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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
AUGUST 18, 2008
6:00 P.M.



Board 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: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Sharon Pandak, Acting County Attorney; Will Cockrell, Senior Planner; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dube, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Zuwana Morgan, Deputy Clerk and Brittany Spaur, Records Clerk

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the August 18, 2008 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 6:00 p.m.  Mr. Gentry led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD

Edward Massey Louisa District stated he wanted to thank the Board for responding to his last request.  Mr. Massey said he and his wife moved here 19 years ago and brought 40 acres.  Mr. Massey said he was asked to be on the Department of Social Services Board and after that they became foster parents.  Mr. Massey said he asked at the time would if there would be a conflict of interest, by him being on the DSS Board and becoming a foster parent and he was told no.  Mr. Massey said it seemed to be a problem now.    Mr. Massey read a letter that was addressed to Ms. Massey  from the Foster Care Coordinator, and it read as follows; “Dear Gail, This letter is in response to your e-mail originally dated 7/29/08 (and sent again on 8/01/08).  You  raised two issues we would like to respond to.  First, in the e-mail you questioned whether is was stated in a meeting that you and your husband should not be called by our agency for fostering children.  What I recall being stated in that meeting was that prior to anyone calling you for a possible placement, that it should be discussed with myself, Karen or Paul.  At the time of the meeting it was the position of our agency that having you and your husband as foster parents was a conflict of interest primary due to the fact that you and Ed had brought legal action against Louisa DSS.  Also of concern as a conflict of interest was that Ed is a member of the Board of Social Services.  Further, in your e-mail you commented on it being “strange” that even though you were approved foster parents you were not receiving any calls regarding the possible placement of children.  Towards the goal of correcting that confusion, our agency has made the decision to not utilize your home for the placement of foster children.  Additionally, there will not be an option to renew your present approval status when the approval period expires in March 2010.  We are not revoking your approval, because you have not shown an “inability to continue to meet standards.”  However, as a result of the recent lawsuit brought against Louisa DSS and the perceived conflict of  interest with Eds position on the Board of Social Services for the agency, the decision has been made to not utilize you as foster parents.  Am Im sure you are well aware, it is the local Department of Social Services final decision which homes to utilize for the placement of children.”

Mr. Massey said he
has heard on the news several times how there was a need for foster parents.  Mr. Massey stated having foster parents was a lot more reasonable then putting children up in the high end places where the county would pay thousands of dollars a month.  Mr. Massey said the legal action was over long after the decision not to allow them to be foster parents was made.  Mr. Massey stated the decision was made for retribution to legal action which should have never had to take place.  Mr. Massey said if the Director of Social Services had done the right thing and gone through the steps they would not of had to go to court to have them request the DSS in Richmond to get them a hearing.  Mr. Massey said this county needed foster parents.

Pam Morris Louisa District stated she was absolutely appalled about what was going on with the Masseys.  Ms. Morris said she was a former Department of Social Services employee so she had some experience.  Ms. Morris said she has had the opportunity to read over the foster care policy for the state and what she kept reading over and over was “reasonable effect”.  Ms. Morris stated what has been done to the Masseys was WRONG.  Ms. Morris said after the Masseys had given up so much of their private life to become foster parents was the Department of Social Service in Louisa County creating a conflict of interest for the Masseys and were they putting the best interest of the children first.  

Ms. Morris asked what policy and procedures was DSS following that so prematurely in advance of March 2010 they could determine that there would be option not to renew their contract as foster care parents.  Ms. Morris said things change over time.  Ms. Morris asked were children in Louisa County being placed in approved foster care homes after being removed from their homes.  Ms. Morris asked did the county hire and if so who was in the position to authorized Louisa County Department of Social Services to hire at staff attorney.  Ms. Morris said if there was a contract or job description for this position she would interested in seeing it and asked was the job advertised.  Ms. Morris asked if the DSS Staff Attorney received County benefits, a county car to drive that was designated solely for the attorneys purpose, were County monies being used to pay for this position.  Ms. Morris asked did the Staff Attorney have any authority in the hiring  process for the DSS.  Ms. Morris asked  what has been the employee turnover rate for Louisa County DSS in the last year.

Ms. Morris said Sheriffs Office was doing a good job retaining their employees.  Ms. Morris said she was willing to sit down with anyone willing to answer her questions.  


Mr. Harper asked that Ms. Morris get a copy of her questions to Mr. Lintecum.


Charles Rosson Louisa District stated he met with Mr. Lee Lintecum that morning and he apologized for not having this item on the agenda.  Mr. Rosson said he spoke with Brett Whitlock late last week about the drought situation in the County and the worsening of the situation.  Mr. Rosson stated he had prepared a resolution for the Board to consider.  Mr. Rosson said the County was behind on moisture.  Mr. Rosson stated if the corn crop was planted early it should be in pretty good shape.  Mr. Rosson said as far as soybeans and corn planted late they may yield 50 to 60 percent.  Mr. Rosson said the big loss was with ground water, some lake and streams have stopped running.  Mr. Rosson stated he had spoken with all the Extension Agents in surrounding counties and they all are putting in place some type of drought declaration.

On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting Governor Tim Kaine to have Louisa County designated a drought disaster area.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper stated he would like to move item nine on the agenda to the first item under New Business.  Mr. Harper stated he would like to add discussion on Thomas Jefferson Elementary School.  Mr. Harper stated he would like to add a discussion on open positions with the County.  Mr. Harper stated he would like to add a discussion on the James River Water Project.  Mr. Harper stated he would like to add a discussion on local contractors preference.  Mr. Harper stated he would like to add five other items under Closed Session.  Mr. Spencer stated he would like to add a discussion on Department of Social Services contractual legal services.  Mr. Byers stated he would like to add a discussion on putting in place a policy for changes in appropriations.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to move item ten on the agenda to the second item under New Business.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the August 18, 2008 agenda was adopted as amended.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion CSA

Mr. McLeod stated the Board had asked about the CSA Coordinator position, about a job description and who the position reported to in different Counties.

Mr. McLeod said Albemarle, Greene and Charlottesville have the position report to Social Services, Fluvanna, Nelson and Goochland has the position report to the County Administrator and Hampton has the position report to the Finance Director.

Mr. McLeod said there were job descriptions included in the Board Packet for their review.  Mr. McLeod said there were also some graphs included in the Board Packet from David Blount, TJPDC Legislative Liaison.  Mr. McLeod briefly went over each graph.

Mr. Byers asked was the Board suppose to respond to the letter on pages 12 and 13.
Mr. McLeod said the Department Social Services was offering to cover the study through their administrative funds, it would cost approximately $7,000 to $8,000.

Mr. Byers asked was it something already underway.  Mr. McLeod said he believe
s they are looking for the Boards approval and a Board member to be a part of it.

Mr. Harper said Fluvanna had done the study but they hadnt done anything with the study, so at this point we dont know if it would actually save money.

Mr. McLeod said he didnt believe they implemented anything out of the study.  Mr. McLeod said Fluvanna said the study was helpful to sort out roles and responsibilities.

Mr. Harper said before he would want to spend that kind of money he would want to know the benefits of the study.  

Mr. Gentry said there were several  bills that the General Assembly was looking at this year that were suppose to incorporate studies of the CSA programs.  Mr. Gentry asked was this study going to be an overlap of what was already done by the General Assembly.  Mr. McLeod said he didnt know enough about the report.

Mr. Gentry said he understood that those bills were going to get down to the local level because they knew very little about the local level and that was what the studies would be all about.

Mr. Oswell said what ever was done at the State level would be Statewide.  Mr. Oswell said this study
would be specifically for Louisa County.

Mr. Oswell said he had a copy of the study from Fluvanna and they had actually implemented some of them.   Mr. Harper asked Mr. Oswell to get that information to the Board.

Mr. Barnes said because of the implication was from a financial standpoint  he was inclined to move forward towards the implementation of an employee that would report to the Board.  Mr. Barnes said this was a very serious situation it was almost $.02 in tax dollars going to CSA.  Mr. Barnes said he was very concerned.

Mr. Wright said he suggest the Board look at the graphs before making a decision.   Mr. Wright stated there were counties with less population th
an Louisa who were ahead of Louisa in CSA expenses.  

Mr. Wright said six or seven years ago there were 22 to 27 children in CSA and now there were about 56 children in CSA every year.  Mr. Wright reminded the Board members that the court ordered the children to be put into CSA.  

Mr. Wright said Louisa was doing favorable with the Counties of its size and doing better than some smaller Counties.

Mr. Harper asked was there a group going to visit somewhere.  Mr. Oswell said the Best Practice Court of Louisa was planning on taking a trip to Hampton some time in September and they would love a Board member to come.

Mr. Harper said the Board would like to have someone go and said Mr. Byers indicated that he would be interested.

Mr. Byers said he looked at the job description for the city of Hampton and 50 percent of the task of the job was to look at less expensive treatments, local resources, possible revenue sources and looking at delivery of expenditure within a budgetary target.  Mr. Byers said he thought that may help Louisa because it wasnt only about helping the child but finding the best resource to do so.

Mr. Havasy asked for the population of each county involved in the study.

Mr. Spencer said at the last Board meeting Mr. McLeod had graphs that showed how wild the CSA program had gone.  Mr. Spencer said the figures dont lie.  Mr. Spencer said it dropped in 1996 when children that didnt need to be in residential treatment center were brought home  Mr. Spencer said in 2003 when the CSA Coordinator went to DSS and the numbers went up.  Mr. Spencer said the original CSA Officer  reported to the County Administrator and Finance Director.  Mr. Spencer said the biggest part of the job was to search all alternative methods of available treatments and the
ir cost before sending children to the residential treatment centers.   Mr. Spencer said it was a while before the county realized that Medicare would pay most of the bills but no one was filing the forms.  Mr. Spencer said that was another reason the position came back under the county.  Mr. Spencer said he suggest that the CSA Coordinator be back under the County Administrator and Finance Director.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Oswell to give the Board his take on why the numbers jumped so much in 2003.

Mr. Barnes asked Mr. McLeod to find out how many of the children Mr. Havasy spoke of had IEPs.

Mr. Gentry said his concerns were what was the County and the Schools doing to solve the problems that are causing all the children to go into the CSA program.

Mr. Harper said it thought it was a good idea to keep the Schools involved in the process.


NEW BUSINESS

Reconsideration Dickens Creek Farm, LLC - Subdivision of Tax Map Parcel
98-(27)-D

Mr. Wright said in 2006 the Board worked on this it was two different tracks of land.  Mr. Wright said the Board wanted two roads instead of the three proposed.  Mr. Wright said the reason it came to the Board was because it connected parent parcels.  Mr. Wright stated one subdivision was approved the other was postponed and the applicant was asked to close off the short section of Dickie Purcell Road so there would be only two entrances to Route 710.  

Mr. Wright said the courts said the county didnt give enough information to explain the safety problem.  Mr. Wright said he went back and read the transcript and the two experts only spoke about two entrances into  Route 710.  Mr. Wright stated the Board was given three entrances for that short distance into Route 710.  Mr. Wright said they have removed one entrance and VDOT had agreed to one entrance being closed and therefore his concerns have been removed.


On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the reconsideration of Dickens Creek Farm, LLC - Subdivision of Tax Map Parcel 98-(27)-D

Reconsideration Ethan A. Call - Subdivision of Tax Map Parcel 98-(5)-6 (Amended Access)

Mr. Wright said that Mr. Call was proposing that the road to this subdivision be changed to come through another tract he owned out to Route 635 West Chapel Drive.

Mr. Byers asked was it five or four lots.  Mr. Wright said there were five lots.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the change in road situation.

Update Revenue Recovery

Ms. April Lowe said as part of a countywide public awareness effort to inform citizens about the EMS Revenue Recovery Program, she has completed seven scheduled public educations sessions that were held at Jouett Elementary School, Louisa Middle School, Trevilians Elementary School and Holly Grove Rescue. Ms. Lowe said she also attended meetings with the Senior Center, Commission on Aging, AARP, KS Club and Shady Grove Baptist Church.

Ms. Lowe stated she had attended a meeting with the Holly Grove Ruritan Club on Thursday, August 14th and she was scheduled to attend the Louisa County Air Show on Saturday, September 6th and “Cruisin Through the Years” at the Betty Queen Center on Saturday, September 20th.

Ms. Lowe said flyers for the public education meetings and informational brochures had been distributed to various locations around the County to include County offices, post offices, pharmacies, medical facilities, public schools, nursing homes, convenience stores, etc.   Ms. Lowe stated the public education meetings were advertised in The Central Virginian, The Lake Anna Observer, The County Messenger, and several local Churchs Sunday Bulletins.  Ms. Lowe said Subscription Plan applications had also been distributed to various locations throughout the County and placed in all agencys ambulances.

Ms. Lowe said she put together a list top five of questions that she been asked at the public information sessions.

1. Q What will the funds collected from the Revenue Recovery Program be
used for?
A The ultimate decision will be made by the Board of Supervisors, but it is
recommended that the funds will be allocated towards EMS equipment.

2. Q Do I need to enroll in the subscription plan if I have Medicare and a
supplemental insurance?
A Medicare covers ambulance services only if they are furnished to a
beneficiary whose medical condition is such that other means of
transportation would endanger the patients health. If the transport is
medically necessary, Medicare will cover about 80 percent of the allowable
charge and the supplemental insurance should cover the remaining 20 percent;
however, you should contact your insurance representative to verify.

3. Q What if I cannot afford to pay my bill?
A If any person is dealing with a financial hardship it is important to contact the
County to discuss payment options. Through “compassionate billing,” the
County has the capacity to waive or reduce fees when it is determined the citizen
has a reduced ability to pay. Those who can not afford to pay may simply contact
the County for other arrangements. A subscription plan is also be available to
offset the co-pay and deductibles.

4. Q What is the subscription plan?
A For an annual fee of $65 per household, all members listed under that
household will be exempt from paying any portion of an ambulance transport
fee, including co-pays and/or deductibles. This program is designed to offset
any out-of-pocket expenses a patient may have for an ambulance transport.

5. Q What if I am not transported?
A If you are not transported, there will be no bill. EMS Revenue Recovery
is based on what is termed “loaded service,” whereby someone is actually
transported.

Ms. Lowe said the Revenue Recovery Monthly Report for July was included in the Board Packet.  Ms. Lowe stated as of August 11, 2008, a total of 364 households and 819 members have enrolled in the subscription plan.  

Ms. Lowe said she had also included a report that outlines the particular insurance types by age group for each subscribed member. Ms. Lowe explained all the members that have Medicaid are not primary subscribers and are listed as an additional resident of the household.

Mr. Wright said he had been asked if the person was on Medicare why should they pay for a subscription plan.  Mr. Wright said he had hoped he answered correctly.  Mr. Wright said if once every ten years Medicare denied someone they would still break even.  Mr. Wright said he thought the $65 was a good fee because transportation fees were going to continue to go up.

Ms. Lowe said the members that had subscribed have been pleased with the program and what it offers.

Mr. Byers said he would like to congratulate Ms. Lowe
and the others who had been working on this for their effort in trying to reach the public.

Mr. Byers said he hoped there was a procedure in place that would qualify citizens for compassionate billing.  Ms. Lowe said at this point there was not anything in place.  
Ms. Lowe said she has research
ed surrounding counties that have compassionate billing and they have a good faith statement.  Ms. Lowe said the statement would be request if there was an hardship and ask for household income and then it would be determined how much that person could pay.

Mr. Harper asked who would make the recommendation for the amounts.  Ms. Lowe said she would make the recommendations to the Board.

Mr. Byers stated there needed be some procedures in place. Mr. Byers asked were all the volunteer agencies trained and ready for the September 1, 2008 start date.

Ms. Lowe said the Revenue Recovery Committee met to discuss several issues that
have been brought to light during the recent provider training sessions. Ms. Lowe   said electronic call reporting and Revenue Recovery had always been presented as one project and, therefore, they had always been perceived as one project. Ms. Lowe explained electronic reporting and Revenue Recovery were actually two separate projects. Ms. Lowe said even though there were some issues going on with the CAD System and more time was needed for software training, the Committee thought those issues should not hold up the implementation of the Revenue Recovery Program.

Ms. Lowe stated the Committee decided to begin the Revenue Recovery
Program on September 1, 2008 using paper call reports and eventually transition to
electronic call reports. Ms. Lowe said the date that was set by the Committee for all call reports to be submitted electronically was November 1, 2008.  Ms. Lowe said if an
entire agency felt comfortable submitting electronic call reports prior to November
1, 2008; they would be permitted to do so.  

Ms. Lowe  said DAB the billing company does HIPAA training and PCR training and that had not been done.  Ms. Lowe said she was told by DAB it was not required prior to billing because to become an EMT you have to go through HIPPA training.
Ms. Lowe said she understood the EMSAL and others had concerns so was working with DAB to setup training to meet the providers needs prior to September 1, 2008.

Mr. Byers asked what would happen if implementation was delayed until October 1, 2008.  Ms. Lowe said the worst thing would be that the public may get confused  and the county would not be billing insurance companies for another month.

Mr. Spencer asked what was the actual fee for a trip in the ambulance. Ms. Lowe stated for basic life support it would be $315, for advance level one it would be $450 and advance level two would be $550 plus the $7.50 per mile.

Mr. Spencer said Ms. Lowe was doing a great job.

Mr. Gentry said there should not be a charge for a taxpayer in Louisa County.

Mr. Harper asked Ms. Lowe what she needed from the Board.  Ms. Lowe said she needed them to approve the start date of the program of September 1, 2008 and to implement the electronic call reporting November 1, 2008.  

Mr. Havasy made a motion to start the Revenue Recovery Program effective September 1, 2008 on paper and go to electronic billing as of November 1, 2008, seconded by Mr. Barnes.


Mr. Spencer said he thought there should be a resolution done.  Mr. Lintecum said there could be a resolution done to reflect the Boards action.


Mr. Byers asked if there were volunteers who were not fully trained what was the reason it could not be delayed until October 1, 2008 which would give them time to be trained.  

Mr. Barnes said if the date was moved back a month it would cause confusion for the public.  Mr. Barnes said from day one the county has said September 1, 2008.  Mr. Barnes said the program needed to move forward to get the kinks out.  

Mr. Harper asked if the volunteers are not properly trained in HIPPA and something done wrong, where does that leave the county.  Ms. Lowe said part of the curriculum to become an EMT was HIPPA training.

Chief Dube said there were two different issues being discussed.  Chief
Dube said the HIPPA basic training was including in EMT and Paramedic training.  Chief said the other was the HIPPA form that DAB requires to do the billing.  Chief said the providers needed to be trained on how to fill that form out.  Chief said he didnt think everyone could be trained by September 1, 2008 but the program could still be implemented and the others could be caught up.

Ms. Pandak said
she would be happy to work with the Chief so that the training needed to implement the program was done.  

Chief said DAB was willing to provide the training and every provider that goes on a call would need that training.

Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Lintecum what was the Board voting for.  Mr. Lintecum said the start billing September 1, 2008 and to start electronic billing November 1, 2008.

Mr. Harper asked what HIPPA was.  Ms. Lowe said HIPPA was a law that basically states that people can not share other peoples medical information unless needed.

Mr. Harper said if mistakes were made it would open doors to other things, it may be best to wait to make sure its done right.

Mr. Havasy said the EMTs and Paramedic could not do their jobs without the training.

Mr. Garland Nuckols said  he checked with the Department of Health and he was told because they are a volunteer agency if they didnt get the certification it would be opening up doors for liability.  Mr. Nuckols asked to please wait one month so everyone could be properly trained.

Mr. Barnes asked what was EMSALs vote.  Mr. Nuckols said their vote was unanimous.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call on Mr. Havasys motion.

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

With the votes reflecting 4-3, the motion failed to start the Revenue Recovery Program effective September 1, 2008 on paper and go electronic billing as of November 1, 2008.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

CUP05-08; Joseph F. and Carol C. Dubrino, Applicants/Owners; request the issuance of a conditional use permit for the establishment and operation of a commercial kennel.  

The request was for the issuance of a conditional use permit for the establishment and operation of a commercial kennel. Located in the Mineral voting district.  

There was no one present to discuss this request at the Neighborhood Meeting held on April 9, 2008.  

The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this topic on May 8, 2008.  The Planning Commission had concerns about the number of animals proposed and the impact those animals may have on the surrounding properties.  There was a motion to delay a decision until the next regular Planning Commission meeting, to allow for more information and illustration of the properties.  All approved and the motion passed with a vote of 6-0.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this topic on June 12, 2008.  The Planning Commission had concerns about vague inconsistencies with the application, along with concerns about impacts on surrounding properties and operations of the kennel.  There was a motion to recommend denial to the Board of Supervisors, which passed with a vote of 6-0.

Mr. Cockrell said there were issues about the noise and sanitary issues.  Mr. Cockrell  he had spoken with the Health Department and was told the waste from the animals was supposed to be stored in a container.  Mr. Cockrell said because dog waste doesnt break down there was some kind of pumping process that needed to be done and that would be an application through DEQ.  Mr. Cockrell said there were seven conditions;

The Board of Supervisors may wish to consider the possible impact on surrounding properties and the amount of traffic generated by this commercial kennel.  If the use is determined to be appropriate, the following conditions are suggested, along with any others deemed appropriate by the Board:

1.        Kennel is limited to fifty (50) animals per County kennel license, including those retired from breeding, not including puppies less than four (4) months old.

Mr. Cockrell said if the Board were to approve this CUP the staff recommends that the “per County kennel license” be removed from the #1.

2.        Submission and approval of a site plan in accordance with the Louisa County Site plan regulations prior to issuance of any building permits (Administrative Review) or submittal within six weeks of      CUP approval if no building permits are required.

3.        Approval from VDOT for ingress and egress.

4.        Any outdoor sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet and must be issued a sign permit in accordance with the Louisa County Sign Regulations.

5.        This conditional use permit is not transferable to a new applicant or property owner.

Mr. Cockrell said the applicant was requesting that the permit be transferable to immediate family.

6.        Violation of any of the above conditions shall be grounds for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.

7.        The Board of Supervisors or their designated representative reserves the right to inspect the premises at any time without prior notice.

Mr. Gentry said he keeps hearing the term puppy mill.  Mr. Gentry asked what was the definition and where did application fall in terms of a puppy mill.   Mr. Cockrell said he wasnt expert on the definition of a puppy mill but he knew the connotation behind it.  Mr. Cockrell said the connotation was breeding dogs without having the necessary means to take care of them and not taking good care of the animals.

Mr. Gentry asked hadnt there been a couple
of cases in Virginia where so called puppy mills have been shut down.  Mr. Cockrell said yes.  

Mr. Gentry asked under what process were they allowed to shut them down.  Mr. Cockrell said a state organization would be involved with shutting them down.

Mr. Byers said at the last meeting the applicant was suppose to be talking with the Department of Agriculture.  Mr. Byers asked Mr. Cockrell if he had heard anything about that.  Mr. Cockrell said no.

Mr. Byers asked was there a county ordinance to specifically deal with this type of waste.  Mr. Cockrell said that was with Health Department.


Ms. Dubrino stated she had called the Health Department today.  Ms Dubrino said they feel like they have complied with the rules and regulations based on the information they were given.  Ms. Dubrino said they have complied with the law.  Ms. Dubrino said puppy mills had come under attack and rightly so but her business was not a puppy mill.  Ms. Dubrino said their dogs were handled with love and affection.

Ms. Dubrino said they had sent their application to USDA and she waiting for a response and it has tak
en longer because of the House Bill 538.  Ms. Dubrino said she just wanted them to come out to see if she was doing something wrong so she could correct it.  

Ms. Dubrino said 70 percent of Virginias kennel would probably be lost if
House Bill 538 was enacted.  Ms. Dubrino said there was a lot in the bill that wasnt clarified.  Ms. Dubrino said there were a lot good kennels in Virginia.

Mr. Harper asked Ms. Dubrino if she would be keeping animals for hire and breeding animals.  Ms. Dubrino said yes, they have a stud service because her dogs were a champion line.

Mr. Harper asked what type of dogs did they breed.  Ms Dubrino said they were tea cup and toy Yorkshire Terriers, Malt
ese and Spitz.

Mr. Dubrino said most of the dogs are under 10 pounds.  Ms. Dubrino said they are really under six or seven pounds and she had a German Shepherd that was the guard dog.

Mr. Havasy asked how many females dogs were on sit
e.  Ms. Dubrino said they had 30 females.

Mr. Havasy asked how often do they breed.  Ms. Dubrino said normally twice a year.

Mr. Havasy said if the dogs breed twice a year how would she maintain the 50 cap.  Ms. Dubrino said anything under the new law anything under four months was not considered a count in the kennel and currently anything under six months was not considered in the count.  

Mr. Havasy asked Ms. Dubrino what would she do if she went over 50.  Ms. Dubrino said she would in compliance with the law and there were other breeders that would take the dogs.  Ms. Dubrino said they only get one or two puppies per litter and right now she had three puppies.

Mr. Gentry asked Ms. Dubrino what happen to their operation in Arlington County.  Ms. Dubrino said she never had an operation in Arlington County, she was in Fairfax County.  Ms. Dubrino said they took the puppies here there.  Ms. Dubrino said for three years here they didnt breed.  Ms. Dubrino said they have been breeding the last year and half.  

Mr. Gentry asked did the SPCA have any problems with their operation there.  Ms. Dubrino said no.

Mr. Gentry asked Ms. Dubrino how do they maintain their kennel here since they didnt live in the county.  Ms. Dubrino stated they have resided here since January of this year.  

Mr. Spencer asked what was going to be done as f
ar as the Health Departments requirement for the holding tank for waste.  Ms. Dubrino said she would have them come out and tell her where they could put it and then have it pumped once a year.

Mr. Harper asked how would the waste get to the tank.  Ms. Dubrino said buckets.  Ms. Dubrino said these were little dogs and they didnt have big waste.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Lonnie Hambleton Mineral District stated she had two pieces of property connected to the Dubrinos.  Ms. Hambleton said the Dubrinos requested a continuance at the last public hearing in order for the Department of Agriculture to come to their property in the “next couple of days” in order for them to get a license and it still hadnt come.  Ms. Hambleton said starting October 1, 2008 the Department of Agriculture would have a comprehensive animal law enactment for title 3.1 would now become title 3.2, which requires the Dubrinos to have a license by the USDA to run the kennel.   Ms. Hambleton said she had her same concerns she presented to the Planning Commission; environmental, health and about the dogs being housed in a house.  Ms. Hambleton stated one of the first thing in House Bill 538 states you can not run this type of business out of a residential dwelling.  Ms. Hambleton said the house was built residential and had always been.  Ms. Hambleton said on January 1, 2009 when House Bill 538 would be enacted and would take effect, it would require the Dubrinos to have a license.  Ms. Hambleton asked the Board to deny the request.

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

Mr. Dubrino said they have done their application for the USDA license and they expect to receive the inspection shortly.

Mr. Harper asked when did she make her application to the USDA.  Ms. Dubrino stated she ordered the application prior to the last meeting and didnt receive it until seven to ten days after the meeting and sent it in immediately and she called to make sure it was received.  

Mr. Harper said if she already had 30 dogs it was really tight because the maximum was 50, if she brought dogs to be housed.  Ms. Dubrino said she would only bring one or two dogs in to stud service.

Mr. Harper asked if he brought a dog to be kept where would the dog be kept.  Ms. Dubrino said she doesnt board dogs, they do a stud service.

Mr. Byers said in January 2008 some controls were put in place.  Mr. Byers said in March was when the applicant began their process after the control
s were put in place.  

Ms. Dubrino said they were not actively breeding and they did not sell.  Ms. Dubrino said when she contacted the County they told her she did not need a CUP because she was not actively selling.

Mr. Byers asked how many did she have then.  Ms. Dubrino said had about ten.

Mr. Wright said the applicant originally asked for 50 dogs per parcel and there were two parcels.  Mr. Wright said there were two parcels.  Ms. Dubrino said she wanted to make sure she was covered if the puppies she had went over the four months.  Ms. Dubrino said up until
House Bill 538 passes the law says six months.

Mr. Gentry asked how many puppies had the applicant had a
t one time.  Mr. Gentry said he was told they had play pens filled with puppies.  Ms. Dubrino said every play pen was four by four and there were two puppies to a play pen.  Ms. Dubrino said if there were three in the litter they do keep the litter together until they are four months and then they would move one.

Mr. Gentry asked if she ever had more than two puppies in a p
en.  Ms. Dubrino said no.

Mr. Spencer asked the applicant if she was waiting on the license from the USDA.  Ms. Dubrino said yes and she was told that she would be called in the next three weeks.

Mr. Spencer stated to the applicant she had
known about the tank for the waste and the getting the license from USDA and hadnt done either.  Ms. Dubrino said she didnt know anything about having the tank for waste until Mr. Cockrell said he called the Health Department today and she was going to call the Health Department tomorrow.  Ms. Dubrino said she had called before and was told she could use her sewer.  Ms. Dubrino said maybe the person she spoke with at the Health Department did not know all the rules and regulations, like the person she spoke with at the county.

Ms. Dubrino said they would get the USDA license since they do not live there but are using the residence as a kennel.  Ms. Dubrino said they reside at the other property.

Mr. Harper said he would like to see if they get
a USDA license and hear what the Health Department had to say about the tank for the waste.  

Mr. Harper asked the Board if they would consider continuing this public hearing for 30 days in order to see if the applicant gets the USDA license.  

Mr. Harper said to the applicant that the 50 maximum was a stretch.  Mr. Harper asked the applicant to sit down and enumerate everything and the parcel that the dogs would be sold from because she had jumped from 100 to 50, for two parcels to one.  Mr. Harper asked that everything be very well defined.

Mr. Harper said he couldnt make any promises.  Ms. Dubrino said she understood and she just wanted to be treated fairly.

It was a consensus of the Board to continue until October 6, 2008 meeting.

Public Hearing - Amendment to Section 86-464. Districts described to add:  proposed addition South Anna Agricultural and Forestal District

Mr. Cockrell said there were two parcels that met the comprehensive plan and staff recommended approval.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Mr. Roy Hopkins said he encouraged his neighbor to put his property in the district.  Mr. Hopkins said his family was conservation minded and at least there would be some land that would not be developed.  Mr. Hopkins encouraged the Board to approve the addition.

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

Mr. Barnes said he has been asking that a sign but put up so that people know when they enter and leave an Agricultural and Forestal District.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to approve the Amendment to Section 86-464. Districts described to add:  proposed addition South Anna Agricultural and Forestal District

Discussion Proposal for use of Revenue Recovery funds

Ms. April Lowe stated the Revenue Recovery Committee was established “to see if revenue recovery was feasible for the County” and “to determine the pros and cons of the program.   Ms. Lowe said since that determination has been made, it was her recommendation that the Committee go into “inactive” status with the stipulation that they would meet annually or as needed to review the program and make future funding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.  Ms. Lowe said she was requesting the Boards approval in that matter.

On motion of Mr. Havasy , seconded by Mr. Gentry , which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to allow the Revenue Recovery Committee to go into inactive status with the stipulation that they would meet annually or as needed to review the program and make future funding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

Ms. Lowe stated a Workgroup was established to focus on training and implementation for the software.   Ms. Lowe said the Workgroup met on August 6th to resolve procedural issues for paper submittal and to start discussing configuration issues.  Ms. Lowe said they met again on August 8th and almost all configurations were done.  Ms. Lowe stated the next meeting had been scheduled for August 24th to finish discussing configuration issues and to discuss signature forms and another meeting had been scheduled for September 2nd to implement the changes and finalize configuration.  Ms. Lowe said the Workgroup will also determine the appropriate people from each agency with administrator access to the records and when that group has been determined, those selected would be trained on the management side of the software.  Ms. Lowe said the Toughbooks would be distributed to each squad during the second week of September.

Ms. Lowe stated there was a recommendation submitted by the Committee for the use of revenue recovery funds included in the Board Packet.  Ms. Lowe said she was requesting the Board approval for the concept of the proposal.

Ms. Lowe stated if the proposal was approved she was also  
be requesting the Boards approval to form a new committee that would be responsible for determining specifications for standardized ambulance and determining ownership for the new ambulances.

Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Havasy was EMSAL okay with these recommendation.  Mr. Havasy said yes, they were in full agreement to standardize.

Mr. Barnes said EMSAL was formed to give the Board advice on things like this and he did not want to circumvent that committee.

Mr. Havasy said there was an invitation extended to each agency to be a
part of the Revenue Recovery Committee.

Mr. Byers said he hoped the Board would not lose sight of what the Program would cost since the beginning, so that it could be looked at to see how much income was being generated against expenditures.

Mr. Byers asked did the Revenue Recovery Program need additional staff.  Ms. Lowe said eventually.  Chief Dube said not at this time.

Chief
Dube said to follow-up with the vehicle issue discussed early, if the vehicles were the same ambulances the county would get more economy.

Mr. Havasy said the volunteers put in a lot of hours and the goal of the Revenue Recovery was to make sure they have the latest equipment to take care of the citizens of Louisa County.

Mr. Byers said if the program wa
s costing more to administer than it was generating was the county really making any advances.  Mr. Byers said he wanted the Board to be cautious that the staff didnt cost more than the program.  Mr. Havasy said there were not any plans to add any more staff.

Mr. Gentry said did the Board really want to tie the money into one line item  Mr. Gentry said FY 2011 was some time away and there may be some where else the money needed to go at that time.   Mr. Gentry asked Ms. Lowe what was discussed to come with that decision.

Ms. Lowe said the Committee didnt know how much funds would be collected.  Ms. Lowe said being able to see the revenue for two years would allow the committee to make future recommendations to the Board.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted  for Revenue Recovery Committee to follow the Louisa County Board of Supervisors mandate to place the first two years of revenue into a fund with the only authorized payout to cover the operational costs of the program and the start up costs. For FY 11, the revenue would be placed into a capital improvement line item and be used to purchase replacement transport ambulances for the volunteer agencies and the Countys Emergency Services Department.  

On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to start the Revenue Recovery Program October 1, 2008 and the electronic billing November 1, 2008.

Mr. Barnes asked how would the citizens be notified that the program doesnt start until October 1, 2008.  Mr. Harper said they wouldnt be notified.

Ms. Lowe said she would probably get the newspaper to write an article to notify the public.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Barnes what was his suggestion.

Mr. Barnes asked if the people who had paid the $65 would b
e getting prorated or a refund on that month.  Ms. Lowe said it would start a month later and end a month later.

Mr. Byers asked did they have a plan for the people who didnt want to pay.  Mr. Harper said it would be the same way the county collected on any other bill.  

Mr. Harper said the program went from billing four times and forgetting about to compassionate billing.
        

Discussion Energy conservation measures

Mr. McLeod said during the Boards meeting on July 7th, the Board of Supervisors requested the County Administrator to develop some conservation efforts for the County. Mr. McLeod said a committee was created with the following members: Bob Hardy; Kevin Linhares, Paul Oswell, Paul Snyder, Robert Dube, Sherry Vena, and Himself.

Mr. McLeod said the committee looked how the cost could be reduced in vehicles and county buildings.  Mr. McLeod said the committee discussed that changing the employees schedule or modifying it into a flexible work schedule would not save any County funds; but it could help save employees funds.

Mr. McLeod said Mr. Linhares calculated if the county building was closed for one day per week for 52 weeks, the savings would be appropriately $15,000.  Mr. McLeod said it was also discussed if the Louisa County citizens would like the building being closed one day per week, even if the hours per day were lengthened for the rest of the week and would the county employees like to work a longer shift.

Mr. McLeod said the committee was suggesting that the Community Development Director, the Building Official, and the Assessor not be allowed to take vehicles home.  Mr. McLeod stated it was also suggested that the three Facility maintenance workers rotate the on-call duty thus two trucks will not be taken home. Mr. McLeod said therefore out of the 14 vehicles being taken home, the new total will be ten vehicles. Mr. McLeod said the ten vehicles that would be taken home would be;  three in EMS; five in Community Development, one in Tourism, and one in Facility Maintenance. Mr. McLeod said it was also discussed that the Engineer and Community Development Director positions start utilizing a pool vehicle instead of having one designated. Mr. McLeod said Parks and Recreation had previously changed the ability of one employee from taking a County vehicle home prior to the Committees recommendation, so that makes 1/3 of the vehicles would no longer be taken home.

Mr. McLeod said fleet cards have been ordered for all of the Sheriffs vehicles and some of the Countys vehicles. Mr. McLeod said Mansfield Oil Company was suggested by the Schools.  Mr. McLeod said  Mansfield Oil provides service to 726 school districts, 546 counties, 326 cities, and 693 state delivery locations. Mr. McLeod said the gas price will not include any taxes and it should be comparable to the prices received from the School Bus Garage.

Mr. McLeod said the Countys buildings was where the county could get the most efficiencies.  Mr. McLeod said by changing the light fixtures, create a temperature policy of 72 degrees and review each building for the Energy Star Program. Mr. McLeod said the committee also thought it would be energy efficient to require all employees turn off their personal computers each day and for the overhead lights to be turned off when not in use. Mr. McLeod said there were some problems with the temperature policy at this time, some of the offices were quite cool and more than 10 degrees off the 72 degrees.  Mr. McLeod said the HVAC system would need to be working properly prior to requesting the removal of the space heaters.  Mr. McLeod said it will cost money in the short run, but it should save money in the long run.

Mr. McLeod said the Facilities Director had not developed a cost benefit analysis on all the solution however, he had calculated the energy costs of each building and compared them to the national averages. Mr. McLeod said County had four buildings that were over the average: the Administrative building, Animal Pound, Betty Queen and the Library.  

Mr. McLeod said
another effort to help would be for the County employees to start recycling in the County Buildings for paper, plastics and aluminum cans. Mr. McLeod said Mr. Will Cockrell had attached a proposal to start the program. Mr. McLeod said Mr. Cockrell was looking for someone to be the Recycling Coordinator however, Mr. McLeod would recommend Mr. Cockrell be named as the Recycling Coordinator.

Mr. Gentry asked was there any study done for the vehicles going homes and for Facilities how much were the employees called out.  Mr. McLeod said he didnt know how much Facilities was called out however, for Community Development the PCs were placed in the vehicles so the Inspectors didnt have to come into the office.  

Mr. Gentry asked was it working. Mr. McLeod said the only place it was not working was where the inspector lives close to Louisa and they park their car at the office and then go back out.

Mr. Gentry said the employees who take the county vehicles home was to the countys advantage.  Mr. McLeod said yes.  

Mr. Gentry asked how was the tourism vehicle used.  Mr. McLeod said the employee lives on Route 208 and to utilize a county vehicle she would have to come to the county building then go back to Zion Crossroads to the Visitors Center.  Mr. McLeod said that was the idea at the time however, the vehicle could be housed at the hotel.  

Mr. Hardy said they didnt want to have county vehicle parked at the hotel.

Mr. Harper asked were the employees with the computers in their vehicle building inspectors.  Mr. McLeod said yes.

Mr. Spencer said he was told the only people allowed to have the computer in view were VDOT and law enforcement.  Mr. McLeod said the computer are on the side and the inspectors are not using them while driving.  

Mr. Spencer asked were they in view of the driver.  Mr. Hardy said their instructions were to close the laptops when they were driving because it protects the laptop.

Mr. Harper said the Board appreciated what Mr. McLeod had done.  Mr. Harper said they would like to have the cost benefit analysis done.

Mr. Lintecum said he and Mr. Barnes had discussed the issue prior to Mr. Byers bringing it up.  Mr. Lintecum said He and Mr. Barnes felt that mindsets needed to be changed and that unneeded trips should not be taken.  Mr. Lintecum said he doesnt drive his county car home unless he was leaving from home or inclement weather had been forecasted.  

Mr. Lintecum said now the long term price needed to be looked at when vehicles were purchased because of gas.  Mr. Lintecum said he would emphasize to the staff to set the example and be responsible.  

Mr. Lintecum said right now the Building Inspectors could work ten hour days but when the time changes he was sure the Board didnt want the Inspectors doing inspections with flashlights.

Mr. Byers suggested in future to look at the type of vehicles being appropriated for certain jobs.

Mr. Barnes said if the county was going to see any major savings, the changes would need to be in the buildings for example the lights and temperatures of the buildings.  Mr. Barnes said a lot of  places are training their custodians to look for lights on as they go through the buildings cleaning.

Mr. McLeod said some of the offices in the Administrative Building are very cold so  when the employee comes in they turn on the space heater and the county pays twice.  

Discussion Comp Time policy

Mr. McLeod stated the county started to give departments and employees

flexibility in dealing with any additional hours worked.  Mr. McLeod said some of employees because of their job had been working extra hours.  Mr. McLeod said the employees had an opportunity to say if they wanted comp time or overtime.  Mr. McLeod said if the overtime was approved and the employee chose comp time they could accrue it over the year and use it when they didnt have enough time. Mr. McLeod said this had been going on for six or seven years that he knows of.

Mr. McLeod said the time sheets were modified to see how much comp time an employee has so when the supervisor signs they would know.  Mr. McLeod said he would say the way
the way it was being done was going well.  Mr. McLeod said there were employees who need the extra time and they utilized it.

Mr. McLeod said one of the ways to control it was pay off any unutilized comp time at the end of the fiscal year.  Mr. McLeod said at the end of FY 08, employees were paid out $4,910.52 for unused comp time.  Mr. McLeod said when that was compare
d to the Communication Officers in the Sheriffs Department over an eight year period they averaged $7,000 to $8,000 a year.  Mr. McLeod said if they were paid off on an annual basis they would not have had an issue.

Mr. Harper said it wasnt what the employees needed it was what the company needed and Department Heads needed to manage the people.  Mr. Harper said if you can get the comp time used in the same pay period its the same hourly pay.
 
Mr. McLeod said what he meant to say if the overtime was previously approved then it may be used as comp time.

Mr. Harper stated Mr. McLeod was doing a good job managing the comp time and hopefully everyone else could get on board.

Discussion Implementation of a customer service survey

Mr. Lintecum stated he gave the Board an example of the survey DMV uses.  Mr. Lintecum said he thought it was important that the staff be brought into the concept.

Mr. Lintecum said he thought a committee should be formed with department heads and staffs to come up with something that was useful and viable.  

Mr. Lintecum said he recommends setting up a committee including a Board member.  

Mr. Harper said the DMV survey was very simple and easy to answer and that would be the one people would fill out  Mr. Harper asked Mr. Byers if he would be a part of the committee.  Mr. Byers agreed.

Mr. Barnes said he would urge the Board not to set the employees up and make sure the survey ask for the persons name or email address.  Mr. Barnes said with that the person could be contact
ed and if there was problem it could be rectified.

Mr. Harper said he agreed however, if he was a builder and had a complaint about a builder inspector he surely would not put his name down.

Mr. Byers said the survey was not to challenge the employees.  
Mr. Byers said there were citizens that the county services that could offer ideas that would be worth a lot.

Mr. Harper said it would be a tool.

Discussion Southern Health Care transition

Ms. Sherry Vena said in April when they asked the Board to consider changing the heath care, they realized that change would not be easy and they realized that there would be some disruptions to the employees.  Ms. Vena said they tried get many issues resolved early on.   Ms. Vena said a memo was included in the Board Packet and there were any questions she would be happy to answer.    

Mr. Spencer said he had Constitutional Officers that were upset because they were not involved until the process was over.

Mr. Spencer said some employees were not getting benefits as far as their changes for deductibles.

Ms. Vena said there wasnt any discussion with the Constitutional Officers and she did go and apologize to them.  Ms. Vena said the main reason they didnt have discussion with a lot of people was because the discussion was more on the financial side and the plan design was not really changing.

Mr. David Blanchard from Dominion Health said part of the transition was a deductible change.  Mr. Blanchard said transition typically requires a reloading of the deductible.  Mr. Blanchard said any money used towards your deductible with the original carrier does not count for new carrier at the time of the new contract.  Mr. Blanchard said Southern Health did allow any deductible that had been spent from January 1, 2008 to June 1, 2008 to count toward their deductible.  Mr. Blanchard said the Southern Health didnt start until July 1, 2008 and would end June 30, 2009.  

Mr. Gentry asked was the deductible calendar year or contract year.  Mr. Blanchard said Anthem was calendar year and Southern Health was contract year.

Mr. Byers said there was a lot of good information in the report and he would like to see it reduced to one page and given to the Constitutional Officers and others that were impacted or effected by the program.

Mr. Harper asked that information be given to the Constitutional Officers.

Resolution Declaring the Boards intention to reimburse the cost of certain expenditures

Mr. McLeod stated when the Board first started talking about building the new Elementary School the Board adopted a resolution for the county to reimburse itself for any expenditures that were incurred prior to going out for bonds.  Mr. McLeod said this would be a resolution that would continue to be brought before the Board before any large project where funds would be borrowed.  Mr. McLeod said it gives the county the flexibility to be reimbursed.

Mr. Gentry asked what was the Treasurer regulations that the resolution spoke of.

Mr. McLeod said if you dont have this resolution in place and the county goes for a VPSA bond the county could only use those funds for expenditures going forward.  Mr. McLeod said if the resolution was in place so the county could pay itself back for upfront cost.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution declaring the Boards intention to reimburse the cost of certain expenditures.

Resolution Of affirmation of authorization to pick-up the employees contribution to VRS for the County of Louisa, 54-6001398, under § 414(h) of the Internal Revenue Code

Mr. McLeod stated this was a matter of the IRS requiring VRS to reaffirm a resolution for what has already been done.

Mr. Harper said all localities are being asked to do this.

Mr. Spencer asked was the resolution costing the County anything.  Mr. McLeod said no and it didnt change anything either.


        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution of affirmation of authorization to pick-up the employees contribution to VRS for the County of Louisa, 54-6001398, under § 414(h) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Discussion Thomas Jefferson Elementary School

Mr. Spencer said he read the article in the Central Virginian about TJES and how water had been running under the school for 20 years and it hadnt been fixed.  Mr. Spencer said it keeps coming up that everyone was waiting on the Board of Supervisors to turn TJES into a vocational center.  Mr. Spencer said he doesnt understand taking a building that was in that bad of shape, take the money to fix it and turn it into a Vocational Center and then build a new school.

Mr. Spencer said he gets tired of hearing the School Board say the Board of Supervisors are going to take TJES over.  Mr. Spencer said he had no intention of taking that building over.

Mr. Wright said what initially brought this up was the School Board asking the Board of Supervisors to budget $28 million dollars to renovate TJES.  Mr. Wright said why renovate for $28 million when a new school could be built for $16 million.

Mr. Wright said he was told by former Superintendent that there was a spring under the building and then he was told there were broken pipes that could be repaired.

Mr. Gentry said He and Mr. Byers have on their list for the School Board/Board of Supervisor Committee to discuss the future of TJES.  Mr. Gentry said in the last several months the drainage issue had come up at the School Board meetings.  Mr. Gentry said they are addressing it to see what was going on because if there was a water issue the building couldnt be used for a Vocational School either.

Mr. Gentry said when the Planning Commissioners were having the discussions about the CIP and the School Administration was suppose to get back with the Planning Commission by July 1, 2008 on the status of TJES and it hadnt been done. Mr. Gentry said He and Mr. Byers would be emphasizing the importance of knowing the status of TJES.  Mr. Gentry said he was waiting for the School Board to say what could be done with TJES, at that time they could move forward.

Mr. Harper said it was his opinion that it was a school and it should be operated as a school.

Mr. Havasy asked did the School Board indicate that they had an engineering firm go in and find out the problem.  Mr. Wright said they had arrang
ed for it.

Mr. Harper said TJES was an Elementary School and that was what
it was operating as.  

Mr. Barnes said if the decision of both Boards was for it to remain as a school then it would remain a school.  Mr. Barnes said there was a committee in place to discuss this between Boards.

Mr. Gentry said Mr. Byers and Himself needed to know what the Board wanted so they could convey that to the committee.

Mr. Barnes said the School Divisions responsibility was to educat
e children and look at their facilities. Mr. Barnes said they could come to Board with a recommendation and then the Board could decide.  Mr. Barnes said it was the School Boards responsibility by the General Assembly.

Mr. Harper said to tell the School Board the Board wanted a fair appraisal.

Discussion Open positions in Louisa County  

Mr. Byers asked what was the process when a position become vacant.  Mr. Byers said he doesnt want the county to get into a position where they have to lay off employees.  

Mr. Harper said read the Governors latest numbers, over $7,000,000 trimmed in personnel in the next two years.

Mr. Lintecum said there are two positions in Community Development that had been approved by the Board that had not been advertised.  Mr. Lintecum said one was an Code Enforcement Officer and the other was a Planner.  

Mr. Lintecum stated given the economic times he thought it was best not to fill those positions.  Mr. Lintecum said two new vacancies are the County Engineer and a Building Inspector.  Mr. Lintecum said he wants to make sure the Building Inspector hired was experienced on the commercial side because that was the growth taking place right now.  Mr. Lintecum said with the County Engineer position either that position is filled or someone would have to be brought in to help oversee the landfill under a contractual basis, which he has done before.

Mr. Havasy asked what was the cost difference in hiring someone and contracting someone.  Mr. Lintecum said it would cheaper to bring in the consultant one or twice to check, however then the county
doesnt have a County Engineer on other projects and the county would have to rely on other people.

Mr. Gentry said there needed to be a policy to say whether or not Mr. Lintecum had the Board support to fill positions after the budget process.  Mr. Gentry said there needed to be some process where the Board could check on Mr. Lintecum plans to do when filling a position.  Mr. Gentry said the open positions were taken care of during the budget process but as thing change throughout the year the Board should be involved.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum for a list of vacancies and what his intentions were with those vacancies.

Mr. Havasy stated Mr. Lintecum was the County Administrator and runs the county.  Mr. Havasy said the Board of Supervisors does not do the hiring.  Mr. Havasy said if the Board steps in and decides who gets hired the county would not run as efficiently because the Board cant look at the whole county like Mr. Lintecum could.  Mr. Havasy said looking at past history, the quality of people he has hired, the county has some great employees and the Mr. Lintecum has done a great job.  Mr. Havasy said he didnt want to get the Board into who Mr. Lintecum hires.

Mr. Harper said the Board was responsible for the financial side of it.

Mr. Barnes said he understood the Board members concerns but he worries a little on the side of micro management.  Mr. Barnes said it was the job of the County Administrator to manage the county.  Mr. Barnes said the Board may be looking for a reduction in force policy. Mr. Barnes said it was the Boards job to set policy.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Lintecum to bring that back to the Board.  Mr. Harper told Mr. Lintecum to use his judgment whether he should provide the information asked of him.

Mr. Byers said he doesnt question Mr. Lintecums integrity or his ability to manage however he wanted to know what goes on with the county resources.  Mr. Byers said he liked to be informed.

Discussion James River Water Project

Mr. Barnes said he was concerned about Economic Development.  Mr. Barnes said James River Water Project was going to the back burner.  Mr. Barnes said the James River Water Project was very important to the economic impact of Louisa County. Mr. Barnes stated he didnt want to see the county go back to 1997 with one of the highest unemployment rates in Central Virginia.  

Mr. Barnes said the James River Water Project was a must, it needed to stay out front and the Board needed to be advised of what was going on.

Mr. Barnes said in this months edition of Virginia Business magazine Spring Creek golf course was the only thing mentioned about Louisa County.   Mr. Barnes said other counties are standing out from an economic standpoint.  Mr. Barnes said Louisa was there and now the Board seemed to be backing off.   Mr. Barnes said he would challenge the Board to go back and put economic development first.

Mr. Barnes said the taxes from Zion Crossroads were keeping the county a float.

Mr. Barnes stated he would like to know what was the status of the project, where the county was with engineering and design.

Mr. Harper said at the last meeting the Board gave the Chair and Mr. Lintecum the approval to move ahead and get with Fluvanna to put together the management approach.

Mr. Lintecum said he would be meeting with the engineer this week and he would take that information to the Chairman and then they would go back to Fluvanna to see if a recommendation could be brought back to both governing bodies.

Mr. Barnes said he would like to have a report on the update of that pipeline because that pipeline was crucial to the economic development of Louisa County.

Mr. Harper said there was no question about that and the delay was on the other side of Route 250.

Mr. Havasy said he would like a monthly report on the pipeline until they start breaking ground.

Mr. Lintecum said he had already schedule
d Dewberry to be here next week to talk about the Regional Water Supply Plan.  Mr. Lintecum said he could schedule Timmons to be here to and they could both give an update.

Mr. Barnes said he wanted to know if Economic Development was open or closed for business.  Mr. Harper said to have Mr. Gibson at the next meeting to let the Board know.


Discussion
Local Contractual

Mr. Barnes said there were a lot of local contractor that were hurting.  Mr. Barnes said they were taxpayers of Louisa County.  

Mr. Barnes said he asked Ms. Pandak to look at ways the county would not break procurement laws that county could keep the contract jobs in Louisa.  Mr. Barnes said Ms. Pandak responded to the Board memo and would like to have that process implemented.

Ms. Pandak said there were ways to design Request For Proposals in which you highlight those aspects of the proposal that make it reasonable to look at things like time, distance and materials where it otherwise would not be considered.  Ms. Pandak said she also listed what other communities had done.

Mr. Gentry said he thought the memo did a really go
od job.

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Spencer voting against, the Board voted for the County Attorney to meet with the County Procurement Officer to discuss this matter further.

Discussion DSS Contractual Issue

Mr. Paul Oswell stated there was memo included in the Board packet and if the Board had any questions he would be happy to answer them.

Mr. Spencer referred to the memo and asked was the Judge trying to tell the county that Mr. Morgan the former County Attorney was not doing his job.  Mr. Oswell said yes.

Mr. Spencer asked did the Judge have the authority to tell the county they had to hire an attorney.

Mr. Oswell said the movement across the State has been for DSS to be represented in court.  Mr. Oswell said the Judge felt DSS was not be
ing adequately represented so he sought other legal representation.

Mr. Spencer asked who was paying for this person. Mr. Oswell said he was out
of his budget.  Mr. Spencer asked was that out of county funds or state funds.  Mr. Oswell said it was out of state, local and federal funds.

         Mr. Spencer said he understood that Mr. Lintecum and the Board never authorized this position.  Mr. Oswell said the position was contracted.  Mr. Spencer asked how much was this contract costing.  Mr. Oswell said he wasnt sure if he should disclose that in public.

Mr. Wright asked was it split three ways.  Mr. Oswell said yes, Louisa pays 50 percent and the other two counties pay the rest.

Mr. Wright stated Louisa County paid 50 percent, Orange County paid 35 percent and Madison County paid 15 percent.

Mr. Oswell said the attorney was a Louisa resident.

Mr. Harper asked other than the desire of the Judge what did the county gain for hiring a contractual attorney.  Mr. Oswell said they gain an experienced attorney.  

Mr. Harper asked was there a dollar figure that could be put on it.  Mr. Oswell said the attorney helped with less children coming into care.

Mr. Barnes asked if this was already in Mr. Oswell budget and was he asking for another appropriation.  Mr. Oswell said yes it was in the budget and no he wasnt asking for any appropriations.  

Mr. Havasy said it was about the children not being property represented and if the Judge came out and said it he thought this was reasonable.

Mr. Gentry said he thought it was the right
decision but, he didnt like the idea of  the Judge saying the County Attorney at the time was incompetent and not telling the Board.

Mr. Wright said Social Services has their own Board of Directors and that Board was who approved this contract and he doesnt know why this Board was even getting involved.

Mr. Pandak said the Judge can not order the Board of Supervisors or Social Services to hire a different attorney.

Mr. Spencer read part of the DSS Attorneys contract and asked what was she doing with a county car.  Mr. Oswell said she travels between her sites.  Mr. Spencer said since she was not a county employee how does the insurance cover her.  Mr. Oswell said he checked with the insurance carrier and they were fin
e with that.

Mr. Spencer said the county was paying for a car for this attorney to go other sites.  Mr. Oswell said the county was only paying their share of the cost.

Discussion Change in appropriation

Mr. Byers asked that when Departments and Agencies asking for changes in their appropriation have someone present at the Board meeting for questions.

Mr. Barnes said he agreed with Mr. Byers and the person asking for the appropriation need to be present at the Board meeting

Its a consensus of the Board if anyone asked for a change in their appropriation that they be present at the Board meeting.


COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr.  Lintecum said Mr. Gentry and Mr. Byers meeting would be Wednesday, August 20, 2009 at 8:00 a.m. with the two School Board members who were a part of their committee.

Mr. Gentry said Tuesday August 19, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Byers and Himself would be sitting in on the School Board meeting.


BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Gentry stated he would like to appoint Mr. Henry Walsh to the Transportation Safety Committee.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to reappoint Mr. Scott Dixon to the Workforce Investment Board. Mr. Harper stated he would like to appoint Mr. William Thomas to the Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Board.  

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Mr. Henry Walsh to the Transportation Safety Committee, reappoint Mr. Scott D to the Workforce Investment Board and appointed Mr. William Thomas to the Rappahannock Juvenile Detention Board.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Lintecum stated at the August 4, 2008 meeting, the Board asked staff to inquire about funding OAR, the memo was included in the Board Packet.  Mr. Lintecum said there wasnt much if any action being taken by other counties.  

Mr. Barnes said he suggested the Board not taking any action.  Mr. Harper said no action would be taken.

Mr. Lintecum stated a letter regarding DGIF and TBSF was sent to Robert Duncan, Director, on July 28, 2008 Mr. Lintecum stated his response was enclosed.

Mr. Lintecum stated the Community Development summary of activities for May 2008 was included in the Board Packet.

Mr. Lintecum stated the Facilities Management Department monthly summary was included in the Board Packet.

Mr. Lintecum said in the meeting he had with his staff he informed them that the Board would be requesting more reports.

Mr. Gentry said the Aquatic Facility was still doing very well and he would like to thank Ms. Shelhorse for a job well done.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution Recognizing the opening of the new sanctuary of the Temple of  Deliverance HCG, Inc.

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing the opening of the new sanctuary of the Temple of  Deliverance HCG, Inc.

Resolution Recognizing Robert Whitlock for his years of service on the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Robert Whitlock for his years of service on the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee.

Resolution Recognizing Ellen Wright for her years of service with the Commission of Aging

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing Ellen Wright for her years of service with the Commission of Aging.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0,  with Mr. Gentry abstaining with bills pertaining to himself, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of August 2008 (FY 2008) for the County of Louisa in the amount of $104,721.09.

        On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0,  with Mr. Gentry abstaining with bills pertaining to himself, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of August 2008 (FY 2009) for the County of Louisa in the amount of $518,551.63.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

        On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the August 4, 2008 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 9:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:  

1.        In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (1) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the County Administrator.

2.        In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (1) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the County Administrator.

3.       In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on legal advise with respect to the Cutalong CDA.

4.       In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on legal advise regarding rezoning 17-07 Patriots Crossing.

5.       In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on a county agreement.

6.       In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on litigation Board of Supervisors Vs. Board of Equalization.

REGULAR SESSION

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 9:37 p.m.

RESOLUTION  CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 18th day of August 2008, 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 18th day of August 2008, 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 motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0. the Board voted to have a public hearing concerning the Cutalong CDA

ADJOURNMENT

On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the August 18, 2008 meeting at 9:41 p.m.


BY ORDER OF

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