Contact Sitemap Search
|Board Members Present:||
Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright|
|Others Present:||Dale Mullen, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Greg Hoffman, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of General Services; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Paul Oswell, Director of Social Services; Bob Gibson; Director of Economic Development; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration; and Brittany Shupe, Records Clerk, Administration|
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Harper called the April 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Wright led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Harper stated he would like to add a discussion of the Hanover Vocational Center under Old Business. Mr. Harper said he would also like to add a discussion on presentation for payment and/or supplemental appropriation on meeting nights to New Business and add an item to the Closed Session for personnel.
On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the April 20, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.
Introduction New employees
Mr. Mullen said he was proud to be able to introduce Louisa Countys newest employees and stated the County was currently at 205 full-time equivalent employees. Mr. Mullen said a lot of emphasis is currently being placed on increasing efficiency, increasing economy, and increasing professionalism.
Mr. Mullen introduced Robert Carter, Manager of Solid Waste and Recycling for the General Services Department, and provided an overview of his professional background. Mr. Mullen also introduced Lee Eckert and Heather Proffit, both Medic/Firefighters for the Department of Emergency Services as well as Delbert Feaster, Support Services Lieutenant for the Department of Emergency Services. Mr. Mullen introduced Greg Hoffman, new County Attorney.
Mr. Mullen said the introduction of new employees had not been done before, but he will continue to do that and also stated that there is a new feature on Louisa Countys Intranet where you can look at the current employees and bring up a picture of them to be able to put a face with a name.
Ms. Tonya Hovey introduced several new Dispatchers including William “Ryan” Sampson, Christopher Robinson, and Debra Bickley. Ms. Hovey gave a small personal and professional background for each Dispatcher.
Mr. Mullen had all the new employees line up to meet the Board members and receive a Louisa County lapel pen.
Mr. Harper said the credentials of the new employees coming on board are very impressive. Mr. Mullen told the Board they had a handout with each employee birthday and home address so they could determine if any of the new employees were in their district.
Presentation A resolution commending Jacob Harlow on receiving the Boy Scouts highest award of Eagle Scout
Mr. Mullen read the resolution and presented a signed, framed copy to Jacob Harlow.
Mr. Harper said this award required great effort on Jacobs part, but he did not want to sell short the involvement on the parents part either. Mr. Harper said it takes great effort from the parents to encourage Jacob to continue.
Presentation Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD)
Ms. Alyson Sappington thanked the Board for the opportunity and said she thought it had been about two years since she had been to provide them an update on the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District. Ms. Sappington provided an overview of the TJSWCD and discussed their active programs.
Ms. Sappington said the TJSWCD is historically well known for their agricultural programs and last fiscal year, they distributed over $111,000 to Louisa County landowners to install practices on their property. Ms. Sappington stated that $252,608 has already been allocated for this fiscal year and the state cost-share program is one program that is not experiencing any budget cuts on a state level which shows that Virginia is supportive of land conservation in farm and rural areas.
Ms. Sappington stated that the urban program provides Louisa County with review of their erosion and sediment control plans and storm water management plans. Ms. Sappington said erosion and sediment control covers erosion during construction and storm water management covers conservation after construction is complete.
Ms. Sappington stated that TJSWCD also assists Louisa County in administering the Lake Anna Shoreline Protection regulations with the review of plans for alternative shoreline measures.
Ms. Sappington said the TJSWCD is working a lot with low impact development and innovative-type practices to help with water conservation. Ms. Sappington stated there was a recent class on rain barrel construction as part of the Districts community education programs. Ms. Sappington said there are teacher workshops and workshops for developers all as part of the community education program. Ms. Sappington said the TJSWCD provides scholarships to college bound students who will study in the environmental fields and also have an Envirothon as part of their youth education program. Ms. Sappington said the District was able to obtain grants to help locals repair or replace septic tanks in the Hickory Creek and Gold Mine Creek watersheds.
Ms. Sappington discussed the TJSWCD Easement Program which she explained as being quite different from other easements. Ms. Sappington said this easement program focuses on water resources and can even hold small easements that are less than an acre. Ms. Sappington said the Districts Easement Program is currently focused on Riparian forest buffers which have a multitude of environmental benefits. Ms. Sappington stated that all their easements are purely voluntary and can be used as a proffer and a storm water management tool.
Ms. Sappington said one of the Districts oldest programs is the PL566 Watershed Dams in which the District currently inspects the dams that were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s for flood control and for Louisa Countys water supply at Northeast Creek. Ms. Sappington said the District is responsible for maintaining eight of the dams and Louisa County manages two of the dams.
Ms. Sappington said Louisa County will have to think long and hard about the upcoming state storm water regulations that are due for public comment this summer. Ms. Sappington said localities such as Louisa will have the option of administering the program at a local level or leaving the program for the DCR to administer. Ms. Sappington said there will be statewide fees involved in the program and if a locality chooses to administer the program, they will be able to keep 72% of the fees and DCR keeps the other 28%. Ms. Sappington said the TJSWCD will be more than glad to sit down with Louisa County and help sort through everything.
Mr. Spencer referenced the proposed fee schedule for the storm water regulations and asked if someone building a house on a one-acre lot would now have to pay $2,700 instead of $300 which is the current fee. Mr. Spencer asked who came up with these fees.
Ms. Sappington said in 2004 the General Assembly passed a bill to redo the storm water management law and part of that law is that it must be self-sustaining meaning the fees have to pay for the cost of implementing the program.
Mr. Spencer said these are not fees, but rather more taxing of people who are just trying to survive and the fees are going to be increased like this.
Mr. Harper said the short answer is the General Assembly. Ms. Sappington said the short answer is the General Assembly said the fees had to pay for the implementation of the program.
Mr. Spencer said he was reading in a local publication and someone sent in a letter about having cisterns and water barrels mandatory in Louisa. Mr. Spencer asked what a cistern system would cost an individual. Ms. Sappington said the cistern system she showed was about $8,000. Mr. Spencer asked how feasible the rain barrels are. Ms. Sappington said rain barrels are very feasible and the ones constructed at the workshop were only $45. Mr. Spencer said the other item in this letter was that the cisterns and water barrels should be enforced by the County and asked how that could be done. Ms. Sappington said she did not know because she did not write the letter. Ms. Sappington said the District is promoting the systems totally voluntarily.
Mr. Gentry said he noticed that there were six water containment dams along Route 15 and asked who had rights to use that water. Ms. Sappington said the dams are intended for flood control and what comes in essentially goes out unless the dam is low. Ms. Sappington stated that it is the same as stream water in which no one really has any particular right to it. Mr. Spencer asked about public fishing in the dams. Ms. Sappington said no because the dams are on private land and are intended solely for flood control, except for Northeast Creek and Bowlers Mill which the County owns.
Mr. Byers asked what the implementation date and strategy is for the storm water regulations. Ms. Sappington said the target date to become effective is July 2010 and localities would have between 15 and 21 months to adopt their own local program or advise DCR that they prefer for DCR to administer the program. Ms. Sappington said it would probably be 2012 before the program became effective in Louisa County.
Mr. Harper asked who would collect the funds. Ms. Sappington said if Louisa County administers the program, the County would collect the funds and if the County decides for DCR to administer the program, DCR would collect the funds. Ms. Sappington said the County would keep 72% and 28% would be forwarded to DCR. Mr. Harper asked if DCR administered the program and collected the funds, would the 72% still be sent to Louisa. Ms. Sappington said no. Mr. Gentry said it seems odd to be talking about 72% and 28% and someone must really have gone into detail determining those percentages. Ms. Sappington said it was initially set at 70% and 30% and some localities said that was not enough to administer the program and the additional 2% was given to the locality side.
Mr. Harper asked if DCR administers the program, does someone come on site. Ms. Sappington said yes and if the County chooses to administer the program, they could contract TJSWCD or have a staff member do it.
Mr. Harper asked how this would fit with Louisa which already has storm water management regulations. Ms. Sappington said the County regulations will have to meet the new requirements.
Mr. Gentry said he was a little concerned with this because it was the first the Board had heard about it. Ms. Sappington said the regulations are not out yet and are not in final form and public comment is set to take place this summer.
Mr. Havasy asked who was offering this as a bill or what committee was fronting this. Ms. Sappington said it is being done through DCR.
Presentation Workforce Development Services Rapid Response
Ms. Felicia McClenny thanked Mr. Mullen for inviting her to talk to the Board about services for dislocated workers. Ms. McClenny said she was one of four representatives for the state Dislocated Worker Unit which is currently administered by the Virginia Community College System. Ms. McClenny said they operate a program called the Rapid Response program. Ms. McClenny introduces Ms. Heather Foor.
Ms. McClenny said she wanted to give the definition of a dislocated worker which is a person who is at a site and is laid off at no fault of his own. Ms. McClenny said Mead West Vaco filed an official WARN notice with the state Dislocated Worker Unit advising them of the closure of a plant in Louisa County. Ms. McClenny said the WARN program is a federal law and Mead West Vaco met the letter of the law by providing their notification.
Ms. McClenny said the government passed a law called the Workforce Investment Act which was designed to help dislocated workers. Ms. McClenny stated this Act mandated customizes services to various populations across the United States. Ms. McClenny said the state Dislocated Worker Unit works in conjunction with the Office of National Response and receives their funding from the Department of Labor. Ms. McClenny said there currently is funding to help the 171 workers that were affected by the closure of Mead West Vaco.
Ms. McClenny said she was working in conjunction with the Workforce Network. Ms. McClenny said the Office of National Response works closely at implementing the mission of assisting employees. Ms. McClenny said the Virginia Workforce Network was set up by the Governor and she works closely with the Virginia Workforce Council.
Ms. McClenny said the State Dislocated Worker Unit does provide statewide support and is staffed by one manager and four regional representatives. Ms. McClenny said in the Central Virginia region, she alone has helped over 10,000 employees since the fiscal year started on July 1, 2008. Ms. McClenny said she was able to do that because of the help of local representatives.
Ms. McClenny said she belongs to a pro-active entity in that they meet with the employees as soon as receiving the WARN notice and begin to develop a strategy. Ms. McClenny said the services are offered on-site at a time and place that is convenient to the workers.
Ms. Heather Foor, Director of the Piedmont Workforce Network, said she has two governing bodies: the Piedmont Workforce Network Council made up of local elected officials and the Piedmont Workforce Network Board. Ms. Foor said the representatives from Louisa County serving on the Piedmont Workforce Network Board are Felecia Jesse and Scott Dixon.
Ms. Foor said the “One Stop Service Delivery” concept means the Virginia Workforce Center in Charlottesville, Virginia has all the agencies co-located in one facility. Ms. Foor said the Louisa Employment Center has been set up as a satellite office. Ms. Foor said the hours of operation were recently expanded at the Louisa Employment Center. Ms. Foor said they will try to provide as many services as they can on-site for the Mead West Vaco workers and they will be able to go to the Louisa Employment Center or the Center in Charlottesville to receive services. Ms. Foor said there are a variety of programs designed to help everyone who is looking for employment. Ms. Foor said there is also a representative that can help dislocated workers with their unemployment benefits.
Ms. McClenny said it is important to know about the 2-1-1 Network. Ms. McClenny said the 2-1-1 Network is a 24-hour operation where anyone in Virginia can call and speak to a live representative.
Ms. McClenny said once they receive notification of a closure or layoff, they have a management briefing. Ms. McClenny said Mead West Vaco has been very willing to allow the Dislocated Worker Unit come in and work with them and their employees. Ms. McClenny said its important to know that the services for each site are customized to their specific workforce. Ms. McClenny said a survey will be completed and once the results are received, she will go back to Mead West Vaco and determine what the next step will be as far as workshops, etc.
Ms. McClenny said the Virginia Employment Commission is one of her main partners because they are the “gate keepers” of the labor market information. Ms. McClenny said the Virginia Employment Commission reports which industries are hiring and which are not.
Ms. McClenny said some of her principles are timeliness, convenience, consistency, and accuracy. Ms. McClenny said Mead West Vaco has agreed to provide all their employees with a professional notebook of information to help in their next job search. Ms. McClenny asked if there were any questions.
Mr. Barnes said he looked at the assessment that is used and asked if they were at a point of issuing the Career Readiness Certificates. Ms. McClenny said the WorkKeys assessment is used by many manufacturers as a pre-screening tool. Ms. McClenny said once an employee takes the assessment, the employer can look at their Career Readiness Certificate, which solidifies which skills an employee can bring. Ms. McClenny said this was not a high concern for this area so it will not be done unless a worker requests it.
Mr. Spencer thanked Ms. McClenny for coming and said he was amazed to see whats being done. Mr. Spencer asked how long the period of time was for serving the 10,000 employees. Ms. McClenny said those people had been served starting July 1, 2008 and that was only for the Richmond metropolitan area. Mr. Spencer asked if Division 6 included Richmond. Ms. McClenny said no. Mr. Spencer said the 2-1-1- Network seems fantastic and thanked Ms. McClenny for bringing it to his attention.
Mr. Byers asked if information was provided on the areas that needed to be addressed once the survey was completed. Ms. McClenny said one survey will ask workers what area of work they are interested in and that information will be provided to training centers so they can tool up and be prepared. Ms. McClenny said as each worker completes their individual assessment, she will look at whether that person wants to transfer their skills into another work area or whether that person wants to complete their GED or whether or not they are academically ready. Ms. McClenny said she has to look at training programs to see which would match with each worker.
Mr. Byers asked if other providers of information are used rather than just the community college system. Ms. McClenny said yes.
Mr. Gentry said he can see a lot of positive things being done. Mr. Gentry asked what Ms. McClenny does in a time like this where jobs are hard to find and people may become upset if they complete a training program and cannot find a job. Ms. McClenny said part of the process is reviewing the labor market to make sure there is a job that employees can fall into after completing training.
Mr. Wright said the closing of one business can adversely affect other businesses that people may not be aware of.
Mr. Harper thanked Ms. McClenny for coming.
Resolution - Of support for a Conditions of Employment Agreement setting standards and conditions for health, safety and professionalism for new hire Louisa County Emergency Services Personnel
Mr. Harper asked if this was the same thing presented to the Board at the April 6, 2009 meeting. Mr. Dubé said the resolution is the same, but there was additional information provided in the board packet concerning surrounding jurisdictions and other cities and counties.
Mr. Gentry moved for approval of the resolution. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.
Mr. Byers said the resolution appears to read that people who have already been offered employment would not fall under this policy. Mr. Dubé said that is correct and this will be effective from the date of approval and forward.
Mr. Byers asked if it was true that law enforcement officials fall under the same category of having a job that is highly demanding upon their skills, abilities, and emotions. Mr. Dubé said yes. Mr. Byers asked if this policy was put into practice, would it set a dual standard for employees of the County. Mr. Dubé asked if he was talking about a dual standard between the Fire/EMS and the Sheriffs Department. Mr. Byers said he was speaking of employees who have a comparable type of job. Mr. Dubé said that argument could be made, but his intention was to protect the people that work for him and his department. Mr. Dubé said he would have to leave the Sheriff to answer that question, but in a perfect world both departments would have this policy.
Mr. Byers asked how this policy would be managed in order to know if employees are in compliance. Mr. Dubé said the employees could be tested at their annual physical for tobacco use or it could probably be placed under the drug policy as a random test. Mr. Dubé said he, Mr. Mullen, and Mr. Hoffman would have to talk about the latter option. Mr. Dubé said it would be his intention to test for tobacco use at the annual physical.
Mr. Spencer said the argument here is the County has nothing to do with employees on their day off, but if this is accepted as a condition of employment, its not like they are being given something new. Mr. Spencer asked if someone would be allowed to come to work loaded on cocaine just because they did it on their day off even though they will still be under the influence while they are working. Mr. Spencer said this policy is a new thing and if a potential employee wants the job, this is what they say they will do.
Mr. Harper said he likes what Mr. Dubé is trying to do with this policy and he supports it, but he disagrees with the proposal up for approval. Mr. Harper said the policy reads “refraining from the on and off-duty use of tobacco” which does not mean the employee cannot do it and that phrase in challengeable. Mr. Harper said the policy also uses the “opinion of the Fire Chief” which is also challengeable. Mr. Harper said there are loose ends in the policy that he is not going support, but he does like the overall idea.
Mr. Barnes said he learned that this practice is not uncommon in a specialized field such as emergency services and he is now prepared to support this.
Mr. Byers asked for clarification of item 6 on the proposed policy. Mr. Mullen said he placed this item in the policy for a number of reasons regarding things that could happen. Mr. Mullen said it is conceivable, although not real at this time in Louisa County, that some volunteer organization could become involved in some charitable gaming activity of which the County disagreed or thought could be out of compliance with the law. Mr. Mullen said some volunteer agency could vote into membership individuals whose reputation, character or criminal background could cause disrepute towards other members or paid staff of the County. Mr. Mullen said this item of the policy could give the County the ability to say to uniformed emergency services employees with the County that they are agreeing not to participate in those activities, in the Countys opinion, that could cast that service into disrepute. Mr. Mullen said this particular item of the policy is not about smoking.
Mr. Harper asked if “Countys opinion” could be defined more precisely. Mr. Mullen said he thinks that could be done. Mr. Mullen said first that the Fire Chief is hired by the County and in this policy it is specified as the opinion of the Fire Chief. Mr. Mullen stated the Fire Chiefs opinion is informed by the Board and the County Administrator. Mr. Mullen said, in this particular instance, it is the Fire Chiefs opinion, which is the equivalent of the highest form of supervision for the Emergency Services employees.
Mr. Spencer referred to item number 4 of the policy which references physical fitness. Mr. Spencer asked if the County should have something that states the employee should be able to run a mile in X amount of time and do this in X amount of time.
Mr. Dubé said there is a national standard set by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and Firefighters in their wellness-fitness program. Mr. Dubé said in that program, there are parameters set that doesnt include a run, but it is weight-related and performance-related where there is a series of tasks directly related to fire operations and those tasks have to be done in a particular timeframe.
Mr. Byers asked if it was possible to go back to the current Emergency Services employees and ask them to voluntarily consider whether or not they would align themselves with this policy. Mr. Dubé said yes. Mr. Dubé stated of all the employees he currently has, only two of them smoke. Mr. Dubé said one of those two employees just spent a couple of days in the hospital with chest pains and has since then agreed to quit smoking. Mr. Dubé stated the other employee has asked that the County work with her to do some smoking cessation classes and he will be talking with Human Resources about that. Mr. Dubé said all of the employees that he has talked to are supporting this policy, but he is not sure if they will go back and sign it.
Mr. Harper asked if this included the paid person who volunteers in the community. Mr. Mullen said no, the policy does not apply to the paid person who volunteers.
Mr. Harper said he supports what Mr. Dubé wants to do, but he has issues with the terminology.
Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Gentrys motion.
|Willie L. Gentry, Jr.||Yes|
|Willie L. Harper||No|
|Richad A. Havasy||Yes|
|P.T. Spencer, Jr.||Yes|
|Jack T. Wright||No|
|Fitzgerald A. Barnes||Yes|
|Dan W. Byers||Yes|
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 5-2, the Board adopted a resolution of support for a Conditions of Employment Agreement setting standards and conditions for health, safety and professionalism for new hire Louisa County Emergency Services Personnel.
Discussion Hanover Vocational Center
Mr. Byers said he, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Gentry had the opportunity to visit Hanover County Center for Trades and Technology. Mr. Byers said he did not have many details, but he was given a handout with a description of the facility. Mr. Byers stated there was also an article in the Hanover news paper that talks about the trades program offered at the facility. Mr. Byers said Louisa County has talked about a trade center for years and he asked that the Board members take a look at the articles.
Mr. Harper asked how the facility was operated. Mr. Byers said this is the first year it has been open. Mr. Spencer asked if the school system or the county operated it. Mr. Byers said the school system operated this particular one.
Mr. Barnes said he would offer for any Board member to visit the Center and see what has been set up. Mr. Barnes said the building is very practical and offers a lot of programs and is industry involved as well. Mr. Barnes said Snap-On Tools is one of the companies that helped furnish tools for the automotive bay. Mr. Barnes stated the vocational director was very enthused and the Center is taking it step by step to make sure its what they want to do as far as offering evening classes and so on. Mr. Barnes said the Center is very impressive and its about a 40,000 square foot building and it came in at a little under $9 million to build.
Mr. Gentry said he was also very impressed and it was actually in under $8 million to build. Mr. Gentry said this vocational center showcased a lot of what Louisa had been talking about as far as needs for the area. Mr. Gentry said he talked to some of the students who all had positive things to say and were enjoying what they were learning. Mr. Gentry said Louisa County should take a good look at this vocational center when they come closer to the vocational and trades direction.
Mr. Spencer said this discussion has been turned around so many times. Mr. Spencer said it started out about a year ago that the County was going to build a new Thomas Jefferson Elementary School right next to the old one and spend millions of dollars to turn the existing one into a great vocational center and Fluvanna was going to join in on it. Mr. Spencer said Fluvanna County is now building a new high school and has their own vocational and technical center. Mr. Spencer said Fluvanna, Goochland, Orange, Spotsylvania and Hanover now all have their own vocational center and Louisa will be hard-pressed to find anyone to join in on the $8 million. Mr. Spencer said he would caution the Board that they have already given the school system money four years in a row for a director of vocational training. Mr. Spencer said the money was spent on administration all four years and finally the position was filled in the fifth year and one of the first people cut by the School Board was the Vocational Director. Mr. Spencer said all the Board needs is to give the school system one more thing to hold them hostage with.
Mr. Gentry said the Board members were invited with the School Board to visit the vocational center. Mr. Gentry said there were at least three School Board members and three or four other staff members. Mr. Gentry stated there was some joint conversation and everyone was impressed with the facility. Mr. Gentry said there was a comment made that if Louisa County put up a vocational center like that one, there would not be a need to spend so much money remodeling Thomas Jefferson Elementary School. Mr. Gentry said it was impressive enough that at some point the Board needs to take a look at that.
Mr. Spencer said if the Board puts up an $8 million building, then they will be held hostage by the School Board saying they will cut the vocational center down if they do not receive a certain amount of money. Mr. Spencer said that has been the flow all along and he does not intend to be set up that way again.
Discussion - Proposed Secondary Six-Year Plan for Fiscal Year 2009/10 through 2015/16 in Louisa County and on the Secondary System Construction Budget for Fiscal Year 2009/10
Mr. Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator with VDOT, said it was the time of the year to discuss the Secondary Six-Year Plan. Mr. Glass said the state has been cutting the plan for the last two years. Mr. Glass said the Board was provided with a copy of the current plan as well as a report showing the projects that were on the plan and are now unfunded. Mr. Glass said in the past, he was able to leave those projects on the plan just by putting a dollar on them, but it has since then been decided that if a project is unfunded it goes in a pool and stays there until funds can be allocated to it. Mr. Glass said there are currently six projects waiting on approval so construction can be started. Mr. Glass said Route 739, Route 763, and Route 1115 are waiting for final approval from the Commissioner in Richmond.
Mr. Gentry said he is concerned with some projects that have been talked about and he wants to know how to at least make sure those projects get looked at by the Commissioner in Richmond. Mr. Gentry said he talked to Butch Davies about the stimulus package and what that was doing for VDOT and it turns out that most of the money is going towards paving on the interstate system and a few big bridge projects. Mr. Gentry said he specifically asked about the secondary system and that was basically a no.
Mr. Glass said he has been assured that all previous funding will remain in place. Mr. Glass said there is no new funding and no anticipation for new funding.
Mr. Gentry said if the 2009 projects are at least done, that will be doing pretty well. Mr. Gentry said there are people who have already seen the Secondary Six-Year Plan and are expecting that to come. Mr. Gentry said he would like to get the Commissioners attention on the 2009 projects and everyone knows the other projects are a toss-up.
Mr. Wright said there is a comment about needing a resolution for Route 611 (Octagon Church Road) and that was already done several years ago.
Mr. Barnes said roads are sometimes the biggest thing to be dealt with as a Supervisor. Mr. Barnes said it is important to understand that just because a project is on the Secondary Six-Year plan does not mean it is funded. Mr. Barnes said its tough when the money is not there to do the projects. Mr. Barnes said the Governor just signed that cul-de-sacs will not be maintained if built on a state-maintained road starting July 1, 2009. Mr. Barnes said they have to be through roads.
Mr. Havasy asked if there was a reason why that was being done. Mr. Barnes said he did not have the reasoning behind it. Mr. Harper asked if this is going forward. Mr. Barnes said what is currently in the system now is set but this rule will apply to projects going forward. Mr. Barnes said even if the cul-de-sac is built to state specifications, it will not be maintained. Mr. Glass said the reasoning is the roads have to be stubbed out for future connectivity.
Mr. Barnes said he would like to see an article in the next edition of the County Messenger about the roads and explain what happens when roads are taken out of the Secondary Six-Year Plan due to funding.
Mr. Mullen said there was a letter hand-delivered by Ms. Mary P. Rosson about Horseshoe Farm Road and she was emphatic about making sure the letter was discussed at the meeting. Mr. Mullen said Horseshoe Farm Road is in the Secondary Six-Year Plan, but this letter is requesting that the work be done by the County as soon as possible. Mr. Mullen said it would be a worthy undertaking to educate the public about how roads really get completed.
Mr. Gentry asked if Horseshoe Farm Road was on the list. Mr. Glass said it is on the list, but it is one of the unfunded projects.
Mr. Barnes asked if Route 649 was funded. Mr. Glass said yes, it is funded so far.
Mr. Glass reminded the Board that the Public Hearing for the Secondary Six-Year Plan is set for May 4, 2009.
Resolution - Authorizing a supplemental appropriation for CSA
Mr. Oswell said he was representing the CPMT as the Chairman. Mr. Oswell introduced several members of the CPMT: Ms. Julia Williams, parent representative, Ms. Margaret Smith, CSA Coordinator, and Mr. Jim Brown, Court Service Unit representative.
Mr. Harper asked if there were any questions regarding the resolution.
Mr. Wright said CSA costs are one of the items that will always be argued. Mr. Wright said the cost of CSA is going to be higher when there are 90 to 100 children as opposed to 20 to 25 children.
Mr. Harper said there are different success rates for different programs and he knows what drives it.
Mr. Spencer said Mr. Mullen had the opportunity to meet Ms. Brenda McLaughlin who was the previous CSA Coordinator. Mr. Spencer said Ms. McLaughlins job was to make sure the Medicaid, Medicare and insurance paperwork was completed and approved before Social Services sent any children to residential treatment facilities. Mr. Spencer said he was not going to say anything until his colleague brought it up, but the appropriations are getting old quick.
Mr. Byers asked Mr. Oswell what he thought the success would be in the future of lowering CSA costs. Mr. Oswell said he was very excited about the potential of reducing costs and being able to serve children right here in the community. Mr. Oswell said there was a 54% increase in CSA costs last year and this year is being projected at 6%. Mr. Oswell said it is still higher than what everyone wants, but there is some leveling off. Mr. Oswell stated this was going to take a community effort and he believes that is beginning to take place already. Mr. Oswell said the judge has committed to working with him and assuring that only children who need care will come into care. Mr. Oswell said 105 children have been served this year so far. Mr. Oswell said the children who can stay in the community will stay in the community and new programs will be developed to ensure that children stay in the community.
Mr. Byers asked Mr. Oswell if he was confident that this supplemental appropriation of $296,655 will last until the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Oswell said he is as confident as he can be.
Mr. Havasy said the unemployment rate in the County has basically tripled in the last six months. Mr. Havasy stated law enforcement will tell you that when unemployment goes up, crime goes up. Mr. Havasy said when unemployment goes up, the services of Social Services goes up.
Mr. Oswell said, speaking as Director of Department of Social Services, the benefits and services numbers are numbers that have never been seen before. Mr. Oswell said Food Stamps are a good measure of the state of the economy because it is relatively easy to apply for and its either approved or denied. Mr. Oswell said his staff on the benefits side is stressed and there numbers have never been seen before. Mr. Oswell said it is hard to tell if this has a direct correlation on the services side as far as foster care and child protective services.
Mr. Havasy said with all the projections, cost of Social Services programs are most likely going to rise whether people like it or not.
Mr. Spencer said that did not apply to CSA, though. Mr. Harper said a lot of times it is said that things are not CSA, but there is a lot of correlation going on with things that impact CSA. Mr. Harper said his biggest concern is what is being done to the parents because much behavior is being excused on the basis of drug addictions and several other factors.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a supplemental appropriation for CSA.
Resolution - For support of the utilization of industrial access railroad track funds
Mr. Gentry motioned to approve the resolution. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.
Mr. Mullen said there may have been a change and asked if this item could be moved to the next meeting.
Mr. Gentry withdrew his motion. Mr. Barnes withdrew his second. The Board decided to move this item to their next meeting.
Discussion - Presentation for payment and/or supplemental appropriation on meeting nights
Mr. Byers said the Board is frequently presented information on the night of a Board meeting. Mr. Byers said sometimes the information is to inform the Board or get the Board acquainted with something they may have to address in the near future. Mr. Byers said when this happens, the Board tends to try to act on the information right away, usually the same night. Mr. Byers said he would like to see the Board develop a policy or practice that says if they are to vote on something that will affect finances, there should be at least the distance between one meeting and the next for them to consider it except for something of an emergency. Mr. Byers said this would allow the Board to be able to do some research and make a more informed decision.
Mr. Wright said the Board did that nine or ten years ago because there were seven to ten items being added at each meeting. Mr. Wright said he brought it up that items not be added to the agenda unless they absolutely could not wait until the next meeting. Mr. Wright said it was never official, but it was always an unwritten policy that lasted for about two years.
Mr. Barnes said the concept is good, but there are special instances where items are needed to be added at the last minute. Mr. Barnes gave an example of a need for additional funds and if that request could not be added to the agenda, then it could potentially be another month before a decision is made.
Mr. Spencer said poor planning does not make something an emergency. Mr. Spencer said he does not like arriving at the meeting and finding stacks of paper at his desk for things to be added to the agenda and a request for $40,000 or $50,000 could not be an emergency that someone had not known about.
Mr. Gentry said the bottom line is that its important to be prepared, but the Board does not have to vote to place the items on the agenda.
Mr. Mullen said he believed part of this was his performance. Mr. Mullen said some things had stacked up that needed immediate attention and he tried to do it in a way that presented decisions and he felt he may have rushed the Board. Mr. Mullen stated the Boards direction to him was well taken last week.
Mr. Spencer told Mr. Mullen he was doing a great job and he did not intend on allowing people to put him on the spot.
Mr. Mullen told the Board they could certainly consider something to place in their bylaws as a goal and a directive and could be used as a performance measure for the County Administrator going forward. Mr. Mullen stated Louisa County is a big organization now and has to learn to be big and nimble at the same time. Mr. Mullen said because the budget is a process and not an event, there should be some flexibility.
Mr. Harper asked Mr. Byers if he was satisfied to have Mr. Mullen work with him to bring back a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Spencer said he would like to work with Mr. Mullen and Mr. Byers as well.
Mr. Byers said if the Board agrees that this is the direction to go in, he is comfortable working with it for six months to see how well it goes. Mr. Byers said, in Mr. Mullens defense, information has been provided to the Board as a heads up and the Board has jumped and took action on it right away. Mr. Byers said if the Board agrees to this as a general consensus, then he would like to experiment with it as an understanding and if it does not yield the results the Board is looking for, then they can consider putting it into some other form.
Mr. Spencer said he had been going all week with a steady grind about a group the Board gave $50,000 to effective July 1, 2008 and they just picked it up about a week ago. Mr. Spencer said they now want another $50,000 in the budget for next year. Mr. Spencer asked if the Board gives out money to someone and they dont come get it, is it Mr. McLeods job to track those people down and give it to them. Mr. Spencer said lack of planning on your part does not make it an emergency on my part. Mr. Spencer said it was not an emergency when people ask for more money and they had not even been in to get the money that was given to them last year. Mr. Spencer said he would like Mr. Mullen to send out letters, not just to the departments, but to everyone that asks for money to come get the money when its requested and not wait until the last minute.
Mr. Wright said he and Mr. Mullen would be going to Charlottesville to introduce the new Thomas Jefferson Planning District Executive Director. Mr. Wright said the position has finally been filled after being open since June 2008.
Mr. Spencer said he talked to Butch Davies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board and Mr. Davies told him he had already contacted Senator Ed Houck and they would be closing the western Culpeper Residency Office and those people would be moving to the Culpeper District Office which leaves the Louisa Residency Office okay where its at.
Mr. Barnes stated he received an email resignation from Mr. Aubrey Poindexter of the Board of Equalization. Mr. Harper stated there will now be an opening on the Board of Equalization which will be shown on the memo for the next meeting.
Mr. Harper said he thought they were in session. Mr. Mullen said they are in session now and its important to keep their positions filled because they only have three active members right now with one member pending and it takes three members to have a quorum.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT
Mr. Mullen stated the journal entries are included in the Board packet.
Mr. Mullen said he needed to make changes to RES09.073 in regards to the tipping fees at the Landfill in order to add clarification. Mr. Mullen said it was the same resolution presented to the Board before and the changes being made were already discussed before the Board. Mr. Mullen asked that the Board reapprove the resolution with the presented changes.
Mr. Harper asked if the terms and rates in the resolution are the same that are being done now. Mr. Mullen said yes. Mr. Gentry said it is also the same things that were discussed before the resolution was passed the first time.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board re-adopted a resolution setting tipping fees at the Louisa County Landfill.
Mr. Byers asked about the General Ledger entries and stated that 14 of the entries say correction in the reason column. Mr. McLeod stated a correction could be something that was coded wrong on an invoice and Finance picked up on the error and changed it from one GL number to another. Mr. McLeod said a correction could also occur because the budget was put in the incorrect GL number and it was transferred. Mr. McLeod said the majority of the corrections are because something was charged to the wrong GL number and it had to be corrected. Mr. Mullen stated that each journal entry is supported by an individual document which shows the GL it comes from and the GL it goes to. Mr. Mullen said for balancing purposes in dual column accounting, it is necessary to make these types of corrections. Mr. Byers asked if these journal entries meant that Finance Department staff had done transactions incorrectly. Mr. McLeod said no. Mr. Byers said he felt 14 out of 53 entries as corrections is a lot. Mr. Harper said if something is coded wrong, is that not an error. Mr. McLeod said coding errors are generally made in another department and Finance is the one to fix it. Mr. Gentry asked if 14 corrections was a lot. Mr. McLeod said Finance finds a lot of people mischarging items and they have to move them around.
Mr. Mullen said changes were made to RES09.082 and he asked that the Board reapprove the resolution. Mr. Mullen said there was a typographical error on the top of two and the attorney with Fluvanna County asked that some addresses be changed.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board re-adopted a resolution signifying the intention of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Louisa to create a Joint Water Authority under the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act and setting forth its Articles of Incorporation.
Mr. Mullen stated there was a letter in the Board packet from Community Development addressing landlocked property as well as a memo regarding the definition of a restaurant.
Mr. Mullen said there was a letter from Goochlands County Attorney addressing the boundary issue which will be turned over the Louisas County Attorney.
Mr. Mullen handed out a summary of budget changes and stated the changes should be in conformance with what was discussed at the April 15, 2009 Budget Workshop. Mr. Mullen said he was currently working on describing the Countys participation in the various historical and tourism efforts as well as understanding exactly where the money is going. Mr. Mullen said he would also like to advise the Board that the Publication and Notice of Proposed Fiscal Year 2010 Budget and Tax Rates will be published in The Central Virginian on April 23, 2009 and April 30, 2009. Mr. Mullen said it is important to note that there is a 20.45% decrease in the total fiscal year 2009-2010 budget. Mr. Mullen said there is an 89.90% decrease in the proposed fiscal year 2009-2010 capital improvement budget and a 0.43% increase in the fiscal year 2009-2010 operating budget. Mr. Mullen stated he wanted to allow the Board the opportunity to fine tune the budget and practice fiscal responsibility for Louisa County. Mr. Mullen said the total assessed value of real property was less than last years total by an average of about 1%. Mr. Mullen said all tax levies will remain flat at a 0% change. Mr. Mullen said this was the lowest known budget in Louisa County history at least over the last decade.
Mr. Mullen stated he had given the Board an article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch in regards to stimulus money. Mr. Mullen said there is stimulus money around, but no one knows what the rules would be for the use of the money. Mr. Mullen stated it is very difficult to responsibly plan to use money when there are no guidelines yet. Mr. Mullen said he had been working with Dr. Pettit in a positive fashion to help move the budget process forward.
Mr. Spencer asked about the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School salary being placed under non-departmental for contingency. Mr. Spencer said he thought it was determined at the last budget meeting that it was the School Boards problem. Mr. Spencer said he doubted there was one sixth grader in the school system who could not find $76,286 out of a $46 million budget. Mr. Spencer cautioned the Board that they have been told several times that once the School Board gets the money, the Board cannot tell them how to spend it.
Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod what the discussion was at the April 15, 2009 budget meeting. Mr. McLeod said his recollection was that the addition to the principal salary was not in the School Boards budget, but the funds should be left in the County budget just in case the School Board did come back to request it.
Mr. Harper said there has been a discussion for a number of weeks about what the Board has the ability to do and not do and all they can do is appropriate money. Mr. Harper said it is out of the Boards capacity to say they are appropriating money for the school principal.
Mr. Spencer said he would like to see the minutes from the meeting where the Board approved giving the School Board the money and why its on the budget sheet. Mr. McLeod said he likes to provide a summary to the Board so that issues can be corrected before the Public Hearing.
Mr. Mullen said if the Board has any plans of approving the additional money from the School Board at any time, it should be factored into the overall computation. Mr. Mullen said it is true to say that the school spends the money, but the Board appropriates the money and there should be open dialogue between the two entities where an understanding is set and expectations are either met or not met.
Mr. Gentry said he believed the Board did take action on the funding for the school principal and he thought it was Mr. Barnes who made the motion. Mr. Gentry said he did not remember putting the funds in contingency.
Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod to make sure he provided clarification on the School Board money for the principal. Mr. Harper said the increase in health insurance for the schools is listed separately on the summary list, but is not listed separately for the County. Mr. Harper said its important to know what the Countys portion is. Mr. McLeod said the Countys increase in health insurance is not listed separately on the summary sheet because it was already included in the budget.
Mr. Mullen said state code allows for the placement of funds in contingency and is one of the few ways allowed by the General Assembly. Mr. Mullen said the Board could be forced to place some of the money in contingency.
Mr. Harper reminded the Board that May 6, 2009 had been set as a budget workshop and it would probably be necessary to have that meeting. Mr. Mullen said he could not see any way around it.
Mr. Gentry said he wanted to make it clear that he voted against the additional funding for the school principal because he felt it should have been added to the bottom line of the School Board budget.
Mr. Spencer said he did not recall a vote and he wanted to have that confirmed.
Mr. Byers said when Emergency Services personnel and several other departments are out on call, it brings about a potential for overtime. Mr. Byers said he had recently talked to other companies and in times of economic downfall, they turned to other ideas in lieu of paying overtime. Mr. Byers said one opportunity is to have people come in late to work and so forth to help balance hours. Mr. Byers said there was a discussion last year about several departments and their overtime and he felt the County should look into other ways of handling it, such as comp time or flex time. Mr. Harper asked if the County was allowing flex time now. Mr. Mullen stated he notified department heads that overtime was only to be used, approved or authorized in the greatest of circumstances. Mr. Mullen said flex time and comp time are to be used in order to avoid the overtime issues the County had last year. Mr. Mullen said he recently requested an update from department heads after giving that direction about 30 days ago and he could provide the Board with that status. Mr. Mullen said he could provide the Board with all the options for other ways to structure working hours that are legal and practical. Mr. Byers said he did not want the County to get into a situation with overtime where they would have to figure out how to pay for it and go back and appropriate money.
Mr. Havasy said if Emergency Services personnel are on a call, then they are on a call. Mr. Havasy said there was no one on the Board worried about a couple hours of overtime if there is an emergency and a patient is able to be treated.
Mr. Byers said there are other ways of dealing with hours in the Emergency Services department and the County spent a lot of money in overtime last year.
Mr. Spencer said his concern is the people who are actually using overtime as a second income. Mr. Spencer said there is a big difference between an employee working an accident scene and an employee driving the roads for eight hours running radar. Mr. Havasy said if Mr. Spencer was talking about emergency services to include the Sheriffs Department, then what he said was probably true. Mr. Havasy said he did not think that applied to the Emergency Services department alone. Mr. Spencer said he thought the County just got rid of someone because that person felt it was okay to have $16,000 worth of overtime. Mr. Mullen said he would have to check on that and get back to him.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Resolution - For a supplemental appropriation for telecommunication tower review fees
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation for telecommunication tower review fees.
Resolution - Recognizing Thursday, May 7, 2009 as National Day of Prayer in Louisa County
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Thursday, May 7, 2009 as National Day of Prayer in Louisa County.
Resolution - For a supplemental appropriation to the Social Services Department for additional state and federal funds for January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009 (3rd quarter)
On motion of Mr. Gentry, 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 January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009 (3rd quarter).
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Mr. Gentry and Mr. Wright abstaining from reimbursements, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of April 2009 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $564,122.74.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Mullen said there had been one change made to the March 25, 2009 minutes on the request of Mr. Harper and it was included in the handouts.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the March 25, 2009 joint budget meeting with the School Board as amended.
On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the April 6, 2009 meeting.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 7:15 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:
1. In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (1) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance of departments where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals.
2. In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on actual or probable litigation (specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel).
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 9:10 p.m.
RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:
|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|
WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 20th day of April 2009, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 20th day of April 2009, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the April 20, 2009 meeting at 9:11 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
WILLIE L. HARPER, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA