize in order to help reduce costs.  Mr. Barnes said he hoped DEQ was taking an approach towards the education of a program like this before adding more regulations.  Mr. Zarahdka said one thing DEQ took very seriously was the education program.

Mr. Spencer thanked Mr. Zarahdka for coming and for helping out Ms. Draves.

Presentation - Verizon Wireless; High Speed Internet Access in Louisa County

Ms. Cindy Cole, Government Account Representative, said she was invited to attend the Board meeting to discuss broadband coverage and to address questions relating to the Ogg Farm Tower and Blue Ridge Shores.

Mr. Dexter Walker, RF Design Engineer, said he was asked to attend the meeting and discuss Verizon Wireless coverage in Louisa County.  Mr. Walker said he looked at the Blue Ridge Shores area and Verizon did not currently have anything planned for that area.  Mr. Walker said he would send a System Performance Engineer out to measure the levels of coverage in the Blue Ridge Shores area and that Engineer would bring the information back to him.  Mr. Walker said he would then determine if Verizon needed to release a search area which meant the Verizon real estate team would go out and search for any existing towers or look for land where Verizon could build a tower.  Mr. Walker said the negotiation or lease process could be started from there.
 Mr. Walker said there were no current plans for the Blue Ridge Shores area, but now that the area had been brought to his attention, he would get the process started.

Mr. Walker said he was not familiar with the Ogg Farm Tower location.  Mr. Walker said if more information, such as an address or coordinates, could be provided to him, he would be happy to take a closer look into the area.

Mr. Havasy said he spoke to Tam Murray with CWS and Mr. Murray indicated that Verizon had started their lease as of September 1, 2009 on the Ogg Farm Tower.  Mr. Havasy said he was told that Verizon had not committed to co-locate there yet, but was under lease.

Mr. Gentry asked if there was a plan to cover Louisa County as a whole.  Mr. Walker said he was currently working on a search area in Green Springs, Trevilians and Butlers Store.  Mr. Walker said once he identified and approved a tower, it would go to the real estate department.  Mr. Walker said that could be a very long or a very short process.

Mr. Gentry said there was an existing tower based on Louisa Countys Master Plan and every tower mentioned so far was west of the Town of Louisa.  Mr. Gentry said there was a lot of County left over and he would like to see Verizon get involved with all the towers in the County.

Mr. Walker said some of the surrounding counties (Goochland, Hanover, Fluvanna) submitted their Master Plans to Verizon showing existing, approved and proposed towers in the
County.  Mr. Walker said some of the towers Verizon knew about and some of them they did not.

Mr. Gentry asked that the County Administrator provide a copy of the Master Plan to Verizon.

Mr. Byers asked if there was anything in Verizons service process that received feedback from current Verizon customers as to how satisfied
they were with service they were receiving.  Mr. Walker said customers who are not pleased with their service will call in.  Mr. Walker said the “trouble tickets” come through him and the areas that have the most “trouble tickets” tend to receive the most emphasis.  Mr. Walker said concerns from boards of supervisors, emergency services or police tend to carry more weight.  Mr. Walker said the more information Verizon receives, the better.

Mr. Barnes said he was not happy with Verizon and neither was his constituency.  Mr. Barnes said he was one of the fortunate ones to have DSL, but his neighbors were not.  Mr. Barnes said one of the things that bothered him was that Embarq, who was not even close in size to Verizon, was offering high-speed internet in Kents Store, Virginia.  Mr. Barnes said people in this rural area felt like they were being left out.  Mr. Barnes said no one felt that they were being taken serious about high-speed internet.

Mr. Barnes said he understood that it was more valuable to service larger areas.  Mr. Barnes said he wanted to know how Embarq could take relay switches and kee
p the high-speed internet going, but Verizon could not.  Mr. Barnes said it was important for Verizon to understand that rural people pay their telephone bills just like everyone else and they would like the same service as the larger areas.  Mr. Barnes said there were people who want to work out of their homes or start and maintain businesses, but they cannot do that without high-speed internet.

Mr. Spencer thanked the representatives for attending.  Mr. Spencer said there were 472 houses within Blue Ridge Shores and there was an area available where Verizon could place a tower.  M
r. Spencer said there were many subdivisions around Blue Ridge Shores with hundreds of additional houses.

Mr. Walker said meetings like this were very beneficial because he got to hear how people felt about the service and coverage they were receiving.  Mr. Walker said there are times when he looks at the networks and the numbers and it appears that customers are happy and the only way to know when something is not right is when customers call in and complain.  Mr. Walker said he was glad he attended the meeting because now he is aware of the concerns and could take a closer look at Louisa County.

Mr. Wright said Louisa County had seven districts and four of the seven are east of the Town of Louisa and the areas discussed only covered three out of the seven districts.  Mr. Wright said some of the people in his district would be happy to get some speed with their landline and some of them have the oldest landlines in the system.  Mr. Wright said his district was the closest to Richmond which is where Verizon headquarters are located and his district was still ignored.

Mr. Byers said it appeared that Verizon did not have a problem reaching out to the areas that paid well.  Mr. Byers said he had asked before if it would be possible to leverage against companies like Verizon when they seek the most profitable areas and take some of that money to put towards the less profitable areas to see that everyone has equal service.

Mr. Gentry said he heard a lot of negative comments about Verizon and
added that their customer service was not so great.  Mr. Gentry said he was placed on hold for one hour when he called about a week ago.

Mr. Harper thanked Mr. Walker and Ms. Cole for attending the meeting and asked that they take the information
back to Verizon.

Mr. Mullen said this was a two-part Verizon presentation because a landline representative would be attending the September 21, 2009 meeting.  Mr. Mullen said he compiled 12 questions from the schools, staff and Board members and three questions were answered this evening by the wireless representatives:

Mr. Mullen said Ms. Cole explained to him that the last question was protected, proprietary business information.  Mr. Barnes said the map showing where Verizon currently had coverage was not protected.  Mr. Mullen said that was correct and explained that the information protected was the locations where Verizon planned to expand in the next 12, 24 and 60 months.

Mr. Barnes asked if the Board could receive a copy of the current coverage map for the County.

Mr. Harper thanked Mr. Walker and Ms. Cole for coming.

OLD BUSINESS

Resolution - Authorizing a Contract with J.L.W. Associates, Inc. Regarding the Expansion of the Louisa County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution awarding the low bid to J.L.W. Associates, Inc. regarding the expansion of the Louisa County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - To Award a Contract for the Realignment of the Landfill Perimeter Road to Comply with VPDES Permit

Mr. Barnes said staff went through with placing this project out to bid and he was a firm believer of allowing staff to do certain tasks on their own.  Mr. Barnes said this was an instance where he was receiving conflicting reports regarding the engineering and design of the road.  Mr. Barnes asked if the Board would allow putting off approval of this contract for a while.  Mr. Barnes said he received phone calls from contractors saying that the road was over-designed.  Mr. Barnes said he would like to have Mr. Gentry, former VDOT engineer, look at the design to confirm the engineering of the road before he could support this.

Mr. Spencer said he had a contractor call him and say that they priced the materials alone at over $40,000 and the low bid came in at $46,000.  Mr. Spencer said he wanted to confirm that addendum three was addressed by the low bidder.

Mr. Spencer asked if the low bidder had included the cost of rip rap in his bid.  Mr. Linhares said yes and noted that the contractor was going to utilize some of the existing rip rap that was already on site.  Mr. Linhares also added that he verified that all three addendums were acknowledged by the contractor.

Mr. Spencer asked what would happen if the contractor said they needed more rip rap because there was not enough on site.  Mr. Spencer asked if the County would have to provide more money.  Mr. Linhares said no.

Mr. Byers said what concerned him was the fact that the County was awarding the contract to a company from Warrenton, Virginia when it would only cost $1,000 more for a local contractor.  Mr. Byers said the idea was buy local and he knew there were other requirements and standards from a procurement standpoint, but it seemed logical to him to award a contract that was only $1,000 more to the local contractor.  Mr. Byers said he felt there should be a way to keep as much business as possible here locally.

Mr. Gentry said he was amazed at the bid range from $46,000 to $156,000 in a time when a lot of people are looking for work.  Mr. Gentry asked if there was any reason why there would be such a large spread between bids.  Mr. Linhares said he had been in the construction field for a long time and it was nothing to see bids spread this far apart.  Mr. Linhares said higher bids could reflect a company that has more overhead costs or could reflect how the contractor bid the job or how difficult the contractor felt the job was.  Mr. Linhares said he was not concerned with the bids because there was a pattern and several of the bids were close together in price.  Mr. Linhares said the engineers estimate was $54,000 which was in line with the other bids.  Mr. Linhares said he budgeted $50,000 for the project and he was comfortable with these bid prices.

Mr. Wright asked if a performance payment bond was being required for this job.  Mr. Linhares said no.  Mr. Wright asked why.  Mr. Linhares said the guideline was that anything over $100,000 had to be bonded.  Mr. Wright asked when that guideline came into effect.  Mr. Hoffman said anything over $100,000 was required to be bonded per State Code and anything under $100,000 was optional.  Mr. Wright said this was taxpayer money that the County was gambling with.

Mr. Linhares said the job would take no more than three or four weeks to complete and by the time the contractor completed the job, the County would not even have paid the contractor yet.  Mr. Wright said the County would still be obligated to pay it at that point.  Mr. Hoffman said that was true as long as the job had been completed to workman-like standards.  Mr. Hoffman said the County had used this discretion in the past.

Mr. Barnes said there were still questions that Board members had and he asked that the decision be put off until the questions were answered.

Mr. Gentry asked if Joyce Engineering, the Countys engineering firm, designed and built roads.  Mr. Linhares said they designed roads for landfills and were very experienced in that regard.

Mr. Havasy said he felt every one of the Board members agreed with Mr. Byers comment about local contractors.  Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Hoffman what the requirements were or if there was anything the Board could do to direct County business towards the local workforce.  Mr. Hoffman said under the current procurement code, the only case in which the County could have preference for a local contractor over another contractor would be in a tie bid situation.  Mr. Hoffman said the current procurement code did not give the County the ability to select a bidder that came in at a higher price just because they were local.  Mr. Hoffman said he would check in the State Code to see if there was any leeway built in for that purpose, but he did not know at this time.

Mr. Havasy asked why the Federal Government could put out bids and have certain requirements, but the County could not.  Mr. Havasy asked why the County could not put out a bid and say that it was for local contractors only.  Mr. Hoffman said he would have an answer to that question at the next Board meeting.

Mr. Harper said there were three bids within $3,000 of each other and five bids within $15,000 of each other.  Mr. Harper said the County was not getting a bad deal either way.  Mr. Harper said he did not want to discourage outside participants and put the County at the mercy of the inside participants.

Mr. Barnes said he was not against the bid at all, but he just wanted to make sure that the designed road was the type that was needed.  Mr. Harper asked if the Board concurred with Mr. Barnes idea to take the time to review the design of the road before continuing with a vote.  Mr. Harper said this was a permanent road around the perimeter of the landfill.

Mr. Byers asked if the County would have to pay an engineer to provide the Board with more information on the design of the road.  Mr. Harper said yes.  Mr. Mullen asked who would set the standard for the type of road that was needed and how much was the Board willing to spend to get that assessment.

Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Linhares if this was the road type he wanted and what he felt was required.  Mr. Linhares said yes.

Mr. Havasy motioned to approve the resolution.  Mr. Wright seconded the motion.

Mr. Gentry asked how much stone depth there would be on the road.  Mr. Linhares said 10 inches.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Havasy's motion.

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

        On the motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 3-4, the motion failed to adopt a resolution to award a contract for the realignment of the Landfill perimeter road.

Mr. Barnes said he was not opposed to the project and noted that he would like to bring it back to the Board after more questions had been answered.  Mr. Barnes motioned to bring this item back to the Board at the next meeting and have Mr. Gentry, in the meantime, review the design and render his opinion to the level of design. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper asked what would happen in the event that the level of design for the road was downsized.  Mr. Mullen said he would think that if the scope of work changed, the project would have to go out to bid again.

Mr. Gentry said he did not have a problem working with Mr. Linhares to review all the details of the perimeter road project.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Barnes' motion.

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

        On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 4-3, the Board voted to table this item until the September 21, 2009 meeting and, in the meantime, have Mr. Gentry render his opinion as to the level of design for the landfill perimeter road.

Resolution - To Re-Appropriate FY 08-09 CIP Funds

Mr. McLeod said he had a potential change that came up regarding the High School Gym wall.  Mr. McLeod said the schools would like to take a look at their FY 2009 CIP and utilize some of the savings that they were going to re-appropriate into FY 2010.

Mr. Mullen said he provided the Board with a handout showing the bid tabulation sheet for the repair of the Louisa County High School Gym wall and an email from Mr. Halsey Green showing the cost breakdown of the repair.

Mr. Gentry asked what the engineers estimate was for this project.  Dr. Pettit said $117,000.  Mr. Gentry said the bids received was a huge spread over the engineers estimate and asked what happened.  Dr. Pettit said she did not know and noted that the School Board was asking the same question.

Dr. Pettit said the School Board requested $154,000 in CIP for this repair thinking that amount would cover the $117,000 estimate from the engineer plus extra money for moving the bleachers, etc.  Dr. Pettit said the School Board was also very surprised with the bids received.

Mr. McLeod said the project that the School Board would like to take extra money from was the re-wiring of two elementary schools and they would have approximately $431,000 savings that they were not asking to re-appropriate.  Mr. McLeod said the School Board would like to be able to use some of that savings to repair the High School Gym wall.  Mr. McLeod said that request would change the resolution that was originally presented to the Board.

Mr. McLeod said there was cash in the Capital account totaling $20,155,155.50 and there was a little over $10 million in the SNAP account for the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.  Mr. McLeod said those two items together equals $ 30,221,649.07.  Mr. McLeod said the total of the re-appropriations was $29,305,678.40 which left a balance of $915,970.67 in excess funds in the CIP.

Mr. McLeod said the biggest change to the capital projects was flipping the funding for the waste water treatment plant projects.  Mr. McLeod said in the FY 2009 budget, it was budgeted to borrow funds for the Zion Crossroads WWTP and pay cash for the Regional WWTP. Mr. McLeod said the increase over the FY 2009 appropriation was $ 3,320,490.43 and that was mainly attributed to this change in policy.

Mr. McLeod said another change was with the schools having a higher priority to repairing the High School Gym wall.

Mr. McLeod said he would like the Board to create a new fund called Capital Reserve where any excess funds in the CIP would be located.

Mr. McLeod said he included a list of all the future projects, on-going projects, potential projects and items not being considered for re-appropriation.  Mr. McLeod noted that the list included the balance as of June 30, 2009, the amount to be re-appropriated to FY 2010 and the difference between the two.

Mr. McLeod said there was a $200,000 increase over the Wireless Networking project.  Mr. McLeod said those were funds from one of the school projects that were re-allocated for their part of the Hot Spot Project.

Mr. Spencer said the Board appropriated $154,000 for the repair of the High School Gym wall and the engineer estimated the repair to be at $117,000.  Mr. Spencer said the bid has come in at three times higher than the engineers estimate.  Mr. McLeod said that was a reason why the School Board wanted to pull the item and take a closer look at it at another meeting.

Dr. Pettit said School Board met with both the architect and the engineer and the School Board was presented with a list of options and the range of prices was $77,000 to $117,000.  Dr. Pettit said the School Board chose the $117,000 option to replace the wall with what was currently there.

Dr. Pettit said the School Board would like to continue with the rest of the CIP projects, but wait on the repair of the High School Gym wall until after the School Board meeting scheduled to take place the next day.  Dr. Pettit said there was a time crunch for this repair, but the School Board needed time to figure out what happened with the bids.

Mr. Byers asked if the bids received were priced for a full masonry wall.  Dr. Pettit said yes.  Mr. Byers asked if there had been any consideration into looking at a variation or an alternative construction of the wall.  Dr. Pettit said yes.  Dr. Pettit said the architect and engineer presented the School Board with five options and the price range was so tight that the School Board chose to go with the option that would restore the wall to what it was before.

Mr. Havasy said he was very pro-education, but he was not pro-buildings.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to see the other alternative measures for replacing the High School Gym wall.  Mr. Havasy said he did not want any teachers to lose their jobs over the high cost of the “silly” wall.  Mr. Havasy said the belt would have to be tightened State-wide and spending an extra $300,000 on a brick wall would not be a good choice.

Mr. Gentry asked if the line item for the Gym wall replacement was going to remain so money could be added to it at a later time.  Mr. McLeod said the School Board was requesting to take the extra savings out of the electrical wiring project and use on the Gym wall replacement.  Mr. McLeod said all the money could be removed for that project or a placeholder number could be plugged in somewhere in the $154.000 to $375,000 range.  Mr. McLeod said his suggestion would be to take the Gym wall replacement money completely out, leave the line item number there and let the School Board come back and request the money since there was a possibility that the amount was going to change.

Mr. Barnes said his daughter was a sophomore at the High School and one of the things that he was most worried about as a parent was the well being of his child.  Mr. Barnes said he would not care if the wall cost $600,000 to replace when looking at it as a parent and a taxpayer.  Mr. Barnes said he would support the School Board and Dr. Pettit to be prudent and double-check the bid prices.  Mr. Barnes said he was personally not going to put a price on what it would cost to make sure the replacement wall was done right.  Mr. Barnes said the idea of the School Board was to put the wall back in the state that it was before and do it right.

Mr. Havasy said brick and block was not the only right way to replace the wall.  Mr. Havasy said he would never jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of any student or person in the County.

Mr. Wright said the School Board was willing to take the replacement wall out of the CIP for now.  Mr. Wright said Mr. McLeod had made his recommendation and the School Board would come back before the Board once they had more information.  Mr. Wright motioned to follow Mr. McLeods recommendation and leave the Gym Wall Replacement line item in the CIP, but remove the monetary amount from it and wait for the School Board to come back with more information.

Mr. Byers asked if the Board was approving a re-appropriation of $185,000 for the lighting at Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.  Mr. McLeod said what was requested was to take the Park Development money which was $185,000 and create another line item called Moss-Nuckols Lighting Fields and place the money there.  Mr. Byers said with the budget cuts that the Governor is talking about, it seemed to him that the Board needed to look at the essential items.  Mr. Byers said $185,000 was a lot of money and it was his understanding that it would be used for Parks and Recreation and not for the school students.  Mr. Byers said it seemed like something that should not be re-appropriated.

Mr. Barnes said he distinctively remembered the Board saying that all the school students would have the same thing.  Mr. Barnes said all the other schools had ball fields and the County was working towards a light program and irrigation for all of the fields.  Mr. Barnes said he could not imagine opening up a new school without lights, ball fields and a track that the other schools in the County have.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod what he was requesting of the Board.  Mr. McLeod said he was asking for approval to re-appropriate the Capital Improvement funds with the change requested by the schools.

Mr. Harper asked what the understanding with the Capital Improvement Projects was going forward.  Mr. McLeod said the project would have to come back before the Board for approval of the funds.

Mr. Barnes motioned to approval the resolution.  Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Barnes' motion.

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

        On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 4-3, with Messrs Byers, Harper and Havasy voting against, the Board adopted a resolution re-appropriating Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2009-2010.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD - 6:30 P.M.

Mr. JR Stallings, Mineral District, asked that the Board consider allowing their Board meetings to be streamed on the Internet.  Mr. Stallings said it was not very difficult or expensive to do.  Mr. Stallings said it would allow the public to have greater access to government practices in the County and citizens would be able to access the meeting by logging onto the County website.

Mr. Stallings said he would also ask that the Board consider allowing citizens to potentially comment on Board meetings by form of written letter or by recording.  Mr. Stallings said citizens could go into the Registrars Office and record their comments which would then be played back at the Board meeting during public comment.

Mr. Stallings said he would also like to have the County consider a gray water policy.  Mr. Stallings said this was something that could be done at the building department.  Mr. Stallings said the average toilet takes 30% of the water usage in a house.  Mr. Stallings said this idea could help with some of the public relations problems the County is having at Zion Crossroads and could provide a different industry for companies who put in sprinkler systems.  Mr. Stallings said a gray water policy was very easy to implement and a gray water system could be installed very quickly.

NEW BUSINESS (Continued)

Resolution - To Re-Appropriate FY 08-09 Operation and Maintenance Funds

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution re-appropriating Operating and Maintenance Funds for FY 2009-2010.

Resolution - For a Supplemental Appropriation of Additional ARRA Stimulus Funds to Louisa County Public Schools

Mr. Barnes motioned to approve the resolution.  Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.

Mr. Byers said he recalled discussion about stimulus money being used towards CSA costs specifically for truancy at the joint School Board and Board of Supervisors meeting that took place in May.  Mr. Byers asked if that idea was still being considered in this request.  Dr. Pettit said yes and noted that it was being considered in the form of a Family Support Worker/Truancy Officer.  Dr. Pettit said this employee would work specifically with elementary and middle school students on more of a preventative level.

Mr. Byers asked how this position would carry over to the next year.  Mr. Byers asked if this position would be a permanent position.  Dr. Pettit said it would not be because the stimulus money was only for one year.  Dr. Pettit said she was not sure where the money would come from and she felt it would be beneficial to look at the impact on this school year.  Dr. Pettit said she would be working with Mr. Oswell and it may be that the School Board or Social Services would come back next year and ask for this position to be in the permanent budget because it would make an impact in the overall amount of money saved through CSA.  Dr. Pettit said she could not promise that there would be definitive results shown in one school year alone.  Dr. Pettit said she did not have funds to support this position beyond one year.

Mr. Byers said at the Best Practices Court Conference, there was discussion about collecting data to help determine the impact of any changes made and he felt this was one of the areas that needed to be examined.

        On the 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 to the Louisa County School Board for Federal stimulus funding.

Discussion and Resolution - Technical Modifications to FY 2010 Budget

Mr. McLeod said while looking at the FY 2009 actual expenditures, he noticed that one of the departments salary lines was off.  Mr. McLeod said the FY 2010 line was also going to be off.  Mr. McLeod said because of that, he decided to take a full look to see if there were any other issues.

Mr. McLeod said the Scalehouse was off by $4, 736.  Mr. McLeod said the Fire Association budget was off by $3,140.  Mr. McLeod said there was a problem with one of the positions in Community Development that was being budgeted, but not filled.  Mr. McLeod said two positions were supposed to be cut and it ended up that three positions were cut.

Mr. McLeod said these were technical modifications to the budget for FY 2010.  Mr. McLeod said the funds for the Community Development position would have to come out of the Contingency budget.

Mr. Harper asked if the position for Community Development was full-time for $57,558.  Mr. McLeod said that was for salary and benefits.  Mr. Harper asked if that was one of the three positions Community Development was requesting to hold.  Mr. McLeod said yes.  Mr. McLeod said the position was not being advertised for.

Mr. Wright asked if the Community Development position was one that was currently necessary or would be necessary in the next couple months.  Mr. McLeod said the Board approved the position, but did not approve for Community Development to hire to fill the position.  Mr. Harper said this decision would simply place the funding for the position in the budget.

Mr. Mullen said this was not an attempt to fill a position and was just a correction.  Mr. Mullen said this was not a new position and was one that already existed.

Mr. Barnes said he would like to have the matrix updated that compares revenue taken in by Community Development to their level of staffing.  Mr. McLeod said he could update that matrix through the end of June 2009.

        On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the technical modifications to the FY 2010 Operating and Maintenance Budget.

Discussion and Resolution - Louisa County Public Schools FY 2010 CIP

Mr. McLeod said this was the policy for the CIP process that he previously discussed with the Board.  Mr. McLeod said CIP projects would go through the normal process, but before money was spent on a CIP project, the project would have to come back before the Board for approval.  Mr. McLeod said this would enact a policy instead of just a general understanding.

Mr. Barnes motioned for approval.  Mr. Havasy seconded the motion.

Mr. Gentry said the Board would be sending CIP projects through the Planning Commission, to the Board for approval and then to the Board for approval a second time.  Mr. McLeod said even though a project was budgeted, it would still have to come back before the Board for approval before any money was spent.

        On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Gentry voting against, the Board adopted a resolution to approve the CIP Process for all departments, constitutional officers and the school system.

Discussion and Resolution - Allocation of Proffers Collected in FY 2009 to FY 2010 CIP Project(s)

Mr. Gentry motioned for approval.  Mr. Havasy seconded the motion.

Mr. McLeod said this was not necessarily for approval, but was for the Board to think about where they wanted to put the funds in the future.  Mr. McLeod said if the Board wanted to place this money on a project now, then they could decide to do that.

Mr. Harper said the motion was to pass the resolution and the money would be placed for the Revenue Sharing project.

Mr. Havasy asked what process was in place for cash proffers that are received.  Mr. Havasy asked if the County Administrator approved them and decided the best way to use the money or was it a political issue.  Mr. Harper said he thought Mr. Camp was working on a project for the cash proffers.  Mr. Camp said he handed out a proffer sheet a few months back that explained what the County could accept proffers for.  Mr. Camp said any money allocated from cash proffers had to be used towards CIP.

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation of funds collected by proffers.

Resolution - Supporting the Virginia Department of Transportations Intent to Replace Route 699, Indian Creek Road, Bridge Superstructure

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution supporting the Virginia Department of Transportations intent to replace Route 699, Indian Creek Road, bridge superstructure.

Discussion - Letter to the Governor and State Representatives Regarding the Economy

Mr. Havasy said he would like to have a State representative present at a Board meeting to speak about the status of the economy and what could be expected next so the County could help plan for the future.  Mr. Havasy said some of the State representatives had attended other local board meetings uninvited and they were not treated well.  Mr. Havasy said most of the representatives will now only come to talk to the local boards when they are invited.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to direct the County Administrator to write each State representative a letter inviting them to attend a meeting to speak to the Board.  Mr. Havasy said he would like Federal and State representatives as well as someone from the Governors office to be invited.

Mr. Barnes said he would not quote names, but he would point out that he and Mr. Gentry had already extended an invitation to a representative on behalf of Louisa County.  Mr. Barnes said he felt that it was the job of the representatives to reach out to the County.  Mr. Barnes said the Board would not shun anyone who wanted to attend a meeting and provide information.

Mr. Gentry said he would like Mr. Mullen to state in each letter invitation that the representatives are always welcome to attend the Boards meetings and that the Board was disappointed that more representatives had not attended.  Mr. Gentry said the representatives were supposed to be working for the County.

Mr. Havasy said he agreed with the Boards comments, but said that he would not like to attend someone elses meeting uninvited.  Mr. Havasy said one of the differences between County government and State and Federal government was that the Federal Government could print money if they wanted to spend more and the State could force mandates on County government.  Mr. Havasy said the State was going to mandate everything and push it all to the County government.  Mr. Havasy said the County government did not have anyone else left to pass the work off to.

Mr. Mullen said he was clear on the direction from the Board.  Mr. Mullen said he would prepare and draft a letter, get Mr. Harper to sign them and send them out before the next Board meeting.

Discussion - Louisa County Commission On Aging Request

Mr. Byers said he received a letter from the Commission on Aging that provided a breakdown of tax relief for the elderly from seven surrounding localities.  Mr. Byers said the Commission on Aging was asking for consideration to change Louisa Countys tax relief for the elderly because it was considerably lower than the surrounding localities.  Mr. Byers said there are four different areas compared to see what the level of tax credit should be.  Mr. Byers said he felt someone should take the information provided by the Commission on Aging and compare it to see where Louisa County would actually rank.

Mr. Gentry said he thought there were maximum levels for each of the four categories and asked Mr. Byers if he knew what those maximums were.  Mr. Byers said no.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Mullen to provide the information to the Board and place it as an agenda item for discussion at the next meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following section of the Louisa County Code (Chapter 2.  Administration, Article IV. Boards and Commissions) as it pertains to the Louisa County Department of Social Services:

AMEND - Sec. 2-72. Department of Social Services.

Mr. Harper said this Public Hearing would allow the County to move from five to seven members on the Social Services Advisory Board.

There being no comments from the Board, Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.  With no one wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.

Mr. Wright said it was his understanding that the representative appointed by each Board member did not have to necessarily reside in that Board members district.  Mr. Wright said it was his understanding that appointments could be made County-wide, but each Board member was allowed to make one appointment.  Mr. Harper said each member would be a district appointee, but that appointee could reside anywhere in the County.

Mr. Gentry said he understood what the proposal was with the member appointments, but he did not agree with it.  Mr. Gentry said he felt it should be one representative residing in each district in order to allow for equal representation.  Mr. Gentry asked what the difference was between this advisory board and any other board or commission in the County.

        On the motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Gentry voting against, the Board adopted a resolution to amend the Code of Louisa County, Article IV. Boards and Commissions, Sec. 2-72. Department of Social Services as it pertains to the Advisory Social Services Board.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Mullen said reminded the Board of a few upcoming events and informed them of several contracts that he approved that were within his authority.

Mr. Mullen said he had a few questions posed to him about ambulance transport destinations and he included a memo from Chief Dubé regarding answers to those commonly asked questions.  Mr. Mullen said there was a new wild animal policy from Major Lowe as well as information regarding biosolids and reimbursement for biosolids from DEQ.  Mr. Mullen said he felt everything else was self-explanatory.

Mr. Barnes
said all of the Countys employees did a great job, but what was being done with the swimming pool as far as revenues and expenditures and management was especially unheard of.  Mr. Barnes said public swimming pools usually cost a lot of money to operate, but Louisa County Parks and Recreation had done a great job managing the swimming pool.  Mr. Barnes said staff learned from last year and corrected the problems.

Mr. Havasy said he attended the Air Show and saw Dr. Lynbeck who was the EMSAL representative from the State.  Mr. Havasy said there was some controversy between the volunteers and the career staff as to where ambulance transports would be made.  Mr. Havasy said there was some disagreement because there was an “iron-clad” rule that in an emergency situation, the patient was to be transported to the closest hospital.  Mr. Havasy said the situation was resolved and there was a meeting between EMSAL, career staff, volunteers, Chief Dubé and Dr. Lynbeck and the situation was resolved.  Mr. Havasy said he just wanted to inform the Board in case they received a phone call.

Mr. Spencer said he received a phone call from a citizen about this exact situation.  Mr. Spencer said the citizen wanted to go to MCV and the emergency crew would not take her there and took her to a closer hospital in Richmond.  Mr. Spencer said he later found out that MCV had already issued a wave-off and no patient was to be transported there because the emergency
room at MCV was already full.

Mr. Byers said he appreciated the level of effort provided by the Emergency Services personnel and Chief Dubé because it provided clarity to what the practice or policy was and it helped to minimize some of the opportunity for conflict between the career staff and the volunteers.


CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - Authorizing the Purchase of a Defibrillator by Emergency Services for the Third Rescue Squad

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution proceeding with the purchase of a defibrillator CIP Project.

Resolution - For the Supplemental Appropriation for State Funding Related to the PSAP FY2010 Grant Program

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for the supplemental appropriation for State funding related to the PSAP FY 2010 Grant Program.

Resolution - Requesting Approval to Hire a Part-Time Switchboard Operator/Administrative Assistance I in the Administration Department

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting approval to hire a part-time Switchboard Operator/Administrative Assistant I in the Administration Department.

Resolution - Recognizing Mandy Owens for her Service to Louisa County

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Mandy Owens for her service to Louisa County.

Resolution - Recognizing Van Morris on her 97th Birthday

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Ms. Van Morris on her 97th birthday.

Resolution - Proceeding with Remainder of the Sheriffs Office Vehicle Replacement CIP Project

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution proceeding with the remainder of the Sheriffs Office vehicle replacement CIP Project.

Resolution - Supplemental Appropriation to At Risk Youth/CSA

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to approve a supplemental appropriation for contractual services related to the Comprehensive Services Act.

Resolution - To reimburse the Cooke Foundation for unused funds donated for the construction of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to reimburse private donors using remaining funds originally donated for the construction of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center.

Resolution - To transfer unused funds donated by Dominion Virginia Power and Rappahannock Electric Cooperative for the construction of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center to the Louisa County Historical Society to be used for the construction of the Louisa County Visitors Center

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to transfer private donors funds for the construction of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center to the Louisa County Historical Society.

Resolution - For a Supplemental Appropriation for the Virginia Commission for the Local Government Challenge Grant

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation for the Virginia Commission for the Local Government Challenge Grant.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Harper noted that Klockner was making application to renew their discharge permit.  Mr. Harper said he did not think there was any County objection to that.

Mr. Harper also noted that the Region 7 representative was up for re-appointment at the upcoming VACo meeting.  Mr. Harper said Mr. Gentry had expressed that he was pleased with the representation.  Mr. Wright said he knew the representative and had worked with him on several occasions and noted that he was a good person.


Mr. Mullen
said he received a letter from the Town of Mineral regarding a boundary line adjustment and stated that he would be meeting with Ms. Ti-Lia Downing to see what next steps need to take place.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Mr. Gentry abstaining from his reimbursements, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of August 2009 (FY 2009) for the County of Louisa in the amount of $236,924.05.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Mr. Gentry abstaining from his reimbursements, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the month of August 2009 (FY 2010) for the County of Louisa in the amount of $877,489.72.

Mr. Byers said he appreciated the response and effort he received when he had questions regarding the bills.  Mr. Byers said there was a section of the bills where the Sheriffs Department receives money from items that are forfeited.  Mr. Byers asked if there was any way the Board could designate those funds.  Mr. McLeod said he thought it was up to the Sheriff and that there were Federal guidelines as to what the money could be spent on.  Mr. Byers said he wanted to know if it could be shown on County records what the asset forfeiture funds are.  Mr. McLeod said he could look into that.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Barnes pointed out the last sentence of the Public Hearing section regarding the Macedonia United Methodist Church of the August 3, 2009 minutes that read, “Mr. Carter said he was grateful to the Board members for stepping up and making this option available for the Church.”  Mr. Barnes said Mr. Carters wife tried to clear up the statement some, but Mr. Carter was basically saying that he was thankful that the Board entertained the idea for the Church to obtain land from the County.  Mr. Barnes said he wanted to be clear that what Mr. Carter said at the meeting did not actually happen.

On the motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the August 3, 2009 meeting.

Mr. Spencer said one of the items on the Consent Agenda was to turn money over to the Historical Society.  Mr. Spencer said the Board voted to give the Historical Society $67,000 this year.  Mr. Spencer asked if the County was going to lay off employees next year to make sure that the Historical Society received their $67,000.  Mr. Spencer said he would like the Board to give some consideration to that statement.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Havasy asked to appoint Ms. Holly Reynolds to the Department of Social Services Advisory Board on behalf of the Green Springs District.  Mr. Barnes asked to appoint Ms. Peggy McGhee to the Department of Social Services Advisory Board on behalf of the Patrick Henry District.  Mr. Harper asked to appoint Ms. Rebecca Disosway to the Department of Social Services Advisory Board on behalf of the Mineral District.  Mr. Spencer asked to appoint Ms. Susan Dubé to the Department of Social Services Advisory Board on behalf of the Louisa District.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Holly Reynolds, Ms. Peggy McGhee, Ms. Rebecca Disosway and Ms. Susan Dubé to the Department of Social Services Advisory Board.

Mr. Mullen clarified that these board appointments would supplant and supersede all other appointments to this board by the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Hoffman said there would be a four-member board after tonight and up to three more members could be appointed.

Discussion - Budget Information

Mr. Byers said State budget cuts had been mentioned several times and he asked Mr. McLeod if he knew what the Countys revenue projections were going to be based on or when that information would be available.  Mr. Byers said it seemed like the budget process was going to have to be started sooner this year.  Mr. McLeod said Assessment would be willing to provide him with a prediction around October 2009, but they were expecting the values to be lower.

Mr. Havasy asked if it would be wise for the Board to make a statement regarding what the Board would be looking for from the budgets presented by department heads.  Mr. Havasy said he would not want anyone to waste time preparing something and would want everyone to know that the Board may be taking second looks at everything this year.

Mr. Byers said he heard discussion today about Constitutional Officers losing anywhere from 5% to 7%.  Mr. Byers said at some point the County may receive VSRS.

Mr. Harper said the Board was not going to raise the tax rate and was going to have to live with what ever deduction given by assessment.
 Mr. Harper said that would be in addition to any losses transferred down by the State.  Mr. Harper said the Board could think about the position they would like to take on the upcoming budget and discuss their options and ideas at the next Board meeting.

Mr. Spencer said the State was going to stop funding the CSA children who are sent to residential treatment facilities unless other alternatives have been tried.
 Mr. Spencer said there were Constitutional Officers who were going to be cut and the school systems were also going to be cut.  Mr. Spencer said these departments are going to expect the County to make up the difference.

Mr. Harper said prioritizing should be done to determine what services are absolutely core and necessary to continue to operating in the manner that has been done in the past.  Mr. Harper said he felt it was wise to give the upcoming budget some consid
eration and discuss the options and offer input at the next meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 7:40 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 actual or probable litigation (specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel).

REGULAR SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:08 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

PRESENTVOTE
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy Yes
P.T. Spencer, Jr. Yes
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Dan W. Byers Yes

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 8th day of September 2009, 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 8th day of September 2009, 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 the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the September 8, 2009 meeting at 8:09 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


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