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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
OCTOBER 6, 2008
6:00 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: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Dale Mullen, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Keith Greene; Emergency Services Supervisor; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Joanna McDonald, Grant Writer; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration and Alyson Simpson, Acting Deputy Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the October 6, 2008 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m.  Mr. Wright led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr. Harper said Sheriff Fortune was present and thanked him for coming.  Mr. Harper said there were members from the school system present as well.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper said he wanted to add the school CIP carryover resolution to the agenda under Old Business.  Mr. Harper said he wanted to add a discussion on Resource Lane under New Business as well as a discussion on the Development Review Committee (DRC) and Proffers.  Mr. Harper said the County Attorney had several items to add under Closed Session.

Mr. Mullen stated he would be adding two items to Closed Session under Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(3) and Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(7).

Mr. Barnes said he would like to add an item to Closed Session in reference to potential litigation in the Patrick Henry District.  Mr. Mullen stated that item would fall under Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711(A)(7).

Mr. Byers said he would like to add discussion under New Business about information sharing with residents or property owners.

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the October 6, 2008 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

Presentation - A resolution recognizing Robert Whitlock for his years of service on the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee


Mr. Spencer read a resolution recognizing Robert Whitlock for his years of service on the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and presented a copy of the framed resolution to him.  Mr. Spencer thanked Mr. Whitlock for all his years on the Board of Supervisors as well.

Mr. Whitlock said one of the greatest opportunities to come to man is the opportunity to serve his fellow man.  Mr. Whitlock said he was happy to have had the opportunity to serve on this Committee and he commended the Board for the job they are doing.

Presentation - VDOT Monthly Update

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

Maintenance:

Construction:

Land Use:

Traffic Engineering:

Mr. Spencer said there had been a request to reduce the speed limit on Route 628 Bibb Store Road.  Mr. Spencer said he had talked with the citizen who made the request and the request was made based on the fact that an elderly lady walks that road.  Mr. Spencer said VDOT had already been gracious enough to post pedestrian signs at her house and he sent a letter back to Mr. Glass advising the speed study be dropped.  Mr. Spencer said if the County reduces the speed on every road that someone walks on, everyone would be walking.

Mr. Gentry said he understood that secondary funds were going to take another 30% cut.  Mr. Glass said it is a very good possibility.

Mr. Gentry said he had read that President Bush transferred $8 billion into the trust fund.  Mr. Gentry asked if that was going to help Virginia or if there was just no money to match.  Mr. Glass said the issue is matching funds.  Mr. Glass said some of the money may be received, but it will definitely not be the amount received in the past.  Mr. Spencer said the Governor announced there was a $3 billion shortfall in the State and the money was going to be taken out of the Counties.  Mr. Spencer asked how the County was supposed to match funds if the State takes away all of the money.

Presentation - TJPDC Draft Legislative Program

Mr. David Blount said the Board had been presented with the draft of the 2009 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program and he would like to summarize the five action items.  Mr. Blount said the first item is local and State funding obligations.  Mr. Blount said everyone would like to request minimal penalties by the Board, even though some reductions are being realized.  Mr. Blount said it will be important at the next General Assembly to advocate for the State to provide flexibility and relaxation of requirements if funding will not be provided to help meet those requirements.

Mr. Blount said the second item is for land use and growth management.  Mr. Blount said the General Assembly is being asked to provide additional tools while not circumventing authority.  Mr. Blount stated there was a special focus on the impact fee and proffer issue as a result of Bill 768.

Mr. Blount stated the third item is transportation funding which has already been mentioned.  Mr. Blount said he had heard about a 30% reduction on top of the 44% reduction in construction funds that was approved this past summer.  Mr. Blount said he needed to point out one change that had been made since the Board members had received their packet.  Mr. Blount said the first bullet under transportation funding pertaining to the Regional Transit Authority has been amended to add “governments and funding mechanisms for” after the word establish.

Mr. Blount said the fourth item is the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA).  Mr. Blount said he is trying to stress a better relationship and balance between the State and localities on this issue.  Mr. Blount said the weight has been shifted to the localities, who pay 90% of the administrative costs for implementation of this type program.  Mr. Blount stated there is also a fear that lower match rates will negatively impact the localities.  Mr. Blount said there is also an item in the draft that addresses the Boards early September letter to the legislator concerning individuals who have children removed from their homes in cases of abuse and neglect.

Mr. Blount stated the fifth item was public education funding.  Mr. Blount said the Governor has indicated that he does not want to make reductions in pubic education.  Mr. Blount said that such a large part of the States budget is aid to public education and he feels certain that there will be reductions.

Mr. Blount stated the remainder of the program incorporated areas of continuing concern including economic development, environment and public safety which are areas addressed from localities and ongoing issues have been identified.

Mr. Gentry said the enclosed cover letter from Mr. Blount mentioned that the draft shows areas with new language as underlined.  Mr. Gentry said that not enough items are underlined in his opinion.  Mr. Gentry said there needs to be emphasis and Counties are getting frustrated because they are seeing the same items over and over.  Mr. Blount said, just for clarification, the underlined areas in the sections are meant to show new language.  Mr. Blount said that in the action item sections, there could be places that need to be bolded or underlined to show emphasis.  Mr. Blount said the entire draft is about 11 pages long and when the draft is done, he tries to boil it all down to a cover letter that is useful for the localities.

Mr. Byers asked Mr. Blount if, in the future, he saw a disproportionate level of funding in rural areas compared to the more populated areas.  Mr. Blount said when looking toward the next redistricting, depending on how populations have shifted, he does see that as a possibility.  Mr. Blount said Virginia has moved from a State with more rural area to one with a lot of urban and suburban influence.  Mr. Byers asked if there was anything that could be done in the rural areas to help prevent that from happening.  Mr. Blount said there needs to be emphasis that we are all one Commonwealth and our strength is in the commonalities which includes rural areas as well as the more populous areas.  Mr. Gentry said VACO has a meeting this Friday about the transportation allocation formula particularly the rural versus urban issue.

Mr. Wright thanked Mr. Blount for the thoroughness of his project.  Mr. Wright said he hopes the legislators will take the time to read the draft.

Mr. Spencer said on page five of the draft, the Comprehensive Services Act is discussed.  Mr. Spencer said it is noted at the bottom of the first paragraph that the State has increased administrative responsibilities, but has not increased administrative funding to localities.  Mr. Spencer said at the end of the second paragraph on the same page it reads that the local share will be lowered for community-based services to serve children who can be cared for in the community and increasing local shares for residential services.  Mr. Spencer said he has been saying for a long time that instead of children going into treatment facilities, do home-based treatments in the community.  Mr. Spencer said this draft states that localities will end up paying large amounts for children who are placed in residential treatment centers.  Mr. Spencer said the draft supports a state cap on local expenditures in order to combat higher local costs for serving mandated children, costs that are often driven by unanticipated placements in a locality.  Mr. Spencer questioned how this cap was going to work.  Mr. Spencer wanted to know where localities can draw the line on state mandated services when it comes to funding if the State is not going to pay for them.  Mr. Blount said they would have to look at the average cost for a certain number of times.  Mr. Spencer said this is a big issue because the question the Board had for the County Attorney last meeting was what would happen if the Board did not pay.  Mr. Blount said he attended a meeting today that was a cost study on CSA and there were some statements from legislators saying that localities have been asked to do something that is going to cost them money, yet support and technical assistance have not been provided.  Mr. Blount said he hopes to see positive changes on the way.

Mr. Wright said one of the major problems is that the changes were made at a State level without any input from the Counties.  Mr. Blount said that particular situation is what prompted the relationship between State and local government to be brought up.

Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Blount to keep an eye on the bill that posed problems last year.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the draft 2009 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program.

Presentation - Broadband Phase I Plan

Mr. Doug Dawson, President of CCG Consulting, came forward to make the presentation.  Mr. Dawson said his firm was hired based on an RFP for a Broadband study, which was funded by a grant through the State.  Mr. Dawson said the study was to look into Broadband and a survey was performed in the County.  Mr. Dawson said that Broadband is basically fast Internet service.  Mr. Dawson stated not many people in the County have it and a lot of people want it.  Mr. Dawson said the survey showed that there are 5,400 homes in the County that still have dial-up Internet service and 90% of those homes want broadband.  Mr. Dawson stated 2,500 homes have no Internet at all and 25% of those homes would really like to get Broadband.  Mr. Dawson said the study shows that there are about 5,400 homes total in the County that want Broadband because they need it for their school children or because it gives them the ability to work from home.

Mr. Dawson said he had two recommendations for the Board that could solve about half the problem with little to no cost.  Mr. Dawson said the County could put together a group to consult with Verizon.  Mr. Dawson stated Verizon has the technical ability to place DSL in some of their remote locations and Verizon could make money doing that.  Mr. Dawson said by doing that Verizon could probably bring Broadband to 1,000 to 1,500 homes.  Mr. Dawson said other localities have done that already and Verizon usually fixes a squeaky wheel, especially if a group of people get together for that cause.

Mr. Dawson said his second solution is to get companies who do wireless broadband to come out and spend their money to provide that service in the County.  Mr. Dawson said some of those companies have a problem with Louisa Countys Telecommunications Plan.  Mr. Dawson said those companies would like to see some minor changes in the Telecommunications Plan in regard to fees.  Mr. Dawson stated these companies are currently not building new wireless infrastructure.  Mr. Dawson stated this solution could potentially provide Broadband service to 1,000 to 1,500 more homes.

Mr. Dawson said the County could bring Broadband to about half of the houses who want it using both of those solutions.  Mr. Dawson said there will still be approximately 2,500 to 3,000 homes with no permanent solution to the Broadband issue.  Mr. Dawson said he recommends the County proceed with Phase 2 of the Broadband study.  Mr. Dawson said the first phase was to find the problem and the second phase is to see if there is a better solution to get Broadband service to those who want it.  Mr. Dawson said the Broadband problem will continue to get worse.  Mr. Dawson stated that Broadband service provides literally 400 to 900 times faster Internet service than most people have in this County with dial-up.  Mr. Dawson said the State would like to see more people in the County trained in the use of computers.

Mr. Gentry said in the VACO newsletter, County Connections, there is reference to Governor Kaines Roundtable Communications concerning Broadband.  Mr. Gentry asked if Louisa County was beyond that point or if this is something the County should be involved with.  Mr. Gentry said a report was released in September and VACO is covering the subject at their annual conference next month.  Mr. Gentry said the article mentioned a $300 million investment in Virginia and talked about Broadband adoption measures and Broadband technology.

Mr. Dawson said Virginia could be broken down into three geographical regions:  the Northern tier which Verizon has covered with Broadband service, the Southern tier where tobacco money takes care of everything, and the article talks about all the other people down the middle of the State where Broadband is not always offered.  Mr. Dawson said Governor Kaine wants to find a way to provide Broadband throughout the State before he leaves office.  Mr. Dawson said the Committee is actually talking about funding the way for finding the hardware.

Mr. Byers said the service providers focus on the areas that will be revenue generators for their companies.  Mr. Byers said that motive leaves another group of people who will still not be provided service.  Mr. Byers asked Mr. Dawson if he had a ballpark figure on what it would cost the County to underwrite a program that would provide service to everyone.  Mr. Dawson stated that is what the Phase 2 study would be for and he would not be able to provide a figure at this time.  Mr. Byers asked if it would be millions of dollars.  Mr. Dawson said if he had to guess it would be in the $2 to $4 million range.

Mr. Byers said he would suggest having staff look at setting up some process where they could work with people to meet their needs and potentially incorporate other providers.  Mr. Byers said he did not suggest that with the idea that the County would be able to find a countywide system.  Mr. Byers said he would also like staff to see if there are changes that need to be made to the Telecommunications Plan.  Mr. Byers said there are other items to look at before considering moving on to Phase 2 study.  Mr. Byers said he understands there will not be funding for Phase 2 like there was for Phase 1.

Mr. Harper said there may be other sources of funding for the County to look into.  Mr. Harper said Mr. Byers could pass his recommendation on because Mr. Lintecum already had a group of staff formed that could undertake that task.

Mr. Gentry said the cover letter states that if there is no funding committed for the Phase 2 study, then there are other options for the County to improve Broadband service.  Mr. Gentry said he would like to see a list of those options.  Mr. Cockrell said the options he was referring to in his cover letter are the options that Mr. Dawson had presented to the Board.

Mr. Harper said he would like for staff to identify what the “blocks” are in the Telecommunications Plan that are keeping providers from coming to Louisa.

Mr. Hardy said he, Mr. Cockrell and Ms. McDonald had worked together to form staff suggestions.  Mr. Hardy said in terms of “road blocks”, providers are referring to part of the Telecommunications Plan that charges them $2,000 or $2,500 to pay CityScape to review their application.  Mr. Hardy said they are unlicensed spectrums and the County cannot license nor can they work towards licensing them.  Mr. Hardy said the County cannot restrict them putting them up, but the County can make sure they are aesthetically pleasing and the engineering is done well.  Mr. Hardy said the County can also make sure not all of them are placed in one spot.  Mr. Hardy said taking away the $2,000 fee, which is the “road bock”, might lead to a problem in the County with developers putting in too many wireless facilities.  Mr. Hardy said it is up to the Board to decide whether or not to back off on the ordinance.  Mr. Hardy said discussion can be started, but the committee needs direction from the Board as far as the fee goes.

Mr. Gentry said it was hard for him to believe that $2,000 was really a deal breaker with the amount of money that is generated through this whole business.  Mr. Gentry wondered if the companies were using that as an excuse for not working with the County.

Mr. Hardy said he had a hard time believing that as well.  Mr. Hardy said the providers are also paying that $2,000 to $2,500 fee to the tower company for them to have an engineering study done to see if the wireless service would be safe on the tower.  Mr. Hardy said the Board could decide to take that study in hand and not have the wireless providers pay again.  Mr. Hardy said the County does not know what kind of study the tower companies do, who does the study, or how effective the study is as far as the safety for citizens.  Mr. Hardy said another county had worked out an agreement with Virginia Broadband where they did not charge the fee for the wireless facilities and Virginia Broadband agreed to have 50% of that county covered with Broadband service within one year and 90% of that county within five years.

Mr. Gentry asked if the Phase 2 study was worth $31,500 to the County.  Mr. Hardy said absolutely if the Phase 2 study could come up with an affordable solution for the County.

Mr. Barnes said he agrees with Mr. Hardy.  Mr. Barnes said there are certain things that people cannot live without once they have become accustomed to them.  Mr. Barnes said he gets many concerned calls and emails about citizens not being able to use their computer at a speed that is convenient for them.  Mr. Barnes stated that small businesses do not even have the ability to update their own websites without some type of fast Internet service.  Mr. Barnes said he believes Broadband service to the County is a necessity and that high speed Internet is among the top three things that citizens want to see in the County besides fire and rescue and the Sheriffs department.  Mr. Barnes said he believes the $31,500 would be well spent for the Phase 2 study.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Hardy what term was used for emergency service radios and what coverage was received.  Mr. Harper asked if there were any maps or anything that showed the coverage on this product.  Mr. Hardy said you can find those covered areas on the propagation maps.  Mr. Hardy said this study did not cover that and the current service is about the same as areas with cell phone coverage.  Mr. Hardy said the Telecommunications study did the propagation maps.  Mr. Hardy said the County is about 80 or so towers short of having wireless coverage throughout the County.

Mr. Harper said he is assuming that the private sector is not deemed economically feasible at this point.  Mr. Hardy said they are not going to do it for the whole County unless there is some type of incentive.

Mr. Harper said he would like the committee to study this issue more and come back to the Board with another recommendation.

Mr. Spencer said the County is asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for a lot of things and if this were worthwhile, then the providers would be providing it.  Mr. Spencer said he had the Blue Ridge Shores development in his district with over 500 homes in it and Verizon has said they are not going to do anything there.  Mr. Spencer asked why the County is investing more tax dollars into a service that is not going to be provided at Blue Ridge Shores.  Mr. Spencer said there are senior citizens in the County who could care less about Internet, but their tax dollars will be paying to provide Broadband.  Mr. Spencer questioned how many people would be able to afford $50 a month in this type of economy for Internet service.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum to have the committee study this issue and bring back a recommendation based on the Boards concerns.

Mr. Hardy said he made the suggestion before that if the Board would be willing to move somewhat on the cost of placing their own facilities, he could look into that.  Mr. Spencer asked what kind of facilities.  Mr. Hardy answered putting up wireless service like CVALink did on the water tower in the Town.  Mr. Hardy said it is an antenna that can send out or receive wireless Internet service.  Mr. Hardy said anytime someone wants to put up those devices on a tower, they have to pay the $2,000 fee.

Mr. Spencer said the Board already passed several towers in the Green Springs District and the developers have not even bothered building the towers.  Mr. Spencer asked if the suggestion was for the County to build the towers.  Mr. Hardy said no.

Mr. Harper asked the committee to take a look at the issues and bring a recommendation back to the Board.

Update - Louisa County Aquatic Facility year end report

Ms. Shelhorse presented the end of the year report for the Aquatic facility to the Board and said the County had over 15,700 people come to the pool this year.  Ms. Shelhorse said the County spent $99,454 to operate the pool, which brought in $63,083.  Ms. Shelhorse said Parks and Recreation tried new things with the pool this year, such as staying open after Labor Day.  Ms. Shelhorse said she plans to close the pool after Labor Day next year, which is standard, because of poor attendance.  Ms. Shelhorse said there will also be adjustments to the pool schedule once the kids go back to school.

Ms. Shelhorse said overall she thought the first year was successful and there were many compliments from people who attended.

Mr. Wright said the August attendance really took a nosedive and he suspects that was because of school starting and people going on vacations.

Ms. Shelhorse said that is one of the changes that will be made to the schedule next year.  Ms. Shelhorse said Parks and Recreation had discussed adjusting their hours on the pool once the schools opened, but there were some people who said they were looking forward to coming to the pool on their own once the children went back to school.  Ms. Shelhorse said people are usually busy at the beginning of the school year trying to get their children into routine and that hurt attendance in August.  Ms. Shelhorse said she does not plan to open the pool full-time after school starts next year.

Mr. Byers asked if all of the maintenance costs for the pool were included in the expenses section.  Mr. Shelhorse said yes.

Mr. Gentry thanked Ms. Shelhorse for the job well done.  Mr. Gentry said the Board expected $100,000 in expenses before the pool opened the first time and the actual number came in lower.  Mr. Gentry said the Board only expected around $35,000 in expected revenues, but the actual number came in much higher and the entire pool operation this summer only cost the County about $36,000 and he thinks that is remarkable.

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for school Capital Improvement Projects for FY 08-09

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for school Capital Improvement Projects for FY 08-09.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion - Louisa Countys reduction in workforce policy

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum if anything had been changed in the policy.  Mr. Lintecum said the policy basically puts the responsibility on the County Administrator.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve Louisa Countys reduction in workforce policy.

Update - Vehicle license tax

Mr. McLeod said when the Board adopted the tax, they voted for the first year to be $15, which would be due December 5, 2009, and any subsequent year would be $20.  Mr. McLeod said because of the first year being January 2009, the County would collect no funds for the current fiscal year and the FY10 funds would be ¾ the normal collection amount.

Mr. McLeod said the idea is for the Commissioner of the Revenue to place a letter in each envelope for personal property explaining the new vehicle license tax and that there will be no decals to purchase in the March and April time period of 2010.

Mr. Byers asked Mr. McLeod who is on the committee for this tax study.  Mr. McLeod said Gloria Layne, Treasurer, Nancy Pleasants, Commissioner of the Revenue, Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, and himself.

My. Byers asked how many meetings the committee has had so far.  Mr. McLeod said there have been no meetings since the vehicle license tax was adopted, except to put the update together.  Mr. McLeod said the committee met several times prior to putting any recommendations together for the Board.  Mr. Byers said it is important for that committee to meet to make sure everyone is on the same page.  Mr. McLeod said there was a recent meeting and most of the work is for the Commissioner of the Revenue right now.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

CUP05-08; Joseph F. and Carol C. Dubrino, Applicants/Owners

Mr. Cockrell said the staff report is pretty much the same.  Mr. Cockrell said he contacted the USDA this afternoon and the Dubrinos do not have approval.  Mr. Cockrell said they are still in the process of obtaining approval and he believes they already had their inspection.

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. Harper said this case was in the Mineral District and unless someone else wanted to make a motion, he was going to do it.  Mr. Harper said he does not believe that significant issues of the planning and infrastructure have been addressed in enough detail to meet the concerns of adjoining property owners and he has reasonable belief that the activity proposed would be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare and general public.  Mr. Harper said he therefore motions that the CUP request be denied.

On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to deny CUP05-08; Joseph F. and Carol C. Dubrino, Applicants/Owners.

A public hearing in accordance with Sections 15.2-5110 and 15.2-5156 of the Virginia Code on a proposed ordinance entitled "Ordinance Amending the Ordinance Creating the Cutalong Community Development Authority" (the "Amending Ordinance") amending the "Resolution to Amend the Louisa County Code Creating the Cutalong Community Development Authority", adopted December 5, 2005 (the "2005 Ordinance")

Mr. Paul Larner, Manager of Cutalong, LLC, said approximately three years ago the Board enacted an ordinance to a Community Development Authority composed of the land owned by Cutalong, LLC.  Mr. Larner said he was before the Board for two revisions to amend the ordinance to clarify or correct mistakenly identified tax parcels in the original ordinance and to extend the time period for the issuance of the first series of bonds to help pay for public improvements.

Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC has been very active during the last three years engaged in pursuing entitlements for the project.  Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC was issued a sewer permit from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in June 2007 and there is still a permit with DEQ pending for water withdrawal from Lake Anna for irrigation of the golf course, wetlands crossing, and dredging activities.  Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC is close to receiving full entitlements so they can be in a position to start public improvements.   Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC has also been actively engaged in an effort to bring a grocery-anchored retail center to the intersection of Route 652 Kentucky Springs Road and Route 208 New Bridge Road with some accommodation from the Water Authority for short term pump and haul agreements.  Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC is hoping to land the retail project that is already under contract.  Mr. Larner said the grocery anchor had approved a 35,000 square foot center at that location which he feels would be a huge benefit to the County.

Mr. Larner said the documents before the Board have been prepared by the Acting County Attorney, Sharon Pandak, the CDAs attorney and have been reviewed by Mr. Larner himself.  Mr. Larner said he had one change to the document and that was to extend the time period for the issuance of the first tax-exempt bonds to five years rather than 34 months as set forth in the draft.  Mr. Larner said that request was due to the unique situation of the housing market and stock market.

Mr. Larner said there are two ordinances before the Board.  Mr. Larner said the first is an amendment ordinance to extend the time period pursuant to his request for five years and to correct the mis-identified tax map parcels in the original ordinance and the second is to approve the issuance of the first series of bonds in an amount not to exceed $18 million.  Mr. Larner said the second ordinance approves the total issuance of the bonds and creates the special assessment against the property.

Mr. Larner said the ordinance has only beneficial impact to the County in his mind.  Mr. Larner stated the bonds are not financial obligations for the County and the bonds create no financial liability for the County to repay the bonds.  Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC will pay all costs required by the County to administer the bonds.

Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Larner how much money Cutalong, LLC owes the County right now.  Mr. Larner said nothing as far as he knew.  Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC was current in all their obligations and the next payment made to the County would be real estate taxes due in December.  Mr. Larner said all of the monetary proffers to the County had been satisfied in a timely manner.

Mr. Spencer said he was on the Planning Commission at the time of approval for this project and he remembers nothing to do with a waterfront development, just the golf course.  Mr. Larner said the original land plan showed a marina and that no changes on the land plan have been made since the original approval.

Mr. Spencer asked what the first thing was to be done according to proffers.  Mr. Larner said that Cutalong, LLC contributed $75,000 to three Louisa County organizations, $100,000 towards the remediation of Contrary Creek and wetlands designs, and they are current and compliant in all of their proffers.  Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC has spent over $50,000 in engineering plans for the realignment of Route 652 Kentucky Springs Road.

Mr. Gentry said there have been two attorneys who recommended three years versus five years for the extension.  Mr. Gentry said he needed to be convinced to extend the date five years.  Mr. Larner said its attorneys versus business persons.  Mr. Larner said he was a business person and he could see no detriment in approving five years rather than 34 months.  Mr. Larner said the ordinance and assessment are already out there and the additional time gives Cutalong, LLC the flexibility to issue bonds when the timing and market make sense.

Mr. Byers asked about the pending permit from DEQ and wanted to know if there was a timeline for the permit.  Mr. Larner said the permit from DEQ is valid for fifteen years from the issue date.  Mr. Byers asked if there was anything in the permit process that said the developer had to make significant progress on the development.  Mr. Larner said not for that particular permit.


Mr. Byers asked what activity had been done concerning the retail center.  Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC had signed a contract to sell 8 acres at the intersection of Route 652 Kentucky Springs Road and Route 208 New Bridge Road to Chase Development, a Food Lion developer headquartered in North Carolina.  Mr. Larner said Chase Development currently owns between six and eight Food Lion centers in central Virginia and North Carolina.  Mr. Larner stated Chase Development is accomplished when it comes to dealing with Food Lion and they typically enter into a long-term contract with a landowner.  Mr. Larner said they have an 18-month contract and in that time period Chase Development will submit the proposed site to Food Lion who will then evaluate the potential of the site to determine the applicable or effective trade area.  Mr. Larner said Chase Development would also contact other retailers who typically affiliate with Food Lion.

Mr. Larner said in the case of Cutalong, LLC most of this has already been done.  Mr. Larner said Food Lion has come back with a plan initially anticipating a 25,000 square foot store.  Mr. Larner said during the Food Lion study, they decided to increase the store to 35,000 square feet.  Mr. Larner said if the deal goes through, which he expects it will, the closing would occur at the end of the first quarter of 2009 and the store would open in the first quarter of 2010.

Mr. Byers asked how the infrastructure for the retail center was funded.  Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC, would fund the infrastructure for the realignment of Route 652 Kentucky Springs Road.  Mr. Larner said the stop light at the intersection of Route 652 Kentucky Springs Road and Route 208 New Bridge Road, when warranted, will also be funded by Cutalong, LLC.  Mr. Larner said the first phase of the centralized water system will be funded by Cutalong, LLC also.  Mr. Larner said he would like for the County to allow for the use of a pump and haul arrangement.  Mr. Larner said a septic system would cost anywhere from $400,000 to $500,000 and it would only be temporary, which would be a large waste of capital and land area.

Mr. Spencer said the CDA is supposed to be dissolved if the first phase of the CDA financing is not issued by December 5, 2008.  Mr. Larner said that is why they are asking for an extension.

Mr. Spencer asked what has actually been done at the site.  Mr. Larner said if Mr. Spencer is talking about moving dirt on the property, it has not happened.  Mr. Larner stated that Cutalong, LLC has been expending dollars to obtain necessary permits upwards of $1.5 million to $2 million.  Mr. Larner said they could not move dirt on the site now if they wanted to because they do not have all of the requisite permits.  Mr. Larner said the public hearing for the wetlands, dredging, and water withdrawal permit is not even scheduled until later in the month.

Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Larner if the land was in A2 zoning prior to Cutalong, LLCs purchase.  Mr. Larner said yes, part of the land was in A2 before completely being rezoned. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Larner if they were currently paying all commercial taxes on the property.  Mr. Larner said Cutalong, LLC paid $35,000 in rollback taxes to the County on top of paying full real estate taxes outside of land use.  Mr. Barnes said the County is receiving more taxes from the property now than it was in the previous state before being rezoned.  Mr. Larner said that was correct and also pointed out that the County will be receiving revenues from the taxes generated from the retail center upwards of $150,000 per year.

Mr. Barnes said he remembers driving through Louisa 12 years ago and there was a sign on the interstate that said “a certified business community.”  Mr. Barnes said that present Board members and Board members in the past have made that happen.  Mr. Barnes said that he did not want to be the one to stop what he knows will become a viable project.  Mr. Barnes said as far as he is concerned, the County is already receiving some of the benefits and is already ahead and he wants to give these developers the chance to go five more years.  Mr. Barnes said he is pro-business and will be pro-business and he has to support allowing this project to continue.

Mr. Byers said people in his district are definitely interested in seeing something built on this site and wanted to know if three years versus five years would force the development to be done sooner.  Mr. Larner said it does not.  Mr. Larner said he has a financial background and things have to make financial sense before he will pursue them.  Mr. Larner said he is not going to do something that is not going to make financial sense and could cause the development to fail just because the three years is running out.

Mr. Havasy asked if the developers had been out to seek bonds yet.  Mr. Larner said no, without full entitlements he could not do that.

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. Gentry motioned to approve the proposed changes to the ordinance.  Mr. Gentry said he had concerns on the three versus the five years and he wanted to compromise and make the new expiration date December 5, 2012, which would be four years.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Spencer said he could not support the four year extension and he would go for three years.  Mr. Spencer said there are already too many developments in Louisa County that have not been pursued.

Mr. Harper said it was recommended by the attorneys to stick with the three year extension.

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

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

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 4-3, the Board approved an ordinance amending the ordinance creating the Cutalong Community Development Authority.

A public hearing on a proposed ordinance entitled "Ordinance Establishing a Special Assessment on Real Estate within the Cutalong Community Development Authority and Authorizing a Special Assessment Agreement (the "Assessment Ordinance")"

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. Gentry asked about the resolution mentioning the $18.5 million.  Mr. Gentry said he wanted to hear from the developers as to why the Board should consider the resolution now instead of waiting.  Mr. Larner said one reason is to reiterate that there is a Community Development Authority that typically handles these matters and administers bond offerings.  Mr. Larner said the involvement from the Board of Supervisors is usually in regard to the overall ordinance.  Mr. Larner said when it comes to issuing bonds, a lot of the market is timing and they are trying to best prepare for when bond yields are attractive and when entitlements are ready.

Mr. Gentry said he was concerned about which resolution to adopt since there were two presented.  Mr. Gentry said he would like to approve the resolution with the $18.5 million in it.  Mr. Gentry motioned to approve the resolution.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

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

PRESENTVOTE
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
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved an ordinance establishing a special assessment on real estate within the Cutalong Community Development Authority and authorizing a special assessment agreement.

Mr. Barnes asked what kind of direction the Board should give staff on the commercial pump and haul agreement.  Mr. Harper said the Water Authority was looking for a recommendation from the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Harper said Mr. Bar Delk had no concerns with the agreement on his part and said he could see no adverse impact.  Mr. Barnes said it is certainly not unusual for the County to make a pump and haul agreement.  Mr. Harper said it will go to the Water Authority as far as negotiating.

Mr. Byers asked if DEQ or any other state agency would have involvement in this agreement.  Mr. Harper said he believes they will have to license whatever facility is put on the site.  Mr. Harper said it is his understanding that the potential store wants to see an agreement before they sign an agreement.  Mr. Harper said basically the Board is approving the concept, but it is up to the Water Authority to do the negotiating.

Mr. Gentry said, based on the information from Mr. Harper, he would like to make a motion to pass the Boards support on to the Water Authority for the pump and haul agreement.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper said he would like to add that the agreement is for the commercial portion only.  Mr. Gentry and Mr. Barnes agreed.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved to forward support to the Water Authority for a pump and haul agreement for the commercial portion of the proposed Cutalong project.

Amendments to sections of the Louisa County Code, (Chapter 74. Traffic and vehicles) as they pertain to enforcement of driving while intoxicated violations by Louisa County in order to adopt state law by reference

Mr. Mullen said this public hearing is designed to incorporate some of the State DUI and DWI charges into the County Code by reference so that the County and the Sheriffs Department could charge and work hand in hand to obtain the maximum amount of revenue for the County.  Mr. Mullen said he spoke to Mr. Garrett, Commonwealth Attorney, and he supports the idea although he could not make it to the meeting tonight.

Mr. Mullen said he thinks the Board can whole-heartedly support this idea, but Mr. Rusty McGuires concern is that the idea does not go far enough into incorporating all of the State codes that could be.  Mr. Mullen said he was going to continue to look into the incorporation of additional codes and he could come back to the Board with other recommendations if necessary.  Mr. Mullen said that research should in no way hold up tonights approval though.

Mr. Spencer said that it is his understanding that if the State charges someone to thirty days in jail under their code, the State has to pay for the thirty days that person is in jail.  Mr. Spencer asked if the County takes this in as a County code, will they have to pay for the persons jail sentence.  Mr. Spencer said he feels its not worth it if someone pays the County a $500 fine and the County has to fork out $15,000 to pay for that persons jail sentence.

Mr. Mullen asked if Mr. Spencer wanted to know if this would be any more expensive to the County through the Regional Jail for convicted persons who are charged under this code and who might receive jail time.

Mr. Spencer asked if the County would have to pay the jail for sentence time if someone is convicted under the County code.

Mr. Mullen said that was the first thought from Mr. Garrett, but Mr. Mullen was able to speak to Ms. Pandak about the situation.  Mr. Mullen said the County can affect that by who is charged and what is charged.  Mr. Mullen said Mr. Garrett has the right to amend in the court at his discretion right up until the time the person is charged provided that is allowed under code.  Mr. Mullen said he would need to get additional information from the Regional Jail Board to find out if that is the case.  Mr. Mullen said it is a real concern for him but he thinks the County can overcome with who is charged and what is charged.

Mr. Spencer said the sentence is up to the judge, not Mr. Garrett.

Mr. Mullen said prior to Friday, he thought the answer would be yes, the County has to pay for people who are incarcerated under the County Code.  Mr. Mullen said Ms. Pandak provided information to him to consider and led him to believe that may not be the case.  Mr. Mullen said the question will require further study.

Mr. Harper said the Commonwealth Attorney has the right to amend the charge from a local charge to a State charge if he feels the person may serve jail time.

Mr. Mullen said that is correct and its important to remember that the Board will be provided solid answers before the Sheriffs Department is asked to begin charging under the County code.

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. Gentry said there are still questions out there and he would like to motion to table action until some of those questions are answered.  Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.

Mr. Byers asked if the only situation this addresses is DUI related.  Mr. Mullen said the current incorporations are for DUI codes only.

Mr. Byers asked if this were adopted, do officers still have the option to charge under State code.  Mr. Mullen said the option would be open to charge under either code.

Mr. Byers asked if there was any motivation to changing the code now as opposed to waiting until all the questions are answered.

Mr. Mullen said he would like to answer the Boards questions to give them a better comfort level, especially when it comes to potential, unintended consequences.

Mr. Byers asked if there was any State funding that would be hampered in the interim time.  Mr. Mullen said no, there will be no money lost.  Mr. Mullen said he is a little skeptical about how much money may actually be generated by doing this.

Mr. Gentry wanted to add that this motion was not intended to state he was against this idea.  Mr. Gentry said he just felt there were issues that needed to be solved before taking action.  Mr. Spencer agreed with that statement.

Mr. Byers asked if action was delayed tonight, does the County have to re-advertise.  Mr. Lintecum said he believes it depends on how long action takes.  Mr. Mullen said Mr. Lintecum was correct.  Mr. Mullen stated he would like to have answers for the Board at the next regular meeting.

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

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

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to table action on amending sections of the Louisa County Code, (Chapter 74. Traffic and vehicles) as they pertain to enforcement of driving while intoxicated violations by Louisa County in order to adopt state law by reference until concerns of the Board are answered.

Mr. Harper said the information should be provided to the Board at the next meeting so a decision can be made.

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion - Request to proceed with bid process for tennis court renovations at Trevilians and Jouett Elementary Schools

Ms. Shelhorse said part of the CIP proposal for this year was intended for the renovation of the tennis courts at Jouett Elementary School and Trevilians Elementary School.  Ms. Shelhorse said Parks and Recreation would like to move forward with the renovation because the longer it takes, the more the tennis courts become in disrepair.  Ms. Shelhorse said the original money budgeted was $18,500 and the bids came in at $18, 310.  Ms. Shelhorse said the project came in under budget and they want to move forward because the temperature is a factor when it comes to the sealing process to work.

Mr. Harper asked if there was any way in knowing what the usage is on those facilities.  Ms. Shelhorse said there are no specifics because there are no monitors out there.  Ms. Shelhorse stated from what can be seen, the courts are used quite a bit.

Mr. Gentry motioned that the Board allow the project to continue.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Byers said revenue is talked about at almost every meeting of the Board and it seems like somewhere along the line the Board has to make a decision to slow down on some of the spending.  Mr. Byers asked if another year was going to be that critical to the courts.  Mr. Byers said he lives close to Jouett Elementary School and he does not see much utilization of the court.  Ms. Shelhorse said another year would lead to increased damage on the courts.  Ms. Shelhorse said delaying for one more year would probably be okay, but she is worried about both of these tennis courts getting into the shape that Thomas Jefferson Elementary Schools tennis court is in because that one is almost unplayable and is becoming a safety hazard.

Mr. Havasy asked if these two courts are still playable.  Ms. Shelhorse said yes.  Mr. Havasy asked if the two courts would be playable this time next year.  Ms. Shelhorse said she believes they would.

Mr. Barnes said when the County has facilities, they have to maintain them or else it opens the County up for liabilities.  Mr. Barnes said he does not sit out at the courts to see what the usage is, but if one person goes to the court and gets hurt, the $18,000 will be minute compared to what fees the County could face.  Mr. Barnes said the cost we are looking at right now could be more in one year because he feels people are looking for work right now and these may be the best prices we can get.  Mr. Barnes said this is a budgeted item and he thinks the Board should move forward with it.

Mr. Gentry said if there is a concrete or asphalt surface with cracks in it, water can come through it, particularly with a bad winter of freezing and thawing, and damage the sub base and cause even more problems.

Mr. Wright said if these were high school or adult facilities, he would say to wait.  Mr. Wright said these facilities are located at elementary schools and children have a lot bigger liability than adults, who assume a certain responsibility.

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

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

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board voted to move forward with the bid process for tennis court renovations at Trevilians and Jouett Elementary Schools.

Discussion - Resource Lane

Mr. Gentry said Resource Lane is a short road that leads to the Louisa County Resource Council and he would like to get support of the Board to allow the County to take over the road so it can be turned over to VDOT.  Mr. Gentry said it could possibly require up to $3,000 for the County to do maintenance work to get the road to VDOT standards.

Mr. Wright asked if this project could carry a cap of $3,000.  Mr. Gentry said he did not mind placing a cap of $3,000.

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to move forward with the maintenance on Resource Lane for a total of $3,000 with the idea that it will be adopted into the VDOT system.

Discussion - Development Review Committee

Mr. Spencer said there was a problem at the September 24, 2008 DRC meeting.  Mr. Spencer said there is an area where a bunch of trees have been cut out of a designated buffer area.  Mr. Spencer said DRC cases have been tabled before on the recommendation of former Community Development Director, Mr. Darren Coffey, because the applicant did not show up or no information was available when questions were asked.  Mr. Spencer said the DRC could get no answers from the applicant or the agent from Bell Surveys.

Mr. Spencer said he received an email calling a special meeting of the DRC and as far as he knew, no one had the authority to call a special meeting like that.  Mr. Spencer said the DRC voted two years ago that there had to be four members present to have a quorum and only two members showed up to the special meeting.  Mr. Spencer said the meeting continued even though there were only two members present.

Mr. Spencer said a letter was sent in 2004 to Mr. Purcell from Community Development asking why all the trees had been cut out of the proffered buffer area.  Mr. Spencer said Mr. Purcells response was that there were dead trees or trees leaning over dangerously towards Route 15.  Mr. Spencer said there have been letters back and forth from the County Attorneys office to Mr. Purcell telling Mr. Purcell that this buffer situation has to be taken care of, but nothing happens.  Mr. Spencer said the last letter was from January 2005 and Mr. Spencers question is on fairness.

Mr. Spencer said if the DRC has no authority, why did Mr. Coffey use the Committee to bring the heat to S & R auto.  Mr. Spencer said at the May 28, 2008 meeting of the DRC, an applicant doing a home daycare was directed that she needed to have a 30 foot wide entrance to her house paved back 25 feet.  Mr. Spencer said if the DRC has no authority, why did this requirement get placed on an applicant at a DRC meeting.  Mr. Spencer said Mr. Mark Wood with VDOT told the applicant at that meeting that she had to have an entrance to her house 30 foot wide and paved back 25 feet.

Mr. Spencer said this boils down to basic fairness.  Mr. Spencer said it is the job of the Board to show that the County has equal justice.  Mr. Spencer said if one of the peons or peasants, instead of one of the Kings, had cut down three acres of trees in a buffer area, they would have been hung.

Mr. Spencer said his point is two-fold.  Mr. Spencer showed the Board an aerial picture showing the buffer area full of trees and two other aerial pictures showing where all the trees had been cut down.  Mr. Spencer said he is talking about equal justice in the County and he motioned to disband the DRC since he feels the Committee has been entirely compromised.  Mr. Spencer said no one seems to know where the DRC stands or what is supposed to be done and the Committee has forced applicants into many things.  Mr. Gentry seconded the motion for discussion purposes.

Mr. Havasy said if he remembers correctly the DRC and the Neighborhood Meetings were two processes started by Mr. Coffey and the Planning Commission.  Mr. Spencer said the Planning Commission is responsible for setting up the DRC, not the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Havasy said he somewhat agrees with Mr. Spencer, but he feels disbanding the DRC is up to the Planning Commission, not the Board.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Spencer if he wanted to amend the motion to send recommendation to the Planning Commission to disband the DRC.  Mr. Spencer said he was on the Planning Commission when these things were done and the Board approved the Committees.

Mr. Harper said if the motion and second will agree, he would like to have the County Attorney look into which body has the ability to disband the DRC.  Mr. Mullen said he could review the information and have a firm answer to the Board by the next meeting.

Mr. Spencer withdrew his motion to disband the DRC to allow the County Attorney time to review and see who has the authority to disband the Committee.  Mr. Gentry seconded the withdrawal.

Mr. Gentry said when the DRC was set up, it was to allow more communication between the County and the applicants and he feels that is still a very important item to consider.  Mr. Gentry said this Committee has worked for a long time and maybe recently some of the communication has broken down and some decisions have been going wrong.  Mr. Gentry said if the Board looks at the concept of trying to get as much information as possible to the applicants before the Planning Commission, it seems to be working.

Mr. Spencer said if the DRC is going to be active, it needs to be fair to everyone and stop letting the citizens be hung out to dry.

Mr. Byers said he would like to have Mr. Camp look at the value of keeping the DRC in place.  Mr. Wright said Mr. Mullen and Mr. Camp may need to look at changes in the DRC to make it more effective.

Mr. Barnes said the original intent of the DRC was to provide more communication between the County and the applicants, but he feels there is not enough direction in letting the volunteer committees know what their responsibilities are.  Mr. Barnes said he thinks the County needs to do a better job explaining the responsibilities to the quasi-committees.

Discussion - Proffers

Mr. Spencer showed the Board the same aerial pictures of the Purcell property in question with the trees being removed from the proffered buffer area.  Mr. Spencer said the County sent notification asking about all the trees being removed since they were in a proffered buffer.  Mr. Spencer said the County Attorney sent two letters to Mr. Purcell and then everything was ignored.  Mr. Spencer said everyone in the County needs to know that they have equal representation and everyone in the County will receive equal justice.

Discussion - Information Sharing With Residents and Property Owners

Mr. Byers said he was looking at the bill list and the County spends a large amount of money paying to have notices advertised in a couple of the local medias.  Mr. Byers said he would like to look at other opportunities to provide informational pieces to the public.  Mr. Byers said the County spent a lot of money advertising for the Revenue Recovery program and citizens still say they did not receive information.  Mr. Byers said he would like the County to look at opportunities to send out informational pieces in some of the regular mailings, which could help the County save money.

Mr. Harper said those were good points and some items can be paired together and mailed, but some items are under time constraints and the County cannot do that.

Mr. Spencer said the County has a magazine from Parks and Recreation that goes out quarterly and The County Messenger, which also goes out to citizens quarterly.  Mr. Spencer asked why the County could not include information items in those publications.  Mr. Lintecum said the County has been trying to do that, but sometimes the timing is not right.

Mr. Barnes said a lot of counties have a place set up on their home page where citizens can enter their email address and can automatically receive information electronically.  Mr. Barnes said one of the best ways to cut costs is to electronically send out information.

Mr. Gentry said he would like to know the breakdown of the charges and what the newspaper is actually doing for the County.  Mr. Gentry said a lot of the items the County places in the newspapers have to be done legally.  Mr. Gentry said he heard that the newspaper will place some information in the paper for the County free of charge and maybe staff is not taking advantage of that.

Mr. Spencer said the Board is discussing passing out information to the citizens, but the Housing Authority is sitting on $400,000 in funds for down payment assistance and people who are eligible do not know anything about it.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Gentry said there has been over 24,000 hours in volunteer time reported by the Volunteers of Louisa for the current year so far.  Mr. Gentry said this amounts to about $491,000 in volunteer service and he believes it will be well over $500,000 before the end of the year.  Mr. Gentry said the Volunteers of Louisa did recognize Greg Fuller who was the first CERT coordinator and the President of the United States also specially recognized him for his volunteer service.

Mr. Byers said he would like for the County to get a report soon from the Transportation Safety Commission.  Mr. Harper said he would like to set the date for receiving the Transportation Safety Commission as the first meeting in December.

Mr. Byers said the Board had talked at the last meeting about the Commission on Aging changing from two members for each district to just one.  Mr. Byers said he talked to the Commission and they are in support of that change as well as looking at several other minor changes in their bylaws.  Mr. Byers said the Commission would like to research the changes and present them to the Board soon.

Mr. Wright said he had heard mention that the Commission on Aging had proposed going back to offering their positions to all age groups.  Mr. Wright said the Commission is on aging, not on all the different age groups in the County.

Mr. Wright said that Louisa County had tried to get an employment center of some type in the County and they finally opened the Louisa Employment Center (LEC) at the Sage Building.  Mr. Wright said the LEC is currently open one morning a week and one evening a week and they have had over 200 people come through during the ten months it has been open.  Mr. Wright said through the help of additional volunteers, the LEC may be able to expand their hours.

Mr. Gentry said he and Mr. Byers are on a committee with the schools and they met to talk about the CIP carryovers, school bus costs per student listed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the graduation rate of 82%, and Mr. Robert Gibsons information about the apprentice and internship program with manufacturers.  Mr. Gentry said he asked a lot of questions, and besides the CIP carryovers, the other three issues will hopefully be answered at the next meeting.

Mr. Harper said the Lake Anna Advisory Committee will frequently hold what they call the Town Hall meeting.  Mr. Harper said it is a good opportunity for people around the lake to come out and express some of the concerns they may have.  Mr. Harper said the meeting will be held October 22, 2008 at the Livingston School in Spotsylvania.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Barnes said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Roy Hopkins to the Transportation Safety Commission.  Mr. Harper said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Todd Hall to the Transportation Safety Commission.  Mr. Spencer said he would like to re-appoint Mr. William Vawter to the Transportation Safety Commission.

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board re-appointed Mr. Roy Hopkins, Mr. Todd Hall, and Mr. William Vawter to the Transportation Safety Commission.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum reported that there was an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch published today about county vehicles, which was quoted in error.  Mr. Lintecum said Ms. Amanda Reidelbach talked to the Editor today and Ms. Reidelbach will be sending in a letter of correction to make sure that problem does not happen again.

Mr. Lintecum said there was a memo from Mr. McLeod included about the audits which came up when he and Mr. McLeod were looking at a letter to all the departments and agencies about the possible budget cut this year.  Mr. Lintecum said the usual procedure is that all volunteer agencies receive their money up front.  Mr. Lintecum said the question is will those agencies be treated any differently from the other departments and organizations.

Mr. Gentry said it is hard for him to believe that after all the discussion on the audits, there are still four groups who have not completed and turned in their audits.  Mr. Gentry asked if a reason had been provided as to why those audits were not done.  Mr. McLeod said he heard from three of the four groups and they have submitted their audit to the auditor but have not received results yet.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod if he knew the time frame of the requests submitted by those three groups and who their auditor is.  Mr. McLeod said he did not have a time frame, but he has been told that it was the same auditor who did the majority of all the other volunteer groups.

Mr. Harper said the County should put more emphasis on the audits going forward.  Mr. Harper asked what the request was here.  Mr. Lintecum asked if the Board wanted to give the fire and rescue squads all their money up front.

Mr. Havasy said the Board should give all the money up front.  Mr. Havasy said the County has many volunteer departments who provide a lot of service and the citizens deserve to know that these departments are still operating.  Mr. Havasy said he will never vote to cut the funding of these volunteer departments and their funding should be given up front in one lump sum.

Mr. Barnes wanted to know if the Board could cut the department funding for those who are not meeting all the requirements and only give them 50% up front.  Mr. Barnes said the County has to send out the message that they are serious about the audit requirement.  Mr. Barnes said he did not want to jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the citizens, but maybe the Board could look into a way to prorate the money until all the requested information is received.

Mr. McLeod said the request before the Board is to not give any funds to those four groups until the audits come in.  Mr. McLeod said the request is also for the Board to decide if the County should treat these volunteer departments the same way as the regular departments and ask them to take the same budget cuts.

Mr. Gentry asked if it was possible for the County to get an explanation from the auditor as to why the deadline was not met.  Mr. McLeod said he can call the auditor and if he receives an answer, he will report it to the Board.

Mr. Byers said when it comes to withholding funds, would it be for this year or next years budget.  Mr. Lintecum said he understood the instruction was to do both.  Mr. Lintecum said he is looking for direction from the Board.

Mr. Spencer said the Board directed Mr. Lintecum to contact every department and agency to have them provide a scenario if they were asked to do a 10% or 15% cut.  Mr. Spencer said the term every agency would include the volunteer departments as well.  Mr. Spencer said if the overall budget has to be cut by 15%, these volunteer departments would have to be included in that cut.  Mr. Spencer said he did not want to have to cut fire and rescue, but all the other departments, including the Sheriffs Department, are facing budget cuts.  Mr. Spencer said he received a lot of phone calls when the article came out in the paper about all these people receiving free County decals who have not been in fire and rescue for 20 years.  Mr. Spencer said he knows of one family that received six free decals.

Mr. Harper said the issue before the Board is whether or not to distribute funds to the volunteer departments the same as everyone else or should the Board issue all the monies up front with the exception of the four groups who have not filed their audit.

Mr. Gentry said he thought the departments were given until September to turn in their audits and the Board has to look at who is to blame - the departments or the auditors.  Mr. Gentry said if the auditor was provided with the information in plenty of time to meet the deadline, maybe the departments have done all that they could do.

Mr. Harper said the first question is does the Board want to distribute the money to these volunteer departments up front or distribute the funds quarterly like it was determined for all the other departments.

Mr. Spencer motioned to distribute the funds to the volunteer departments on a quarterly basis, just as the other departments will be done.  Mr. Byers seconded the motion.

Mr. Havasy asked for clarification on the motion.  Mr. Harper said the motion was to distribute everyones money on a quarterly basis as of right now.

Mr. Havasy asked if this motion had to do with reductions.  Mr. Spencer said no.  Mr. Lintecum said the Board will not know until the Governor has determined what he is going to do and what the collections are for the current year.

Mr. Wright said he thought the Board had approved that the School Board get all their money at once.  Mr. Wright said he did not think the discussion was to give the School Board their money quarterly.  Mr. McLeod said the School Board was provided all the State and Federal funds, but were not given all of their operational money.

Mr. Barnes said he understands what the Board is trying to accomplish and the fiscal impact, but he thinks one more Board meeting will not break the bank so the Board can find out if the auditors are at fault in the submission of the audits.

Mr. Harper said that was not the purpose of this motion.  Mr. Harper said this is to decide whether the volunteer departments will be paid quarterly or all at once.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Spencers motion.

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

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 4-3, the Board voted to appropriate monies to volunteer departments on a quarterly basis, just as all the other departments will be done.

Mr. Harper said the other item for consideration is whether or not the Board will provide all the money to the four groups who still have not submitted their audits or will the Board hold all the money until the audits come in.

Mr. Spencer said the Board had voted over and over that there is a fire association and EMSAL who is responsible for giving the money out to the volunteer departments.  Mr. Harper said that was correct.

Mr. Havasy stated that all of the money given to the volunteer fire and rescue does not go into anyones pocket, but it all goes to equipment.  Mr. Havasy said when it comes to money to a volunteer agency such as fire and rescue, the Board is talking about their ability to buy equipment.  Mr. Havasy said the Board needs to be aware of what they are voting for because this issue affects every citizen in the County.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to see the Board wait until the next Board meeting before making a decision.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod when the monies would be paid.  Mr. McLeod said if the Board reached a decision, the County would cut a check prior to the next Board meeting because the payment would already be pre-approved by the Board.

Mr. Harper said the Board would put off this decision until Mr. McLeod can come back with answers from the auditors.

Mr. Spencer said the County has a fire association and EMSAL and let them hold back the money from the departments if they want to.  Mr. Spencer asked why the County had those agencies if the Board was going to pick and choose who gets paid.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - To take three (3) streets in the Beagle Run Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to take three (3) streets in the Beagle Run Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia.

Resolution - Congratulating the Louisa County Rotary Club on the occasion of its 70th anniversary

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution congratulating the Louisa County Rotary Club on the occasion of its 70th anniversary.

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the sale of a capital asset

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the sale of a capital asset.

Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation and distribution of fire program funding for the fire association

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation and distribution of fire program funding for the fire association.

Resolution - Appointing Jeremy Camp to the position of Zoning Administrator and Subdivision Agent for Louisa County

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution appointing Jeremy Camp to the position of Zoning Administrator and Subdivision Agent for Louisa County.

Resolution - For a supplemental appropriation to the Social Services Department for additional State and Federal funds for June 1, 2008 through August 31, 2008, (1st Quarter)

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Social Services Department for additional State and Federal funds for June 1, 2008 through August 31, 2008, (1st Quarter).

APPROVAL OF BILLS

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of September 2008 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $526,465.19.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the September 15, 2008 4:00 p.m. meeting.

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the September 15, 2008 regular meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at  8:42 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (3) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussing the acquisition of real property for a public purpose where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body.

2.        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 Cases)

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 9:18 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, 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 6th Day of October 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 6th day of October 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.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the October 6, 2008 meeting at 9:19 p.m.

BY ORDER OF


________________________________

WILLIE L. HARPER, CHAIRMAN

LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA