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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JUNE 4, 2007
5:00 P.M.



Board Present: *Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings and Jack T. Wright

*Fitzgerald A. Barnes arrived at 5:14 p.m.
Board Absent: Eric F. Purcell
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager and April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Wright called the June 4, 2007 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 discussion of abandonment of CCC Road (Route 789) to New Business.  Mr. Harper stated he would like to add discussion of personnel reporting directly to the Board to closed session. Mr. Gentry stated he received a call from Mr. Barnes stating he would be arriving late to the meeting;  however, he would like to add discussion of the new elementary school to New Business and discussion of the Transitional Residential (TR) District to New Business.  Mr. Wright stated he received a letter stating the Board has until June 18 to submit comments on the new regulations for subdivision roads, but he hasnt heard what the regulations are.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to add discussion of new regulations for subdivision roads to Presentations for Mr. Glass to explain the regulations.  Mr. Lintecum stated he would like to add discussion of re-establishing priorities for the primary roads and interstate highways to New Business.    

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Messrs Barnes and Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 5-0, the June 4, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

VDOT Monthly Update -
How Speed Studies are Performed

Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator, introduced Mr. Bill Parman, Area Traffic Engineer for Louisa and Charlottesville Residencies.  Mr. Glass stated Mr. Parman would be giving a presentation on how speed studies are performed.  

Mr. Parman stated the Code of Virginia establishes maximum speed limits.  Mr. Parman said the maximum speed limit is 55 MPH on Primary Highways, 65 MPH on Interstate Highways, 55/45 MPH on Secondary Highways that are not posted, 35 MPH in cities and towns and on unpaved roads in certain counties and 25 MPH in business and residential districts.  

Mr. Parman stated the General Assembly may amend the Code of Virginia to establish new speed limits.  Mr. Parman said the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, or other authority, can set speed limits by resolution based on recommendations from an engineering investigation.  Mr. Parman said independent cities that maintain their own roads can, by resolution, set speed limits within their boundaries.  Mr. Parman said towns that maintain their own roads can, by resolution, set speed limits on all roads within their boundaries other than roads in the States primary system.

Mr. Parman said in Louisa County, speed studies initiate when citizens contact their Board of Supervisor member or the Residency Administrator, Mr. Glass, to request establishment of a speed zone.  Mr. Parman said after residency review, the request is sent to the VDOT Area Traffic Engineer to perform a speed study.  

Mr. Parman said a speed study is an engineering investigation where data is collected and analyzed per accepted traffic engineering standards and practices to formulate a recommendation for an appropriate speed limit.

Mr. Parman said elements of a speed study include speed samples, roadway geometrics and characteristics, roadside development, parking and pedestrian activities and crash history.  

Mr. Barnes arrived at 5:14 p.m.

Mr. Parman said speed samples are secured in the study area to collect representative samples of free flowing vehicle speeds.  Mr. Parman stated the speed sample data is then analyzed by looking at various speed indicators.  Mr. Parman added the most influential indicator is the 85th percentile speed, which is the speed at which eighty-five percent of the observed vehicles are driving at or below. Mr. Parman stated engineering studies have shown that speed limits should be set near the 85th percentile speed of free flowing vehicles to achieve an acceptable level of compliance from motorists.  

Mr. Parman said roadway geometrics that are looked at are the horizontal and vertical curves in the roadway alignment and intersection and stopping sight distances.  Mr. Parman stated
this element of the study is where the need for warning signs with advisory speed plaques are determined.

Mr. Parman said roadway characteristics that are looked at include the roadways functional classification, which are arterial, collector or local.  Mr. Parman said other characteristics that are determined are pavement and shoulder widths, pavement markings and signs present, roadside fixed object hazards and traffic volumes and vehicle types.  

Mr. Parman said roadside development that is considered is land use and zoning, density of existing development and roadside friction from entrances.  

Mr. Parman said pedestrian activity in the study area are considered and on-street parking practices along the roadway are also reviewed and noted.  Mr. Parman added both considerations are factors that help influence the decision of what an appropriate speed limit should be.

Mr. Parman stated a three-year crash history of the study area is reviewed.  Mr. Parman said crash comparisons are made to annual average crash rates, both statewide and within the Culpeper District.  Mr. Parman said types and locations of crashes are reviewed to identify patterns and corrective actions are considered as related to vehicle speeds or other factors.

Mr. Parman stated the 85th percentile speed is often the overriding factor used to determine the speed limit recommendation; however, engineering judgment and other elements of the study are also major influencing factors when conducting speed studies on rural roads.

Mr. Parman said upon completion of the speed study report by the Regional Traffic Engineering Staff, the recommendation is reviewed by the Residency Administrator and the State Police Area Field Lieutenant for concurrence.  Mr. Parman said the recommendation is then sent to the VDOT State Traffic Engineer for review and submittal to the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioners delegates with recommendation for approval.  

Mr. Parman said it generally takes sixty days (60) for a study to be completed, reviewed and sent to the State Traffic Engineer.  Mr. Parman said once the Regional Traffic Engineer is notified of the approved speed limit, it takes one (1) to two (2) weeks to have the speed limit signs installed. Mr. Parman stated the entire process takes about three (3) to five (5) months.  

Mr. Parman stated the average cost per speed study is approximately $3,500.  Mr. Parman stated an additional cost to actually install the signs is typically between $400 and $600.  

Mr. Gentry said the Board had a speed limit request on Courthouse Road (Route 208) several months ago and it was denied.  Mr. Gentry stated he thought the recommendation to deny the request was weak.  Mr. Gentry said he doesnt think the crash history is accurate because most accidents arent reported.  Mr. Gentry said Route 208 is a major connector between the Town of Louisa and Interstate 64 and there have been an increase of trucks that travel this road.  Mr. Gentry stated when the new elementary school is built, the use will be changed for that section of the road.  Mr. Gentry said he is concerned of why the request was denied and questioned what the Board could do to request a speed study again.  

Mr. Parman said if an accident is not reported to DMV and isnt entered into the system that is available to VDOT, then they dont get that information.  Mr. Parman said VDOT is always willing to look at an area again that has been denied, if circumstances change.  Mr. Gentry said the Local VDOT District thought the County had a good case because of an elementary school being built and because of growth and traffic.  Mr. Gentry stated Route 208 is actually a secondary road that was changed to a primary road in the 1960s.  Mr. Gentry said the speed study case was originally presented because the road still has the elements of a secondary road, but the growth and traffic of a primary road.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks it is crucial that the speed limit request be looked at again.
 

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to request a traffic speed/safety study on Courthouse Road (Route 208).

Mr. Harper questioned how VDOT decides when and how long a speed study will be conducted after a speed limit request is submitted.  Mr. Parman said VDOT takes the area of concern and looks for significant changes in the roadway.  Mr. Parman said speed studies need to be requested for segments of roadway between major points or intersections.  Mr. Harper questioned what the hoses are for that VDOT lays across the roads.  Mr. Parman said the hoses across the road are for data gathering.  Mr. Parman said the machines that are connected to the tubes calculate the speed and type of each vehicle that goes over it.  Mr. Harper questioned if the studies are done over a 24-hour period.  Mr. Parman said VDOT typically does the studies over a 24-hour period; however, major studies are sometimes done over a 48-hour period.  Mr. Harper questioned if there was a website that would give the most current traffic counts.  Mr. Parman said he would get that information for the Board.  

Mr. Havasy said he has never seen a 35 MPH speed limit sign on unpaved roads.  Mr. Havasy said the assumption is 45/55 MPH if a road is unmarked.  Mr. Havasy questioned how a deputy could enforce a speed limit when signs arent posted.  Mr. Parman said it is difficult if the speed limit isnt posted, but VDOT looks for gravel roads to be self-enforcing by their nature.  Mr. Parman added there is a process to post speed limit signs on gravel roads without a study.  Mr. Havasy asked VDOT to do more studies in years to come with the Zion Crossroads development on some of the back roads that will be shortcuts from major arteries in Louisa to James Madison Highway (Route 15).  Mr. Havasy said he thinks traffic will double or even triple in a years time and signs will be needed.  Mr. Glass said speed limit signs do not control speed limits.  Mr. Glass added it all comes down to law enforcement.  

Mr. Wright said VDOT and State Police have told him that if rural roads do not have speed limits posted, they are considered to be 55 MPH.  Mr. Wright said he was told by VDOT the way to determine primary roads and secondary roads is if the route number is 600 or above it is secondary and if it is below 600 it is primary.  Mr. Parman stated that is correct.  


Discussion - New regulations for subdivision roads

Mr. Glass stated he was not familiar with the letter that Mr. Wright received.  Mr. Glass said it looks to him that counties were being asked to submit comments on the development of new subdivision street acceptance regulations.  Mr. Glass said this letter was evidently something that was only sent to the counties requesting comments or proposals regarding the new regulations before the regulations are put together.  Mr. Glass said he would get information and details of the changes for the Board.  

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion - To set public hearing for the abandonment of approximately 600 Linear Feet of State Route 749 (In Shenandoah Crossings)

        On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to set public hearing for the abandonment of approximately 600 Linear Feet of State Route 749 (In Shenandoah Crossings).

Mr. Glass stated VDOT has to receive a notice of intent from the County thirty days (30) prior to the public hearing.

Discussion - Abandonment of CCC Road (Route 789)

Mr. Harper said an individual had previously requested VDOT to abandon the end of CCC Road (Route 789) and it was denied.  Mr. Harper stated he wanted to make sure that individuals are getting the same consideration as corporations.  Mr. Harper said this road goes to a dead end.  Mr. Glass stated from the end of State maintenance, CCC road runs to Poplar Avenue (Route 645) and Davis Highway (Route 22) in the Town of Mineral.  Mr. Harper said he doesnt know if the road goes all the way through anymore because of North East Creek.  Mr. Harper said there are dead ends on both sides of the road.  

Mr. Wright questioned if VDOT could look at the road and let the Board know what the situation is.  Mr. Harper said VDOT already looked at the road and said they may want to use the road in the future.  Mr. Glass said he would get information and report back to the Board.


Discussion and Consideration - Re-establishing priorities for the primary roads and interstate highways

Mr. Lintecum said VDOT held a series of public meetings and workshops for counties to comment on primary roads.  Mr. Lintecum said he thinks the ramps for Interstate 64 that are needed for the improvement at Zion Crossroads should be added to the priority list and submitted to VDOT and the Legislator.  Mr. Lintecum said the Board also had a request through a joint resolution to step up the improvements on Route 22 in and around the Towns of Louisa and Mineral.  

Mr. Gentry said he would like to see more material from VDOT as to why the ramp improvements on Interstate 64 are required.  Mr. Gentry said other localities have just as much growth that is projected in Zion Crossroads and they have shorter ramps than what is already in Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks VDOT is slightly over designing the degree of improvement that is needed.  Mr. Lintecum said the cost of the ramps is going to be much higher than anticipated and in order to complete the ramp projects, the County is going to need some money from the Interstate system.  

Mr. Barnes said this is also an opportunity that another project that has been slated to be done could have problems and monies could be moved to the ramp project.  Mr. Barnes said the Board has been advocating the importance of Zion Crossroads and he doesnt want to see this as a missed opportunity if the funds become available to get the project done prior to the development in Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Barnes said he doesnt want construction of businesses happening at the same time as construction of ramps to impede potential customers and traffic.  


Mr. Gentry said he doesnt think the County can get VDOT monies quick enough to do the ramp project if there is a need for it.  Mr. Gentry said Interstate processes have to be done in order to get Interstate monies and that takes a long time to get money for a construction project unless it is classified as a special safety project.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks the Board should be very careful with VDOT because they want everyone else to do their work for them and this County cannot afford that.  Mr. Gentry suggested to put the ramp project on the priority list because it has to get started if it is needed.  Mr. Gentry said the Board should always challenge why the County needs the project done here if it doesnt need to be done somewhere else.  Mr. Harper said he thinks that is a fair observation and a good comparison to look at.  

Mr. Wright said the Board is basically setting their priorities and he thinks it is important not to slow down development.  Mr. Barnes said there is a public/private partnership in Louisa County, which is an attempt to work with VDOT and private developers to make this happen.  


        
On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to set the priorities as follows:

Priority #1        Widening of ramps exiting Interstate 64 onto Route 15 that are needed for the increase in traffic because of the developments at Zion Crossroads

Priority #2        Upgrading and reconstructing of State Route 208 from the Spotsylvania County line to U.S. Route 522.

Priority #3        Widening Route 15 North of I-64 at Zion Crossroads to four (4) lanes approximately one (1) mile through the commercial/industrial zone in Zion Crossroads to be able to handle anticipated increase in traffic because of the development at Zion Crossroads.

Priority #4        Study, design and construct a road system that will alleviate the traffic issues within the Town of Mineral, the Town of Louisa and the Route 22/208 corridor.

Priority #5        Safety Improvements at the intersection of U.S. Route 33/VA Route 22 and secondary Route 613.

Priority #6        Safety Improvements at the U.S. Route 15/33 Intersection

Priority #7        Safety Improvements at the intersection of Mineral Avenue, State Route 22, and First Street, Secondary Route 618, in the Town of Mineral.

Priority #8        Design and construct a bypass for the Town of Louisa

Priority #9        Design and construct a bypass for the Town of Mineral

Priority #10      Design and construct a bypass for the Town of Gordonsville

Priority #11      Upgrade and reconstruct U.S. Route 522 from Gum Spring to U.S. Route 33.

Resolution - To request a referendum to approve a food and beverage tax for the County of Louisa

Mr. Barnes said the last time that there was a referendum on the ballot for a food and beverage tax, citizens didnt know anything about it and said they werent going to vote for a tax on themselves.  Mr. Barnes stated the Board cannot legally advocate a referendum for a food and beverage tax.  Mr. Barnes said one of the reasons that this has been brought back to the Board is because of the development that is happening in Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Barnes said the purpose of the tax is to take the opportunity to get revenue from the people that stop in the County to eat and lodge.  Mr. Barnes said he wants people to understand that this is not a tax to put on local citizens.  Mr. Barnes added the Board brought this up as a way to diversify the tax base.

Mr. Gentry said he was at the poll the day that this was put on the ballot and most people didnt know what this tax was for.  Mr. Gentry stated it wasnt advertised appropriately because it was done in July rather than October.  Mr. Gentry said there would be different results if the public were properly educated on this process.  

Mr. Wright questioned the time limit on approving the resolution for the referendum.  Mr. Morgan said it has to go through the Justice Department for approval, which would take approximately sixty (60) days.  Mr. Morgan said he has already prepared the paperwork to take to the Judge, if the resolution is passed.  Mr. Morgan said with that, there will be a suggestion that the advertisements occur in October rather than in July.
 

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting a referendum to approve a food and beverage tax for the County of Louisa.

Resolution - To appropriate the FY 2007-2008 Annual Budget by Category

Mr. McLeod said this resolution is to appropriate the budget approved and adopted by category at the May 21, 2007 meeting.  Mr. McLeod said the total budget is $90,901,180, of which $74,324,336 is for operations and $16,576,844 is for the Capital Improvement Plan.  Mr. McLeod said the resolution is detailed for all of the departments.  

Mr. Harper said he understands that in the past, Mr. McLeod has said if the Board appropriates the money, then it is assumed to be paid out.  Mr. Harper stated that situation was got into with Emergency Services and questioned was it clear that this year, they only get the first quarter of funds until a Financial Report is provided.  Mr. McLeod said that is the pleasure of the Board.  Mr. McLeod said he has always been told that when the budget is approved, a request to cut the check entirely for Emergency Services for Fire and Rescue should be submitted at the first meeting in July.  Mr. McLeod added if the Board wants it done quarterly, like every other agency is done, then he would be glad to do that.  

Mr. McLeod said Mr. Tommy Luck asked if the audits for Fire and Rescue Agencies should be done by Fiscal Year or Calendar Year and if they should be interrupted by the way they are currently being done.  Mr. McLeod stated he told Mr. Luck to keep the audits the way they are currently being done.  Mr. McLeod said if the agencies were currently on Calendar Year, they would be doing a Financial Audit based on December 31, 2006.  

Mr. Barnes stated he thought the Board said they would pay for the audits and before receiving funding, the organizations would submit an audit.  Mr. McLeod said the Finance Department has been receiving Financial Reports for anyone at a certain level, exclusive of a state agency.  Mr. McLeod stated this past week, he contacted the agencies asking for their documentation.  Mr. McLeod added there are at least three agencies that have not completed their FY 06 Financial Report.  

Mr. Gentry questioned if the Board defined a Financial Report as an audit.  Mr. McLeod said the Board chose the “agreed upon procedure.”  

Mr. Wright said Mr. McLeod stated anyone at a certain level would have to submit a Financial Report and questioned what the certain level was.  Mr. McLeod stated any organization that receives over $30,000 from the County.  Mr. Harper said he doesnt think all of the monies should be released to any organization until an audit is received.
 

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Harper, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution to appropriate the FY 2007-2008 Annual Budget by Category with a Financial Report required from any non-state agency with a funding level that is greater than $30,000, where funding is contingent upon the County receiving a Financial Report.  

Discussion - New elementary school

Mr. Barnes commended the Board on the responsibility taken and the hard work that has been done.  Mr. Barnes said he would like to see the Board take the progressive role to be proactive and to move forward with the project.  Mr. Barnes said he thinks that both Boards have to be proactive and work together to make this project happen.  Mr. Barnes stated he thinks the time has come for the Board of Supervisors to take the lead and to move forward to indicate what they want to do.

Mr. Wright stated he thought the Board could only set the amount of money they wanted to appropriate and the number of students the school can accommodate and questioned Mr. Morgan what authorities the Board of Supervisors have.   Mr. Morgan stated Mr. Wright was correct; the Board of Supervisors can set the amount of money and the number of seated students the school can accommodate.  

Mr. Gentry said he understands that the School Board is having a closed session before their meeting tomorrow night and he assumes they will be discussing the new elementary school.  Mr. Gentry said the Board set the amount of money and the number of students for the school in January 2005 and it was ignored.  Mr. Gentry added the Board wasnt listened to and now are back where they started.  Mr. Gentry said he doesnt know how the project can be made better this time unless the School Board takes the lead.  Mr. Gentry stated he talked with a School Board member and questioned why they werent looking at the ideal information that Mr. Linhares provided.  Mr. Gentry added that Culpeper is looking at building a new elementary school that will cost about $18 million and it is about the same size that Louisa will need.  Mr. Gentry stated this project could be talked about forever until other schools are looked at and compared and the project isnt going to happen until the exact points are made.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks the Committee that has been formed needs to start talking about specific numbers.    

Mr. Wright said the Committee was formed for a specific purpose and they met and served their purpose.  Mr. Wright added that issue is gone.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks the Committee should come to the Board with recommendations.  Mr. Wright stated that Committee was formed to talk about the specific plan that the County no longer has.  Mr. Wright said the Committee wasnt authorized to talk about any specifics.  

Mr. Barnes stated he doesnt care if the Committee or if the Board gives a number.  Mr. Barnes said it is up to the Board of Supervisors to set the standards.  Mr. Barnes said after an amount of money is set, it is then the School Boards job to do what needs to be done with that amount of money.  Mr. Barnes added he is tired of having no dialogue and conversation between the Boards.  Mr. Barnes said the Board should use staffs help to decide on a figure.  Mr. Gentry said there are unknown damaged figures from the previous contracts that will have to be added to the actual building construction costs and he doesnt think the Board can work with staff and come up with an updated amount until the costs are known.  Mr. Barnes said he wanted to bring this topic up because he wants citizens to understand that the Board wants to build a new school.  

Mr. Wright said Culpeper budgeted $13 million for their school and the bid came in at $16 million, which is the amount the Board had originally set 18 months ago for the same size school.  

Mr. Wright said the Board could set the amount of money they are willing to appropriate and the amount of students they want the school to accommodate.  Mr. Wright questioned Mr. Lintecum if staff could have suggested figures available to the Board by the June 18 meeting.  Mr. Lintecum said yes, but staff has no control over the previous costs that the School Board will be addressing.  


Mr. Gentry said basically the Board is asking Mr. Linhares to give updated figures from the presentation he gave before.  Mr. Gentry suggested Mr. Linhares to use Culpepers new school as an example in the presentation.  Mr. Gentry said he thinks staff could provide suggested figures with no problem, but the question is what the previous construction costs from the School Board will be.  

Mr. Gentry commented that during a public work session held by the School Board, a School Board member stated that the school will cost $30 million and there will be a two-year delay, which is misleading to the public and completely out of order.  

Mr. Havasy said he agrees with the principle that Mr. Barnes projected, that the Board is very interested in getting the project started, without delays.  Mr. Havasy said the Boards are behind on this project, but until information is received from the School Board and Mr. Linhares, it is premature to come up with a price, but the basic concept of 700 students is still there.

It was consensus of the Board to move forward with an elementary school that will accommodate 700 students, with figures being looked at as quickly as possible.
 

Discussion -
Transitional Residential (TR) District  

Mr. Barnes said Mr. Coffey presented the Transitional Residential (TR) District to the Board at a workshop in December and the Board had questions about whether 75 percent of open space was too much.   Mr. Barnes stated he would like Mr. Coffey to revisit the 75 percent of open space because that puts limits on some projects.  Mr. Gentry said the Board had a case recently where an application didnt meet 75 percent of open space and there were concerns about whether that number is where it needs to be.  Mr. Gentry said when the approval for the district was passed, some Board members had concerns and he thinks it is appropriate for an explanation from Mr. Coffey on why the open space should be 75 percent.  Mr. Wright stated the Board discussed the TR District in December and unanimously voted to approve it in January.  Mr. Wright said the Board has talked about not changing the Comprehensive Plan and questioned why change the 75 percent of open space in the TR District when a legitimate application hasnt been received yet.  

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:34 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (1) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the Board.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Jennings, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, 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. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adopt the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 4th day of June 2007, 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 4th day of June 2007, 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.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

To amend the Louisa County Code, Sec. 70-6. Penalty for nonpayment of taxes and Sec. 70-7. Administrative fee for taxes collected through state setoff debt collection program and to add to the Louisa County Code Sec. 70-12. Fee imposed for returned checks, Sec. 70-13. Fee imposed for collecting delinquent taxes or other charges and Sec. 70-14. Penalties and interest on local government accounts receivable.  Also, to amend Louisa County Code Sec. 34-2 to increase the Courthouse Security Fee from $5 to $10.

Mr. Morgan said this ordinance proposes to make certain changes to the way fees are collected for delinquent taxes and payments with bad checks.  Mr. Morgan said in section 70-6, the percentage that is charged for a delinquency has increase from eight to ten percent.  Mr. Morgan said section 70-7 has been changed to compliance of what the State Code allows the Treasurer to do.  Mr. Morgan added it sets a maximum fee of $25 for setoff debt collection, $35 fee for a bad check, and other fees are included for collecting delinquent taxes.  Mr. Morgan said the fee collected for Courthouse Security has been increase from $5 to $10 for every ticket that is processed, which would take effect July 1, if approved.
Mr. Harper questioned if the increased Courthouse Security fee is ear marked and kept separate.  Mr. Morgan said yes.  
Mr. Gentry questioned if there was a need to increase all of the fees.  Mr. Morgan said yes because there is a significant amount of staff time with some programs, such as the
setoff debt collection program, where the clerks have to do data entry for DMV and similar things.  Mr. Morgan stated it would be worth the effort to increase the fees.  Mr. Morgan added the fees for collecting on bad checks are fairly standard.  

Mr. Wright said when fees are increased, it encourages people to pay on time.  Mr. Wright said section 70-6 reads, taxes due and owing to the county for real estate, tangible personal property, machinery and tools and merchants' capital shall be due and payable in one installment on or before December 5.  Mr. Wright said for many years, the County has allowed for flexible installments or estimated taxes, as long as a minimum of $25 was paid.  Mr. Wright said according to this ordinance, the County will only accept one installment and will no longer have flexibility with payments.  Mr. Morgan stated the current ordinance reads this way; the only thing changed was the eight to ten percent.  Mr. Wright said he thinks the wording should be changed to not cut the ability for citizens to pay periodically.

Mr. Havasy questioned why it is the responsibility of the Treasurer to worry about such things and why get into an individual payment plan.  Mr. Havasy said the volume of work and the cost of running the Treasurers Office is being added to.  Mr. Wright stated this is the way things have been done for years.  Mr. Havasy said they have been done without an ordinance and questioned why change the ordinance now.  Mr. Morgan suggested taking out the words “in one installment.”
 

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to amend sections 70-6, 70-7 and 34-2, and to add sections 70-12, 70-13 and 70-14 of the County Code, with the removal of “in one installment” in Section 70-6.

CUP03-07; RTW Construction Corporation c/o Rea T. Williams, Applicant; P. Duncan VanNess, Owner; requests the issuance of a conditional use permit for the establishment and operation of a building construction yard and office.  The property is located on the south side of Route 33 (Jefferson Highway), 0.3 mile east of Route 601 (Paynes Mill Road).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 92-72A in the Jackson Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.

There was no one present at the April 11, 2007 Neighborhood Meeting to discuss this application other than the applicant.

The Development Review Committee met on April 25, 2007 to review the conditional use permit request.  The discussion was basically about the conditions proposed by Staff and whether the applicant was satisfied with the conditions or if there were concerns.  The applicant and several Committee members felt that some of the conditions needed more clarification.  After some recommended changes, the Committee voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission with the thirteen (13) conditions that follow, as amended.

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on May 10, 2007 at which there was one person present who spoke during the public hearing.  The concern raised was fencing for the storage of equipment.  The Planning Commission advised that per the proposed conditions, the equipment would not be visible from Route 33.  Several Commission members also questioned the need for VDOT approval of the entrance.  It was explained that whenever there is a new use on a parcel, VDOT must review for conformance.

There being no further questions or discussion, the Planning Commission voted, 6-0 with Mr. Spencer absent, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors.

The subject property is zoned agricultural and the 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of the County for agricultural uses and the A-2 zoning district provides for this type of activity with the issuance of a conditional use permit by the Board of Supervisors. The proposed use could be integrated with minimal adverse impacts on the subject neighborhood provided the following conditions listed below and any others that the Board may deem appropriate:

1. Office hours of operation are as follows:
        Monday - Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
        Closed on Sunday
2. Any lighting shall be of the dark sky variety.
3. Appropriate Development and Building Permits must be issued for the change of use on the primary structure.
4. Entrance permit from the Virginia Department of Transportation shall be obtained.
5. The permit is not transferable to another applicant or owner.
6. Site Plan submittal with administrative review and approval.
7. All construction equipment and supplies must be kept within the accessory structures during non-business hours with the exception of special order supplies in large quantities, which     shall not be seen from the public right-of-way.
8. All hazardous material and fluids shall be disposed of in a safe manner and in accordance with all applicable regulations.
9. Outside storage of scrap construction materials, parts and/or containers is strictly prohibited.
10. All harmful liquid material will be properly labeled.
11. Retail sales construction/building supplies to the general public are not allowed.
12. The Board of Supervisors or their designated representative reserves the right to inspect the premises at any time without prior notice.
13. Violation of any of the conditions shall be grounds for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Rea T. Williams, Applicant, stated the business for the Conditional Use Permit has been operating currently at his home, which is about seven tenths of a mile from the proposed location.  Mr. Williams said the current location has been outgrown.  Mr. Williams said the business employees approximately fifteen full-time people and contributes to employment of about 100 more people within the County.  Mr. Williams said he lives in the community and has no desire to do anything other than raise cows, use the actual house structure for the office and use accessory structures for storage.  Mr. Williams said he hoped the Board would give consideration to the application.

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the request for issuance of a conditional use permit for the establishment and operation of a building construction yard and office.

CUP04-07; Wayne Baker, Applicant/Owner, request the issuance of a conditional use permit for the rental of two duplex units.  The properties are located on Route 749 (Forest Hill Road) at the intersection of Forest Creek Trail and on Forest Creek Trail immediately behind the first parcel.  The property is further identified as tax map parcels 11-(16)-17A and 11-(16)-17B, in the Green Springs Voting District.  The 2006 Comprehensive Plan designates this area of Louisa County as Agricultural/Very Low Density Residential.

There were four people present for the Neighborhood Meeting held on April 11, 2007.  Those individuals present indicated their deep-seated concern for maintenance of the subject property, related to zoning issues such as property maintenance, including trash, debris and junk vehicles.  There were also concerns mentioned regarding the proximity of the property to Shenandoah Crossing and maintaining the property in an aesthetically pleasing manner.

The Development Review Committee met on April 25, 2007 to review the requested conditional use permit.  The only concern expressed by the Committee was that the permit includes conditions relating to the storage of junk vehicles, trash and debris.  Staff explained that this was addressed in the conditions, in that the applicant must submit property maintenance language to be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney, which would then be attached to all leases by the applicant.  The Committee then voted 6-0, with Mr. Jennings absent, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission with the following eight (8) conditions.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, 2007 at which there were six people present who spoke regarding this application.  Concerns ranged from the upkeep of the property, existing debris on-site, a previous house fire and affect on property values and precedent for future requests of this type.

The Planning Commission questioned the effectiveness of the proposed condition relating to property maintenance.  Staff advised that the document had been reviewed by the County Attorney and in Staffs opinion was adequate.

The Planning Commission voted 6-0, with Mr. Spencer absent, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Louisa County Board of Supervisors with the conditions listed below.

1. The conditional use permit be limited to the rental of the existing two-duplex structures consisting of a total of four-units (two in each building).
2. Review of existing utilities (including well and septic facilities) by the Louisa County Health Department.
3. Entrance permit issued by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
4. Review of the existing structures by the Building Inspections Division of the Community Development Department for compliance with all building code requirements.
5. A property maintenance agreement must be submitted to and approved by the County Attorney. Once approved this document must be attached to and become a part of all lease     agreements for rental of the units.
6. Both properties shall remain in conformance with all Louisa County Codes and the approved property maintenance agreement.
7. The Board of Supervisors or their designated representative reserves the right to inspect the premises at any time without prior notice.
8. Violation of any of the conditions shall be grounds for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.

After analysis, it seems this proposed use could be integrated with minimum adverse impacts to the neighborhood if all of the above conditions are maintained.  A property maintenance agreement was submitted.  The County Attorney has indicated to Staff that there are provisions for property maintenance and feels that satisfies the condition and concerns.

Mr. Wright questioned if this is the same property there were issues on a few years ago.  Mr. Coffey said yes.  Mr. Morgan said the whole neighborhood has been cleaned up in that area and all problems have been corrected.  Mr. Gentry questioned if the maintenance agreement goes along with the property.  Mr. Morgan said yes.  Mr. Harper questioned if it is private road.  Mr. Coffey stated it is gravel road.

Mr. Dominic Rago, Patrick Henry District, stated he was speaking for the applicant.  Mr. Rago said he has known Mr. Baker for about 25 years and Mr. Baker agrees to all of the stipulations the County has proposed and he will apply some of his own.  Mr. Rago said he has known Mr. Baker to do anything to help people and to abide by the laws as much as possible.  Mr. Rago said VDOT reviewed the existing entrance at the property for site distance and there is an adequate site distance of 600 feet or more in both directions.    

Mr. Barnes said there has to be some way to incorporate more duplexes in the ordinance of future plans because they are one of the most affordable ways to provide housing.  Mr. Barnes said he is glad to see this project being utilized to provide affordable housing.  Mr. Jennings said there is definitely a need for this type of housing within the County.  Mr. Jennings said this would also help with the affordable housing program.  Mr. Gentry said a professor from the University of Virginia (UVA) said the main solution for affordable housing is rent and commented that Louisa County doesnt have enough.    

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to approve the request for issuance of a conditional use permit for the rental of two-duplex structures consisting of a total of four-units (two in each building).

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Barnes said he has been to the Williamsburg Outlets and he had the opportunity to visit the Leesburg Outlets for design ideas for the Zions Town Center.  Mr. Barnes encouraged the Board to visit the Leesburg Outlets to look at the design.    

Mr. Gentry reminded the Board that Relay For Life is this Saturday beginning at 9:30 a.m.  Mr. Gentry added this should be a nice community event.  


BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Harper stated he would like to reappoint Rebecca Disosway to the Social Services Board and Ronnie Laws to the Board of Road Viewers.  Mr. Gentry stated he would like to appoint William Hale as a member of the Board of Building Appeals.  

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Harper, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board appointed Ms. Disosway to the Social Services Board, Mr. Laws to the Board of Road Viewers and Mr. Hale to the Board of Building Appeals.  

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - Recognizing Jerry Chaney for his twenty-five years of service on the Transportation Safety Commission

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Jerry Chaney for his twenty-five years of service on the Transportation Safety Commission.

Resolution - For a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for funds donated for the K-9 program

        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for funds donated for the K-9 program.

Resolution - For an appropriation for funds donated for the creation of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution for an appropriation for funds donated for the creation of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Lintecum stated there is a letter included in the Board Packet from Mr. John Davies regarding the ramp improvements at Interstate 64.  Mr. Lintecum said there is also a letter included from the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) wanting a third Industrial Zoning category.  

APPROVAL OF BILLS

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of May 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $305,942.59.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the May 21, 2007 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, with Mr. Purcell being absent, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adjourn the June 4, 2007 meeting at 7:38 p.m.



BY ORDER OF

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