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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JUNE 19, 2006
5:00 P.M.



Board Present: Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell, and Jack T. Wright
Absent: Fitzgerald A. Barnes
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; and Mary Jackson, Deputy Clerk


CALL TO ORDER

Vice-Chairman Gentry called the June 19, 2006 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m. Vice-Chairman Gentry requested a moment of silence in remembrance of V. Earl Dickinson. Mr. Purcell led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.


CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS


Nancy Pleasants, Commissioner of Revenue, provided an update to the Board on the tax relief for the elderly and disabled. Mrs. Pleasants said that they have received 459 applications, with 418 of those qualifying for the relief as of today. Mrs. Pleasants explained that some of the remainder of the applicants are still working on getting additional information together that is needed; therefore, they could have additional applicants that qualify. Mrs. Pleasants said that based on the new tax rate of 64 cents per every $100, the amount of relief equates to $284,959.78. Mrs. Pleasants pointed out that in her synopsis, she has included the amounts for 2004 and 2005 for them to have for comparison.

The Board briefly discussed this topic with Vice-Chairman Gentry asking if she had examined what the numbers would be if the Board decided to allow for the maximum amounts. Vice-Chairman Gentry questioned how the application process was going and if they had to assist the individuals with filling the applications out. Vice-Chairman Gentry commented that the educational session that she held at the church several months ago was exceptional. Mr. Wright stated that Ginger Palmer that works at the Intergenerational Center has assisted quite a few individuals with their applications.

Mrs. Pleasants responded by saying that she has not reviewed the number at the maximum amount. Mrs. Pleasants said that the individuals that have been in the program for a while have not had any problems with the application process, but they have provided assistance to many individuals who are new to the program.    

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD


June Simms, Green Springs District, informed the Board that she was here this evening along with some of her neighbors to support the proposed Inoperative Vehicle Ordinance. Ms. Simms provided pictures to the Board that depicted what one of her neighbors yard looks like that is across the street from her and a business that operates four doors down. Ms. Simms said that there are times that these vehicles are stacked forty high and she has been told that this is a crushing operation. Ms. Simms stated that she is concerned that these individuals do not have enough property for the type of operation they are running. Ms. Simms said that she understands that this could be a business source that helps in the future to dispose of many of the inoperable vehicles if the ordinance were passed. Ms. Simms extended her appreciation to the Board for considering such an ordinance and urged them to approve it. Ms. Simms expressed her concerns about the potential health hazards that this business presents.

Bill Blanchard, Mineral District, informed the Board that he was here this evening to speak about the proposed Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance. Mr. Blanchard said that he wishes to commend the Board its efforts to enact and pass this and other ordinances that come before them. Mr. Blanchard questioned what their game plan was to enforce this and other ordinances that are passed. Mr. Blanchard stated that he is aware of one other ordinance that has been passed that is not enforced of no camping in a residential area; however, if someone were to apply for and were issued a building permit, they would be allowed to have a camper on site while constructing their home. Mr. Blanchard said that he lives in a community that is zoned residential and has an individual that has been issued two building permits since 2004. Mr. Blanchard said that two inspections have been made by the County since these permits were issued with the first one being for the water and the other being for sewage and septic. Mr. Blanchard said that no building exists, nor has any excavation been done. Mr. Blanchard said that both of the previous permits have expired, which they are able to obtain a new one if they were to apply. Mr. Blanchard said that without a permit, it is his assumption that these individuals are camping. Mr. Blanchard said that he was raised to believe that a law is a law and it should not be broken.

Reverend Charles Sims, Patrick Henry District, informed the Board that he has been quite concerned about the information that he read in an article in The Central Virginian regarding inoperable automobiles. Reverend Sims said that the article mentioned abandoned trailers, which concerns him since he has one of these trailers on his land. Reverend Sims said that his trailer in currently being prepared to be moved, but from what he understood in this article is that this would cost him around $800.00 to move it to the Louisa County Landfill. Reverend Sims stated that he pays his taxes and has always tried to meet the ordinances that are set in the County in any way that he can. Reverend Sims said that he didnt understand why a trailer of this nature couldnt be moved to the back of their parcel out of sight to be used as storage.

Paula Staub, Mineral District, stated that she would like to applaud each and every one of them for the Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance. Ms. Staub said that she believes that a lot of work has gone into this and that it is something that needs to be taken care of. Ms. Staub said that she is unclear on how they are going to go from the ordinance to enforcement. Ms. Staub said that if there is a complaint, then a fee would be imposed on these individuals that are found to be in noncompliance. Ms. Staub questioned how these complaints would be filtered and enforced. Ms. Staub said that she is concerned that there might be individuals that harbor ill feelings that have mal intent in seeing the enforcement of this ordinance used as a mean of harassment of neighbors. Ms. Staub questioned whether they would consider informing individuals of who made the complaint for those who are not in violation.      

Albert Gutekenst, Mineral District, Clean Community Commission Chairman, said that they have been trying to work with the Board on the Inoperable Motor Vehicle Ordinance, which he hopes that they have contributed. Mr. Gutekenst said that along with the penalties of getting rid of the inoperable vehicles, he would like to stress to everyone in the community that they have a large list of people that would remove these vehicles at no charge to the individual. Mr. Gutekenst said that this is not meant to be punitive action against anyone, but more of an aid to help individuals get rid of junk on their property. Mr. Gutekenst said that the Clean Community Commission has been working with VDOT to help get the roads clean. He said that they would be instituting a program to recognize a citizen or organization, at least once a month, in the community who has contributed to keeping the community cleaner. Mr. Gutekenst urged the Board to pass this ordinance as it has been presented.

Vice-Chairman Gentry extended his appreciation to the Clean Community Commission and the individuals that made up the committee to review the Inoperable Vehicle Ordinance.

Scott Morency, Cuckoo District, informed the Board the he and some other individuals had worked with the Clean Community Commission on this ordinance. Mr. Morency stated that he is a firm believer of property rights and doesnt believe that what an individual does on his or her own property should bother others unless it has a direct impact on them. Mr. Morency said that he understand that there are issues that need to be addressed in the community for junk cars, trash, and other things of that nature. Mr. Morency said that he doesnt feel that law should be adopted that is used in towns or cities. He said individuals who have moved here have come to escape the ways of the city and the people. Mr. Morency said that the community is growing every day and the individuals that have lived here for generations tend to do things the slow way at their own pace, which is the way that they grew up. Mr. Morency stated that the clean up process is a good thing. Mr. Morency said that they worked on the ordinance to consider both sides. Mr. Morency said that they should have a gradual process of implementing this ordinance by educating the citizenry and allowing the appropriate time to dispose of the junk cars. Mr. Morency said that he is concerned about list of individuals that has been composed who could come pick up the inoperable vehicles; questioning whether they are qualified to handle these vehicles. Mr. Morency pointed out that the state of Virginia has strict guidelines on how vehicles are to be disposed of, which has not been addressed at any of the meeting that he has attended. Mr. Morency said this ordinance is a step in the right direction, but to go in and start July 1, 2006 without knowing how they are going to finish it is a step in the wrong direction.

Bill Martin, Jackson District, applauded the Board for developing the ordinance and the folks that participated with the Clean Community Commission in adjusting some of the problems that were there. Mr. Martin stated that he feels that the ordinance that has been posted on the web is an outstanding ordinance and is a starting point. He said that it would need to be modified as time goes along, but he personally supports it. Mr. Martin said that the ordinance does have provisions that allow individuals to have the cars on their property with the appropriate shielding.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA


Mr. Wright said that he would like to have the Boards approval to have
Lee Lintecum, County Administrator, send a letter of commendation to the Relay for Life for the tremendous results that they have this year. Mr. Wright said that he feels sorry for the leadership they will have next year since they have more than doubled their amount in each of the three years.

Vice-Chairman Gentry said that the members of the Relay for Life are having a wrap up meeting tomorrow evening and still have funds coming in; therefore, he doesnt feel that they are quite ready to hear this from the Board. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that the Chairman of the Relay for Life would be making a final presentation to the Board. He said that it was a very successful weekend and a lot of work went into it. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that the main thing that he enjoyed seeing was that they had about forty teams with at least fifteen members on each that resulted in a tremendous community function. Mr. Wright said that the efforts have been made regardless of what the final count is.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carries by a vote of 6-0, the Board agreed to authorize the County Administrator to write a letter of commendation to the Relay for Life thanking them for all that they have contributed to Louisa County for this tremendous effort.

Mr. Lintecum said that he would like to add an industry yet unannounced in the Louisa area to the agenda as a topic for closed session.

Vice-Chairman Gentry said that he would like to add the Louisa Rescue Squad 50
th Anniversary as a topic for discussion to the agenda.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the June 19, 2006 agenda was adopted as amended.


PRESENTATIONS


Resolution Recognizing Toni Buhrer for Her Seven Years of Service


On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, a resolution was adopted recognizing Toni Buhrer, Deputy IV, for her seven years of dedicated service to the Louisa County Treasurers Office and the citizens.


Mr. Lintecum read the resolution for all to hear and presented Mrs. Buhrer with a plaque.

Gloria Layne, Treasurer, extended her appreciation to Mrs. Buhrer for all of her hard work and dedication to her position. Mrs. Layne said that she truly appreciates everything she has done. Mrs. Layne introduced Mary Grubbs to the Board as the individual that would be filling the position that Mrs. Buhrer is leaving.

VDOT Monthly Update

Jamie Glass, VDOT Assistant Resident Administrator, said that they are still operating under the spending restrictions that were handed down from the Central Office, which might lead into the first quarter of next years budget as well. Mr. Glass summarized their maintenance activities as routine maintenance operations of mowing the roads, patching, brush cutting, and machining dirt roads. Mr. Glass summarized their construction activities saying that their state force construction crew has completed building Route 804 (Rock Springs Road) and will surface treat it once they have received the stone for the job. He said that once they receive verification of the bond and a resolution for the right of way they would begin the Industrial Access Project for Route 807. Mr. Glass said that their bridge crew has begun preliminary work on the sidewalks on Route 1002 (South Street) in the Town of Louisa and paving contractors would begin starting the work on June 12 on Route 15 between Zion Crossroads and Boswells Tavern. Mr. Glass said that VDOT has reviewed twelve plans for proposed new subdivisions and forwarded to their Culpeper District Planning Department for their review and comments. Mr. Glass identified their traffic/safety issues as being a speed study for Route 613 (Oakland Road) between Route 33 and Route 692 (Hickory Creek Road), which was denied since most individuals were already exceeding the 55MPH speed limit; Route 25 MPH speed limit signs were installed on Route 1025 (Douglas Road); speed limit reduced to 35 MPH on Route 601 (Orchid Road) between Route 810 (Orchid Drive) and the end of state maintenance; reduced speed limit to 25 MPH on Route 1099 (Oak Ridge Drive) between Route 601 (Orchid Road) and the end of state maintenance; submittal to their Traffic Engineering for a citizen request of reduced speed limit on the dirt road portion of Route 723 (Bohannon Road), which VDOT performed a traffic count on this road and determined that the volume per day would qualify this for a Rural Addition and would be considered for their Six-Year Plan in the fall; and a citizen request for a reduction in speed on Route 755 (New Anna Road) has been submitted to their Traffic Engineering.    


The Board discussed this presentation with Mr. Purcell asking what the current status was with Walnut Woods. Vice-Chairman Gentry asked what the status was on Route 699. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that he noticed that the Board has recently received correspondence that reflects nineteen different changes in the laws made by the General Assembly this year pertaining to VDOT and asked if they intended on meeting with staff to educate them on these changes.

Mr. Glass responded that the environmental review was just submitted to their office for Walnut Woods and the last step will be to open the project to funding. Mr. Glass said that this would be done once funding is approved. Mr. Glass said that they have been having some difficulties with their Central Office in getting the open construction funding. Mr. Glass said that Richmond is currently working with them on getting the funding open. Mr. Glass said that they were involved in a statewide videoconference last week that introduced all of the changes and new funding programs to them where they said they would be sending correspondence to each locality identifying all of the changes.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Wright said that based on correspondence that they have received in the past; he doesnt believe that the changes would be made clear to them. He suggested that they have a work session with the Planning Commission, staff, and the Board to allow them to ask questions to have a better understanding of these changes.


Resolution To Add Alma Gaynelle Drive, Marcia McGill Way, Harry M. Lumsden Court, Lisa Lane, and Maple Springs Court into the VDOT Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County


        On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 6-0, a resolution was adopted to add Alma Gaynelle Drive, Marcia McGill Way, Harry M. Lumsden Court, Lisa Lane, and Maple Springs Court into the VDOT Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia.


Louisa Rescue Squad 50th Anniversary

Vice-Chairman Gentry said that it was brought to his attention today that the Board had not recognized the Louisa Rescue Squads 50
th Anniversary, which he was able to attend the celebration. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that he believes that the Board should have done something to recognize them for this anniversary. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that he would like the Board to consider a resolution recognizing them for their fifty years of service to the citizens of Louisa County.

        On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, a resolution was adopted recognizing the Louisa County Rescue Squad for their fifty years of service to the citizenry of Louisa County.

OLD BUSINESS


Discussion Updated Inoperative Vehicle Ordinance

Pat Morgan, County Attorney, informed the Board that he has enclosed a draft of the proposed ordinance that includes each of the changes that have been recommended by the Board and the committee. Mr. Morgan said that he had a conversation with Mr. Wright earlier this morning on one section that seemed inconsistent with other parts. Mr. Morgan said that if they were to look at Section 74-86, sub paragraph b, it talks about if one were restoring a vehicle, they would be able to keep an additional vehicle there provided that they are both shielded. Mr. Morgan said that this is meant to be in addition to the three that are mentioned in sub paragraph a. Mr. Morgan said that it might be better if the paragraph were to read as, “in addition to provisions of sub paragraph a, if the owner of such vehicle could demonstrate that he is actively restoring or repairing the vehicle and if it is shielded or screened from view, then the vehicle and one additional inoperable vehicle that is shielded or screened and being used for the restoration or repair may remain on the property.” Mr. Morgan said that he believes that this was the intent of the recommendations for someone who is restoring a vehicle.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright pointing out that paragraph b differed from paragraph a, because paragraph a said that the vehicle would have to be screened from a visible public right of way, but paragraph b did not specify. Mr. Wright said that they both should be subject to the same terms.

Mr. Morgan said that when he originally drafted the ordinance, he had put in an effective date of July 1, 2006 knowing at that time that there would have been four to five months before it took effect. Mr. Morgan recommended to the Board that if they should decide to adopt this ordinance that they make the effective date as January 1, 2007 to allow time to provide public advertisement identifying the rules and how it would be implemented.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Vice-Chairman Gentry pointed out that the reference to trailers has been removed from the ordinance and asked Mr. Morgan to confirm this. Mr. Purcell asked Mr. Martin if during their discussion on what had been previously proposed compared to what is currently reflected if there were any discussion given to the amount of acreage that these cars are located on. Mr. Purcell said that he would like to know if this issue is more prevalent on larger parcels or if it were an overall problem, which is something they could possibly address by setbacks. Mr. Jennings said that he would like to the public to be made aware of exactly what is going on in plain language and asked Mr. Morgan if he was right or wrong by saying that a property owner could have three unshielded vehicles.  

Mr. Morgan confirmed that trailers have been stricken from the ordinance completely. Mr. Martin replied that they tried to make it to where the vehicles could be shielded from public right of way, but they did not get into discussing small lots. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that they did discuss the setbacks and found the problem to exist on various sizes of parcels. Mr. Morgan said that the way that this reads is that a property owner could have no more than three inoperative motor vehicles which are not within or enclosed in any structure may be stored on the property; otherwise, shielded. Mr. Morgan confirmed that a citizen could have three unshielded inoperable vehicles.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Mr. Jennings said that he agrees with Mr. Wright that the public needs time to arrange for proper removal of the vehicles. Mr. Jennings said that his next comment is mainly concerning the public right of way. He asked whether this applied to property owners who owned a lot of inoperable vehicles that have them moved away from the public right of way.

Mr. Morgan replied that they way that this ordinance was drafted, it only applies to vehicles that can be seen from the public right of way therefore, if you had a two hundred acre parcel and moved the vehicles towards the back of the property away from the public right of way, then it would not apply.            

Mr. Jennings pointed out that the resolution indicates a welfare and health hazard; therefore if the individuals have enough property off of the main road then this would not present a health problem where as, the individuals that are on the public right of way have a health problem. Mr. Jennings questioned if this issue were more about visibility. Mr. Jennings asked how individuals who have County vehicles on their property would be impacted by this ordinance. Mr. Jennings commended the individuals who have voluntarily worked to help clean up some of the roads throughout the County.

Mr. Morgan said that there is still a health problem for these individuals as well, but from an enforcement standpoint it becomes more difficult. Mr. Morgan said that he did have one occasion to respond to a complaint from citizens several years ago about inoperable vehicles on a neighbors yard, but the only way for them to have known about the vehicles on the property was to have trespassed on the land since you could not visibly see them from the street or the property line. Mr. Morgan said that this issue has to do with enforceability. Mr. Morgan said that the original draft did not include anything about public view, but it was modified to reflect public right of way. Mr. Morgan stated that these individuals who have County vehicles on their parcels would fall under the same criteria as others. Mr. Morgan said that this is why he has asked for a delay with the effective date to allow time for them to effectively deal with these individuals.    

Upon further discussion, Mr. Wright asked for further clarification on what Mr. Jennings had asked. Mr. Wright said that when he reads the ordinance, he understood inoperative to mean that these individuals were allowed to have no more than three that is not in an enclosed building or structure may not be stored on a property unless otherwise shielded or screened. Mr. Wright said that Mr. Morgan confirmed that the individuals were allowed to have up to three that are not shielded, which he understood that they had to be shielded. Mr. Wright said that the verbiage should be changed to clarify. Mr. Wright said that he had spoke with Mr. Morgan to verify that if a citizen were making a good faith effort to clean up their property if the County would work with them to allow some additional time prior to implementing fines.

Mr. Morgan confirmed that the intent of this ordinance is to have these vehicles shielded, correcting what he had previously stated on page seven, paragraph five. Mr. Morgan said that the philosophy has always been to get things cleaned up and not seek a criminal conviction or imposing a fine.  

Mr. Jennings said that he has issues with individuals property rights. Vice-Chairman Gentry said a lot of work has gone into this ordinance to get them to where they are, which there are still a lot of concerns and questions. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that that they knew that this wasnt going to be easy going into it. Vice-Chairman Gentry said following the public hearing, the committee has worked on this for ninety days trying to consider all aspects, which there still seems to be some minor changes that need to be made. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that they are going to provide a six-month time period for individuals to get things cleaned up before they implement it. He said that there isnt any easy way to do this in his opinion. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that if the Board were to adopt this ordinance this evening, then they are going into this recognizing that it is not a perfect document and might need adjustments in the future. Mr. Purcell said that he is in a unique situation with this because he has firm beliefs about certain things. Mr. Purcell said that he believes that this ordinance looks good and feels that the committee worked extremely hard on it composing it, but he still has a part of him that has a problem with this. Mr. Purcell said that he doesnt like seeing the junk vehicles. Mr. Purcell said that he would consider supporting this if they were to allow a certain number of inoperable vehicles to be on a persons property without having to be shielded. Mr. Wright emphasized that they have to start somewhere and when they talk about an individuals property rights, they have to keep in mind that there are two sets of rights. Mr. Wright said that you have the property owner and the rights of those who are surrounding neighbors. Mr. Wright said that he would like to make the motion to approve this ordinance with the minor modifications that Mr. Morgan has noted and allow the six-month period to have time to educate the public. Mr. Havasy said that the County has progressed tremendously over the past fifty years. Mr. Havasy stated that he gets offended when people tell him that they should be able to keep junk. Mr. Havasy pointed out that a lot of work has gone into creating this ordinance and in speaking with the general public, he has not found any debate about the junk vehicles; therefore, he would support it. Vice-Chairman Gentry asked Mr. Wright to confirm if was including Mr. Jennings comments about the three vehicles that would be allowed in his motion. Mr. Wright responded that the ordinance reflects that the vehicles must be shielded and he would prefer to leave it this way. Mr. Purcell said that the Long Range Planning Committee spent a lot of time defining shielding and asked Mr. Morgan to further clarify what they determined shielding to be.

Mr. Morgan said that the ordinance says that the vehicles must be shielded or screened from public view means that it would not be visible by someone standing at ground level from outside of the property on which the vehicle is located.    

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 42, with Messrs Jennings and Purcell voting against, a resolution was adopted to add a new Article to Chapter 74, from 74-85 through 74-89 of the Louisa County Code for an Inoperative Motor Vehicle Ordinance that would become effective January 1, 2007 as identified in resolution number RES06.099 that is on file in the County Administrators Office.


Discussion Updated E911 Ordinance


Pat Morgan, County Attorney, reminded the Board that when they discussed this issue at their last meeting, they had asked him to make a change in the wording from the last draft for them to see that the County would issue the signs and that the property owners would get their address signs from the County. Mr. Morgan said that his response to this was listed in paragraph c where he put that it would be the duty of the property owner for any new or altered building to obtain proper house numbers from the County and attach them in the proper place. Mr. Morgan said that he and Mr. Wright had talked about this briefly where it was not clear on what he meant, saying that when he mentioned house numbers, he meant the sign itself with the house numbers on it; therefore, he would recommend changing it to house number sign to identify it clearly. Mr. Morgan said that if this were what the Board wants, he would recommend scheduling it for public hearing.

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board agreed to schedule the E911 Sign Ordinance for public hearing.

NEW BUSINESS


Discussion Electoral Board Possible Bail Out for Department of Justice (DOJ)

Mr. Morgan informed the Board that they have a request before them from the Electoral Board asking them to consider a bail out of the special provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Mr. Morgan said that this act was passed to increase the participation of minority voters in elections. Mr. Morgan said that in certain states where there were discriminatory practices that prevented minority participation, special rules were applied and they continue to apply to date. Mr. Morgan said that one of the special conditions is that any change in any voting procedure has to go to either a Federal District Court in Washington, D. C. or for a pre-clearance by the DOJ. Mr. Morgan explained that any time there is a change in voting procedure, on behalf of the Electoral Board, he would write a letter to the DOJ identifying the change in the procedure and requesting their approval. Mr. Morgan said that this typically takes a sixty-day time period to receive approval from DOJ. He said that during this time period, whether they passed an ordinance or changed a voting location, they would not be able to implement it without the approval from DOJ; otherwise, they would be violating a federal law. Mr. Morgan said that there are certain exceptions when you are able to obtain expedited consideration for requests. Mr. Morgan said that they recently had changed the voting precinct that had to be submitted to DOJ for approval after the Board approved it. Mr. Morgan said that election procedures is defined by DOJ as very minute changes so it could be something as simple as the Registrar wanting to keep her office open for an additional hour, then they would have to obtain approval before they could do so. Mr. Morgan said that the draw back to this procedure is that whenever the Registrar gets a request from a civic group or someone that could qualify to register individuals to vote, if they only have a week or two to go, they would not have time to receive approval from DOJ. Mr. Morgan said that there was a time that they had asked DOJ for a blanket approval for requests of this nature with short notice, but they insisted that they had to see each and every event come before their office. Mr. Morgan said that the bail out relieves the County from having to go before the Federal Court or DOJ to make these changes, which leaves the Registrar a lot more flexibility and more opportunity to register voters. Mr. Morgan said that if the Board has an interest in pursuing this, then they would put notification in the newspaper and at the post office, as it is required by law, that they notify the citizens they intend on filing this action. Mr. Morgan said that it requires a motion for declaratory judgment in the Federal District Court in Washington, D. C., which outlines that the County has not been involved in any discriminatory practices in the past ten years and has pre-cleared every change in voting procedure that it has gone through. Mr. Morgan said that this would alleviate them having to go through Washington to get approval every time they make a change. Mr. Morgan said that once this is filed, the process usually takes six-months to obtain approval.  

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Purcell saying that he could see some of the advantages to this, but questioned what would stop them from saying that they would open the precincts for less time. Mr. Purcell said that they are establishing policy for the next twenty to thirty years. Mr. Purcell said that this law is in place for some reason since it still exists. Vice-Chairman Gentry asked if the County has had a particular incident that has brought this about.

Mr. Morgan stated that Congress did renew this law the last time it had expired. Mr. Morgan said that there is ample evidence that those jurisdictions covered under the act have not in any way involved in discriminatory practices. Mr. Morgan said that there have been challenges in the past for localities redistricting that maybe didnt have the right racial composition. Mr. Morgan responded that there has not been a particular incident, but the idea was that there are certain jurisdictions within the Commonwealth that have already gone through the bail out procedure. He said that the idea was that this could be a benefit to the County.
Cris Watkins, Voter Registrar, said that she experienced one incident that she was involved with that prompts her to support this. Mrs. Watkins said that when the Town of Louisa went to staggered terms, they had their own attorney that did not go to DOJ to get pre-clearance, which they did not find out about this until March and the election was to be held in May. Mrs. Watkins said that this kept them wondering for a while whether they would be able to have the Town election or not. Mrs. Watkins said that she has had several requests from groups asking her to come out and do voter registration, which is something that she is unable to do without this approval. Mrs. Watkins said that more localities are bailing out. Mrs. Watkins said that as far as Mr. Purcells concern for them making adjustments to the time that the voting precincts are open is not something that they could do because these are mandated by the state and the General Assembly. Mrs. Watkins explained that the bail out only pertains to voter registration and precinct locations.

Upon further discussion by the Board, Vice-Chairman Gentry questioned what would happen if things were to change in the future, saying that this had to be a law that has been upheld for some reason. Mr. Havasy asked how long this bail out has been available to the localities. Vice-Chairman Gentry asked what the Board would need to do if they decide to go this route.

Mrs. Watkins replied that they are subject to spot checks to verify they are handling things accordingly. Mr. Morgan said that in the pre-clearance that they receive from the Attorney Generals Office, the last sentence says something to the affect of the fact that if they receive pre-clearance, it does not preclude them from being investigated if they were to receive a complaint. Mr. Morgan said that he believes that there has always been a procedure, but it has been extremely difficult. Mr. Morgan said that the last time that the Voting Right Act was amended, this procedure became a little more flexible. Mr. Morgan said that when the Registrar first approached him about going through the bail out process, there was an attorney in Northern Virginia that was willing to handle the process for a fee of $10,000, which seemed a bit much to him. Mr. Morgan said that with the information that he has received; there would be a fee for processing this request because the attorney that files the action in the District of Columbia has to be a member of that courts bar, which he is not. Mr. Morgan explained that the Board would have to advertise in the local paper and in the U. S. Post Office that they are contemplating filing this action, which does not commit them to filing it. Mr. Morgan said that they would be able to back away from this if they were to receive a large number of complaints from the citizenry. Mr. Morgan said that otherwise, this is a procedure of filing the paper with DOJ to have them look over the records to confirm they have not violated the act.

Upon final discussion by the Board, Mr. Purcell said that he would like to have more time to learn more about this subject. The Board agreed to table this topic for thirty days to provide time to individuals to learn about the subject and schedule the topic for discussion at their August 1, 2006 regular meeting.

Resolution Appropriating Federal and State Funding to the Louisa County Schools

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that they have received a request from the School Board to appropriate revenues that they have received during the year, the majority of which comes from the sale of fuel and the maintenance provision to the County Agencies, Fire and Rescue, from the Town of Mineral and Louisa that would allow them to close out their fiscal year. Mr. Lintecum said that
Halsey Green, School Director of Finance, was here this evening if the Board had any additional questions.

The Board discussed this topic with Vice-Chairman Gentry questioning how they were receiving revenue from fuel costs. Vice-Chairman Gentry asked if this revenue was anticipated and how it goes into the fact that next years budget is asking for more funding because of the increased costs.

Mr. Green explained that some of these funds have already been collected because they bill monthly for the use of fuel and the maintenance facilities. Mr. Green said that they have to get the funds appropriated so they can cover their fuel bills. Mr. Green said that there isnt any mark up in the cost of fuel.

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, a resolution was adopted approving the supplemental appropriation of federal and state funding to the Louisa County Public School Division in the amount of $194,441, with $29,441 of it being expended on instructional lines and $165,000 on vehicle maintenance fuel lines.

Resolution Supplemental Appropriation for State and Federal Revenue to The Louisa Department of Social Services

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 6-0, a resolution was adopted approving the supplemental appropriation of state and federal funds from March 1, 2006 through May 31, 2006 in the amount of $164,153 to the Louisa County Department of Social Services.


Resolution Appropriate The Fiscal Year 2006 2007 Annual Budget

Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator, said that he has included a resolution to appropriate the budget that was approved by the Board on June 5, 2006. Mr. McLeod said now that the state has initiated their process in getting a budget, he would like to have this approved as an annual budget appropriation.

The Board discussed this topic with Mr. Wright saying that there were two corrections made to the budget for the Landfill and the Social Services Department, which initially said that the Louisa County School Board instead of the Board of Supervisors would approve it. Mr. Havasy said that he believes that everyone is aware of the fact that he had some problems with some of the issues in this budget as being excessive, but the Board has spoken on the overall budget; therefore, he would support appropriating the budget. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that he would like to comment that there were several line items that he had voted against, but in order to move forward, he would support appropriating the budget as it has been presented.

On the motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, a resolution was adopted approving the appropriation of the 2006 2007 Fiscal Year Budget in the amount of $82,703,302; which is $68,934,292 for the General Fund and $13,769,010 for Capital Improvement Projects fund by category which is further identified on resolution number RES06.094 that is on file in the County Administrators Office.  


COMMITTEE REPORTS


Mr. Wright reminded the Board about their discussion regarding the use of the Ogg Building by the Voter Registrars Office and the Board of Election. Mr. Wright said that they authorized the facility to be used as an absentee ballot precinct, which is going to require several upgrades to the facility. Mr. Jennings said that they had toured the facility today and initially thought that this was going to require major renovations, but found this to be untrue. Mr. Jennings said that this is more of a matter to install some type of permanent partition, phone lines, heating and air conditioning, which he feels could be operating with just spending a few thousand dollars. Mr. Jennings said that the majority of the work could be performed by the Facility Management Department. Mr. Jennings said that they were going to report back to the committee to provide the information for what they are wanting in the facility for them to work with. Mr. Wright said that the lock would need to be changed on the doors.

The Board discussed this topic briefly with Vice-Chairman Gentry asking if there was funding in the budget to cover these expenses. Mr. Wright pointed out that this would not interfere with the Sheriffs Department using the portion of this facility for their storage.

Mr. Lintecum said that there is funding in the budget under Facility Management to cover the cost of office improvements.  


BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Wright pointed out that Bill Martin should be modified on the Commission on Aging as the JABA appointed member and removed as the member at large.

Vice-Chairman Gentry said that he would like to reappoint W. C. Taylor to the Board of Road Viewers.

Mr. Havasy said that he would like to reappoint Robert Norton to the Board of Road Viewers.

Mr. Harper said that he would like to reappoint Ronnie Laws to the Board of Road Viewers.

Mr. Purcell said that he would like to reappoint George Jones to the Board of Road Viewers.

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board reappointed W. C. Taylor, Robert Norton, Ronnie Laws, and George Jones to the Board of Road Viewers.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT

Mr. Lintecum presented his report highlighting the following items:


Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has received a letter from JAUNT indicating that their state allocation is less than they expected. Mr. Lintecum said that he would transfer the necessary $2,800 to cover this shortfall instead of them having to increase fares or reduce services.

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he has enclosed a copy of the Community Development Summary Report for the month of May that was submitted by
Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development.

The Board discussed this with topic with Vice-Chairman Gentry saying that he noticed that manufactured home increased in the month of May, but building permits decreased. Vice-Chairman Gentry asked Mr. Coffey if he thought this was a starting trend.

Mr. Coffey said that he doesnt know if this is going to be a trend or not, but he has heard from a lot of different sectors that the economy is slowing down. Mr. Coffey said that based on their activity, he does not have any major indications that things are slowing. Mr. Coffey said that he doesnt feel that the amount of manufactured homes reflects enough to say that it is a trend.

Mr. Lintecum informed the Board that he would be out of the office from June 21, 2006 through June 25, 2006 attending the VLGMA Conference; therefore, if they needed any assistance they could contact Mr. McLeod.

CONSENT AGENDA


On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board agreed to adopt the Consent Agenda for five public hearings that will be held on July 5, 2006 and the following three resolutions:


Resolution Supplemental Appropriation to The County Administrators Office for Employee Recognition  

        On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing a supplemental appropriation of $374.17 to the County Administrators Department for employee recognition.

Resolution Supplemental Appropriation of Fire Program Funds


On motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing a supplemental appropriation of Fire Programs Funding in the amount of $46,853.25.  


Resolution Appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant


On the motion of Mr. Harper, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, a resolution was adopted authorizing the supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Department for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of $1,819.


CORRESPONDENCE


Mr. Purcell questioned where they stood on the report for the towers in the County. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that he believes that Mr. Purcell is referring to the plan that should be in place for them to determine where they do or dont need additional towers. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that the Board needs this plan to provide them with further knowledge when the applicants come before them.

Mr. Lintecum said that they have to find someone that has knowledge about this, but is not affiliated with any particular firm. Mr. Lintecum said that he and Mr. Coffey would work together on this to bring back to the Board.

LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE


Mr. Morgan did not discuss any legal correspondence with the Board.


CLOSED SESSION


On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:45 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:


1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (a) (5) of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended, for the purpose of discussing an industry yet announced in the Louisa area.


REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:20 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Harper, 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 the 19th day of June 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 19th day of June 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.


APPROVAL OF BILLS

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Gentry abstaining from a reimbursement check pertaining to him, a resolution was adopted approving the bills for the first half of June 2006 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $204,859.12.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES


Vice-Chairman Gentry said that for the June 5, 2006 minutes, he had two changes that he would like to have made. Vice-Chairman Gentry said that he referenced the amount of $745,000 instead of the $747,000 that was listed under the budget and had mentioned the fact that he had just received the five pages from Mrs. Bickley under the paid medics topic that he needed time to review.

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board adopted the minutes of May 23,2006, and June 5, 2006 as amended.


ADJOURNMENT


On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, the Board voted to adjourn the June 19, 2006 regular meeting at 7:24 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


________________________________
FITZGERALD A. BARNES, CHAIRMAN
LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA