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

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
JULY 20, 2009
5:00 P.M.

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

* Mr. Barnes arrived at 5:03 p.m.
Absent:Jack T. Wright
Others Present: Dale Mullen, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Greg Hoffman, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of General Services; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Pam Vaughan; Human Resources Generalist; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration and Kimberly Smith, Records Clerk, Administration


Chairman Harper called the July 20, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Ms. Carol Thornton led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.


* Mr.
Barnes arrived at 5:03 p.m.

Mr. Harper stated that he would like to have personnel and probable litigation included under Closed Session.  Mr. Barnes said he would like to add a school construction issue discussion to the agenda.  Mr. Harper noted that item would be added under New Business.  Mr. Spencer said he would like to add a health and safety discussion to the agenda after Citizens Information Period.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent, the July 20, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.


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

Mr. Steven Kvech with the Health Department Office of Drinking Water said he wanted to present an award to the Louisa County Water Authority.  Mr. Kvech said it was a Gold Performance Award and the award was intended for waterworks that went above and beyond minimum standards and met extra performance goals.  Mr. Kvech said gold was the top award and the Louisa County Water Authoritys Northeast Creek Reservoir met all the goals for 2008.  Mr. Kvech said he wanted to present the award to the operator, Mr. Hunter Martin, and recognize all the great things being done.

Mr. Harper thanked Mr.
Kvech for coming and said the Board also appreciated the many great things being done by the Louisa County Water Authority.  Mr. Harper said it may seem like the Water Authority was being taken for granted at times, but the Board certainly appreciated the many things that the Water Authority did.

Mr. Harper asked if this was the first time the Water Authority had received this award.  Mr. Bar Delk said the Water Authority had received it a couple times before.  Mr. Delk said the award was still a great honor and noted that the operators did a wonderful job at the Northeast Creek

Presentation - Verizon High Speed Internet Access in Louisa County

Mr. Harper said he understood that this item had been withdrawn.

Mr. Mullen said a Verizon representative was planning on attending the meeting, but notified the County ahead of time that he would not be able to make it after all.  Mr. Mullen said the Verizon representative had agreed to be present at the August 3, 2009 meeting.

Mr. Barnes said this was very unfortunate because there were people planning on attending the meeting and hearing from Verizon.


Discussion and Resolution - Approving Renovations to the Ogg Building and Louisa County Administration Building

Mr. Mullen said he was asked to look into some of the resources available within the County and identify where the County could use what they already had without building new infrastructure.  Mr. Mullen said one of the things that became clear to him while looking at County-owned buildings with Mr. Linhares was the use of the Ogg Building.  Mr. Mullen said the Ogg Building was located next to the Circuit Courthouse.  Mr. Mullen said many of the buildings in that complex were falling into a state of disrepair and were not currently useful for office space.  Mr. Mullen said the Ogg Building was an exception to that.

Mr. Mullen said the Ogg Building was in a state of disrepair, but the Board had already decided to repair the exterior and that work was under way.  Mr. Mullen said the interior of the building needed to be improved and once that was done, some County operations could be moved there.  Mr. Mullen said the Building would not fall into further disrepair or go to waste.

Mr. Mullen said he approached Mr. Linhares se
veral months ago about coming up with a plan to account for additions to staff that had happened since the current County building was constructed.  Mr. Mullen said he would like to move forward in a way that could accommodate space needs without having to construct a new building.  Mr. Mullen stated Mr. Linhares had provided an estimate of his best idea to provide for the space needs while maximizing the usage of County-owned facilities.

Mr. Mullen said he was asked where the money would come from for the necessary repairs.  Mr. Mullen said according to the best current data available, the County would have two or possibly three discreet areas that would be over budget and all other areas would be under budget.  Mr. Mullen said all numbers were preliminary and the books had not been closed on FY 09, but it was estimated that about $5 million would be available to place back into the General Fund.

Mr. Mullen said if the Board approved moving forward with this project, the money would have to be re
-appropriated.  Mr. Mullen said some of the items would have to go out to bid and see what they were actually going to cost.  Mr. Mullen said the preliminary cost proposal was prepared by Mr. Linhares.  Mr. Mullen said the money for the project could be re-appropriated from funds not spent in FY 09 without additional costs from contingency or the General Fund balance.

Mr. Mullen said he was seeking direction from the Board regarding their expectations
for the use of the County-owned spaces.  Mr. Mullen said he felt the proposed renovations were a sound plan that made the most of County-owned space and allowed for the opportunity to consolidate professional operations.

Mr. Byers said it would be beneficial for him to have a walk through of the areas before he voted on the issue to make it more understandable.  Mr. Byers said he had spoken with Mr. Linhares and he received a lot of feedback, but he would personally like to see the areas.

Mr. Spencer said he agreed with Mr. Byers.  Mr. Spencer said there were old buildings purchased by the County and then they were left to sit.  Mr. Spencer said the Ogg Building had sat for a while and now the County was going to have to pay for repairs.  Mr. Spencer said the County bought the Old Library from the Girl Scouts and now that building sat.  Mr. Spencer said he thought it was great to have staff develop a plan to put the old County-owned buildings into good use.  Mr. Spencer said he was also advised that Social Services had rented space out of the old hospital.  Mr. Spencer said he trusted Mr. Mullens judgment and would agree to what needed to be done.

Mr. Mullen said there was still one vacant building which was the Bunting House.  Mr. Mullen said he met with Mr. Oswell and that building would be in the next phase to make good use of that space.  Mr. Mullen said he wanted to know what the Board wanted to do with this plan before proceeding with plans for the Bunting House.  Mr. Mullen said he would be happy to set up time within the next two weeks for the Board members to tour the proposed locations to get a feel of what the renovations will create.

Mr. Gentry said he agreed that the Board members should set up times to visit each location with Mr. Mullen.  Mr. Gentry said he noticed the Voter Registrars Office in the Town Hall and asked when that change happened.  Mr. Mullen stated that none of the proposed changes had taken place yet.  Mr. Gentry asked if there were agreements already being written up regarding some of these changes.  Mr. Mullen answered no and added that all of the proposed renovations were in the planning stage only.  Mr. Mullen said he would never undertake a project like this one without the approval of the Board.

Mr. Barnes said he appreciated the hard work from staff putting this project together.  Mr. Barnes asked if the Voter Registrars Office had requested new office space.  Mr. Mullen said one of the problems with the Voter Registrars Office was that State Code required certain regulations for storage of the voting equipment.  Mr. Mullen said the equipment was currently just sitting in the Ogg Building which was good enough but was not the optimal storage location.  Mr. Mullen said he had talked to the Voter Registrar about the proposed relocation and he felt it was safe to say that she was not only in support of the relocation, but was also eager to have operations and equipment stored in the same location.

Mr. Barnes said his main concern was that he did not want to separate agencies too far apart.  Mr. Barnes stated that citizens looked for certain departments to be in accessible locations and he did not want to create a maze of County buildings.  Mr. Barnes said he would like to keep some familiarity and keep certain agencies together.

Mr. Byers said one of the things that he was concerned about was safety.  Mr. Byers said he understood that the Town Hall would provide the same level of safety and security as the County building.  Mr. Mullen said that was his understanding.  Mr. Mullen said three options were discussed for the relocation of the Voter Registrars Office and the Registrar felt the other options posed problems with security.  Mr. Mullen said he felt this proposed option was the best of the three.

Mr. Havasy said one of the items he saw that did not need any updating was the heating and air conditioning in the Ogg Building.  Mr. Havasy said he was impressed because that was a “big ticket item.”  Mr. Havasy asked if a new system had to be installed.  Mr. Linhares said the Ogg Building would need new HVAC work because the current units on site were 30 years old.  Mr. Linhares said there were four systems and “zones” in the Ogg Building.  Mr. Linhares said the four units were purchased on funds from the previous year and the units would still have to be installed.

Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Linhares what the cost was for the four units that were already purchased.  Mr. Linhares answered around $10,000 for the units.  Mr. Linhares said there would be labor to install the units and costs for other material.

Mr. Harper asked what the Bunting House was purchased for or what it was going to be used for.  Mr. Mullen said he vaguely recollected some consternation that the Bunting House could be used for some type of administrative function.  Mr. Mullen said that idea seemed undesirable to the Board.  Mr. Mullen said he was trying to figure out what exactly the understanding was when the Bunting House was first purchased.

Mr. Harper said the Bunting House was not purchased for administrative functions.  Mr. Mullen asked what it was purchased for.  Mr. Harper said the Bunting House was purchased with the understanding that it would be developed into a local CSA facility to help keep children in the local area.  Mr. Harper said he would like to see serious discussions in that manner rather than making it seem like that idea was just a “smoke screen” to have it turned into administrative offices.  Mr. Harper said he was already concerned with the number of administrative offices the County had now.

Mr. Mullen said he would like to turn the Bunting House into a facility that could be used for CSA funded service
s for Louisa County citizens.  Mr. Mullen said that was what his conversation with Mr. Oswell was about.  Mr. Mullen said he did not have a current plan of what the Bunting House would be used for, but he vividly remembered that the Board did not want to use it as administrative space.  Mr. Mullen said he was looking at the Bunting House as “hands off” until the County could get the CSA package together.

Mr. Harper asked what was currently being done with the Old Library.  Mr. Mullen said the Old Library building was currently being used by volunteer organizations.  Mr. Mullen said the Girl Scouts met there and there was a library function that took place there.  Mr. Mullen said the American Legion used the building and so did Parks and Recreation.  Ms. Shelhorse said Parks and Recreation held yoga, guitar and some dance classes there.

Mr. Barnes noted that the Old Library building only had two parking spaces.  Mr. Harper added that those two parking spaces had worked out over the years.

Mr. Byers said during the CSA Cost Containment Study there was a lot of interest in having the Bunting House used as a CSA facility.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Mullen if he would schedule a walk-through of the buildings for the Board members.  Mr. Mullen said yes.  Mr. Harper asked Mr. Mullen to keep the other ideas in mind and the Board could discuss everything again at the same time.

Update - Revenue and Expenditures from Amendments to Sections of the Louisa County Code, (Chapter 74. Traffic and Vehicles)

Mr. Mullen noted that neither Mr. Tom Garrett nor Mr. Rusty McGuire could attend the Board meeting.  Mr. Mullen said a few weeks ago he talked to Mr. Garrett about the recovery of the fees under the DUI and traffic code.  Mr. Mullen stated that Mr. Garrett then talked to the Clerk of the General District Court and asked why there had not been any fines from DUI convictions under County Code forwarded to the Treasurer.  Mr. Mullen said the Clerk informed Mr. Garrett that it was her belief that the County did not have the authority to convict DUI charges under the County Code using a Virginia Uniform Summons.  Mr. Mullen said he and all the other attorneys investigating the issue felt that was incorrect.  Mr. Mullen said County Code and State Code could be charged using a Virginia Uniform Summons.  Mr. Mullen said some counties choose to use their own summons form, but that was not a requirement.

Mr. Mullen said Mr. Garrett and Mr. McGuire advised the Clerk that the Commonwealth Attorney, the County Attorney and the County Administrator had all researched the matter and all agreed that this was appropriate.  Mr. Mullen said he left the meeting with the understanding that the problem would be corrected.

Mr. Mullen said later that same day, the Clerk presented a case to Mr. McGuire known as the “Leadbetter Case” that she believed was instructive. Mr. Mullen said Mr. McGuire reviewed the “Leadbetter Case” and believed that the “Leadbetter Case” did not have anything to do with the issue at hand.

Mr. Mullen said on July 14, 2009, the Commonwealth Attorneys Office moved to amend a DUI case to County Code and the General District Court Judge refused citing a possible problem based on a case provided to him by the GD Court Clerk.  Mr. Mullen said the Judge ruled agains
t the Commonwealth Attorney.  Mr. Mullen said after the Judge met with Mr. Garrett and Mr. McGuire, he is under the impression that the “Leadbetter Case” was not instructive to the issue and the County should be charging under County Code.

Mr. Mullen said Mr. Garrett and Mr. McGuire had already met with the GD Court Judge again and explained that the goal was to bring revenue to the County and believed that could be done by amending the charges that had been brought under State Code to County Code.  Mr. Mullen said the Judge had initially indicated some resistance to allow amendments, but Mr. Mullen now believed that the Judge felt that the “Leadbetter Case” had nothing to do with this matter and that the Clerk of the GD Court had provided him the name of that case.  Mr. Mullen said the Judge offered that the Clerk had obtained the name of the case from the Commonwealth Attorney in Goochland and not from the Commonwealth Attorney in Louisa.

Mr. Mullen said an advisory opinion could not be sought from the Judge, but he felt the County should be persistent in the insistence that charges be made and amended as allowed by Code by the Commonwealth Attorney.  Mr. Mullen noted that the Commonwealth Attorney controlled by charges that were brought and the case would go forward from there.

Mr. Mullen said there were two ways to approach this issue.  Mr. Mullen said his first intention was to meet separately with the Judge to explain the Countys goal and position on the points of law.
 Mr. Mullen said that would affect charges that had already been brought and they would need to be amended.

Mr. Mullen said the second way was easier and noted that he had already spoken to Major Donnie Lowe about it.  Mr. Mullen said he and Major Lowe would be scheduling training sessions with the Town Police and the Sheriffs Office to make sure that they charge under the proper code so there would be no need for amendments.  Mr. Mullen said this would only solve half of the problem and added that sometimes a case or a charge would still need to be amended before the case moved forward.
 Mr. Mullen said this option would at least allow the County to do what was trying to be done for months.

Mr. Mullen said he did not understand why this change was so hard.  Mr. Mullen noted that he did not understand the resistance of some, but he planned to continue working through it.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Mullen to continue with his efforts.  Mr. Harper said he agreed that the latter option was probably the simplest route to take, but he was curious as to what status the GD Court Clerk had to influence the Judge.

Discussion - Louisa County Departments; Staffing Levels

Mr. Mullen said there was a report included in the Board Packet that was his attempt to identify current staffing levels in the County.  Mr. Mullen said trying to find out the history of things had proven somewhat mysterious.  Mr. Mullen said this report would be setting the ground work for moving forward.  Mr. Mullen said there was one mistake in the report and that was the fact that it did not include the new position of the Family and Youth Services Coordinator.  Mr. Mullen said an amended report would be provided to the Board including that position.


Discussion - Thomas Jefferson Elementary School Moisture Study

Mr. Mullen said he had visited Thomas Jefferson Elementary several times and there were obvious moisture problems coming up from the floor where there should not be any moisture.  Mr. Mullen said the moisture had been studied by Mr. Bernard Proctor, but the source of the moisture had not truly been identified yet.  Mr. Mullen noted that possible corrections had been posed by Mr. Proctor, but none of those corrections had offered Mr. Mullen any solace or guarantee that his suggestions would fix the problem.  Mr. Mullen said he did not want to see the County or the School Board throwing money away at an unidentified problem.

Mr. Mullen said that Thomas Jefferson Elementary was using as much water during the summer as they were during the school year.  Mr. Mullen said that did not seem to make any sense to him and could maybe be a lead that could be followed.  Mr. Mullen said the problem needed to be further studied and a hydrodynamic engineering firm needed to be hired.

Mr. Mullen said there would be stimulus money available to fund some of the repairs, but something needed to be done for Thomas Jefferson Elementary so they could have a gymnasium floor which was where most of the moisture problem existed.  Mr. Mullen said one of the ways to do that would be to spend about $30,000 on a modular, snap-in component floor that would ride above the surface of the gymnasium floor and it would not be permanent.  Mr. Mullen said doing this would avoid laying down permanent floor and then having to come back through and tear the new floor up.  Mr. Mullen said this option would also allow time to study the moisture problem over the upcoming school year and not have to close down the gymnasium.  Mr. Mullen said the floor was reusable.

Mr. Mullen said the upcoming school year could be used as time to further study the moisture problem and figure out where the moisture was coming from and then develop a solution for the source of the problem.  Mr. Mullen said he just wanted to update the Board sooner rather than later.

Mr. Spencer said the question came up about how Thomas Jefferson Elementary could use 58,000 gallons of water in July during summer break and use 58,000 of water in September when school was in session.  Mr. Spencer said the Board needed to get with the School Board on this issue before there was a request for another $16 to $18 million school.  Mr. Spencer said the same thing happened with the old High School because the windows rotted out because the School Board wanted a new High School.  Mr. Spencer said the County then had to pay a few million dollars to repair the damage that had happened.  Mr. Spencer said he felt something needed to be done soon.

Mr. Gentry said one thing brought forward to the School Board was capillary action, or water coming up.  Mr. Gentry said he would like to see improvements taking place in at least the areas that Mr. Proctor had identified such as gutters and leaks.  Mr. Gentry said the capillary action and other repairs were complicated, but the simple items needed to be fixed first to see if it helped.  Mr. Gentry said it needed to be determined how the clay under the building was getting wet and if it was because of the building or because of capillary action.  Mr. Gentry said he would hate to see more engineers hired and more discussion because that had been going on for two years already.

Mr. Havasy said he was at some of the School Board meetings when these repairs were discussed.  Mr. Havasy said it started out that the engineer guaranteed he could fix the problem which started out at $200,000 and then increased to $300,000.  Mr. Havasy said it seem to him that the problem was being studied and studied at the cost was soon going to be at $1 million.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to see a lot of action instead of a little talk about the problem.

Mr. Barnes said the main concern here was for the health and welfare of the students.  Mr. Barnes said he did not want this problem to escalate to mold because there is always a potential for mold when moisture accumulates.  Mr. Barnes said he felt the School Board was prepared to use stimulus money to fix this problem.

Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Linhares why there would be water lines located anywhere except the bathrooms and the cafeteria at Thomas Jefferson.  Mr. Linhares said he understood that there were pipes underneath the school that were not shown exactly where the plans were.  Mr. Linhares said there were some abandoned pipes that the engineer said could actually be funneling water.  Mr. Linhares said the engineer originally proposed that the abandoned pipes which were funneling water would have to be removed as well.  Mr. Linhares said he was not sure if that was a valid solution or not.  Mr. Linhares said Mr. Mullen was really focused on finding someone who specialized in moisture problems to diagnose the school.

Mr. Gentry said he felt the immediate problems such as the downspouts should be corrected first.  Mr. Gentry said a new engineer and the capillary action and the abandoned pipes were all complicated and he suggested taking the factors that were known and correcting them first.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Linhares if he had a copy of all the recommendations that Mr. Proctor made.  Mr. Linhares said he did not think so.  Mr. Harper asked that Mr. Linhares gather information regarding the study done by Mr. Proctor and take time to talk with each Board member to help understand the problem and rationalize the options going forward.

Mr. Harper said it was his understanding that the County was going to move ahead with the temporary flooring so the moisture problem would not impede the use of the gymnasium for the upcoming school year.

Mr. Mullen said this was a delicate balance because it was school property.  Mr. Harper said he assumed Mr. Mullen was working with the schools on the project.  Mr. Mullen said yes
, and he talked with Dr. Pettit about this almost every day.  Mr. Mullen said the idea was to foster cooperation because he wanted there to be no surprises.

Mr. Harper said he wanted to take time to sit down and discuss what was going to be done.  Mr. Harper said there may be a time when
there would have to be justification for what was being financed.  Mr. Mullen noted that all stimulus money must go through the same appropriation method as any other money.

Discussion - Structural Problem at Louisa County High School

Mr. Barnes said Mr. Mullen had received a copy of a letter regarding a structural problem at the High School.  Mr. Barnes said the High School gymnasium was very vital to the opening of the school.  Mr. Barnes said Zero Period was held there along with girls volleyball practice and PE class.

Mr. Mullen said this was at least as serious of a problem as the moisture at Thomas Jefferson.  Mr. Mullen said no one was allowed to enter the High School gymnasium.  Mr. Mullen said the Superintendent forwarded a letter to him as soon as it was received informing him of the structural problem.  Mr. Mullen said the School Board would have a meeting next week and he was sure this would be a topic of discussion.

Mr. Mullen said there was a structural inspection in the gymnasium at the High School to assess the condition of the masonry and load-bearing walls.  Mr. Mullen said this was a known problem for the last couple of weeks, but no one realized just how serious the problem was.  Mr. Mullen described the damage and assessment of the walls and explained where the damage was located which was summarized in the letter from the engineer.  Mr. Mullen said the report stated that the walls were structurally inadequate and use of the gymnasium should be discontinued.

Mr. Barnes said his concern was that school would be starting soon and he would like to see this expedited from a procurement standpoint.  Mr. Barnes said this was a time sensitive issue and would affect construction and other activities taking place at the High School.

Mr. Byers said this brought about the issue of contracts and buildings and what recourse the County had.  Mr. Byers said a “quick fix” of the problem could be problematic, especially if there were other issues with the foundation, etc.

Mr. Harper said his understanding was that Mr. Mullen would be coming back to the Board with more information.  Mr. Mullen said that was correct.  Mr. Mullen said this was a very recent issue and he had expressed his concern to help to Dr. Pettit.  Mr. Mullen added that Dr. Pettit would be consulting with their attorney to see what recourse, if any, there could be.

Mr. Havasy said he hoped the school was willing to look into possible steel construction to repair the wall rather than masonry.  Mr. Havasy said he also hoped someone would “take the bull by the horns” and get the wall repaired soon so that use of the gymnasium could continue again.

Mr. Gentry asked if there was any estimate as far as cost.  Mr. Mullen answered no.

Discussion and Resolution - Approving the Construction of an Exterior Animal Exercise Pen at the Louisa County Animal Shelter by Utilizing Funds Provided by Private Organizations

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent, the Board approved the construction of an exterior animal exercise pen at the Louisa County Animal Shelter by utilizing funds provided by private organizations.


Mr. Barnes recognized that there was a Boy Scout attending the meeting to listen in and see how local government worked.


Mr. Havasy said he wanted to appoint Mr. Russ Bane to the Board of Building Appeals.

On the motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent, the Board appointed Mr. Russ Bane to the Board of Building Appeals.


Mr. Mullen reminded the Board of several important events that would be taking place.  Mr. Mullen pointed out information and preliminary numbers regarding the financing options for the Zion Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Mr. Mullen reviewed questions and answers that had been posed since the last Board meeting.  Mr. Mullen also pointed out a piece of correspondence from the Macedonia United Methodist Church regarding the Reedy Creek property.

Mr. Spencer referenced the Community Development monthly report and asked about biosolids.  Mr. Spencer asked if there was a staff member who was certified or who had went to school for the biosolids program yet.  Mr. Camp said the biosolids program was currently being administered by Ms. Cindy Draves.  Mr. Spencer asked if she was certified and asked if the County was receiving the $2.65 per dry ton.  Mr. Camp said the County was being reimbursed for all of Ms. Draves time.  Mr. Spencer said Synagro and the Health Department would pay for expenses for Ms. Draves, but on top of that, the County could receive $2.65 per dry ton.  Mr. Spencer said Mr. Anthony Carter was certified years ago and explained that there was no reason why the County should not have a certified Code Enforcement Officer to handle biosolids.  Mr. Spencer said the money recovered from doing site visits could pay the salary of the position.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Camp if it was in his immediate plans to have a staff member certified for biosolids.  Mr. Camp answered no because he was not aware of this situation.  Mr. Camp added that he would be more than happy to look into it.  Mr. Harper asked Mr. Camp to look into the certification and provide an update to the Board.

Mr. Havasy stated, for clarification, that Revenue Recovery and the software were two separate items.  Mr. Havasy said Revenue Recovery was doing fine, but the problem was in the software
.  Mr. Havasy said the reporting was still accurate because if the software was down, the work was being done manually.  Mr. Havasy added that the County was headed down the right path to electronic reporting and would be ahead of the schedule of the State mandates.

Mr. Spencer said he thought the $65 subscription for Revenue Recovery was done away with.  Mr. Havasy answered no and added that the subscription plan was only for the citizens who chose to enroll.  Mr. Havasy discussed soft billing and the other billing practices and policies that were being used for Revenue Recovery.
 Mr. Byers reminded the Board that Revenue Recovery would be reviewed after one year to see if any adjustments needed to be made.

Mr. Harper asked if the same real estate area was being used to calculate the
amount of tax revenue collected in Zion Crossroads.  Mr. McLeod answered yes.  Mr. Harper said he had some issues with that because he did not think that was fair.  Mr. McLeod said that could be changed and he could discuss with the Board what the properties were that were used.  Mr. Harper said he thought that would be a good idea because he wanted to make sure it was a fair process.  Mr. Barnes said real estate and all the commercial properties had to be taken into consideration.  Mr. Harper noted that some of the properties were in existence before Zion Crossroads ever developed.


Mr. Barnes said he had read some information on a Broadband grant application process in the NACO newsletter.  Mr. Barnes said this was money for rural areas and noted that the application process had already started and the deadline was in September 2009.

Mr. Hardy said he was aware of the grant money and he had attended several meetings where the grant was discussed.  Mr. Hardy said the projects needed to be “shovel ready” in the sense that all the financing had to be ready, engineering plans had to be in place and the technology and sites all had to be determined.  Mr. Hardy noted that from what he could tell no one around was that far along in their plans in order to receive any of the money.


On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent and Messrs Byers and Gentry abstaining from their reimbursements, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of July 2009 (FY 2009) for the County of Louisa in the amount of $235,308.77.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent and Messrs Byers and Gentry abstaining from their reimbursements, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of July 2009 (FY 2010) for the County of Louisa in the amount of $ 756,559.10.

Mr. Harper asked if the County was finished for FY 09.  Mr. McLeod answered no.  Mr. McLeod said there would be another resolution for the second half of July 2009 and the first half of August 2009 and added that it would not be for such a large amount.

Mr. Spencer asked about leftover funds.  Mr. Spencer asked if the money was going to be taken back in or would the County wait around until someone complained that they did not receive their money.  
Mr. McLeod said that June 30, 2009 was the end of the appropriation and funds could not be spent after that.  Mr. McLeod said if there were expenditures in June 2009 and the invoices were not received yet, the FY 09 books were supposed to remain open for two months and would close towards the end of August 2009.  Mr. McLeod said that was also for the schools because of the way they handle their 10-month and 12-month employees.  Mr. McLeod said he thought CSA had to stay open through September.

Mr. Spencer asked what was done with the FY 09 funds that were appropriated but not spent.  Mr. Harper said it was no longer available for the departments or agencies to obligate, but what was already obligated would be paid.  Mr. McLeod said there would be carryovers for re-appropriation and approval by the Board in early September.


On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent, the Board adopted the minutes of the July 6, 2009 meeting.


Mr. Spencer said he received a phone call from Mr. Elmer Guinn who lived off Hickory Creek Road in the Louisa District.  Mr. Spencer said it seemed that in the last 2 or 3 weeks there have been several rabid raccoons in the small subdivision he lived in.  Mr. Spencer said the complaint was that the Sheriffs Department was called and they said they would not come out to bother a rabid raccoon.  Mr. Spencer said the Game Commission would not come, but said they would not charge anyone if they shot a rabid raccoon off their back porch.  Mr. Spencer said the Health Department said they would charge the property owner $50 to have the head of the raccoon examined for rabies.  Mr. Spencer said he was told by Mr. Rice at the Health Department that a posse could not be formed to go out and kill every skunk, raccoon or fox in the County.

Mr. Spencer said it was the job of these agencies for the health, safety and welfare of the community.  Mr. Spencer said a raccoon tried to get into the hou
se of Ms. Allison Capps and she had two dogs and a daughter in the house.  Mr. Spencer said two hours after the raccoon first tried to get into the house, there was still no one on site from the Sheriffs Department or the Game Commission or any other agency.  Mr. Spencer said Ms. Katz finally had to call a neighbor to come over and kill the raccoon and he thought that was deplorable.

Mr. Spencer said the people involved in the incident would be speaking during Citizens Information Period.  Mr. Spencer said he felt this was insane and noted that this same thing had occurred several times in the same subdivision.  Mr. Spencer said he spoke with Major Lowe and was told that Animal Control was supposed to handle a situation like that.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Mullen to provide the Board with a procedure of how a call would be handled when it came in through the Dispatch Office for a suspected rapid animal.  Mr. Spencer said he tested that this morning and as soon as the dispatcher hears the word animal they transfer the call over to the Game Commission.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Mullen to get the procedure down for the Board and if it needed to be addressed further, the Board could ask for more consideration above and beyond what was currently being done.  Mr. Harper said he agreed with Mr. Spencer that if someone in the community was possibly in danger, the response should be quicker.


Mr. Mullen said he understood there were a couple inquiries about the pay for the Fourth of July holiday.  Mr. Mullen said the policy was to pay time and a half for July 3rd or the day which would ordinarily be a work day.  Mr. Mullen said at a Board meeting in 1997, the Board approved paying time and a half holiday pay to refuse site attendants who worked on holidays.  Mr. Mullen said he found a memo dated March 21, 2001 in which Mr. Lintecum received information from Mr. Pat McWilliams addressing refuse site issues and said that overtime would be applied to July 4th because that was the actual legal holiday.  Mr. Mullen said these attendants were part-time employees and were currently the only part-time employees who received holiday pay.

Mr. Mullen said there had been several update to the Employee Handbook which continued to show the actual legal holiday as the day the employee who worked would be paid the premium in compensation.  Mr. Mullen said the Handbook clearly said that the observation day, which was the day the County was closed, would be the day that was paid.

Mr. Mullen said between the old Handbook updates and the new Handbook version, there were several staff changes and when the newest version came out, the handbook reflected the current practice of paying the observance day
.  Mr. Mullen said staff found a memo dated December 22, 2008 in which Ms. Linda Nuckols noted that the holiday pay for the end of 2008 and into 2009 would be on July 3, 2009.

Mr. Mullen said the decision was entirely up to the Board.  Mr. Spencer suggested that the policy remain the same.  Mr. Harper asked for clarification.  Mr. Mullen said refuse site attendants who work on a day when the rest of the County was off would receive the holiday pay.  Mr. Mullen said that was the policy approved by the Board last year.  Mr. Harper asked if this policy was in place now where there would not be any confusion.  Mr. Mullen said he did not think there should be any confusion.

It was the consensus of the Board to keep the current policy in place.


Ms. Linda Guinn, 533 May Lane, Louisa District, said there was a situation in the subdivision she lived in early one morning.  Ms. Guinn said her neighbor, Ms. Allison Capps, called and there was a raccoon on her back deck that was acting strange and trying to get in the house.  Ms. Guinn said her husband, Elmer, went over to Ms. Capps house and the raccoon was still at the back door.  Ms. Guinn said Mr. Guinn tried to scare the raccoon off and the raccoon went under the deck.  Ms. Guinn said he was finally able to shoot the raccoon once it moved out into the side yard.

Ms. Guinn said the raccoon did not look well and was very raggedly looking and had strange behavior.  Ms. Guinn said Ms. Capps called the Sheriffs Department and they usually contact Animal Control.  Ms. Guinn said Ms. Capps was told that the Sheriffs Department did not respond to this type of call.  Ms. Guinn said Ms. Capps attempted to contact someone to see about removing the raccoon from he
r property once it was shot.

Mr. Elmer Guinn described the situation of scaring the raccoon off and being able to shoot it.  Mr. Guinn said when Ms. Capps called she was told that it would cost $50 to have the raccoon tested for rabies.

Mr. Guinn said the second incident was at his house
when there was a raccoon laying in his front yard when he came down the driveway.  Mr. Guinn said the raccoon was still breathing, but was basically out of it and he was able to rouse the animal enough to get it out of the front yard and shoot it.

Mr. Guinn said there was definitely something wrong with the raccoons and something needed to be done about it because there were children and other animals in the subdivision.  Mr. Guinn said he called the non-emergency phone number and was told by the dispatcher that this was a problem for the State Game Warden.  Mr. Guinn said he was transferred to the State Game Warden office and was told that no one was available because all the officers were patrolling the water, but someone would contact him.  Mr. Guinn said that call was made last Saturday and an officer just called him today.  Mr. Guinn said he was told by that officer that the best thing to do was to bag the animal up and take it to the Health Department.

Mr. Guinn said there
have been several instances in his subdivision where he or neighbors have dealt with raccoons in the past few weeks.  Mr. Guinn said it seemed like every time someone called, they got a run around with the person they were talking to.

Mr. Harper noted that the County Administrator was going to do some research on the issue and have staff fol
low up with Mr. and Ms. Guinn.  Mr. Harper added that the Health Department reported to the State, but the County would be sure to check in on the answers to the citizen questions.

Ms. Allison Capps, 280 May Lane, Louisa District
, described the incident with the potentially rabid raccoon and the help that her neighbor had to provide her.  Ms. Capps said she was afraid to go outside and felt trapped inside.  Ms. Capps said the dispatcher at the Sheriffs Department told her that since this was not a problem with a domestic animal, she would have to talk to the Game Warden.  Ms. Capps said she really felt her call was unimportant when she talked to the dispatcher at the Game Wardens Office.  Ms. Capps said the dispatcher at the Game Wardens Office took down some information from her and said he would let someone know about the issue.  Ms. Capps said she was told that the problem would be reported and someone would come out to her home.

Ms. Capps
said the response from the Game Warden was about two hours.  Ms. Capps said she felt this was a potentially dangerous situation and she did not have the support that she should have had.

Mr. Harper asked if a Game Warden eventually came out to her house.  Ms. Capps said Officer Anderson with the Game Wardens Office called before he was about to come, which was about fifteen minutes after Mr. Guinn had killed the raccoon.

Ms. Capps said the Officer was not going to come once he found out the animal had been killed, but she asked him what to do with the dead raccoon.  Ms. Capps said Officer Anderson told her that it was not in his job description to take care of the dead animal removal, but since he was on his way in the direction of her house, he would stop by and get the dead raccoon anyway.

Ms. Capps said she asked Officer Anderson about getting the animal tested and she was once again told that it would be her responsibility to pay to have that done.  Ms. Capps asked Officer Anderson what he would have done if he came to her house to kill the animal.  Ms. Capps said Officer Anderson told her it would still be the responsibility of the homeowner.

Mr. John Capps said that what he, his wife and his neighbors were concerned about was when the phone call was made to
the dispatcher, there should be a better response.  Mr. Capps said he understood that there were procedures, but ultimately there was still someone who had a problem in the community that needed to be addressed.

Mr. Harper noted that Mr. Mullen would be checking into the procedures, particularly the fact that it seemed that what used to be done,
was not being done anymore.  Mr. Harper said he was going to try and get answers for the citizens and have staff follow up with them.


Mr. Hoffman asked for discussion on the Social Services Advisory Board appointments.  Mr. Harper said he understood the appointments needed to be in place by August 1, 2009.

Mr. Gentry said that he was concerned that this Board needed County-wide representation by District.  Mr. Gentry said he felt this Board was important enough to have equal representation by having one member from every District.

Mr. Hoffman said the enabling statute would certainly allow for a seven member Advisory Board even though it was currently structured at five members.  Mr. Hoffman said five members was the number on the last Social Services Board, but that Social Services Board also had one member of the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Hoffman said he would
be happy to amend the Ordinance to make it a seven member Advisory Board with appointment by District if that was the pleasure of the Board.  Mr. Hoffman said the proposed amendments to the Ordinance would have to go back through public notice and a Public Hearing would have to be held.

Mr. Harper said that process could not be done before
the August 1, 2009 deadline.  Mr. Hoffman said he would like to see an Advisory Board seated as soon as possible.  Mr. Hoffman said a five member Advisory Board could be seated tonight, the Ordinance could be amended to a seven member Advisory Board and then two more members could be seated.

Mr. Spencer motioned
to seat the current Department of Social Services Board members as an interim Advisory Board, amend the Ordinance to a seven member Advisory Board and then seat a complete Advisory Board at a later date.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Byers said he felt this raised a concern because if there was supposed to be a representative from each District, it could take a while to get there.  Mr. Byers said one of the points discussed in the CSA Cost Containment Study was getting the entire County involved and he, therefore, thought that the comment made by Mr. Gentry about having a member from each District had a lot of merit behind it.  Mr. Byers said he felt this was a great time to come up with new ideas and begin to think “outside the box.”

        On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent, the Board voted to seat
the current Department of Social Services Board members as an interim Advisory Board, amend the Ordinance to a seven member Advisory Board and then seat a complete Advisory Board at a later date.

Mr. Harper said the people who were currently serving on the five member Advisory Board needed to be notified that it was only on an interim basis until the full seven member Advisory Board was appointed.


On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:59 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

  1. 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. 2.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).


On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:54 p.m.


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

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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 20th 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 20th 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.


Mr. Byers said the Board had received a letter from the Locust Creek Volunteer Fire Department asking for consideration for the use of any vehicles that the County had in surplus.  Mr. Byers motioned that if there was still a vehicle from Emergency Services that was available for use, it be sold to Locust Creek Volunteer Fire Department for $1 with the understanding that it would be returned to the County for disposition once it was no longer needed.  Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.

On the motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent, the Board voted to sell a surplus vehicle to Locust Creek Volunteer Fire Department for $1 with the understanding that it would be returned to the County for disposition once it was no longer needed.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Wright being absent, the Board voted to adjourn the July 20, 2009 meeting at 8:56 p.m.