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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JANUARY 19, 2007
1:00 P.M.



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

*Fitzgerald Barnes arrived at 1:26 p.m.
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager and April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk


CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Wright called the January 19, 2007 meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 1:00 p.m.  Mr. Harper led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

DISCUSSION

Update CIP Outlook/Water/Sewer/Growth Skip Notte and Bar Delk

Robert “Skip” Notte, explained what projects the Water Authority completed 2006 and the outlook for 2007.  Mr. Notte stated that some existing projects for the County include continued expansion in the Zion Crossroads area, the Louisa County Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant, the Louisa County/Town of Louisa Utility Standards, and the Long Range Water Resource Plan.  Mr. Notte stated that the Water Authority has three anticipated projects to complete, the Louisa County Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant Design and Construction, the Zion Crossroads Waste Water Treatment Plant, and Well System Improvements.

Mr. Notte said that there are three main projects for the water and sewer in Zion crossroads.  Mr. Notte stated that all of the projects have been completed, totaling about $1.5 million.  Mr. Notte said the Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant project is for the expansion of the existing plant from 400,000 gallons per day to 800,000 gallons per day.  Mr. Notte said the first step for this project was to enter into discussions with the Virginia Department of Environment Quality about limits in draft  Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems Permit, which is the permit that allows the County to discharge wastewater.  Mr. Notte explained that there were issues with copper and zinc limitations that were included in the permit.  Once this permit is issued these limitations would have to be followed and the Water Authority wanted to make sure the Town and County would accept these limits.  Mr. Notte stated that the permit should be issued within the next forty-five to sixty days.

Mr. Notte stated that the Louisa County/Town of Louisa Utility Standards Manual is a joint effort between the County and the Town.  Mr. Notte said that Dewberry & Davis, Inc. has a contract with the County for services to develop the Utility Standard Manual with a not to exceed fee of $20,000.  Mr. Notte stated that if the cost were less than $20,000, then the County and Town would be billed for that lower amount.  Mr. Notte further noted that the cost would be split between the County of Louisa and the Town of Louisa.  

Mr. Notte stated that the Long Range Water Resource Plan is a joint plan submission for the County of Louisa, the Town of Louisa and the Town of Mineral and is a plan that is required by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
 Mr. Notte said the Joint Plan must be submitted by November 2011 and that because the plan incorporates the County and both towns, there is a very good possibility to receive funding from VDEQ.  Mr. Notte further stated that the application deadline for grant submission is June 2007 and the grant could be as much as $50,000 and that grant would offset the not to exceed fee of $117,000 from Dewberry & Davis, Inc.

Mr. Notte said the County has three anticipated projects currently being worked on by Dewberry & Davis, Inc. and the County of Louisa Water Authority.  Mr. Notte said the first project would the design and construction of the Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant.  Mr. Notte said anticipated schedule for design and construction for the expansion of the Louisa County regional WWTP is approximately twenty-four months.  Mr. Notte said the estimate for the project would total about $9 million.  

Mr. Notte said that the Zion Crossroads Waste Water Treatment Plant upgrade would be from 100,000 gallons per day to 700,000 gallons per day.
 Mr. Notte stated that the Board currently has the permit in hand for the upgrade and that the project would cost about $8 million, with a twenty-four month construction period.  

Mr. Notte explained that the three Wells in the County are in need of Improvements.  Mr. Notte stated are water quality concerns with the water supply coming from the three wells that have to be addressed.  Mr. Notte said this project would also allow for more reliability and an alternate water source.  Mr. Notte said that the cost of this project would be about $350,000.  

Mr. Barnes arrived at 1:26 p.m.

Mr. Delk added that the Water Authority anticipates seventy to eighty connections per year in Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Notte pointed out to the Board that because of that rate of growth in the Zion Crossroads area is the reason for the expansion of the Zion Crossroads Waste Water Treatment Plant.   Mr. Lintecum added that if one third of the proposed projects in Zion Crossroads comes to pass, the capacity of the Zion Crossroads Waste Water Treatment Plant will pass 100,000 gallons per day very fast and the expansion of the current plant is greatly needed.  

Mr. Delk pointed out to the Board that the Louisa Water Authority is one of a few authorities that have managed its finances on a “pay as you go” manner. Mr. Delk stated that the Authority is debt free but that is not how it will be able to continue.  Mr. Delk said that because of the growth in the County, and the expected growth in the County, the County will have to incur debt to keep up with demand.  

Mr. Delk said that the County owns some water lines and some sewer lines while the Water Authority owns others.  Mr. Barnes stated that he felt the County needs to make a decision on whether or not the Water Authority should own all of the lines.  Mr. Wight said that the longer the County waits to transfer ownership to the Water Authority, the harder it will be to make a decision within a reasonable amount of time.  Mr. Delk stated that the County needs to clear things up and have only one owner of all the water and sewer lines
.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed for the County to transfer ownership of all water and sewer lines to the Water Authority.

Informational Springsted Cabell Moore

Mr. Moore stated that a bond rating is an independent assessment of a localitys willingness and ability to repay its debt.  Mr. Moore said there are three credit rating agencies, Fitch, Moodys Investors Service and Standard & Poors.  Mr. Moore explained that the components that are examined to get a general credit rating are the structure and stability of the local economy, administration of the borrowing entity, the financial performance and flexibility of the locality, and the debt burden.  

Mr. Moore indicated that the process for a bond rating starts with examining the administration of a locality..  Mr. Moore said the credit rating agencies would look at the governing board, the key staff, the organizational structure of the locality, major fiscal policies, and key initiatives the County wants to accomplish or prevent.  

Mr. Moore said the economic base of a locality is a key factor for the rating because the credit rating agencies look at the population and size of a county and the structure and diversity of the tax base.
Mr. Moore explained that credit rating agencies look at financial performance and the flexibility of the locality to manage its finances and current debt.  Mr. Moore stated the purpose for having a credit rating is for a locality to be more flexible in timing of issues, structuring issues, the possible improvement in lending rates and the possible savings for the taxpayer.  Mr. Moore said that a credit rating is important for a growing locality.  .  

Mr. Wright asked that since the County will be acquiring a new rating, would the initial rating be a conditional rating.  Mr. Moore stated that the credit rating agency would do a full credit analysis.  

Mr. Barnes asked if the County having a Community Development Authority (CDA) would affect the bond rating.  Mr. Moore stated they are considered overlapping rates and that only a few localities have are in the same situation and they have not affected the rating.  Mr. Moore said that the higher the credit rating is, the lower the interest rate will be.  Mr. Lintecum asked about the different types of bonds that were available.  Mr. Moore indicated that the most secure bond that a government can have is a General Obligation Bond.  Mr. Moore added that with this type of bond, each bond has to be approved by the voters.  Mr. Moore stated that another type of bond was a Revenue Bond and revenues of a specific project secure these.  Mr. Moore said that the third type of bond available is a Moral Obligation Bond and these are compared to a lease, whereas the County takes all responsibilities to pay the dues if revenues arent on a certain project.  Mr. Lintecum said that the only debt the County has is through the Virginia School Authority.
 Mr. Moore said that if the County is growing at such a high rate, then getting a credit rating in order to secure bonds is something that the Board needs to look at.

Update Sheriffs Department Major Donald Lowe

Major Lowe stated he would be requesting two additional personnel for the Sheriffs Department in this years budget.  Major Lowe said there is a Deputy who is an officer in the military and was called into service in Iraq, so an additional officer was hired to cover the Patrol Officer position while he was away on active duty. Major Lowe stated that when the officer returns from serving in the military, Major Lowe  would like to reassign the replacement officer to the Criminal Investigations Division and allow the military officer to reassume his duty as a Patrol Officer.  Major Lowe stated that he would like to have the additional officer in the Criminal Investigations Division because there has been a significant increase in building and construction type thefts.  

Major Lowe said there has been an increase in child molesting cases and these types of cases are considered priority and are very time consuming.  .  Major Lowe said that because of the increase in those types of cases, he is requesting an additional position to focus on investigating molestation cases. Major Lowe stated the increased cost for these two positions would be about $105,000
.

Major Lowe indicated that another priority for the Department is to create  a pay scale that would benefit members of the Sheriffs Department for career development and assuming additional responsibilities.  Major Lowe stated that  some older officers are making less money than the newer officers.  Major Lowe stated that he would like to see the salaries adjusted for employees who have taken on more responsibilities but are not making as much as new hire Deputies.    Major Lowe said he would like to see the salaries of the Sheriffs Department staff reflect the level of training, experience and responsibility for each employee.  

Major Lowe said the Department would like to implement a career development program with incentives.  Major Lowe said he would like to financially reward employees for the additional training they earn.  Major Lowe said he would like the Board to strongly consider the two positions and the change in the salary scale for the Sheriffs Department.
 

Major Lowe noted that as the County develops, it is his  hope that the Department will stay ahead of the curve.  Mr. Gentry asked if the Department has looked at adjusting the pay scales for entry-level officers so the entry-level officers pay would not exceed senior officers.  Major Lowe said the Department has looked at payroll studies from surrounding counties and has found that Louisa Countys salaries are competitive.  Major Lowe stated there are typically two types of officer, an officer who does not want to assume any additional responsibilities and another officer who is highly motivated, is interested in developing his or her career and wants additional responsibilities.    

Mr. Barnes stated the Board has always been very supportive of the Sheriffs Department and that he is proud of what the Board has been able to do for the Department.  Mr. Barnes said he was concerned that if a policy is not put into place to accommodate career growth and to keep up with the growth of the County, the County may find itself is a similar situation of a few years ago, where Deputies salaries are no longer competitive.  Mr. Barnes further noted that one of the goals of the Board was to have the salary of an entry level Deputy and a new teacher in a similar range, though there is still about a $3,000 difference in salaries.

Mr. Harper asked if the Department had a methodology for performance appraisals.  Major Lowe stated the Department quarterly evaluations that the employees does, and the Department keeps up with the annual statistics of each employee.  Major Lowe further noted that supervisors pay close attention to what is being done.  Major Lowe stated that the department has daily operation evaluations that are documented and that once an employee is finished with training and is on their own, they are evaluated by statistics.

Mr. Gentry stated that he would like the Department  to keep up with what adjoining counties are doing in their locality.   Major Lowe stated the Department has made serious accomplishments over the past several years and as a result of those accomplishments the Department is bringing in qualified applicants from other counties.
 

Update Revenue Recovery

Mr. McLeod discussed this presentation was given to the committee from a Revenue Recovery contractor, but some of the slides have been removed.  Mr. McLeod said the presentation was just to give the Board some additional information on the subject, but the committee knew this was going to take many months to complete.  Mr. McLeod stated that finding funding to support Emergency Services has been a problem.  Mr. McLeod also said recruiting and retaining volunteers have been challenging.  Mr. McLeod further noted that donations to support the local volunteer rescue and fire departments has been static and it takes a considerable amount of the volunteers  time and energy to acquire these donations.  Mr. McLeod said the needs for emergency services, such as rescue transport, in the County has increased significantly and  the cost of maintaining the services has increased.  Mr. McLeod said the amount of training required of the volunteers has gone up.  

Mr. McLeod explained that billing for services will not change the organizational structure or procedural routine of the volunteer departments, and the departments will retain their 501(c)3 status.  Mr. McLeod stated that revenue recovery is a way for the County to collect  fees for transporting patients.  Mr. McLeod said more than  ninety percent of the fees will be paid by insurance companies, such as Medicare, Medicaid or a subscription program.  Mr. McLeod indicated the average around the state was that only five to eight percent of the Countys population is being transported.  Mr. McLeod further noted that other localities currently use this program indicated a majority of the citizens have some type of insurance coverage.  Mr. McLeod noted if the citizen has insurance, they will pay the co-insurance and the deductible and if they do not have insurance or the claim is denied, they are responsible for the full cost of the transport.  Mr. McLeod said one option for people who will have to pay privately, is a subscription program, where a family is charged a set amount per year and if they need to be transported, they would not be charged per transport.   Mr. McLeod explained another option is the  OIG,  where the County has the option to waive co-pays and deductibles for residents with insurance.  Mr. McLeod said two other options are available for citizens who are not covered by insurance. The first option would be the citizens ability to pay. The second option would be a time pay program,  where the County would work with people so they could pay over time.  

Mr. McLeod stated some challenges for this program education, both internally and externally.  Mr. McLeod said educating the public so they would understand they would not be denied transport or services because of their inability to pay. Mr. McLeod noted that an agreement with the rescue squad would have to be in place before revenue recovery could be implemented.  Mr. McLeod said some benefits of this program would be an increase in revenue, which would lead to more consistent cash flow for the squads, decreasing the squads need to spend time raising money, operations will be more efficient, and provider services will be enhanced.  

Mr. Harper asked for an explanation of the more efficient cash flow.  Mr. McLeod said insurance companies would pay for the claims, which would lead to a consistent amount of revenue coming in instead of relying on charitable donations..  

Mr. Harper said that the volunteer departments are being supported by the taxpayer to pay for operational cost.  Mr. McLeod said that he was unsure how much of the money from the County to the volunteers departments went to their overall operational cost. Mr. Garland Nuckols, president of EMSAL, stated that the money from the County does not cover all the operational costs.  Mr. Gentry asked what portion of the ten percent who would be private pay fall into lower income, middle income or upper income.  Mr. McLeod stated that the Revenue Recovery Committee still has a lot of issues to address before a full presentation can be made to the Board, but he wanted to use this venue to give the Board an idea of what the Committee has been working on and the issues it has to solve .  Mr. Barnes asked if the additional money that would be coming in through revenue recovery would decrease the amount of money the County issues to the volunteer departments and therefore decrease the tax burden of the citizens. Mr. McLeod stated that is another issue the Committee has to address.


Mr. Purcell asked how the volunteers felt about revenue recovery and that he has been told  there are calls for emergency assistance that are frivolous calls and does the Committee see revenue recovery as a way to cut down on the amount of frivolous calls.  Mr. Havasy said volunteers are very unique individuals and take their work very seriously and only want to serve and help citizens.  Mr. Havasy stated that the volunteers are at a cross road in how they feel about revenue recovery because the desire of a volunteer is to serve and help the public and if revenue recovery is a mechanism to support the volunteer him/herself  by providing a future retirement program, that would defeat the purpose of being volunteers.  Mr. Nuckols said when the topic of revenue recovery came up, the additional revenue was intended for a retirement fund for the volunteers.  The volunteers said they would rather not charge for services if the funds were for them because they felt it would put another tax on the citizens of the County.  Mr. Wright said the County wasnt ready to go to the volunteers, or to the public, because the Board did not have enough information.  Mr. Wright asked if the County does institute revenue recovery, could the volunteer groups still ask for donations.  Mr. Harper said that if the County does institute revenue recovery,  and taxes are not adjusted for the additional revenue, then it is actually a tax increase.

Outlook Facilities Management Department Kevin Linhares

Mr. Linhares stated maintenance is the main issue the County needs to address at this time.  Mr. Linhares said that all the Countys facilities are showing signs of age and will require on-going maintenance, as well as some major repairs.  Mr. Linhares said the ultimate goal of the maintenance division is to bring all the Countys facilities up to maintainable standards, whereby initiating and implementing a controllable on-going maintenance program.  Mr. Linhares explained that by resolving these maintenance issues sooner, rather than later, would provide for a balanced, maintainable maintenance budget year to year.  Mr. Linhares said current staff is sufficient to handle the proposed maintenance workload. Mr. Linhares stated with the extensive amount of repairs and maintenance required at most of the Countys facilities, he is requesting an additional $22,500 over last years budget for materials necessary for these extensive repairs.  Mr. Linhares added that in addition, an additional $5,000 is being requested over last years budget for maintenance supplies. Mr. Linhares indicated that the following items are in need of immediate attention and listed the estimated costs for repairs, since actual costs have not been finalized.

  • Repair Courthouse Dome - $50,000
  • Exterior Trim Repair and Painting of Courthouse - $40,000
  • Renovations to provide additional space for an expanded county staff - $100,000
  • Upgrades to old storage building at Landfill - $30,000
  • Roof Replacement of Facilities Shop - $25,000
  • Repairs/Upgrades to storage shed at Animal Shelter to provide additional storage space/provide additional storage space behind facilities - $30,000
  • Miscellaneous Enhancements - $40,000 per year
  • Engineering Services - $10,000 per year (allowing for two years)

  • Mr. Linhares stated the animal shelter is in need for building enhancements and the following items are in need of repair and have been spread out over the five year plan.

  • Repairs/replacement of existing ceiling tile and grid system - $7,000
  • Provide epoxy type floor coating - $18,000
  • Provide alarm system and working video monitoring system - $5,000
  • Repair cages - $3,000
  • Replacement of dry-rotted roof trusses - $75,000
  • Renovate entrance area to Animal Shelter - $25,000
  • Deferred repairs from facility audit - $35,000

  • Mr. Linhares stated the animal shelter needs a lot of work and if the County plans on staying in that facility, and not building a new facility, money needs to be spent there.  Mr. Wright stated with all of the repair work, this is still an old building and questioned if any consideration has been given to replace the entire building at the same location.  Mr. Linhares stated for an acceptable building, a 5,600 square foot facility would cost about $600,000 to $750,000.  

    Mr. Barnes asked if a Morton building has been thought of.  Mr. Linhares stated that a replacement building has been thought of and also other requirements have been added in, such as cages and this option would bring cost down to about a $400,000 range.  Mr. Wright said that he would like to see a comparison of monies for repairing this existing building versus replacing the entire building.  

    Mr. Linhares referenced maintenance charts and graphs to help clarify where the maintenance costs and building enhancements fit into the total budget scenario for the Facilities Department.

    Mr. Linhares stated that we could spend some money now or spend more money later.  Mr. Linhares said that it needs to be understood that deferring maintenance issues can cause more extensive repairs and additional costs that might not have been realized if they had been taken care of sooner.  Mr. Linhares said that without all buildings being up to maintainable standards, it becomes impossible to provide for a balanced, maintainable maintenance budget year to year. Mr. Linhares noted that a preventative maintenance program and life cycle costing would greatly benefit the County and save the taxpayer dollars in the future.

    Mr. Purcell asked Mr. Linhares to prioritize the list of which buildings are in the greatest need of maintenance.  Mr. Gentry questioned when the CIP would be worked with on the issue of the parking area around the County Building.  Mr. Barnes stated he is concerned with the animal shelter being run down and the County still having staff there because if anything was to happen, the County would be liable.  Mr. Barnes stated that a new facility should be looked at rather than trying to improve this one.  Mr. Purcell question the life span on the repairs versus the life span on a new building.  Mr. Wright asked if a scheduled maintenance program is in existence.  Mr. Linhares stated a maintenance program has been implemented and will be followed to keep a record and maintain the facilities around the County.  Mr. Linhares stated that everything will be documented and work tickets will be issued with this program.  Mr. Barnes stated that the Public Works Committee could meet with Mr. Linhares and Mr. Lintecum to talk about a new animal shelter.

    Outlook Community Development Department Darren Coffey

    Mr. Coffey stated that he is requesting three new staffing positions.  Mr. Coffey said that the Community Development Department is in need of a Planner because the planning staff is inaccessible at times and direct contact with customers is limited.  Mr. Coffey stated that this position would improve the Departments customer service level and that the delays in reviews for plats, site plans, and subdivisions would no longer be an issue.  

    Mr. Coffey indicated that another position he would like to add would be an additional Code Enforcement Officer.  Mr. Coffey stated that he felt an additional Code Enforcement Office would be able follow-up on complaints in a more proactive manner. Mr. Coffey stated that with the increase in development and the implementation of the Inoperative Vehicle Ordinance, the current staff has not been as effective as they need to be.  

    Mr. Coffey added that the third position would be an Assistant Building Official to increase the Countys level of service and to provide additional coverage as an inspector and plan reviewer.  Mr. Coffey stated that these positions would help with the significant developments that are anticipated for the Zion Crossroads area, the Town of Louisa and the County as a whole.


    Mr. Coffey explained that his methodology behind having new fees for the Department is to generate revenue for the County that exceeds the Departments expenditures, but to also be competitive with the surrounding counties.  Mr. Gentry asked if there was any office space available for additional staff.  Mr. Coffey stated there it adequate office space available for these additional staff, but there would not be room for more staff in the future. Mr. Purcell stated that the Boards main goal should be economic development and if the Board makes this their top priority then there will be a great need for staff to be able to inspect these new developments.  Mr. Barnes stated that commercial activity in the County has been on the rise and he would like to see the County be able to keep up with inspections. .  Mr. Wright asked if an additional fee could be charged for code enforcement.  Mr. Coffey stated that the County could have a policy for penalties for code violations that could bring in additional revenue.  Mr. Purcell asked that fees for the Community Development Department be increased every two years.  Mr. Coffey stated that if the County reviewed its fee schedule every two years, it would not fall behind other localities and would not confuse customers.

    Establish County Goals and Objectives for 2007

    Mr. Lintecum stated various items were highlighted in this meeting, however everything was not talked about, such as, the Capital Budget and Emergency Services.   Mr. Lintecum stated he knows a priority of the Board is to treat the taxpayers fairly, but he would like the Board to set some priorities for the Countys goals and come to a consensus on what is the most important for the budget.  Mr. Purcell stated that one of the biggest issues the County has is transportations and he thinks it is important to repair the Countys roads, especially if the County is going to have economic growth.  Mr. Barnes said developments that are being proposed in the General Assembly where the responsibility of road maintenance is being sent to the County.  Mr. Wright explained it is election year for the Delegates and they are going to try and keep as much pressure off of themselves as possible and send everything to the local governments.  Mr. Gentry said the County has always been considered a low growth community until now and the County is behind because roads still need to be reconstructed and VDOT cannot afford to rebuild the primary roads.  Mr. Purcell further noted that indirectly, transportation needs effect economic development because a community cannot grow without appropriate roads.  Mr. Gentry stated that the center of the County has an infrastructure problem because there arent any primary roads that have four lanes.

    Mr. Barnes stated that economic development cannot occur without education so that needs to be another top priority.  Mr. Barnes added that fire and rescue is something that the County has to have.  Mr. Purcell stated he would also add finance options because they are needed to accomplish these goals that are being set.  Mr. Purcell stated the quicker finance options are looked at without hurting the taxpayers, the better the County will be to accomplish the goals.  Mr. Barnes added that finance is something that the County has been blessed with because it has always been a “pay as we go” type situation.  Mr. Barnes stated out of all the goals, the most difficulty is going to being the finance piece.  Mr. Wright stated that issue goes back to revenue recovery and education.  Mr. Wright said it needs to be clear to people who submit budget request for funding from the County the financial issues facing the County.  

    Mr. Gentry stated that there have been goals from years back that still have not been accomplished yet.  Mr. Wright stated with goals and objectives targets should be moving and being worked on at all times because the Board cant say one thing will be worked on this year and next year be something else.  Mr. Wright added with economic development and maintaining County structures, that is not short term, it is a continuing process.  Mr. Wright said education is one of the more critical goals right now because the County has to come to a resolution with the School because they are approaching the maximum capacity.  Mr. Barnes stated that goals and objectives would always remain open.  Mr. Barnes stated that the County will still have affordable housing problems, recreational needs in the community, and issues with transportation, but this County keeps the Board looking at those things, but it is hard to close a chapter and say it is completed.  Mr. Wright added that this is a continuing process.  

    Mr. Purcell stated that he would like to see an extra tax incentive for citizens who remain in A-1 rather than rezoning to A-2.  Mr. Wright questioned how much more can be done because the land in land use is now receiving an average of fifty-two percent reduction in taxes.  Mr. Barnes stated the Dillon Law prohibits the County from giving additional tax incentives and land use relief is all that the County can offer.  Mr. Gentry stated that there are always specific areas within the goals that need to be completed.  Mr. Wright stated he would like the Board to think about overall objectives for the County and discuss in the second meeting in February to finalize the goals.  Mr. Wright added this has been a beneficial presentation of where the County is and where the County needs to go.

    ADJOURNMENT

    On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the January 19, 2007 meeting at 4:31 p.m. until January 22, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.



    BY ORDER OF


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