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 Mary Jackson, Deputy Clerk|
CALL TO ORDERVice-Chairman Gentry called the May 1, 2006 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Harper led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
There were no Constitutional Officers that wished to address the Board.
CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD
Christine Cooke, Mineral District, stated that Louisa County only seems to be growing in some infrastructures. Mrs. Cooke said that new homes are being constructed and the population is continuing to increase, which will bring new schools. Mrs. Cooke posed the question of whether the Board has intentions to put wireless Internet broadband throughout the County. Mrs. Cooke said that the Daily Progress had an article in their paper today saying that Bland County is going to offer their residents, no cost wireless Internet broadband service. Mrs. Cooke pointed out that their Board is planning a second phase to extend this service over much of the County.
Dorothy Pelletier, Louisa District, Louisa Senior Center Representative, informed the Board that she was here this evening to speak on behalf of the senior citizens that utilize the Betty J. Queen Center. Ms. Pelletier stated that they wanted to extend their appreciation to the Board for all of their support. Ms. Pelletier identified many of the benefits they receive at the center and expressed her gratitude for the opportunities that it presents for so many participants.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that the work that goes on in this center along with the staff and volunteers, it really makes it a worthwhile project for the Board to support. Mr. Wright said that they are delighted with the outcome of this facility and that this was probably one of the best decisions that the Board has ever made. Mr. Gentry said that he had the opportunity to talk about the Betty J. Queen Center to a senior group at a church to let them know what the center offers.
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Harper said that he would like to add cash proffers as a topic for discussion to their agenda.
*Fitzgerald Barnes arrived at 5:10 p.m.
Mr. Jennings said that he would like to add a speed/safety study for Route 33 as a topic for discussion to their agenda.
Mr. Lintecum said that he would like to add a report from Darren Coffey, Community Development Director, on the amount of lots allowed “by right” in A-2 Zoning.
Mr. Purcell said that he would like to add personnel under the County Administrator as a topic for closed session.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the May 1, 2006 agenda was adopted as amended.
Virginia Department of Transportation Update (VDOT)
Jamie Glass, Acting VDOT Resident Administrator, summarized VDOTs current maintenance activities to the Board saying that due to budgetary constraints, their maintenance crews are performing mostly labor-intensive operations. Mr. Glass said that there have been a few situations where they have been doing some patching in preparation of the plant-mix overlay. Mr. Glass said that the bridge crew has completed sidewalk repairs in the Town of Mineral. Mr. Glass summarized their current construction activities saying that state force crews have completed Route 775 (Rising Sun Road); have begun clearing the right-of-way on the last segment of Route 804 (Rock Springs Road); contractors have completed Route 718 (Proffits Road), widening and paving of Route 632 (Waldrop Church Road), paved Route 649 (Byrd Mill Road) from Route 632 to Route 640 (East Jack Jouett Road), paving Route 652 (Kentucky Springs Road) from Route 700 (Johnson Road) to Route 601 (Bumpass Road); and their bridge crew is scheduled to build sidewalks on Route 1002 (South Street) as soon as the project is opened to charges. Mr. Glass said that in the past month, they have reviewed eleven plats for proposed new subdivisions that have been forwarded to their Culpeper District Planning Department for their review and comments. Mr. Glass summarized their traffic/safety issues saying that the speed reduction request for Route 655 (Bethany Church Road) was denied, which he has included a copy of justification for the denial; to prevent motorists from pulling into the pedestrian crosswalk on Route 1004 (Rosewood Avenue), they have submitted a request for a “Stop Here On Red” sign; removed the “No Parking” signs on Route 522 at the Little League Ball Park; the request to relocate the speed limit signs on Route 208, south of Route 630 (Harris Creek Road) has been approved and is being scheduled by District Crews; speed reduction for Route 1025 (Douglas Road) has been approved for 25 MPH and is being scheduled for installation; request for a Handicap Parking space in front of the DMV Office has been approved for Route 522/618 and is being scheduled for installation; and the request received from citizens asking for a speed reduction on Route 613 (Oakland Road) has been submitted.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Harper extending his appreciation to the staff at VDOT for the work that they did on the sidewalk in the Town of Mineral.
Resolution Traffic Safety/Speed Study for Route 33 (Jefferson Highway)
Mr. Jennings said that in the Jackson District on Route 33, between Route 609 (Buckner Road) and Route 631 (Windyknight Road), he has had several constituents ask him about the speed limit being 45 MPH through this area. Mr. Jennings said that they have requested that he ask the Board to consider a speed increase through this area to 55 MPH. Mr. Jennings said that one of the concerns that was brought to his attention was when cars traveling off of the secondary roads onto the primary road, they are traveling at 55 MPH and then when they get on Route 33, they drop back to 45 MPH; therefore, he would like to request that a study be done to see if the speed limit could be increased to 50 MPH or 55 MPH.
The Board discussed this topic briefly with Mr. Wright saying that he travels this road quite frequently and he would be concerned about raising the speed limit from Route 631 to McQueens Store along with the other end near Fork Church due to the curves in the road. Mr. Wright said that the area in between these two points could handle the 55 MPH speed limit. Mr. Jennings said that he believes that this is why VDOT has regulatory signs when approaching curves to decrease the speed limit at those times, but he feels that the overall speed limit should be 50 MPH or 55 MPH and then allow the motorists to govern themselves with the regulatory signs through the curves. Mr. Gentry explained to the Board that the speed limit through this area had been reduced due to an accident that resulted in fatalities by the church. Mr. Gentry said that during this time, VDOT was studying the speed from Louisa to Route 767 (School Bus Road) to reduce it to 45 MPH and then after the accident, they included this portion of Route 33 into a study due to individuals who got involved that resulted in the decrease of the speed limit. Mr. Gentry said that he doesnt believe that a full study was ever performed.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted requesting VDOT to perform a traffic speed/safety study on State Route 33, between Route 609 and Route 631 to increase the speed limit.
Agricultural and Forestal District Review Taylor Creek
Mr. Coffey explained to the Board that he was here this evening to review the Taylor Creek Agricultural/Forestal District, which is in the Jackson Voting District. Mr. Coffey said that the Community Development Department has contacted the current property owners identified in this district and advised them that the approved district is due to expire on May 6, 2006. Mr. Coffey said that the letter also advised the property owners that if the department did not receive response, then it would be determined that the property owners desired their property to remain in the existing district. Mr. Coffey said that a response was received on fifteen of the parcels, with twelve of them requesting that the parcels be removed from the district. Mr. Coffey pointed out that the removal of these twelve parcels would disqualify this district from meeting the core requirement of 200 acres of one parcel or continuous parcels for district establishment and existence. Mr. Coffey said that he has received a couple of emails from individuals that are concerned about this. Mr. Coffey said that one of the individuals that wanted their parcel withdrawn had just purchased the property; therefore, they did not receive the letter. Mr. Coffey said that this parcel was the only piece that connected the parcels; therefore, they do not have 200 acres in a core touching. Mr. Coffey said that one of the criticisms that they received from some of the concerned citizens is that it is due to expire, but they would like to join. Mr. Coffey reiterated that the core is gone; therefore, they are unable to qualify the district. Mr. Coffey said that they discussed the possibility of extending the expiration date through the end of the year, while letting those individuals who wanted out, out. Mr. Coffey said that he doesnt know if they would be able to do this from a legal standpoint. Mr. Coffey said that the process for establishing a new AFD is the same process that it takes to join and AFD.
The Board discussed this topic briefly with Mr. Wright saying that he has received several emails and phone calls from constituents questioning when a public hearing was going to be held. Mr. Wright said that he explained that there wouldnt be a public hearing since the district would no longer exist due to the parcels that were withdrawn. Mr. Wright said that he informed these individuals that if they were to have enough participants that formed the 200 core acres, then they would be able to form a new district.
Discussion - Preliminary Subdivision Plat Reviews
A. Gordon Construction - Three Oaks Subdivision
Mr. Coffey said that the Three Oaks Subdivision is a review of a state road that serves four parent parcels. Mr. Coffey said that the memorandum specified three, but the additional parcel was one that was part of the Taylor Creek Agricultural/Forestal District that is being removed. Mr. Coffey said that this subdivision would contain sixty lots and would have road frontage on Route 602 (Copperline Road). Mr. Coffey said that a 25 walking and utilities easement has been proposed around the majority of the subdivision, two common areas, and an emergency exit onto Route 661 (Crewsville Road) through an existing 50 right of way.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright asking if there was any chance of having the 50 right of way becoming a road constructed to state specifications. Mr. Wright pointed out that there is a lot of traffic on Route 602 and if everyone is having to exit on this road, a lot of them are going to have to turn left and them come back by the subdivision again. Mr. Wright said that if they were to have two exits, it would split those heading east and north or west. Mr. Purcell said that he would like to make a general comment pertaining to the issue of the amount of lots allowed by right. Mr. Purcell said that when the Board voted on this ordinance, their intentions were to allow eighteen lots by right for the purpose of getting the development off of the main roads, making it reasonable to provide for a state spec road. Mr. Purcell said that it was not their intentions to allow individuals to combine parcels to get eighteen lots on the various parcels, which defeats all of the reasons for rezoning. Mr. Gentry said that when you show a 50 right of way, he would think that they would want it constructed to state specifications. Mr. Gentry said that he is concerned that they are showing a 50 right of way emergency exit road and suggested that they refer to this as an easement. Mr. Havasy asked if this was going to have an entrance area or if the first lot would go out to the main road. Mr. Havasy questioned if they were not requiring buffers from the road in a subdivision of this size. Mr. Havasy asked why the 25 buffer did not extend around the entire property instead of just the back lots. Chairman Barnes agreed that something should be done with the gravel road and asked if they could put an easement on it. Chairman Barnes said that the Boards main intent was to have qualified state roads, but allowing this is something they do not want. Mr. Gentry said that he agrees with having two access points because as a planner, you typically have two. Mr. Gentry said that his concern is that fact that it states that it is a 50 right of way rather than identifying it as an easement. Mr. Wright stressed the importance of having the additional access since this would be the first point the fire and rescue would approach. Mr. Gentry questioned if this particular right of way was going to be open all of the time for access because the fact that it doesnt have appropriate sight distance might be an issue.
Mr. Coffey responded that the applicant does not have intentions of making this a state road. Archie Gordon, Applicant, said that the Three Oaks Subdivision would have their main entrance on Route 602 and the other would just be an emergency exit. Mr. Gordon explained that due to sight distance in this area, they would not want this to be used as a primary exit. Mr. Gordon said that they intend on making this a nice gravel road, which they hope would not be used unless there were an emergency. Mr. Gordon said that they could change the verbiage to reflect easement rather than emergency exit. Mr. Coffey said that they would be creating an entranceway, but lot one would still touch the main road. Mr. Coffey said that he had talked with the applicants about a buffer surrounding the subdivision, which the applicants were very clear that one or two of the lots might not be permitted due to soils and other things. Mr. Coffey said that they were seeking general approval of the concept before they sink too much money into the project. Mr. Coffey said that he does not have a mechanism in place that requires it, but he does talk with the applicants to try to buffer the subdivisions. Mr. Gordon stated that they would not have an issue with turning lot one into a buffer. Mr. Gordon said that the front of the subdivision was leading out onto the hard top road, which they were trying to keep as much as they could of the core on the interior portion. Mr. Coffey said that this road was a secondary access to this subdivision if an emergency situation were to occur. Mr. Coffey said that to have this many lots in a subdivision, only having one way in or out could create a bad situation. Mr. Gordon said that the gravel road is not fee simple and they do not own it, but they have a 50 right of way that they have easement across it. Mr. Gordon said that this portion was originally a timber trail from years ago and goes over an area that is potentially environmentally sensitive. Mr. Gordon said that due to this reason, they acquired the other property that comes out onto Copperline Road in order to create their entrance. Mr. Coffey said that he would look into referring to this as something else in the plat because it is not technically a right of way from the standpoint that it is not state owned or anything like that, but an easement that ensures ingress and egress. Mr. Gordon said that they have not discussed the gravel road with staff or engineering, but they could either close it off with a gate or leave it open.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to allow the Community Development Staff to review the Three Oaks Subdivision administratively.
B. Ethan Call - Rivers Bend
Mr. Coffey said that the Rivers Bend Subdivision is a review of a state road serving two parent parcels. Mr. Coffey said that the preliminary conceptual sketch for this subdivision contains twenty-two lots that would have one primary access onto Route 734 (Robertson Town Road) or Route 661 (Crewsville Road). Mr. Coffey said that either access that is created would be constructed to meet state specifications.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Purcell saying that if this were being upgraded from a private road, he questioned if the 50 right of way actually exists or it they would be acquiring property from other sources. Mr. Wright said that he believes that the safer road would be on Route 734. Mr. Gentry pointed out that the roads would have to be constructed to state specifications from one to another to have continuity.
Ethan Call, Applicant, informed the Board that he has already acquired the property for the 50 right of way. Mr. Call said that he does not own the other parcel to have the road on Route 734, but he would like to continue the state road to get to his parcels. Mr. Call said that the owners have offered to sell the property to him, but he has not made a decision yet.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to allow the Community Development Staff to review the Rivers Bend Subdivision administratively.
C. Ethan Call - Waterford
Mr. Coffey said that this is a subdivision review for the Waterford Subdivision of a state road serving one parent parcel with a road accessing through a second parent parcel. Mr. Coffey said that the preliminary conceptual sketch for this subdivision contains twenty-one lots and is comprised of one parent parcel to be served by a new internal VDOT constructed road, which will connect from the second parcel out to Route 635 (West Chapel Road). Mr. Coffey explained that they would have a 50 right of way going to the three twenty-one acres parcels and the eighteen 1.5 acres cuts.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that he is curious as to why they are showing the lots on other parcels, but when you look at where it comes off of Route 635, it shows Route 610 (Holly Grove Drive) going up the side that reflects a parcel near the new road and does not reflect any lots from the section of Holly Trails Subdivision.
Mr. Call responded by saying that this was a conceptual plan that was done for him on his piece of land, which did not include all of the surrounding subdivisions.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 6-0, as Chairman Barnes had stepped out of the room, the Board agreed to allow the Community Development Staff to review the Waterford Subdivision administratively.
D. Louisa Land LLC - Jackson Ridge Subdivision
Mr. Coffey said that this is a subdivision review for the Jackson Ridge Subdivision of a state road serving one parent parcel with a road accessing through a second parent parcel. Mr. Coffey said that the preliminary conceptual sketch for this subdivision contains eighteen lots with one parent parcel. Mr. Coffey said that there is a residual parcel of sixty-three acres with a right of way being shown off of that. Mr. Coffey said that it was staffs opinion that the new internal state road must be extended to serve the residue parcel as it appears that the 50 right of way that has been shown already provides access to at least two different parcels. Mr. Coffey said that the applicant does not own the necessary parcel, but they are able to get a right of way through it. Mr. Coffey said that the applicant is working with the property owner to acquire the right of way along with the other residue as fee simple that would allow it to become part of the project.
The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that he likes the graph in the corner of their report that gives them the opportunity to look at this and identify where it is located on the roads.
Mr. Coffey stated that he would pass this information on to the surveyor who provided this document.
On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to allow the Community Development Staff to review the Jackson Ridge Subdivision administratively.
Mr. Harper told Mr. Coffey that he would like to have an update on cash proffers and what his take would be on how he would address this with regards to eighteen lots allowed by right. Mr. Harper said that he would like to understand how he separates these individuals from the ones that apply from rezoning.
Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission had asked several months for information on cash proffers, which he presented to the Board at their Retreat they held on October 29, 2005. Mr. Coffey said that they are still in the process of developing this information. Mr. Coffey said that within the next thirty to sixty day, they would be presenting this information to the Planning Commission. Mr. Coffey said that cash proffers are allowed in the state of Virginia for communities that have had over 10% growth from 1990 through 2006, which qualifies Louisa County. Mr. Coffey said that the key to this is the methodology behind this. He said that if this were something that they implemented, then they would establish a maximum cash proffer because they would not be allowed to charge more than that amount per lot. Mr. Coffey explained that this number is derived from evaluating fire, rescue, parks, roads, schools, and the public infrastructure. Mr. Coffey said that in Virginia, you could only legally access a cash proffer as part of a rezoning application; therefore, the by right lots allowed in A-2 Zoning would not allow them to exact cash proffers.
The Board discussed this topic briefly with Mr. Gentry saying that he has wanted cash proffers to be put on the table for quite some time. Mr. Gentry said that last week alone, in five of the meetings that he attended, he had several individuals ask him about cash proffers. Mr. Gentry said that there are a lot of concerns out there as to why Louisa County does not have cash proffers, which he believes is being driven by the higher assessments. Mr. Purcell questioned if they were taking non-cash proffers into consideration as well. Mr. Purcell said that he would be thinking of non-cash proffers in lieu of cash proffers because they might get something that would be more valuable to the County later and asked if there were a methodology that could be adopted that would allow the staff and the developer to reach an agreement. Mr. Purcell stated that there could be some instances that it would make more sense to do a non-cash proffer. Chairman Barnes asked Mr. Coffey to include in his report a look at two to three years after the cash proffers were implemented what the affects were for the cost of housing in these areas. Mr. Gentry said that it was his understanding that if someone qualified for affordable housing, it would make them exempt from cash proffers. Chairman Barnes said that land has been one of the biggest deterrents for providing affordable housing; therefore, if they were considering a rezoning, he would certainly like to see land donations to these organizations and asked Mr. Coffey to research this further.
Mr. Coffey said that non-cash proffers as it currently exists are allowed, but proffers are a voluntary offer. Mr. Coffey said that anytime a developer wants to do that, they are happy to accept. Mr. Coffey said that he does work with a lot of the developers with regard to open space, buffers, water and sewer infrastructure, or anything of that nature that would mitigate the impacts to adjacent property owners and to the community. In response to Mr. Purcells question, Mr. Coffey said that it has been his experience that there isnt anything in lieu of. He said that the cash proffer is exacted and required, where other proffers are project specific such as land dedication and open space that would be in addition to the cash proffer. Mr. Coffey said that cash proffers have to be tied to a CIP per state code. Mr. Coffey said that it has been proposed as a policy to make the developers exempt from paying cash proffers for affordable housing, but they have to ensure that it would not create any problems from a legal standpoint.
Agricultural A-2 Zoning - Eighteen Lots Allowed By Right
Mr. Coffey reminded the Board that they had asked him to review specific information pertaining to the number of lots allowed by right in A-2 zoning due to their prior commitment to the citizenry during their public hearing that they would review it in a year. Mr. Coffey said that he is going to talk about the planning activity that has occurred during this past year, the plats that were approved, and the development potential that they feel exists. Mr. Coffey said that from March 23, 2005, when the Board approved the number of lots allowed by right, over 60% of the planning inquires were A-2 related. Mr. Coffey said that this is a significant increase over the past years and it has not abated over the course of the year. Mr. Coffey said that in 2005, there were seven A-2 related rezonings out of sixteen total. Mr. Coffey said that three of the seven A-2 rezonings were form A-1 to A-2, which he considers directly related as a response to the ordinance change. Mr. Coffey said that planning inquires were significantly higher in the beginning of March and April than what it has been previously. Mr. Coffey said that none of the 80% approved plats in the A-2 District in 2005 were from the ordinance change because it takes at least six months from the time an ordinance is adopted for the market to react to it. Mr. Coffey said that in 2006, 90% of the approved plats are in the A-2 District. Mr. Coffey said that this number has increased because it includes plats pending approval that are ready for submission, which has eight that are currently under review, six that have been approved by the Board for further review, along with the four they just reviewed. Mr. Coffey said that they are experiencing an increase in requests as a result of the ordinance change. Mr. Coffey said that the Planning Commission has asked for a build out analysis based on whatever they end up with in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Coffey said that they only looked at parcels zoned A-2 and potential divisions were determined by acreage. He said that they excluded all designated Agricultural/Forestal Districts from their research. Mr. Coffey said that they have 14,700 parcels located in A-2 Zoning with 61% of them being in the 0-5 acres category, 22% in the 5.01-15 acres, 7% in the 15.01-30 acres, and 10% are over the thirty acre category. He said that half of the parcels that exist actually have addresses. Mr. Coffey said that if they were to take 50% of the total parcels in each category, at 50% build out, they could potentially go from having 14,000 lots to having 31,000 lots. Mr. Coffey identified the amount of lots they could have at 75% and 100% build out as well. Mr. Coffey said that development in the A-2 District will have a significant impact on the Countys population in the future, which specific regulations would control the order of magnitude of this impact.
The Board discussed this topic in great detail with Mr. Purcell saying that Mr. Coffey has specified that they have had six applications go through their process after the ordinance had been implemented. Mr. Purcell said that these projections are based on a lot of assumption and does not factor in a lot of things such as demand decreasing. Mr. Purcell said that they originally allowed for seven lots by right in A-2, which they increased this number by eleven to help developers since they have to create roads constructed to state specifications. Mr. Purcell pointed that the topography was only taken into account only so far as the 100-year flood plain was concerned. Mr. Purcell said that he had emailed his concerns pertaining to this issue to each of the Board members. Mr. Purcell said that he believes that are going to face larger problems than just the number of lots allowed. Mr. Purcell said that if they allow individuals to start combining parcels in the way they viewed it this evening, they would be facing larger issues. Mr. Purcell stated that they have to do away with allowing parcels to be combined to create larger subdivisions since this was not the Board intention and the need to get these properties off the road, which could be done in a variety of creative ways. Mr. Purcell said that if they were to look at reducing the number of by right divisions, still require the state spec roads, and consider the proffers on how they apply to rezonings, these all factor into the same topic due to the impact that it would have on a developers perception on what their best route to take is. Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Coffey if the thirty acres was based on what they had already been looking at because when he had looked at this previously, there werent too many thirty-acre tracts. Mr. Gentry said that realistically, there are probably only 38 to 40, thirty-acre lots that you could actually divide into eighteen lots due to soil conditions and other issued. Mr. Gentry said that he is concerned about individuals adding parent parcels to create large subdivisions since this was not their intention. Mr. Gentry pointed out that some localities require a bigger buffer on existing state roads to try to alleviate looking at all of the roof tops in rural areas. Chairman Barnes said that he believes that the Board took some steps when the made the aggressive move to require state roads. Chairman Barnes reiterated that it was not the Boards intent to allow individuals to draw a line on the property and continue to keep connecting the dots. Chairman Barnes said that the Board agreed when they adopted this ordinance that they would revisit the issue in a year to see how things were working, which they have now found that this is an issue of individuals submitting multiple parcels. Chairman Barnes said that he is a big supporter of landowners rights and always will be, but this is not what the Boards intention was to allow for multiple lots. Chairman Barnes said that he would like to have Mr. Coffey review the issue of continuous lots and bring his recommendations back to the Board. Mr. Wright asked Mr. Coffey to send a copy of his presentation to him.
Mr. Wright informed the Board that the Health Insurance Committee met last week and he feels that it looks encouraging this year due to the decrease in costs. Mr. Wright said that the schools might have different rates for what the employees pay from what the County employees pay.
Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator, said that it is unusual to talk about health insurance rates coming down, but this is what has occurred this year by 3.5%. Mr. McLeod said that the Health Committee got together and took a look at how to go about doing the rates. Mr. McLeod explained that in the previous years, they have always been able to have a mathematical formula to calculate the rates off the lowest cost one, which is what they were able to do. Mr. McLeod said that they have split the savings between the employer and employee with 2/3 going to the employer and 1/3 to the employee. Mr. Coffey said that during the month of May they have open season for individuals to make the necessary adjustments to their policy. Mr. McLeod said that last year the County froze their rates, which the schools were not able to do, so it carries forward to this year.
Mr. Gentry informed the Board that he and Mr. Jennings have attended three meetings so far to discuss the aquatic facility. Mr. Gentry said that they are trying to get involved with a phase type of set up, which they hope to have further details on this in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Gentry informed the Board that he, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Havasy had the opportunity to attend the Volunteers of Louisa Award Ceremony that was held April 30, 2006. Mr. Gentry said that this is an annual event that they hold to recognize special volunteers, which they break down by categories. Mr. Gentry said that they had three primary winners that went for the Youth Volunteer Spirit Award to Jordan Gholson, Adult Volunteer Spirit Award to Page Kemp, and the John Von Hemert Award that went to Linda Boxley.
Mr. Wright said that he would like to appoint Felicia Jessee of Virginia Dominion Power to the Work Force Investment Board. Mr. Wright said that she has met with Todd Palmquist of the Thomas Jefferson Planning and has agreed to serve on this board.
Mr. Gentry said that he has been sitting in on the JABA Board of Directors, which he would like to be assigned permanently to if the Board does not have any objections. Mr. Gentry said that he has been exposed to a lot of things during these meetings and he feels that someone from the Boards level should be there. Mr. Harper said that this is a good idea, but they need to look and make sure that the bylaws dont call for a citizen. Chairman Barnes asked staff to review this information and bring it back to the Board at their next meeting to allow them to make the appropriate nomination.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Felicia Jessee to the Work Force Investment Board.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Mr. Lintecum presented his report highlighting the following items:
Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that Pat Morgan, County Attorney, was still working on the elusive easement and liability insurance for the Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation.
Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has enclosed a list of events for the month of May. Mr. Lintecum said that the National Day of Prayer is actually going to be held at the Methodist Church on Main Street, which they have asked individuals to be there at 11:30 on May 4, 2006.
Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that the County Appreciation Picnic would be held on May 10, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. behind the County Administration Building.
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to adopt the Consent Agenda for the two scheduled public hearings that will be held on June 5, 2006 and the following five resolutions.
Resolution - Proclaiming May 4, 2006 as National Day of Prayer in Louisa County
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted recognizing Thursday, May 4, 2006 as National Day of Prayer in Louisa County.
Resolution - Endorsing the Virginia Juvenile Crime Control Commission Act (VJCCCA) Grant Renewal and Maintenance of Effort
On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted endorsing the Virginia Juvenile Crime Control Commission Act (VJCCCA) Grant Renewal and agreeing to fund the Maintenance of Effort in the amount of $1,028 for FY06-07 prior to them receiving $13,843 for the VJCCCA Grant.
Resolution - To Name a County Agent for the Homeland Security Grant
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted to name C. Lee Lintecum as the designated County Agent for the Homeland Security Grant.
Resolution - Supplemental Appropriation to the Clerks Office for Technology Funding to Provide Remote Access to Land Records
On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing a supplemental appropriation to the Clerks Office for $53,407 to use for technology updates of land records with $32,724 of this funding to be used towards the purchase a plat station with six new monitors from Cott Systems Inc.
Resolution - Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation for Vehicle Repairs
On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing a supplemental appropriation for vehicles repairs for the Department of Social Services in the amount of $858.70,less the deductible of $250.00 and for the Sheriffs Department in the amount of $346.70 to cover the cost of hidden repairs that were not included as part of the original estimate.
The Board did not discuss any correspondence.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Mr. Jennings abstaining from a check pertaining to his daughter that is listed under Parks and Recreation, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the second half of April 2006 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $$248,054.78.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of March 17, 2006, March 29, 2006, April 12, 2006, and April 17, 2006 as presented.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:31 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:
1. In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (7) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel for discussion of potential litigation.
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. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:02 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:
WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this the 1st day of May 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 1st day of May 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.
To Amend the Louisa County Code to Adopt Section 54-15 Adoption of State Law by Reference; Maximum Penalties
Mr. Morgan reminded the Board about the emergency resolution they recently passed to incorporate part of the State Code by reference into the County Code so the Clerk of the Court can appropriate the monies that are received from fines and distribute it to the County rather than for state proffers. Mr. Morgan said that he is asking the Board to make this a permanent part of the County Ordinance.
Chairman Barnes opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. With no one wishing to address the Board, Chairman Barnes closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. and brought it back to the Board for further discussion.
The Board discussed this topic briefly with Mr. Gentry asking Mr. Morgan if there were any reason that they shouldnt adopt this ordinance.
Mr. Morgan replied to the Board that there isnt any reason why they should not adopt this ordinance.
On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, carried by a vote of 7-0, a resolution was adopted approving the Louisa County Code Section 54-15 to incorporate by reference all provisions of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia as identified on Resolution RES06.075 that is on file in the County Administrators Office.
Developers Round Table Meeting
Mr. Gentry informed the Board that during their break, Mr. Coffey provided handouts of information that was given to the individuals who attended the Developers Round Table Meeting that was held last week. Mr. Gentry said that he, Mr. Jennings, and Mr. Havasy were able to attend this meeting, which was an exceptional meeting. Mr. Gentry said that they had a lot of good discussions and good attitudes. Mr. Gentry said that one of the items that Mr. Coffey presented reflected details on how they could go online to initiate their permits. Mr. Gentry said that they have a new system that will allow the developers to have better communication with the workforce of the Community Development Department that will alleviate a lot of the problems of them having to come to the office and stand in line.
Mr. Morgan informed the Board that he has enclosed a memorandum regarding the recent claim for $7,900, which he recommends that the Board disapprove the claim.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board agreed to deny the claim for $7,900.
On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the May 1, 2006 regular meeting at 7:08 p.m. until Wednesday, May 3, 2006 for their Budget Work Session that will be held in the E. O. C. at 6:00 p.m.
BY ORDER OF
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA