Contact Sitemap Search
|Board Present:||Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell, and Jack T. Wright|
|Others Present:||C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; and Michele Doty, Deputy Clerk|
CALL TO ORDERChairman Barnes called the October 16, 2006 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Barnes led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt a resolution declaring October 2006 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Presentation New Elementary School Blair Engle of Barton Malow Management Construction Services and Randy Livermon of VMDO Architects
Ms. Robin Horne, Chairman, Louisa County School Board, thanked the Board for having the School Board on the agenda. Ms. Horne indicated that several weeks prior the School Board was presented with several options for the new elementary school and are there to seek direction from the Board. Ms. Horne indicated that Dr. David Melton, Superintendent, Blair Engle, Bob Moje, Jack Cromby, Randy Livermon and Greg Strickland were all in attendance to address questions. She expressed the desire of the School Board that a decision be reached tonight to ensure opening the school on time. During Board discussion, Mr. Purcell indicated that although he had the opportunity to talk to Ms. Horne earlier in the week and she was able to answer all of his questions, he still has some reservations about the process. Mr. Purcell stated that he feels this project should be sent out for bid with the possibility of the numbers coming back more favorably. Mr. Havasy noted that $16 million was the agreed amount in the resolution that was passed in January by the Board, the agreement with the School Board and the design committee records and he doesnt understand how we got so far from this amount. Mr. Havasy further noted that the information provided by the School Board shows that this project can be done at the agreed amount of $16 million which he feels is more than sufficient. Mr. Havasy stated that the Board is responsible for using the Countys money appropriately and questions the effects on taxes next year if this project goes over budget. Mr. Wright noted that he had talked with Dr. Melton and found some discrepancies and some of the information provided for comparison to be outdated. As well, Mr. Wright stated that he was concerned that some of the documents provided by the School Board indicated that some costs were at or below state averages but he could not find any that were down to the state average on any of the options. Mr. Wright stated that considering the amount of money involved and being pushed up against a time frame, this is a difficult decision to make. Mr. Wright further stated that it would be irresponsible to proceed with a commitment of any more money than the Board has already committed to. Mr. Gentry indicated his main concern was when the Board took action on the $16 million/700 students in January it was obvious where the Board stood and now nine months later the Board is getting the first presentation from the school system. Mr. Gentry noted that since three of the four contracts have already been put out and only the building contract is left, most of the damage as far as prices and contracts being out of the state average has already been done and questions how the Board can put this project back in line to where it should be. Mr. Gentry stated that he is having a hard time going beyond the agreement of $16 million/700 students at this point. Mr. Harper cautioned the Board that this is only one school and over the next 10-12 years the Board could be looking at $150 million worth of schools to be built. Mr. Harper also stated that he stands by and supports that the contingency should not be more than 10% of the project. Mr. Jennings agreed that a budget of $16 million was set and that is what the Board should stick to. Mr. Jennings noted that it may be advantageous to send this out for bid as the County may get competitive bids that are comparable due to the cost of materials dropping. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. McLeod about the tax affects if this projects goes over budget. Mr. McLeod stated that the County is currently talking about borrowing $16 million in Spring/Fall of 2007 which means a whole payment would come due in the Fall of 07 which would be about $1.4 million and would be about 3 cents. Mr. McLeod stated that if the County borrowed the $25 million then his guess would be a payment of about $2.2 million and right under 5 cents. This would be the annual payments over 20 years so its an additional cost of about $785,000 or 1.7 cents. Mr. McLeod clarified that this would not be capital but operational for the school only to balance the budget. Mr. Barnes stated that the Board has an opportunity to provide a quality school but the Board doesnt have everything it needs to make a decision and he feels it would be prudent to send this out for bid. Mr. Barnes clarified that the contingency was not calculated in the original budget. Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Moje what the redesign costs would be if this was sent out for bid. Mr. Moje indicated that this would depend on what numbers came back and what they are trying to adjust it from. Mr. Moje stated that there are two issues to consider, the budget and the school capacity. Mr. Gentry stated that the entire project should have been $16 million, not just the building which should be around $10 million. Mr. Barnes stated that it has been questioned whether contingency was included and Mr. Gentry stated that in January the Board agreed to not do a contingency at that time and would handle this when it arose. Mr. Havasy asked the designers if they were involved in any of the projects presented to the Board and the designer indicated that they were not. Mr. Havasy asked if they had been able to view any of the architectural plans and questioned whether they were quality buildings. The designer indicated that this varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction based on different levels of site work, equipment, mechanical systems, technology, etc. which explains the variety in numbers. Mr. Havasy noted that there are two schools in Chesterfield which are putting 100 more students in the school and being done for $14 million which includes everything. Mr. Havasy asked why the designers ignored the Board of Supervisors and their mandate that the total cost be $16 million. Ms. Horne indicated that the designers were doing what the Design Committee asked for and Mr. Havasy noted that the Design Committee has consistently indicated a cost of $16 million. Mr. Havasy asked if a school could be built in Louisa County for $16 million and Ms. Horne indicated that construction and site work could be done for that amount however there are other fees involved. Mr. Moje noted that there is a common misconception on student capacity per school and that there are other programs that will bring additional students. Mr. Strickland noted that the ratio and SOL numbers need to be taken into consideration when talking about student capacity. Mr. Havasy stated that the original agreement has changed and the number of students has continued to grow and if the guidelines that were set could not be met then it needed to be discussed not just added to the budget expecting it to be acceptable. Mr. Wright asked if there were certain minimum guidelines by the state for quality of construction and the designer agreed that there are minimum requirements which must be met. Mr. Purcell stated that there are costs that will not be recovered and we can continue to debate process but until we get bids we do not know what we are dealing with and the $16 million budget may be hard to hit. Mr. Havasy stated that if the design is not good then perhaps we should go with another design to meet the budget.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to send the project out to bid with no commitment for money.
Discussion - Revised Charter and Bylaws of the Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Academy discussion postponed
Discussion Setting Priorities for the primary road system in Louisa County Mr. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, referred to the list of 2005 priorities for the primary roads. Mr. Lintecum stated that a bypass in the Town of Mineral needs to be considered for inclusion in the priorities. Mr. Lintecum noted that there is no additional funding and the County is currently behind in our roads. There will be a public meeting next Wednesday, October 25th at 6:00 p.m. in Culpeper. Mr. Gentry indicated there is a problem with the intersection in the Town of Mineral and questioned whether this should be addressed at the same time as the bypass since the intersection is a safety issue. Mr. Wright asked that the Town of Louisa Bypass be more specific to how it will be laid out. Following Board discussion it was agreed that the 2006 priorities for the primary roads would be as follows:
|1.||Upgrading and reconstructing of State Route 208 from the Spotsylvania County line to U.S. Route 522. (VTA Project 0208-0540-108-C501; PPMS-56195). A public hearing was held on January 24, 2002 and design approval has also been approved on this much needed safety project.|
|2.||Widening Route 15 North of 1-64 at Zion Crossroads to four (4) lanes approximately one (1) mile through the commercial/industrial zone.|
|3.||Safety improvements at the intersection of U.S. Route 33/VA Route 22 and Secondary Route 613.|
|4.||Safety Improvements at the U.S. Route 15/33 Intersection.|
|5.||Safety Improvements at the intersection of Mineral Avenue, State Route 22, and First Street, Secondary Route 618, in the Town of Mineral.|
|6.||Design and construct a bypass for the Town of Louisa.|
|7.||Design and construct a bypass for the Town of Mineral.|
|8.||Design and construct a bypass for the Town of Gordonsville.|
|9.||Upgrade and reconstruct U.S. Route 522 from Gum Spring to U.S. Route 33.|
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to priorities set for the primary road system in Louisa County.
Discussion Land Conveyance to Lake Anna Rescue Squad
Mr. Jennings stated that the Board had previously agreed to convey 3/10th of an acre to Lake Anna Rescue Squad and he has received calls from a couple of citizens regarding the status of this transfer. Mr. Jennings indicated he was asking for a consensus from the Board for Mr. Morgan to proceed with this transfer. Mr. Wright noted that this strip of land is not of use to anyone and should be turned over to the Lake Anna Rescue Squad. Mr. Barnes noted that Mr. Lintecum is aware of this situation and is working on it.
Subdivision Review - BBX Corporation, Applicant/Owner - Mineral Magisterial and Voting Districts - Route 644 (21 Lots) Mr. Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development indicated that the Community Development Department has received a revised preliminary conceptual sketch for “Mount Airy” Subdivision, containing 21 lots in Louisa County. The subdivision is comprised of three parent parcels to be served by a new internal road constructed to VDOT subdivision street specifications. One of the proposed lots will access from Route 644 (Mt. Airy Road), leaving 20 lots to be served by the new internal subdivision street. The applicant has shown a proposed 100-foot buffer zone along the Route 644 frontage. It was recommended to the engineer that the subdivision should contain a maximum of eighteen lots; however, this was not taken into consideration and has not been revised on the conceptual plan submitted. Other than the items mentioned the proposal appears to be in general compliance with the A-2 regulations as they pertain to minimum lot size, frontage and width requirements. Mr. Coffey noted that the private road box was checked on the application however to the best of his knowledge it is intended for the road to go into the public system. The plan shows this road as primed and double sealed as opposed to just paved, however this does meet VDOT specifications for a subdivision of this size. Staff requests that the Board advise if they desire this preliminary subdivision plat receive further review by the Board, or if Staff may complete the final subdivision plat process administratively. During Board discussion Mr. Wright indicated that the map is unreadable and that the Board has addressed the issue of private road versus public road on many occasions and he will not support this application with a private road. Mr. Purcell stated that he thinks there will be more applications coming before us as applicants try to get in under the old rules but he does not agree with combining more than one parent parcel with more than 18 lots. Mr. Harper thinks this should go back for review due to questions raised by the Board. Mr. Gentry noted receiving this additional information is not a guarantee that this will be approved.
On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to send back to Community Development to get additional information regarding road maintenance and a map which shows proper lot lines.
Resolution to award the contract for the creation of a long-range water supply plan Mr. Jason Pauley, County Engineer, referred to a fee proposal received by Dewberry & Davis, Inc. to perform a long range water study plan for Louisa County. This is required by all localities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. An RFP was released and three proposals were received by the deadline. A committee of five staff members interviewed all three firms and Dewberry & Davis was chosen as the best qualified. As a result, fee negotiations were entered into and an hourly of not to exceed fee of $117,000 has been reached. This project has been budgeted for this current fiscal year and the fee is in line with the budgeted amount and Mr. Pauley asked the Board for approval of this proposal. Mr. Wright questioned what authority the contact person would have and Mr. Pauley indicated that the Board would be making the decisions but there would be only one point of contact. Mr. Notte, Dewberry & Davis, indicated that this is just a contact who would bring the Boards decision back to them. Mr. Gentry asked if this long-range water supply plan is what the Board was requesting be done or is it a separate requirement. Mr. Pauley indicated that this is a separate requirement but will encompass the entire county and could be used for both.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to award the contract for the creation of a long-range water supply plan.
Mr. Barnes indicated that the Economic Development Committee had met and he will be discussing this in closed session. Mr. Wright indicated that he and Mr. Paul Oswell attended a full-day training session for the Social Services Board which was well worth attending.
Mr. Purcell indicated that he is still trying to get an affordable housing committee member. Mr. Barnes recommended appointing Mr. Scott Wheeler to the Road Reviewers Committee.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to appoint Mr. Scott Wheeler to the Road Reviewers Committee.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Mr. Purcell abstaining, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to
Mr. Lintecum indicated that he had met with Doug Whitlock of the Mineral Historic Foundation regarding the Longevity House. Mr. Whitlock had indicated that the Foundation is willing to pursue grants and donations to make the house a historic museum. Mr. Lintecum indicated he had informed Mr. Whitlock that as long as they were able to make progress and give the Board a time table with a plan, the Board would be more than willing to work with the Foundation. Mr. Gentry indicated that two of the directors had asked him if the County would be willing to give them the house and a small tract of land. Mr. Lintecum reminded the Board that Saturday, October 28th is Louisa County Household Hazardous Waste Day. While reviewing the Community Development report the Board noted that there had been a 38% decrease in building permits for single family homes and an 82% decrease in manufactured homes applications.
Resolution To take five (5) streets in the Forest View Subdivision into the secondary system of highways in Louisa County, Virginia
Resolution Declaring October 2006 as Clean Up Louisa County month
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Mr. Purcell abstaining, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted totake five (5) streets in the Forest View Subdivision into the secondary system of highways in Louisa County, Virginia.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to declare October 2006 as Clean Up Louisa County month.
Resolution Authorizing allocation of special emergency preparedness funds from Virginia Department of Emergency Management
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to authorize allocation of special emergency preparedness funds from Virginia Department of Emergency Management.
Resolution Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Sheriffs Department for vehicle replacement
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to Authorize a supplemental appropriation for the Sheriffs Department for vehicle replacement.
Mr. Lintecum pointed out the correspondence received from our Senator and member of the House of Delegates. Mr. Lintecum also pointed out a letter from the Auditor of Public Accounts. Mr. Gentry questioned an email that had been received by Senator Houck previously indicating they would be correcting the education funding problem and asked if this had been done. Mr. Lintecum indicated that it was his understanding that this had been made up with sales tax. Mr. Gentry asked how this would impact the funds we have given to the schools. Mr. McLeod indicated that if there are extra funds they would have to be appropriated through the Board first and we did not budget to the same level as the Governor to start with.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, with Messrs. Jennings, Gentry, Wright and Havasy abstaining from bills pertaining to them, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the first half of the month of October 2006, for the County of Louisa in the amount of $446,877.88.
Approval of Minutes
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the September 25, 2006 minutes.
Mr. McLeod informed the Board that the County had received 468 applications for 2006 Tax Relief and 427 qualified with a total tax dollar exemption of $291,955.25 which is an increase of over $100,000 from last year.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:28 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:
1. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (5) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussion of industry expansion in the Green Springs District. 2. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel under the County Administrator. REGULAR SESSION On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:55 p.m. RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution: ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the October 16, 2006 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. BY ORDER OF
WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this the 16th day of October 2006, 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 the 16th day of October 2006, 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 Consultation with Legal Counsel, in accordance with §2.23711(a)(7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consulting with counsel.
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA
2. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel under the County Administrator.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:55 p.m.
RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the October 16, 2006 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.
BY ORDER OF