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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JUNE 1, 2009
5:00 P.M.

Board Members Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes*, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright


* Mr. Barnes left the meeting at 6:36 p.m.
Others Present: Dale Mullen, County Administrator; Greg Hoffman, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of General Services; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Pam Vaughan, Human Resources Generalist; Bob Gibson, Director of Economic Development; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration; and Kimberly Smith, Records Clerk, Administration

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the June 1, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Havasy led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper said he would like to add a presentation for the Middle School Beginning Band and a presentation for the Middle School Concert Band under Presentations.  Mr. Harper said he would like to add a resolution for appropriation of the Capital Improvement Budget, a resolution for the adoption of changes to the PPTRA, and a resolution for USDA Rural Development funding under New Business.  Mr. Harper said he would like to add three items on the Closed Session agenda that would cover personnel, consultation with legal counsel and acquisition of real property.

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the June 1, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

Presentation - A Resolution Recognizing the Louisa County Middle School Beginning Band

Mr. Mullen read the resolution and presented a signed, framed copy to Ms. Allen, Band Director, and another Band student.

Presentation - A Resolution Recognizing the Louisa County Middle School Concert Band

Mr. Mullen read the resolution and presented a signed, framed copy to Ms. Allen, Band Director, and another Band student.

Presentation - VDOT Monthly Update

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

Maintenance:

Maintenance Work Completed:

Maintenance Work Planned:

Construction:
(Changes since last months meeting are shown in bold.)

Traffic Engineering

Status Changed Since Last Month

Route

LocationRequestAction

22

@ Loudin LaneInstall Watch For Turning VehInstallation Completed

33

Main Street LouisaPedestrian Crossing pedestalsInstallation Completed

618

@ Rising Sun Com. CenterInstall Playground signsInstallation Completed

670

@ Rt. 208Install “No Outlet” signInstallation Completed

699

Between Rt. 522 & 1.5 MNRural Rustic, Post at 35 MPHInstallation Completed

706

Between Rt. 635 & E.S.M.Speed Study Reduce 55 to 25Study Performed

734

Between Rt. 635 & E.S.M.Speed StudyStudy Performed


Status Unchanged Since Last Month

Route

LocationRequestAction

15

North of Rt. Install No U-Turn signInstallation Scheduled

22

From Rt. 767 to Louisa T.LSpeed Study Reduce 45 to 35Request Submitted

22

@ Rt. 780Perform Signal AnalysisRequest Submitted

613

@ Rt. 687Install Watch For Turning VehScheduled For Install

615

Between Rt. 22 & Rt. 694Install CenterlineRequest Submitted

628

1 MW Rt. 33 to 2 MWSpeed Study Reduce 55 to 45Study Performed

687

Between Rt. 522 & Rt. 613Deer Crossing SignsRequest Submitted

700

Between Rt. 652 & Rt. 618Speed/Safety StudyRequest Submitted


Permits and Land Development

      

Louisa County

Jan.Feb.MarAprMayYTD Total

Site Plan Review Subdivision/Commercial

31288 1142

New Entrance - Commercial

5413 215

New Entrance - Private

10694 635

Total Permits Processed

9151810 1466

Total Utility Permits Processed

4443 419

Inspection of New Subdivision Streets

1016 311

Inspection of New Entrances

591010 1549

Miles of Streets Accepted Into System

4.8600.420 05.28


Mr. Havasy asked if there was anything else he could do about Old Iron Bridge (Route 695).  Mr. Glass said when the new allocations arrived for next year, he could try to plan for a new bridge.  Mr. Glass said he expected the cost to be around $400,000 including inflation.  Mr. Glass said he had been talking to the Bridge Section and he was trying to figure things out.

Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Glass what he thought the chances of receiving money for bridges were.  Mr. Glass said he did not think the bridge funds received a large hit in their funding because of the nationwide problem with deficient bridges.

Mr. Gentry asked if Louisa County would be getting any stimulus money for bridges.  Mr. Glass said he had not seen any.

Mr. Harper asked if the project on Route 644
(Mt. Airy Road) was still “a go”.  Mr. Glass said yes.

Mr. Mullen called the Boards attention to a letter written by Mr. Ed Houck supporting the Louisa VDOT Residency and asking for a second look into the decision to close the Residency.  Mr. Mullen said Mr. Harper wrote a letter as Chairman of the Board expressing several valid and important reasons why the Louisa Residency should be considered separately because of the presence of the North Anna Power Station.  Mr. Mullen said he wanted to bring the letters to the Boards attention and asked Mr. Glass if he had heard anything more about the Louisa Residency.

Mr. Glass said he had not heard anything more.  Mr. Glass said in the VDOT Commissioners presentation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, there was still an indication that the Louisa Residency would be consolidated.  Mr.
Glass said the consolidation date had been moved up and a final decision would be made by December so the affected employees would have time to make arrangements.  Mr. Glass said the plans were subject to change.

Mr. Harper said he had received a letter from the Commonwealth Transportation Board
acknowledging the concerns of the Board and showing their support.  Mr. Harper said one of the statements made by Butch Davies was a reminder that another Residency was retained because of the coordination on the North side of Lake Anna in the case of an emergency.

Presentation - Customer Service Measuring and Reports

Ms. Vena said in August 2008, she was asked to serve on a committee that was given the task of designing and implementing a customer service satisfaction survey.  Ms. Vena said the other committee members were Mr. Byers, Ms. Gloria Layne, Ms. Nancy Pleasants, Ms. Susan Hopkins, Ms. Lillian Peake, Mr. Jeremy Camp and Ms. Pam Vaughan.

Ms. Vena said the Committee first met in September 2008 and while everyone took the assignment seriously, there were different styles and ideas about how the program should be approached.  Ms. Vena said that was a good thing because everyone was able to take all ideas into account while designing the survey.  Ms. Vena said one issue that was agreed upon by everyone was that customer service training would play a key role in the results.

Ms. Vena said after several Committee meetings, everyone agreed on the survey design and training element.  Ms. Vena said almost everyone attended the customer service training, including Mr. Byers.

Ms. Vena said everyone agreed that it would be best to start small with a pilot program.  Ms. Vena said in February 2009, the Committee placed customer service surveys at the County Office Building, General Services, Parks and Recreation, the Health Department and the Animal Shelter.  Ms. Vena said the surveys were collected in May 2009 and the Committee met to review the results.

Ms. Vena said she outlined her results in a memo to the County Administrator dated May 26, 2009.  Ms. Vena said, on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest, the average overall rating was 4.8. Ms. Vena said some of the comments included “professional”, “courteous”, “efficient”, “helpful”, “knowledgeable”, “very good service” and “this is a model for good government.”

Ms. Vena said the Committee was pleased with the survey results.  Ms. Vena said the Committee also understood that one of the biggest challenges would be, at a minimum, to maintain the results if not improve upon them.  Ms. Vena said the Committee believed that there was always room for improvement and they had a couple of ideas.  Ms. Vena said the County had become more “customer service minded” during the interview and selection process, had incorporated customer service training into the new hire orientation and would continue to conduct customer service training throughout the year.

Ms. Vena said the Committee liked the results, but they also thought they needed something to compare them to.  Ms. Vena said in order to do that, the Committee thought it would be a good idea to extend the pilot program for another three months.  Ms. Vena said the Committee planned to collect the surveys again in August 2009 and report the results to the Board at a meeting in September.

Ms. Vena said the Committee continued to welcome any comments or suggestions from anyone.  Ms. Vena said the Committee wanted to thank the Board for their support and they looked forward to reporting the next set of results in September.

Mr. Gentry said this report appeared to show that the Customer Service Training paid off and asked if that was the consensus of the Committee.  Ms. Vena said she thought it did, but she also wanted to add that the employees already had a good sense of customer service skills before the training started.  Ms. Vena said she felt the Customer Service Training was more like a reminder-refresher course for most of the employees based on the experiences and knowledge they shared.

Mr. Byers said he was on the Committee and wanted to thank the other members.  Mr. Byers said he was surprised that no one left any feedback as to how the County could change or improve because he was hoping this was an avenue in which Citizens would express their thoughts.  Mr. Byers said Mr. Gentry provided him with a copy of a customer service survey from the Virginia Retirement System and Mr. Byers said he felt their survey was more straight- forward.  Mr. Byers asked that the survey pamphlet be
changed or revised if the Committee was permitted to move forward and continue the project.

* Mr. Harper said there was a request to move Closed Session up on the agenda because Mr. Barnes had another even
t he had to attend and would need to leave early.  Mr. Harper said there were several items on the agenda where people were in the audience to hear and he would like to get those items out of the way before going into Closed Session.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - To Award a Contract for Liquefied Propane Gas Service

Mr. Spencer said there was information from Mr. Hoffman regarding the fluctuation in prices.  Mr. Harper said there was a movement in the prices.  Mr. Hoffman said he had circulated an email earlier and explained that there was a price differential over a published average that came out weekly and the differential ended up being around $0.18 per gallon over the wholesale average and would fluctuate weekly.

Mr. Spencer said if the gas was all coming from the same place, how could there be so many different prices offered in the bid responses.

Mr. Byers said there was a significant difference in some of the prices.  Mr. Harper said there was one correction on the prices.

Mr. Mullen said there was a corrected memo for the Board because the Duke Oil price was $1.1715 per gallon and not $1.715 per gallon.  Mr. Mullen said that would not change the award of the
contract, but it would bring the prices of the bids closer together.

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to award a contract for liquefied propane gas service.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion and Resolution - Louisa County Visitors Centers and Sargeant Museum

Mr. Mullen said there was additional information included from Mr. Gibson.

Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Jack Manzari how many museums were needed in the County because there were already several of them being maintained by the Historical Society.  Mr. Manzari said there was no limit to the number of museums to a person who loved museums.  Mr. Manzari said the Historical Society tried to maintain buildings that had historical value.

Mr. Spencer asked if the Jail Museum was still open.  Mr. Manzari said yes and it was his hope to convert the museum into what was once the Sheriffs Department so visitors could see what it was once like.

Mr. Mullen said he did not know what the long-term use would be for any building in the Courthouse Square except the Ogg Building.  Mr. Mullen said he was looking into moving forward with the renovation of the Ogg Building into useable office space.

Mr. Wright said it was his understanding that
each of the buildings maintained by the Historical Society had a separate purpose in the history of Louisa County.  Mr. Manzari said the Jail Museum was not a good place to store artifacts because there was a moisture problem and most of the artifacts currently stored there were damaged.  Mr. Manzari said the plan was to open the Jail Museum periodically to show what it was like when the building was operated as a jail.  Mr. Manzari said the Crank Museum had been renovated and he hoped to convert that back into a Commonwealth Attorneys office to show what it was like living in the 16th and 17th centuries.  Mr. Manzari said the buildings were maintained because of their historic value.

Mr. Wright said each building had a different emphasis.  Mr. Manzari said that was correct.

Mr. Byers said it appeared there were 700 visitors in one year at the
Sargeant Museum and asked Mr. Manzari if that was correct.  Mr. Manzari said that was in 11 months.  Mr. Byers asked if there were any studies that showed when it was best to have the museum open.  Mr. Manzari said the plan was to have the Sargeant Museum open 7 days a week from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. with the Louisa Visitors Center located there.  Mr. Manzari said the hope was that there would be an attraction.  Mr. Byers said he was for preserving historical buildings and said if there was going to be money invested, the spaces should be used for office space.  Mr. Manzari said the Jail Museum would not be suitable for any staff.  Mr. Manzari also clarified that the 700 visitors in 11 months was when the Sargeant Museum was open 2.5 days a week.

Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Gibson to describe how much money tourism brought in and the importance of tourism.  Mr. Gibson said Louisa County did not have one single “knock-out punch” for tourism, such as Monticello.  Mr. Gibson said because of that, Louisa County had to come up with other tourism ideas and partnerships.  Mr. Gibson said tourism was a
substantial generator of money and with the help of more tourism projects and partnerships, there could be a great return within several years.

Mr. Spencer said the request for the Louisa Visitors Center was for $64,000 and he wanted to know who initiated the idea of having a visitors center in the Sargeant Museum.  Mr. Gibson said he approached the Historical Society because the Museum was available and have extra space that would be conducive for a visitors center.  Mr. Gibson said he asked if the Museum space could be used for free if he was able to come up with funding to fund a position for coverage for a few days a week.

Mr. Spencer asked if there was a detailed report for the $64,000 request as to why the County would be participating in the project.  Mr. Gibson said he provided a report to Mr. Mullen.  Mr. Mullen said he sent the report out in an email and provided a copy to the Board members at their desks.  Mr. Mullen said there were 700 visitors
in an 11 month period with the Museum being open 2.5 days a week.  Mr. Mullen said some might think those were first time and only time visitors.  Mr. Mullen said another way to think about it was there could possibly be more visitors if the museum was open 7 days a week.  Mr. Spencer said there was no justification for the money then.  Mr. Mullen said he would not go that far as to say that.  Mr. Mullen said the justification for the money was located in the submitted expense budget.

Mr.
Harper said the Board needed to step back and decide if they were serious about not providing operating funds.

Mr. Gentry said the Board needed to look at what was being asked for out of the $64,000 request.  Mr. Gentry said the expenses were for a visitors center and not for the Historical Society.  Mr. Gentry said he heard about the Jail Museum and others, but none of those were included in the $64,000 request and were all separate items that the Historical Society took care of themselves.  Mr. Gentry said what he felt was on the table was a request for $64,000 for a visitors center and not for the Historical Society.  Mr. Gentry said if there was going to be a visitors center in Louisa, the Museum was a legitimate place to have it and visitors could be routed there from the one at Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Gentry said tourism was one of the objectives of the Board and the Museum would be a great place to have a visitors center.

Mr. Barnes said tourism had been described as theclean green” of the County and was certainly a part of economic development.  Mr. Barnes said there were items in the information from Mr. Gibson that he wanted to take a more in-depth look at.  Mr. Barnes said one of the ideas of the Board was to not take action on items that were presented to the Board on the day of a Board meeting.  Mr. Barnes said he would be able to make a decision by the next Board meeting.

Mr. Harper said the item would be continued.  Mr. Mullen said the item would be added to the agenda for the next meeting.  Mr. Spencer said he would like a copy of the report before the next Board meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 5:41 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 §2.2-3711 (A) (5) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussing a prospective business or industry (or the expansion of an existing business or industry) where no previous announcement has been made of the business or industrys interest in locating (or expanding) facilities in the community.
  3. 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).

REGULAR SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:35 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 1st day of June 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 1st day of June 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.

* Mr. Barnes left the meeting at 6:36 p.m.

OLD BUSINESS (Continued)

Discussion and Resolution - Proceeding with Historic Louisa County Courthouse Renovations

Mr. Harper said he was not sure how to get around his “hang-up” on the 20% contingency.

Mr. Gentry motioned to approve the resolution and proceed with the renovations.  Mr. Wright seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper said he had an issue with the 20% contingency and he was not sure how to protect the County from that.  Mr. Linhares said it was just a contingency and he wanted to make sure the money was there in case it was needed.  Mr. Linhares said that with old historic buildings, there was a chance of potential problems.

Mr. Byers said he thought the contingency was high.  Mr. Byers said he felt there needed to be a process to look at areas that are overspent to make sure it was reasonable.  Mr. Byers said there was sometimes an idea that when there was a contingency, the project would be worked toward the contingency.  Mr. Byers said what concerned him the more than the contingency was making sure there was leverage in case the work failed.

Mr. Linhares said an extended
warranty could be requested, which would cost more money.  Mr. Linhares said an extended warranty could apply to the materials as well as the workmanship.

Mr. Harper asked about the standard warranty that would be included.  Mr. Linhares said it would depend on the materials involved.  Mr. Linhares said he would expect a standard two-year warranty on the workmanship for the roof repairs.  Mr. Linhares said since it was not a complete re-roof, the warranty on the workmanship would be his focus.

Mr. Harper asked if the extended warranties could be quoted separately.  Mr. Linhares said yes; they could be quoted as amendments to the contract.

Mr. Wright said he had valid concerns about having a 20% contingency become public knowledge.  Mr. Wright said he felt there was a tendency for the builder to look for ways to spend the contingency.  Mr. Wright said he suggested placing the funds in the County contingency knowing that it would be available if necessary.  Mr. Wright said anything extra would then have to come to the Board before being approved or spent.

Mr. Linhares said the 20% contingency belonged to the County.  Mr. Wright said if the contingency was left in the resolution, it would become public information.  Mr. Linhares said this project would go out for bid and his hope was to have the project come in at a lot less than the original amount shown.  Mr. Linhares said the competitive bid process would prevent price gouging.

Mr. Wright said he would not like to include the 20% contingency in the resolution so it would not become public knowledge.  Mr. Harper asked if the motion agreed.  Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Linhares if it was normal practice to have a contingency on construction projects.  Mr. Linhares said yes.

Mr. Spencer said one item of the project was to paint the windows and trim at the Courthouse.  Mr. Spencer asked if the old cracked paint was going to be stripped off the windows and trim before being painted again.  Mr. Linhares said yes; the paint would be stripped off down to bare wood before being painted.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Wright voting against due to the contingency question, the Board adopted a resolution proceeding with historic Louisa County Courthouse renovations.

Mr. Mullen said there was a letter dated May 29, 2009 in regard to the Courthouse renovations.  Mr. Mullen said the issue was the Courthouse dome was in need of repair and staff looked around for partners in the private sector to help finance the repair.  Mr. Mullen said one interesting option was that the History Channel offered grant money for different historical projects, but their grant award could not exceed $10,000.  Mr. Mullen said the deadline for application was June 5, 2009 and the County would need to partner with an elementary, middle or high school in order to make the funding possible.  Mr. Mullen said it was $10,000 and if the Board agreed, he would move forward in researching the funding over the next few days.  Mr. Mullen said this could result in a magazine article or a piece on the Courthouse renovations and would provide for a great opportunity to work with the schools.  The Board agreed to allow Mr. Mullen to further research and pursue the opportunity.

Discussion and Resolution - Youth and Family Services Coordinator

Mr. Spencer motioned to approve the resolution.  Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.

M
r. Byers asked if the Board would receive a job description.  Mr. Mullen said there would be one developed.  Mr. Byers said he would like to see a complete job description and a chain of command prior to the job being posted.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting approval to create the Department of Youth and Family Services and to create, advertise and hire, beginning in FY 2010, a Family and Youth Services Coordinator.

NEW BUSINESS (Continued)

Resolution - Designating Speed Limit of 35 mph or less on roads abutting Moss-Nuckols Elementary School Property

Mr. Gentry motioned to approve the resolution.  Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.

Mr. Byers said he asked for a speed study to be completed at Piedmont Christian School.  Mr. Byers said the speed study was completed, but the results said the speed could not be reduced.  Mr. Byers said he found it unusual that the speed could be reduced in certain areas, but not in the area of a private school.

Mr. Harper said that was worthy of a letter being written asking for an explanation because he said a school was a school
and he wanted to know how the speed limit came into play between public and private schools.

Mr. Mullen said this was a rider on the budget bill and the bill said “upon issuance of a resolution by a local governing body that a property had been designated for school construction, and upon presentation of such resolution to the CTB with an accompanying notification that the project was ready to move forward, the CTB shall immediately reduce the speed limit on abutting primary and secondary roads to 35 mph or less.”  Mr. Mullen said it appeared that this was for properties that had been designated for school construction.

Mr. Byers asked if the lowered speed limit would only apply while the school was under construction.  Mr. Gentry said this particular law was for school construction, but it could be requested through VDOT to lower the speed for school purposes.  Mr. Mullen said this would remain the speed limit.

Mr. Harper said a lot of schools in other counties have 35 mph through school zones and all of the Louisa school zones are 25 mph.  
Mr. Harper asked how to change the school zones to 35 mph because he was not sure if anyone traveled 25 mph anyway.  Mr. Gentry said the speed was requested by the schools.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Byers voting against, the Board adopted a resolution designating speed limit of 35 mph or less on roads abutting Moss-Nuckols Elementary School property.

Resolution - To appropriate the FY 2009-2010 annual budget

Mr. Mullen said this appropriation would be for 50% of the O&M budget with the following exceptions:  General Fund Fire and Rescue would get 100%, Debt Service would get 100%, School Cafeteria Fund would get 100% and School O&M would get 100% of State and Federal Funding.  Mr. Mullen said this was what had traditionally been done in the past.

Mr.
Wright motioned to approve the resolution.  Mr. Havasy seconded the motion.

Mr. Gentry said he could not support this because of the breakdown of percentage for the schools since 82% of their budget was for personnel.  Mr. Harper said he did not think that impacted the schools or potential layoffs because personnel was spread evenly across the year and was not paid all up front.

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

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

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Gentry voting against, the Board adopted a resolution to appropriate the FY 2009-2010 Annual Operational and Maintenance Budgets.

Discussion - Community Development Bonding Estimate Policy

Mr. Camp said he wanted to consult with the Board about a policy change he would like to initiate within Community Development.  Mr. Camp said the policy was aimed at insuring the County had sufficient funds on development securities.  Mr. Camp said the current procedure was to collect a set rate for roads and erosion and sediment with a 25% administrative fee applied to that.  Mr. Camp said he felt the set rates were appropriate but the deficiency came when the bond amount was reduced which in turn reduced the 25% administrative fee.  Mr. Camp suggested eliminating the portion of the policy that reduced the administrative fee when the bonds were reduced.

Mr. Wright said this made sense because reducing the bond amount and administrative fee when the work was 50% complete would not mean that there would be less administrative work if the bond had to be pulled when the job was 75% complete.

Mr. Byers asked if there were recent bond issues that brought this item to Mr. Camps attention.  Mr. Camp said yes.  Mr. Camp said there were bonds that recently had to be pulled.  Mr. Camp said this was the first time that had to be done and the County did not want to get into the habit of doing that, but it did bring the fees to his attention.  Mr. Camp said there was a lot higher expense than the County had realized.  Mr. Byers asked if changing the policy would provide for adequate funds to cover the expenses needed to finalize a project.  Mr. Camp said this was a very reasonable way to keep the developer from having to pay more fees up front.

Mr. Gentry said he agreed with Mr. Wright.  Mr. Gentry said he would like to get more information because there had been an increase in gravel and asphalt costs and he wanted to make sure the County had an appropriate breakdown of fees.

Mr. Harper said he felt there was some consensus from the Board.  Mr. Harper asked Mr. Camp to provide the information requested by Mr. Gentry in terms of the fees and bring the item back to the Board for final approval.

Discussion - Recommended Community Development Setback Compliance Policy

Mr. Camp said he wanted to discuss a setback compliance policy that he had drafted.  Mr. Camp said he had included a resolution from the Board of Zoning Appeals supporting the policy.  Mr. Camp said the purpose of the policy was to insure compliance with the setback regulations.  Mr. Camp said there was a recent case where a house was built significantly within the front setback and that was an example of what could go wrong with the current procedures.

Mr. Camp said his staff had many challenges with setback compliance including lack of plat of a property, difficulty in knowing where the property lines were located or where the VDOT right-of-way began, limited training with inspectors and zoning, lack of professional qualifications to measure a setback, and disregard or miscommunication that may occur throughout the building process.

Mr. Camp said he recommended 8 steps in his proposed policy to help ensure that setback violations do not occur again.  Mr. Camp said many of the steps could be done in-house, but a few of them would require significant changes.  Mr. Camp said one of the major changes would require a plat be turned in with every building permit application with an exception allowed for some accessory structures.  Mr. Camp said this was especially important with
older properties that may have never had a survey before.

Mr. Camp said the second major change was to consider setback surveys if the structure was being proposed within 20 feet of the minimum setback area.  Mr. Camp said that requirement would call for a foundation survey to be done at the time of foundation and at least a setback certification to be provided at the time of final building stage.

Mr. Camp said the third major change was that a hold would be placed on the permit if a foundation survey was required until zoning had approved the foundation survey.  Mr. Camp said he did not think that would be an issue because zoning approval could be obtained in a maximum of a few days.


Mr. Harper asked about the Hurst setback case.  Mr. Camp said it was not granted and then it was granted.  Mr. Harper asked what setback line was violated.  Mr. Camp said the front setback.  Mr. Harper said there was a street located there.  Mr. Camp said that was correct.  Mr. Harper asked what more survey was needed than that.  Mr. Harper said he did not think enough had been done in-house to address the problem.

Mr. Gentry said there was a discussion to have all properties surveyed before a house was built on it a few years back.  Mr. Gentry said the only negative that he knew of a few years ago was the delay that surveys were going to cause because development was still strong and there were not enough local surveyors to handle the work.

Mr. Byers asked what the reasoning was behind the 20 feet.  Mr. Camp said there was a survey done for surrounding jurisdictions and 20 feet seemed like the starting point as to what staff was comfortable with and what other localities were doing.

Mr. Spencer asked if lenders required a survey before they finalized a loan.  Mr. Camp said that was not always the case, but some lenders did require them.  Mr. Spencer said no one could go wrong with a foundation survey.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Camp to bring the policy back for final approval.  Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Camp to do some research on how many
lenders required a survey.  Mr. Mullen said that some people did not require lending as well.  Mr. Havasy said there were time periods where surveyors would be backed up.  Mr. Byers said surveys could also be expensive for long distances.

Mr. Camp asked if the Board wanted him to initiate the policy.  Mr. Havasy said yes.  Mr. Byers said his fear was the added cost.  Mr. Byers said no because he would like to look at the final product.  Mr. Gentry said yes.  Mr. Harper said no.  Mr. Spencer said yes.  Mr. Wright said yes.


PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Code, (Chapter 4. Courts) as they pertain to Louisa County assessment of fees and sums as court costs as provided for in the Code of Virginia as follows: AMEND - Sec. 34-1. Assessment for construction, renovation or maintenance of courthouse and facilities.

Mr. Hoffman said the court fees had been charged in criminal and traffic court for years and the amendment was to now charge the fees to civil cases as well.  Mr. Hoffman said the fees had been charged in civil cases, but it was not reflected in the Code.  Mr. Hoffman said this would not be a change in practice, but would be a change in the way the Code was worded.  Mr. Hoffman said this would not raise fees or add any new fees.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.  With no one wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend Chapter 34. Courts, Sec. 34-1. Assessment for Construction, Renovation or Maintenance of Courthouse and Facilities.

NEW BUSINESS (Continued)

Discussion - RFQ - Landfill Perimeter Road Improvements; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP)

Mr. Linhares said the VPDES Permit would be expiring at the end of June and the County was in the process of reapplying for that.  Mr. Linhares said one of the components of the VPDES Permit was the SWPP that needed to be implemented at the Landfill.  Mr. Linhares said the SWPP included putting erosion and sediment control measures in place, adding diversions, temporary slope drains, etc.  Mr. Linhares said that one of the problems at the Landfill was the fact that there was no ditch line around the southern portion of the Landfill cell.  Mr. Linhares said in order to obtain a ditch line that satisfied the SWPP plan, the County would have to relocate the road.  Mr. Linhares said that portion of the improvements was the responsibility of the County.  Mr. Linhares said the remainder of the SWPP plan was a contractual agreement between CTR.  Mr. Linhares said he would like to put these improvements out to bid because the County needed to be in compliance by October 1, 2009.

        On the motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to move forward with issuing a RFQ for Landfill perimeter road improvements.

Resolution - To Appropriate the FY 2009-2010 Capital Improvement Plan Budget

Mr. Gentry motioned to approve the resolution.  Mr. Wright seconded the motion.

Mr. Spencer asked if approving the resolution and appropriating the CIP funds was automatic permission for the money to be spent without coming before the Board.  Mr. Mullen said that was not what it meant to him.  Mr. Mullen said he would act only on the project specifically approved by the Board.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution to appropriate the FY 2009-2010 Capital Improvement Plan Budget.

Resolution - To Adopt the Changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution to adopt the changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act Of 1998.

Mr. Havasy asked about the tax relief for the senior citizens and the disabled for real estate.  Mr. Harper said it was already in place.  Mr. Havasy said this was a different set of Board members since the last time it was approved and he would like to have that policy come before this Board for review.

Resolution - To Authorize and Approve Application for USDA/RD Funding for Expansion of the Louisa Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant

        On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board approved a resolution to authorize and approve application for USDA/RD funding for expansion of the Louisa Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Gentry said Relay for Life would take place this coming Saturday starting at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. Spencer said the boat drag races would take place at Jack Wellers house this weekend.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Mullen said the Board received a congratulatory letter from Mayor Artz.

Mr. Mullen said there was information regarding a request from the School Board for the additional funding for the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School principal.  Mr. Mullen said a decision did not have to be made at the current time, but the item should be placed on the next meeting agenda so discussion and a decision could take place.


Mr. Mullen said there were some contracts included
for the parking lot stair railing and the HVAC upgrades for the Louisa County Library.

Mr. Havasy
asked how much money the County received in stimulus funding.  Mr. Mullen said none.  Mr. Havasy asked how much money the schools received in stimulus funding.  Mr. Mullen said over $3 million.  Mr. Havasy said he wanted to revisit the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School principal issue.  Mr. Havasy said the County did not receive any stimulus money and he thought it would be a good idea to ask that the $76,000 for that position come out of school stimulus money.  Mr. Havasy asked if that could be done.  Mr. Hoffman said it could not be done with Title 1 or IDEA funds, but could possibly be done with State Stabilization funds.  Mr. Hoffman said he would have to complete further research for that.  Mr. Havasy asked that the decision for the principal be placed on hold until Mr. Hoffmans research was complete.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - Recognizing the 2009 Que and Cruz Festival

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing the 2009 Que and Cruz Festival.

Resolution - Commending Fletcher Jones on Receiving the Boy Scouts Highest Award of Eagle Scout

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution commending Fletcher Jones on receiving the Boy Scouts highest award of Eagle Scout.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of May 2009 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $403,002.04.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the May 18, 2009 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adjourn the June 1, 2009 meeting at 7:41 p.m.


BY ORDER OF


________________________________
WILLIE L. HARPER, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA