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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JULY 6, 2009
5:00 P.M.

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

Others Present: Dale Mullen, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Greg Hoffman, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration and Kimberly Smith, Records Clerk, Administration

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the July 6, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Gentry led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the July 6, 2009 agenda was adopted.

PRESENTATIONS

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

Mr. Mullen read the resolution and presented a signed, framed copy to Mr. Fletcher Jones.

Mr. Harper
said Mr. Jones parents deserved to be commended for their support and he was sure that the skills learned by Mr. Jones during Boy Scouts would stick with him throughout life.

OLD BUSINESS

Resolution - Approving the Community Development Departments Bonding Estimate Policy

Mr. Camp asked that this item be tabled until the next Board meeting because he had received new information about a House Bill that was passed that could affect this policy.

The Board agreed to table action on the Community Development Departments Bonding Estimate Policy until the next Board meeting on July 20, 2009.

Resolution - Approving the Community Development Departments Setback Compliance Policy

Mr. Camp said setback compliance had been an issue with the County for quite some time.  Mr. Camp said since 2005, over 18 setback and variance applications had been applied for.  Mr. Camp said he wanted to receive approval from the Board before establishing a policy within the Department to help ensure setback compliance.

Mr. Camp said this policy recommended improvement in administration and in the building permit application process as well as
foundation surveys and setback verification for structures that would be built within 20 of the setback area.  Mr. Camp stated that the policy would also make it mandatory that an existing plat or a new survey be submitted with every building permit application.

Mr. Camp said both the Planning Commission and
the Board of Zoning Appeals had recommended a policy that required surveys in certain situations.  Mr. Camp presented a PowerPoint presentation of real-life situations where the Setback Compliance Policy would come into play.

Mr. Camp stated a plat was necessary because there was so much inaccurate data.  Mr. Camp noted that the GIS System was inaccurate in some places and a plat would always be more accurate.  Mr. Camp said there was also incomplete data.  Mr. Camp pointed out that without a plat, staff could usually not tell when there were easements or right-of-ways on the property, which required different setbacks.

Mr. Havasy asked what kind of fees would be charged from the surveyor to complete a survey.  Mr. Camp said in most cases, a survey was already being required from the bank or the mortgage company and the survey would basically be a duplication of information.  Mr. Camp said a survey could cost anywhere from $300 to $1,000 depending on the amount of work that had to be done.

Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Camp how much time he thought this would add to the process of someone trying to build a house.  Mr. Camp said the key thing would be coordination.  Mr. Camp said an applicant would know up front if a survey was going to be required.  Mr. Camp said the applicant would have to line things up to have the surveyor out to survey the foundation.

Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Camp how many homes built in the County he thought would
be affected by this policy.  Mr. Camp answered 1 out of 10.

Mr. Byers asked how the 20 threshold from the setback was determined.  Mr. Camp said he conducted research in other counties and took that into consideration and 20 was what staff felt the most comfortable with.  Mr. Camp said he predicted that most people would take the Setback Compliance Policy into consideration when they choose the location and the layout of the house in order to avoid the survey requirement.

Mr. Spencer said he liked item six of the Policy which stated that inspectors would be trained in zoning practices to understand site sketches.  Mr. Spencer noted that the cost of a survey would be minimal compared to the price of paying to have a house moved because it was built in the setback.  Mr. Spencer said he thought this Policy was a great idea.

Mr. Gentry stated that he was very supportive of the proposed policy and said he thought it would help solve setback problems that the County had in the past.  Mr. Gentry motioned to approve the Community Development Departments Setback Compliance Policy.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper commented that something needed to be done about setback issues and stated that he agreed with Mr. Spencers comment.  Mr. Harper added that surrounding counties were cutting fees and he felt like Louisa was adding fees.  Mr. Harper stated that he felt the issue needed to be handled in-house rather than placing the burden on the property owner.  Mr. Byers said it seemed to him that this approach added additional responsibility to staff in-house as well as to the property owner.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Gentry's motion.

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

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 5-2, with Messrs Havasy and Harper voting against, the Board adopted a resolution approving the Community Development Departments Setback Compliance Policy.

Discussion - Disposal by Sale or Donation of County Owned Vehicles; History, Pending Requests, Recommendations

Mr. Hoffman said he was asked by the Board to look into how County-owned vehicles were being disposed of and to make sure the disposal method was compliant with State and County Code.  Mr. Hoffman said he had also developed a recommendation of how to dispose of County-owned vehicles going forward.

Mr. Hoffman said Mr. Linhares had been selling County-owned vehicles in front of the General Services office.  Mr. Hoffman said the County was probably receiving “top dollar” for those vehicles, but he felt that method was not in compliance with State or County Code.  Mr. Hoffman said the Code encouraged a competitive bidding process and that was his recommendation going forward.  Mr. Hoffman said Mr. Linhares would still like the ability to have the vehicle displayed in the front of General Services so he would be able to talk to people about it.  Mr. Hoffman said that could be done, but there still needed to be some type of competitive bidding process.

Mr. Byers stated that the Board had recently received a letter from a volunteer fire department requesting use of one of the surplus vehicles.  Mr. Byers asked if the volunteer fire departments would have to bid on the vehicles in order to receive them.  Mr. Hoffman said the County was required to provide for pre-auction sales to the volunteer fire departments at “fair market value.”  Mr. Hoffman said a discounted price could be offered to the volunteer fire departments, but was not required.

Mr. Byers said he understood that the vehicles could be passed on to volunteer organizations with a minimal fee, sometimes even just $1.  Mr. Hoffman said that could be done.  Mr. Hoffman said the auction and the bidding was only for the general public.

Mr. Harper stated in the past he thought the vehicles were titled to the agencies with the understanding that once the agencies were done with the vehicles, they would return them to the County.

Mr. Wright motioned for approval.  Mr. Hoffman said there was no action needed and that this was just an advisement to the Board.  Mr. Wright withdrew his motion.

It was the consensus of the Board to move ahead with the recommendation from Mr. Hoffman.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - To Join the Virginia Energy Purchasing Governmental Association (VEPGA)

Mr. Gentry motioned for approval.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Mullen said Mr. Wright had asked if the agreement included the School Board, the Town of Louisa and the Town of Mineral.  Mr. Mullen said the Louisa County Public Schools and the Town of Mineral were already members and the Town of Louisa was free to join at anytime.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the Joint Powers Association Agreement.

Discussion and Resolution - Ratifying Budget Transfers for the Department of Emergency Services for Equipment and Uniforms

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution ratifying a budget transfer for uniforms and personal protective clothing within the Emergency Services Department.

Resolution - Requesting Approval to Advertise and Hire a Full-Time Recreation Supervisor in the Department of Parks & Recreation

Mr. Gentry motioned for approval. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Spencer asked if this hire was to replace the employee who had resigned and fill a vacancy.  Mr. Mullen answered yes.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting approval to hire a full-time Recreation Supervisor in the Department of Parks & Recreation.

Discussion - Community Development 2010; A Resolution Requesting Approval to Advertise and Hire a Full-Time Senior Planner in the Community Development Department

Mr. Mullen said this had been before the Board several times.  Mr. Mullen said he was asked to present the position to the Board again once it was deemed necessary.  Mr. Mullen said this position was vacated by Mr. Will Cockrell.  Mr. Mullen said it had become clear to him through discussion with developers in the business community that much of the contact with Community Development was positive, although there was some communication that was consistently negative.  Mr. Mullen said some of that was due to predictability and some had to do with communication.  Mr. Mullen noted that some things could be done better.  Mr. Mullen said the current level of work could be maintained, but things would not get any better with the current staffing level.  Mr. Mullen said he wanted the County to improve and wanted the County to be the leader in planning and development.  Mr. Mullen stated he felt that could be done by filling the requested Senior Planner position within the next 90 days.

Mr. Spencer said he was against this position initially, but now felt the County needed to be prepared for what was coming ahead.

Mr. Byers said it seemed to him that a staffing level needed to be established for the County.  Mr. Byers said he could not understand how the County could continue to grow in numbers when the other businesses and industries were cutting positions.  Mr. Byers said he was not saying that the positions were not critical, but he felt that a staffing level for the County should be established.

Mr. Barnes said the Board hired Mr. Mullen to run the County and if he recommended something that did not work, he would be held accountable for it.  Mr. Barnes said he would be taking Mr. Mullens word that the position was needed because he felt Mr. Mullen would not come before the Board and request the position if it was not needed, especially in hard economic times.  Mr. Barnes stated he would be supporting this position.

Mr. Gentry said he had the pleasure of working with Mr. Cockrell through the Planning Commission and he personally understood how much work Mr. Cockrell did.  Mr. Gentry said most of what Mr. Cockrell did was not reliant upon the status of the economy.  Mr. Gentry said Mr. Cockrell worked to clean up internal problems and there were still some of those problems left to handle.  Mr. Gentry noted that he understood why the assistance of this position was being requested.

Mr. Spencer motioned for approval. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Spencer's motion.

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

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Harper voting against, the Board adopted a resolution requesting approval to hire a full-time Senior Planner in the Community Development Department.

Mr. Byers said somehow the County was going to have to establish a staffing level and work with that.  Mr. Byers said the County would not have to cut services or anything, but would have to look into more creative ways to utilize staff.  Mr. Byers said he could not see the use of steadily adding staff to the County.

Mr. Barnes said local county government was not heavy in staffing.  Mr. Havasy said he agreed.  Mr. Harper said it was not heavy because the funds were available.  Mr. Harper said if the funds were unavailable, it would be heavy.  Mr. Barnes said the County had outstanding and capable staff.  Mr. Barnes said it would be difficult for anyone to come up with a set number of people to run any particular organization.

Mr. Wright said these positions had been before the Board several times before filling them
, which showed that the Board had control over the growth of personnel in the County.

Resolution - Requesting Approval to Advertise and Hire a Part-Time Part Time Maintenance Technician I in the General Services Department

Mr. Gentry motioned for approval.  Mr. Barnes seconded for discussion purposes only.

Mr. Spencer asked what the position would do.  Ms. Vena said this was a budgeted position in the General Services Department.  Ms. Vena said the employee who formerly filled this position had requested “light duty” and Mr. Linhares was unable to accommodate that request.  Ms. Vena stated that Mr. Linhares had re-distributed the work load of this position throughout the General Services Department since the end of November 2008.  Ms. Vena reported that there were upcoming projects and the work would no longer be able to be re-distributed and Mr. Linhares was now requesting that this position be filled.

Mr. Harper asked if this was a replacement position.  Ms. Vena answered yes.

Mr. Spencer asked what tasks this position performed.  Mr. Mullen stated the position would do anything from general carpentry to light installation to maintenance and moving furniture.

Mr. Barnes noted that the email from Mr. Linhares stated that this was not a new position and it would only be filling a position that was already requested and appropriated for.

Mr. Gentry said he felt that new positions should come before the Board, but not positions that were simply being refilled.  Mr. Gentry said he felt it was the job of the County Administrator to make a decision like that.

Mr. Spencer said it was decided by the Board in 2008 that the Board would look at all positions before they were filled, even if it was just a vacancy.

Mr. Byers said the Board decided during the budget process, that some of the positions could be done away with.  Mr. Byers said that should be considered throughout the year and not just at budget time.

Mr. Havasy commented that positions like this one should not come before the Board and should be handled by the County Administrator.  Mr. Havasy said the County Administrator could be held liable for his decision to fill a position if it was unnecessary.  Mr. Havasy said Mr. Mullen was the CEO of the County and the Board should stay more in tune with their requirements.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting approval to hire a part-time Maintenance Technician I in the General Services Department.

Mr. Harper asked if positions like these should actually come before the Board or not.  Mr. Byers stated that if the Countys staffing level was being increased, the position should come to the Board for discussion.

Mr. Harper said what he felt other Board members were saying was if the position was in the budget, Mr. Mullen could handle it.  Mr. Harper said if a position was not in the budget, it would have to come before the Board.

Mr. Havasy asked how much the seven Board members knew about the day to day operations of the County departments.  Mr. Havasy said he felt Mr. Mullen knew and that the Board was not as qualified as the County Administrator was to make these types of decisions.

Mr. Spencer said he was originally against it, but it was determined by the majority of the Board last year that all positions would be reviewed by the Board with the idea that unnecessary personnel could be cut back on.  Mr. Spencer said he had confidence in Mr. Mullen.

Mr. Harper asked if there were any other County positions that were still in “limbo.”  Mr. Mullen answered yes.  Mr. Harper asked for a list of those positions to be provided at the next Board meeting.  Mr. Harper said the Board could then decide whether or not they wanted to address each position.  Mr. Byers asked for a list of the number of positions in the County and whether they were filled or vacant.

Resolution - Approving the Transportation Safety Commission Bylaws

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the Bylaws for the Louisa County Transportation Safety Commission.

Resolution - To Award a Contract to Chemung Contracting Corporation for Repairs to the Intergenerational Center Parking Lot

Mr. Barnes motioned for approval. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.

Mr. Byers asked Mr. Gentry if there was a life expectancy that was considered when paving was completed.  Mr. Gentry said that aspect was not contracted, but 10 years was what it used to be.  Mr. Gentry said 6 years was lucky now.  Mr. Gentry said it could definitely vary depending on the traffic or the thickness of the base.  Mr. Byers said there would be no way to prove that this parking lot did not hold up to industry standards the first time.  Mr. Gentry said he was sure that the contractor followed the VDOT standards, but that still provided no warranty.

Mr. Wright asked at what point this project would be bonded.  Mr. Mullen answered $100,000 according to County Code.  Mr. Hoffman said the County had discretion under $100,000 and bonds had been required under that amount before.  Mr. Hoffman noted that $100,000 was a mandatory level and he felt this project was a good example of the County using their discretion wisely.  Mr. Hoffman reported that this project would be complete in approximately 10 days and the payment cycle would be about 30 days.  Mr. Hoffman stated that the County would not be paying for the work until well after the job was complete.  Mr. Hoffman noted that the County had the right to withhold payment if the job was not done properly.

Mr. Gentry said there was a lot of work to be completed on the parking lot and he was concerned that there was not enough money in the contract to get it all done.  Mr. Gentry said areas of the parking lot would have to be cut out a new stone would have to be added.  Mr. Gentry said the contract amount was low from his perspective.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to award a contract for repairs to the Betty Queen Intergenerational Center parking lot.

Discussion - Department of Conservation and Recreations New Stormwater Management Regulations

Mr. Camp said DCR would be holding public hearings to present the new state-wide Stormwater Management Regulations and allow for public comment.  Mr. Camp said these new regulations would have a huge impact on the local engineering practices and development procedures.

Mr. Camp stated that the County held a “roundtable meeting” regarding the new regulations on June 22, 2009.  Mr. Camp said there was a consensus that the intent of the regulations was good, but they were excessive and did have a huge regulatory barrier for local developers and administrative work on local government.  Mr. Camp said he was seeking direction from the Board, but he recommended that an official local response be drafted and submitted to DCR before the public comment period deadline.

Mr. Harper stated that Ms. Alyson Sappington had made a presentation to the Board about the new regulations and he thought the Board had decided to drop the Countys stormwater policy and let DCR handle the program.
 Mr. Camp said he heard that doing that would cause more of a delay for local developers to obtain approvals.  Mr. Harper said he would rather take the complaints to DCR than to the County.  Mr. Harper asked why the County would want two sets of stormwater regulations:  one for the County and one for DCR.

Mr. Barnes stated that he was indifferent with turning the entire program over to the State.  Mr. Barnes said he would rather have citizens deal with someone local who can make a decision than deal with the State.  Mr. Barnes said that having the State administer the program could cause more lag or wait time for local businesses and developers.

Mr. Spencer said the County could pass all the regulations they wanted but if they did not comply with the State, it was a waste of time.  Mr. Spencer said he did not want the County to become involved in a situation between a developer and DCR.

Mr. Barnes said DCRs guidelines could be used, but the program would be administered and approved at a local level.  Mr. Barnes said he was fearful of making local developers and businesses wait for State approval.

Mr. Havasy said regardless of whether or not the entire program was turned over to the State, local developers were still going to turn to their Board member for answers and solutions.  Mr. Havasy said citizens could be referred to the State, but they would still expect answers from their Board member.  Mr. Havasy said he felt it would be wise for the Board to hear another mini-presentation on the new stormwater regulations because some of the money collected could be coming to the County.  Mr. Havasy stated that if the program was turned over entirely to the State, DCR would get all the money and would totally control the program with no local input.  Mr. Havasy stated that he was not going to willingly give up control of the County to the State.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Camp what he needed from the Board.  Mr. Camp said he wanted to formalize comments from the County to present in a written format to DCR.  Mr. Camp said he would draft some recommended language.

Mr. Gentry said his concern was that these regulations went too far and localities
were now being told that they had to comply with the regulations before there was any input up front.

Mr. Camp asked if it would be okay for him to speak with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District about taking this program up from a regional perspective.  Mr. Harper asked what the Thomas Jefferson Planning District would help the County do.  Mr. Camp stated they would help create a local regional program.  Mr. Camp said that some details would have to be worked out, but it would be worth exploring.

Mr. Spencer said he would support whatever Mr. Camp
recommended.  Mr. Wright suggested starting by placing the item on the July agenda of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District for discussion.

Mr. Harper asked that Mr. Camp develop a draft comment by working with Thomas Jefferson Planning District and Mr. Mullen and present the draft to the Board before DCRs August 21, 2009 public comment deadline.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Spencer asked that Ms. Angela Hammond be reappointed to the Region Ten Community Services Board.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board reappointed Ms. Angela Hammond to the Region Ten Community Services Board.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Mullen stated that when the Board asked him questions, he was going to try to make sure that all the questions were answered and were answered in a way that could be referred to at a later date.  Mr. Mullen pointed out a memo to the Board from himself that addressed questions from the Board members and provided answers, which would be done from time to time.

Mr. Mullen reminded the Board of several events that would take place over the course of the next few months.

Mr. Mullen said he was asked about several aspects of economic development and tourism over the past week and he wanted to set the record straight on one of the items.  Mr. Mullen stated there was an idea that some money was treated differently than other money in the County.  Mr. Mullen
stated there was $125,000 raised for the construction of the Piedmont Crossroads Visitors Center and other tourism needs.  Mr. Mullen said not all of that money was expended and there was currently about $42,000 remaining in the account as of May 31, 2009.  Mr. Mullen said these were funds that could be used to design and construct the kiosk and maybe have money left over to pay for highway directional signs for the Louisa County Visitors Center at the Sargeant Museum.  Mr. Mullen said the money was now public money and was subject to the same procurement policy, regulations, ordinances and code as any other money.  Mr. Mullen said this money would be expended in the same manner as any other public money.  Mr. Mullen stated that nothing had been bought and no commitment had been made in regard to the Louisa County Visitors Center.

Mr. Harper asked how that money was appropriated.  Mr. Mullen said he did not research the appropriation history from last year.  Mr. Mullen said it was his idea that the money would have been appropriated just as any other public money would have.


Mr. Harper asked where that money appeared on the appropriations.  Mr. McLeod said he thought that once a month, a report was presented to the Board asking that the funds be appropriated.  Mr. Harper asked if that appropriation carried from year to year.  Mr. McLeod said that was carried over because he had a request from Mr. Gibson to do so.  Mr. Harper asked if the appropriation could carry over.  Mr. McLeod said the funds were carried over because they were operational.  Mr. Harper said he understood the funds being carried over, but asked if an appropriation could be carried over.  Mr. Mullen answered no.

Mr. Mullen said carryover was a very imprecise term and he preferred to use re-appropriation.  Mr. Mullen said if money was not re-appropriated, it was returned to the General Fund balance.  Mr. Mullen said if money was re-appropriated, it could be considered carried over, but it was a new appropriation for the new fiscal year.

Mr. Harper asked if the $42,000 was re-appropriated or if it was in the General Fund balance.  Mr. McLeod said it was re-appropriated.  Mr. Harper asked if the money was in the budget.  Mr. McLeod answered yes.  Mr. Harper asked if it was under Economic Development.  Mr. Spencer asked if it was capital or operational.  Mr. McLeod said he would have to check on that.  Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod or Mr. Mullen to send the Board an email with an explanation.

Mr. Gentry
asked if Mr. Mullen was going to take his $20,000 spending authority and move forward with the project.  Mr. Mullen said he did not have anything presented to him.  Mr. Mullen reported that Mr. Hoffman had asked Mr. Gibson to work with Ms. Stewart to prepare an RFP or an invitation to bid.

Mr. Hoffman said the only thing he had seen was a request from Mr. Gibson to have architectural drawings made.  Mr. Hoffman said Mr. Gibson had one quote and he was advised that the County Procurement Policy required three phone quotes.  Mr. Hoffman said as far as he knew, Mr. Gibson was setting out to receive the additional quotes.  Mr. Hoffman said he had not seen any resolution to the issue or any kind of contract to get architectural drawings.  Mr. Hoffman said it was his belief that no money had been spent and Mr. Gibson was still working on gathering phone quotes.

Mr. Spencer said four members vot
ed in favor of providing money to the Louisa County Visitors Center and three members voted against it.  Mr. Spencer stated that he recently found out that there had been 50,000 flyers lying around since 1999 that were never handed out by tourism.  Mr. Spencer asked why anyone was bothering with the project if no Board member had requested spending $28,000 on it.  Mr. Mullen said nothing had been requested that he could even act on yet.  Mr. Hoffman said he had not seen anything either.

Mr. Harper said he would like the Board to wait and receive a response from Mr. McLeod as to where the $42,000 was located.  Mr. Harper said if the money had not been re-appropriated, it would have to come back to the Board anyway.  Mr. McLeod said the money was appropriated last September in the Fiscal Year 2008 Carryovers into the Fiscal Year 2009 budget.  Mr. McLeod said the County was now into Fiscal Year 2010 and nothing had been re-appropriated at this time.

Mr. Barnes said it appeared that the connection fees through the Water Authority were doing w
hat they were supposed to be doing.  Mr. Barnes said he felt the Board should commend Mr. Bar Delk for the job that he did for Louisa County.

Mr. Wright pointed out that the July 17, 2009 meeting with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission would include Mayors and Chairs as well as the CAOs.  Mr. Wright said it had been changed into a combined meeting.  Mr. Wright said he would verify that information and update Mr. Mullen.

Mr. Byers said he spoke with Mr. Mullen and Mr. Dubé
about an article in Parade Magazine that talked about volunteer firefighters.  Mr. Byers said it provided statistics and noted that 72% of America firefighters were volunteers.  Mr. Byers said it would be nice to learn what Louisa Countys ratio was.  Mr. Byers said he would like the Board to help support Chief Dubé to work on a plan that would help encourage volunteers to become more active and would help retain those volunteers.  Mr. Byers pointed out that volunteers provided valuable service at a fraction of the cost of paid personnel.

Mr. Barnes said the Board had been around and around looking for ways to increase volunteerism.  Mr. Barnes said the County could not hire paid personnel to do what volunteers do in the community.  Mr. Barnes stated that volunteers were the key to any community fire and rescue programs.

Mr. Havasy said he worked with the fire and rescue committees and he would personally take any support from the Board members to help encourage and retain volunteers.

Mr. Gentry said a few years ago there was a report made with suggestions on how to
encourage volunteers.  Mr. Gentry said he was not sure who created the report, but he would like to find the report and follow up on it.  Mr. Gentry said there were ideas for recognition and ideas to say thank you to the volunteers.

Mr. Wright asked Mr. Mullen to check on workers compensation regulations because there was a time when a volunteer could be considered an employee under workers comp if anything was done of monetary value for that volunteer.  Mr. Wright said the County had been giving volunteer firefighters and rescue personnel free County stickers for years.  Mr. Wright said that could become an expense item and it needed to be looked into.

Mr. Havasy said some of the surrounding localities provided a $100 credit to their active firefighters and volunteers on their real estate taxes every year.  Mr. Havasy said that was something significant that could be done to support the local volunteers.  Mr. Wright said that would be more than a $20 County sticker.  Mr. Havasy pointed out that the County did not even have the County sticker anymore anyway.

Mr. Spencer said the $20 County sticker was free for volunteers for years and years and he found it amazing that there were so many people receiving stickers, yet no one running any emergency calls.  Mr. Spencer said the Transportation Safety Commission would serve free chicken dinners at their picnic, but if an emergency call went out, no one would respond.

Mr. Wright said he thought the captains of the volunteer fire and rescue departments had to certify that the people on the list for free stickers actually were active and ran calls.  
Mr. Harper said the free County stickers were intended as tokens of appreciation and were not intended to have a monetary value.

Mr. Harper said he agreed with Mr. Byers that the Board should set a goal for a certain percentage of fire and rescue to be volunteers.  Mr. Harper said he felt like the County was not making any effort on their volunteerism.  Mr. Harper said he did not support retirement for the volunteers because that should be for the paid personnel.  Mr. Harper said he thought the $100 tax credit for act
ive volunteers was a great idea, but he did not think that was going to recruit very many volunteers.  Mr. Harper said the relationship between volunteers and paid personnel was going to recruit volunteers.

Mr. Havasy said Chief
Dubé had become a tremendous asset since he started by getting new recruits.  Mr. Havasy said all of the volunteer rescue captains and all of the volunteer fire chiefs had been active in recruiting volunteers.

Mr. Spencer said he had no problem with the $100 real estate tax credit as long as it could be proven that the volunteers were active.

Mr. Mullen said one of the biggest things done by the Board this year was approving the Fire Training Center which would inspire training among the volunteers.  Mr. Mullen said he would like to get a copy of the article from Parade Magazine to put in the July 20, 2009 Board packet as well as try to find the study mentioned by Mr. Gentry about volunteers.  Mr. Mullen said he would like to work with the Board to develop a plan of action for the volunteers for 2010.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - Recognizing the Louisa County Water Authority for Receiving the 2008 Excellence in Waterworks Operations Performance Award

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing the Louisa County Water Authority for receiving the 2008 Excellence in Waterworks Operations Performance Award.

Resolution - To Take One (1) Street in the Royal Crest Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to take one (1) Street in the Royal Crest Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia.

Resolution - Commending Charlie Wilson on Receiving the Boy Scouts Highest Award of Eagle Scout

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution commending Charlie Wilson on receiving the Boy Scouts highest award of Eagle Scout.

Resolution - For a Supplemental Appropriation to the Emergency Services Department for a Fire Programs Training Mini-Grant

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Emergency Services Department for a Fire Programs Training Mini-Grant.

Resolution - For a Budget Supplement for a Victim Witness Grant for the Commonwealth Attorney's Office

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a budget supplement for a Victim Witness Grant for the Commonwealth Attorney's Office.

Resolution - For a Supplemental Appropriation to the Clerks Office for Records Preservation Grant Program

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Clerks Office for a Records Preservation Grant Program.

Resolution - Transferring funds from Parks & Recreation FY 10 CIP to Louisa County Public School FY 10 CIP

Mr. Byers said it appeared that there was $20,000 approved initially and only $12,400 was actually needed to build the fence at Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.  Mr. Byers stated that it left $7,600.  Mr. Byers asked where the left over money would go.

Mr. Havasy said he had a feeling that the $12,400 was material and the left over was for construction.

Ms. Shelhorse said $20,000 was the original estimate for the cost of the fence at Moss-Nuckols Elementary.  Ms. Shelhorse said when the construction company came back with the change order, the fence was only $12,400.  Ms. Shelhorse said it appeared that the County saved $7,600.  Ms. Shelhorse said she would probably keep that money for the fence in case the construction company came back and said a gate was overlooked or something.  Ms. Shelhorse said Mr. Linhares and she had looked at the design and it appeared that the whole fence project would be done for $12,400.

Mr. Harper said the left over money was going into Park Development and Enhancement.  Mr. Byers said this was the same question that the Board asked the School Board when it came to construction of Moss-Nuckols Elementary.  Mr. Byers said not all of the money was being spent, but the left over was being kept.  Mr. Byers asked if the $7,600 should go back into the General Fund.

Mr. Gentry said he thought the money went back into the Parks and Recreation budget, but it could not be spent unless it was approved by the Board.  Mr. Gentry said he looked at it as the left over $7,600 was going into the Parks and Recreation General Fund.

Mr. Harper said the resolution stated that the left over money was going into the Park Development and Enhancement line item.  Ms. Shelhorse said the money would have to be approved by the Board before being spent.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to authorize a budget transfer within the CIP for a fence for the ball fields at Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.

Resolution - Release of Funds to the Louisa County Volunteer Firefighters Association for Fiscal Year 2010

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution outlining the disbursement of funds to the Louisa County Volunteer Firefighters Association and the Emergency Medical Services.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of June 2009 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $ 559,674.54.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the June 15, 2009 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:42 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

  1. In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (1) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance of departments where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals.
  2. In accordance with §2.2-3711 (A) (5) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussing a prospective business or industry (or the expansion of an existing business or industry) where no previous announcement has been made of the business or industrys interest in locating (or expanding) facilities in the community.
  3. In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on actual or probable litigation (specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel).

REGULAR SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 6:55 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 6th day of July 2009, pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and

WHEREAS, §2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with the Virginia Law.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 6th day of July 2009, that the Louisa County Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting was heard, discussed or considered by the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Wright abstaining, the Board voted to advertise a Public Hearing to be held within 30 days for the disposition of land owned by Louisa County in the Reedy Creek Subdivision.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Code (Chapter 2.  Administration, Article IV. Boards and Commissions) as they pertain to the Louisa County Department of Social Services:

REPEAL - Sec. 2-66.  Board of public welfare.
ADD - Sec. 2-72. Department of Social Services.

Mr. Mullen said the County had undertaken, at the able direction of Mr. Oswell, examination of the things in the Department of Social Services provided by the funding of the mechanism known as the Comprehensive Services Act that have resulted in increases in costs over the last half decade.  Mr. Mullen said some of those things had included causes as varied as the match rates set by the State and ranging to the way the Department of Social Services provided services to at-risk youth.  Mr. Mullen said the County already decided to add a full-time position known as the Family and Youth Services Coordinator who would assist Mr. Oswell, the County, the Courts and the State in determining what services best served the youth and families of Louisa County and to best accomplish that goal in the most cost effective way.  Mr. Mullen said it was believed that enacting this change would allow Mr. Oswell the continued freedom to run a responsive, professional and adequate Social Services Department while allowing the County to exercise the kind of fiscal and managerial oversight that was required.  Mr. Mullen said tonight was the first public hearing on the issue and the Board would be asked to take action after the public hearing.

Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Mullen if he had discussed this with Mr. Oswell.  Mr. Mullen answered yes.  Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Mullen if Mr. Oswell was agreeable to this idea.  Mr. Mullen stated that Mr. Oswell was the first person signed up to speak and he would let Mr. Oswell answer that.

Mr. Barnes said he just received clarification from the County Attorney that the Board liaison would not serve on the new Board.  Mr. Barnes said the County Administrator would serve as the new Board liaison.
 Mr. Mullen said that was correct.  Mr. Mullen stated it would create a “managerial loop” and no one wanted that to happen.  Mr. Mullen said the Code allowed the County two ways to administer their services.  Mr. Mullen said a meeting was held last week with members of the Board of Social Services and the only other change to the Board of Social Services would be the addition of one member.

Mr. Harper said he would like to say that tonights public hearing was about a process and not about people.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Mr. Paul Oswell, Director of Social Services, thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak at the public hearing regarding Department of Social Services (DSS) governances.  Mr. Oswell said the idea was new to him, but he had the opportunity to reflect on it over the past week and had begun to see some real value behind it.  Mr. Oswell said developing a closer relationship between Louisa DSS and County Administration could have an end result of a win-win situation.

Mr. Oswell said DSS was a very active organization, particularly in difficult economic times.  Mr. Oswell stated that citizens were coming in for services in numbers that had never been seen before.  Mr. Oswell said each
supervisor described what was going on in their respective program areas at each monthly staff meeting.  Mr. Oswell said the supervisors had reported that they were facing the challenge or responding to the task.  Mr. Oswell said his hope was, with a closer working relationship and team work, the citizens of Louisa County would come to understand what a tremendous value they had in their local DSS.

Mr. Oswell stated that the local DSS agency required a unique blend of working with local government and its citizens while working closely with the State DSS, which set policy and established programs.  Mr. Oswell reported that Virginias social service system was State-supervised and locally administered.  Mr. Oswell said the local DSS was closely involved in the workings of the Virginia DSS and if the local DSS was to be supervised by the State, then the local Director of Social Services was to be knowledgeable on actions, proposed policy and other activities of the State DSS.

Mr. Oswell said he served on two very important committees which had resulted in local directors influencing State action.  Mr. Oswell said he often found himself away from the office working with the State DSS.  Mr. Oswell stated that the new organization of the local DSS would allow for opportunities to better serve the citizens by having a closer working relationship between the local government and the State system.

Mr. Oswell said he was excited about working with the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors as the challenge was faced to provide quality human services and better outcomes for children and families with limited resources.  Mr. Oswell stated he believed that with better team work, everyone would be successful.


Mr. Dan Racette, 26 Derby Lane, Mineral District, said he agreed that supervision should take place at a local level and not at the State level.  Mr. Racette said he believed everything should stay local and he would like to see the Board more involved in Social Services.

Ms. Rebecca Disosway, 1009 Mt. Airy Road, Mineral District, said she was Vice-Chair of the Louisa Administrative Board of Social Services and had served for six years.  Ms. Disosway said she appreciated the opportunity that the Board of Supervisors provided her by allowing her to serve on that Board.  Ms. Disosway said she had learned a lot about Social Services, but she could not pretend to be an expert.  Ms. Disosway said Social Services was a complex organization that was tasked with administering both Federal and State programs, managing funds from multiple revenue streams, being State supervised while administering programs locally, all in an ever-changing environment that was impacted by such things as economy, population growth, new government regulations, tax revenues and cultural and moral changes over which the Department had little to no control.

Ms. Disosway said ever since she was appointed to the Board of Social Services, the demands on the Department had grown considerably.  Ms. Disosway said Louisas population had been growing and coupled with national economic conditions, there had been a steady increase in the number of applicants coming in seeking services.  Ms. Disosway said the Department was averaging over 12 new applicants per work day so far this year.  Ms. Disosway said as of May 2009, the Department had 63 children placed in custody compared to 25 children when she came on the Board in 2003.

Ms. Disosway said as demand had increased so had the cost
, most of which the Department had little to no control over because of the nature of the programs.  Ms. Disosway said there were options for reducing some costs and the Board was right to look into those options.  Ms. Disosway said she had heard ideas from Mr. Oswell for several years about how to better manage some of the Departments costs by providing services here in Louisa County for families.  Ms. Disosway said Mr. Oswell had actively pursued some of those options and had discussed his ideas with surrounding counties to share both the costs and the benefits of developing those resources.  Ms. Disosway said sharing an attorney with two other counties was one of the ideas put into practice.

Ms. Disosway said CSA related expenses could be a huge budgetary burden to the County, and that, along with the desire to keep Louisa children in their own community prompted Mr. Oswell to recommend to the DSS Board a study that would pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of Louisas CSA system.  Ms. Disosway said she understood that it was the CSA study that prompted the County to recommend re-structuring the DSS Board from administrative to advisory.  Ms. Disosway said she would like to remind the Board that the CSA program was not the sole responsibility of the DSS, but was a joint responsibility of other County agencies as well:  the school system, Region Ten, juvenile justice, the health department.  Ms. Disosway said Social Services was often at the mercy of decisions made at these other agencies and as the CSA study indicated, there was a need for all of these agencies to work together better as a whole to reduce costs and provide better services for Louisas at-risk youth.

Ms. Disosway said if restructuring
the Board of Social Services would empower the County to have more authority to bring these various agencies together, then there was a potential for saving money and improving services at the same time.  Ms. Disosway said because this could entail providing new resources in Louisa, she hoped that the Board was aware that it might have to spend more money in the short-term to save money in the long run.

Ms. Disosway said since restructuring the Board
of Social Services would shift administrative responsibility to the County, she encouraged the Board to recognize that the best Social Services resource available was its Director, Mr. Oswell.  Ms. Disosway stated that no only did Mr. Oswell have a heart for the work, he also had a solid understanding of what it took to manage responsibilities handed down from three levels of government, to work with limited resources and an incredibly complex budget, to protect local dollars while maximizing other revenue sources and to improve the quality of the staff and to promote Louisas DSS around the Commonwealth.  Ms. Disosway said Mr. Oswell had been asked to serve on important committees, some of whose work had improved the salary structure and budget process of Social Services departments state-wide.  Ms. Disosway said she had been told by people at other Social Services agencies about how well respected Mr. Oswell was around the State.  Ms. Disosway said she had enjoyed working with Mr. Oswell and she hoped the County would respect his expertise and vision for the community.

Ms. Disosway said if the Board voted in favor of the restructuring, she hoped it would result in improved services for Louisas citizens at a reduced cost for tax payers.  Ms. Disosway thanked the Board again for the opportunity to serve on Louisas Board of Social Services.

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

Mr. Harper said this was a very difficult process to tackle as the speakers had already pointed out.  Mr. Harper said this had to be a joint effort and he felt that more day-to-day administration was going to be added that would help the process and take some pressure off Mr. Oswell.  Mr. Harper said he hoped Mr. Oswell would be able to help even more in some of the areas that he was specialized in.

Mr. Wrig
ht stated that he was going to abstain from voting.  Mr. Wright said he was concerned about the speed in which the changes happened and was concerned about inadequate communication.  Mr. Wright said he had just learned last Thursday in a joint meeting with the County Administrator and the County Attorney about changing the current DSS Board and he was the one that served on that Board.  Mr. Wright said he knew it was a done deal and he was not going to oppose it, but he was not going to support it either.

Mr. Harper said the DSS Board was not being done away with and it was simply the function that was being changed.  Mr. Wright said it was being changed from a board of directors to an advisory board.  Mr. Harper said he did concur that the changes were rapid, but he was glad to see that communication was out sufficient enough to obtain approval from the Social Services Director and some of the members from the DSS Board.

Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Oswell if he was okay with this proposal.  Mr. Oswell said he was okay with it.  Mr. O
swell said it was something new and different.

Mr. Spencer said he helped hire Mr. Oswell and he
felt that Mr. Oswell was thoroughly qualified and capable of doing what needed to be done. Mr. Spencer said there was now a County Administrator on staff who knew what he was doing and a County Attorney who could readily answer questions.  Mr. Spencer said he felt that between all three people, there was going to be one positive change.

Mr. Havasy said one of the things that he had tried to do was research the cost
and performance of Louisa County services and compare them to other localities.  Mr. Havasy said something that made him really happy was the fact that Louisa was providing quality services, but it was being done cheaper than the other counties surrounding Louisa.  Mr. Havasy stated that he was in favor of doing the restructuring because he felt that it was going to streamline county government.  Mr. Havasy stated that he did not like turning control of the County over to the State.  Mr. Havasy said he applauded the Social Services Department for their more than adequate job.

Mr. Byers said he was relatively new at this process.  Mr. Byers said
that each time he received the bill report, there was an astronomical amount of money that exceeded the amount of money that was budgeted for DSS.  Mr. Byers said seeing that created an interest for him and he then agreed to serve on the CSA Study Committee.  Mr. Byers said it became apparent that the people working in the services area had a sincere concern for the citizens.  Mr. Byers said he never understood why Mr. Oswell would agree to fund a project that could have impacted his job, but he did.  Mr. Byers said something needed to be done to make the Social Services process work more effective and more efficient.  Mr. Byers said it seemed apparent that the Social Services Board did not do as much as needed to be done in order to make sure that it was established that the Board wanted to work collectively to make the process work for everyone.  Mr. Byers said he supported this process and commended the people who had been involved.

Mr. Gentry said most of the time when he saw CSA
items, he only thought about paying the bill.  Mr. Gentry said the County was looking into more coordination and hoped that this process would give the County more insight to the other agencies such as the schools, Region Ten, etc.  Mr. Gentry said if this did not work, it could always be redefined again later.  Mr. Gentry said he was looking forward to positive changes.

Mr. Spencer motioned for approval.  Mr. Byers seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Spencer's motion.

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

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Wright abstaining, the Board adopted a resolution to amend the Code of Louisa County, Article IV.  Boards and Commissions, as they pertain to the Louisa County Board of Public Welfare and to name the County Administrator as the local Board of Social Services and to provide for an Advisory Social Services Board.

Public Hearing - CUP03-09; May V. Robinson, Applicant/Owner requests the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment and operation of an assisted living facility.

Mr. Camp noted that this was a request for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment and operation of an assisted living facility.  Mr. Camp reviewed the staff report, which detailed the applicant, location, tax map number, zoning and property use.  Mr. Camp stated that the applicant would like to be able to care for up to three individuals and noted that the threshold was established by the Virginia Department of Social Services.  Mr. Camp said the applicants son was currently living on the property in a single-wide trailer under a temporary special exception approved for medical reasons.  Mr. Camp stated that the applicants son would not count towards the maximum three individuals.

Mr. Camp also reviewed the Neighborhood Meeting, the DRC Meeting and the Planning Commission Meeting results.  Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission forwarded a recommended of approval with conditions to the Board.

Mr. Camp said Condition 1 required that a site plan be submitted and Condition 2 required that a sign permit be submitted for any signs that would be placed on the property.  Mr. Camp noted that Condition
3 allowed for the maximum number of residents in care to be three.  Mr. Camp said Condition 4 gave the Board or a designated representative the right to inspect the property at any reasonable time and Condition 5 stated that any violation of the conditions were grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.  Mr. Camp said that Condition 6 stated if the use of the property as an assisted living facility ceased for a period of one year, the Conditional Use Permit would become void.

Mr. Spencer asked if there was anything that stated that the Conditional Use Permit was not transferrable.  Mr. Camp stated that Condition 6 was added so that the assisted living facility would have to run perpetually rather than basing the Conditional Use Permit on the property owner.  Mr. Spencer said someone else could then buy the property and operate it as an assisted living facility and the CUP would be transferred.  Mr. Camp said that was the understanding.

Mr. Spencer said one of the conditions was that the maximum number of residents cared for would be three and included relatives.  Mr. Spencer asked why her son would not be counted towards that total of three.  Mr. Camp said the applicants son would not count toward the maximum number of three residents as long as he did not receive care in the assisted living facility and he had already clarified that with the Virginia Department of Social Services.

Mr. Spencer asked about the special exception on the property that was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.  Mr. Camp stated that it was a special exception to allow the single-wide trailer on the property in order for the applicants son to live there.

Mr. Spencer asked if the CUP was for the single-wide trailer or for the house.  Mr. Camp stated it was for the house.  Mr. Camp said the special exception was for the second dwelling on the lot, which was a single-wide trailer that
the applicants son was allowed to live in because of medical reasons.  Mr. Camp added that approval had to be received from a doctor on the medical special exception every year.

Mr. Byers said the Board had historically linked CUPs to the fact that they were not transferrable.  Mr. Byers said he understood that Condition 6 was now the direction that the County would like to go in.  Mr. Camp said the language in Condition 6 was one alternative as far as limiting the time frame of a CUP.  Mr. Camp said he understood that it was not legally appropriate to link a CUP with the property owner and it should be linked to the property.

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

Mr. Havasy asked why the Board should approve the request if the applicant would not even show up.

Mr. Wright said he was sorry that the applicant was not present because he would have liked to commend her for
doing something like this.  Mr. Wright said there are many people who need facilities like this one, but it could be very cost prohibitive to go to a for profit, commercial one.

Mr. Byers noted that at the DRC meeting, VDOT stated that a commercial entrance would be needed, but it would not have to be paved.  Mr. Gentry said he would suggest removing the VDOT requirement from the Boards resolution because he did not want the Board to become involved.  Mr. Gentry said the applicant could work with VDOT one-on-one and he did not want it to appear that the commercial entrance was a requirement from the County.

Mr. Harper asked what Emergency Services was going to do.  Mr. Wright said Emergency Services could get access.  Mr. Barnes said Emergency Services had been traveling down that road already.  Mr. Camp stated that commercial project applications had been forwarded to Emergency Services so they were aware.
 Mr. Harper asked if that was for informational purposes or if there was a review process performed by Emergency Services.  Mr. Camp said there had been a few times where Emergency Services would forward recommendations back to Community Development.

Mr. Havasy asked if the applicant was notified for this meeting.  Mr. Camp answered yes.

It was the consensus of the Board to remove the statement regarding approval from the Health Department, VDOT and Emergency Services from the Board's resolution.

Mr. Barnes motioned for approval.  Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to decide on the request for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment and operation of an assisted living facility.

Public Hearing - Grant funds available through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. If awarded, the funds will be used for a Juvenile Probation Monitoring Program to explore and implement alternatives to juvenile incarceration.  

Mr. Mullen said it was a requirement of the Byrne JAG Grant to advertise for public hearing.  Mr. Mullen said the Grant money would be used to explore programs for at-risk youth.

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

Mr. Wright motioned for approval.  Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to support the use of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds for a Juvenile Probation Monitoring Program to explore and implement alternatives to juvenile incarceration.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Barnes motioned for approval to only hold the first meeting in August this year, which would take place on August 3, 2009.  Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote on Mr. Barnes' motion.

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

Mr. Harper and Mr. Wright noted that their approval was based on the fact that the September 8, 2009 meeting would not be too heavy since the second August meeting was being skipped.

Mr. Barnes asked for information to be provided to the Board at the second meeting in September regarding redistricting.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the July 6, 2009 meeting at 7:43 p.m.

BY ORDER OF


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