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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
5:00 P.M.

Board Members Present: Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Dan W. Byers, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, P.T. Spencer, Jr. and Jack T. Wright
Others Present: Dale Mullen, County Administrator; 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; Faye Stewart, Procurement Officer; Robert Carter, Solid Waste Coordinator; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration and Kimberly Smith, Records Clerk, Administration

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the September 21, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Spencer led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper added a discussion of the Louisa County High School Gym Wall under Old Business.  Mr. Harper added a discussion of the Louisa County Public School CIP project for parking lot paving under Old Business.  Mr. Harper added a discussion of the Louisa County Public School CIP project for electrical upgrades to Old Business.

Mr. Harper added two items to the Closed Session agenda in regards to personnel and contractual matters and noted that actual or probable litigation was already listed.

Mr. Harper asked that the order of the Public Hearings be swapped.  The Board concurred.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the September 21, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

Presentation - Resolution Recognizing Tammy Noakes

Mr. Mullen read the resolution and presented a signed, framed copy to Ms. Noakes.

Mr. Garland Nuckols, EMSAL Representative, presented a trophy to Ms. Noakes honoring her for being the Outstanding Communications Officer for 2009.

Presentation - Resolution Recognizing Ms. Van Morris on her 97th Birthday

Mr. Barnes said he attended Ms. Morris church about a month ago and he learned that she was 97 years young.  Mr. Barnes said he wanted citizens of the County to be aware of how blessed they were to have citizens like Ms. Morris in the community.  Mr. Barnes said 97 years deserved a round of applause.

Mr. Mullen read the resolution and Mr. Barnes presented a signed, framed copy to Ms. Morris and her family.

Mr. Spencer said it was a pleasure to have Ms. Morris in attendance and he hoped that in three years the Board would be able to recognize her for her 100th birthday.

Ms. Morris thanked the Board for recognizing her and inviting her to attend the meeting.

Presentation - Of the U.S. Fire Administrations National Fire Academys Executive Fire Officer Program Certificate to Louisa County Fire Chief Robert Dubé

Mr. Mullen introduced Deputy Chief Jeff Coleman of the Fairfax County Fire Department.  Mr. Mullen said Mr. Coleman had over thirty years in fire service and was a faculty member of the National Fire Academy.

Mr. Coleman said he was honored to be recognizing Chief Robert Dubé for his accomplishment in completing the Executive Fire Officer Program at the National Fire Academy.  Mr. Coleman said the Program was a four-year program and consisted of graduate level work.  Mr. Coleman said each participant must attend a two week on-campus class and then complete an applied research project before moving on to the next portion of the Program.  Mr. Coleman noted that this Program was a huge endeavor and the number of people who start is greatly larger than the number of people who actually complete the Program.

Mr. Coleman said the completion of this program required great sacrifice from Ms. Susan Dubé and said she should also be recognized.  Mr. Coleman presented a certificate of completion to Chief Dubé and honored him for completing the Executive Fire Officer Program.

Senator Ed Houck thanked the Board for inviting him to attend the meeting.  Senator Houck presented a certificate to Chief Dubé recognizing him for completing the Executive Fire Officer Program.  Senator Houck also commended the Board and Mr. Mullen for hiring Chief Dubé as Fire Chief.

Presentation - JAUNT, Inc. Annual Report

Ms. Shaunesey said she was delighted to report great things that were happening in Louisa with the JAUNT service.  Ms. Shaunesey said there were two Louisa Board members appointed to the JAUNT Board of Directors, Mr. Gentry and Mr. Spencer.

Ms. Shaunesey said ridership increased 22% in Louisa and more and more people were taking advantage of the JAUNT services.  Ms. Shaunesey said ridership on the commuter route grew 29% and last year it had grown 89%.  Ms. Shaunesey said the Saturday service grew by 38%.

Ms. Shaunesey said the positive side was that more people were riding the JAUNT buses, but the down side was that people had to ride for an extended period of time.  Ms. Shaunesey said Louisa was a large county and the objective was to have as many people ride the buses as possible.

Ms. Shaunesey said the ridership on the mid-day route was the only one to show a slight down turn, but it was still an incredibly successful route.

Ms. Shaunesey said the highest priority for improving service would be to add a new bus route because some people have to ride for as long as three hours to get to Charlottesville.  Ms. Shaunesey said one cause of that was Louisa was a large county and the buses had to travel everywhere to pick up riders.  Ms. Shaunesey said the second reason was once the bus arrived in Charlottesville, there were stops all over the place to drop riders off.

Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT had been considered the bus for seniors, but most of the growth that took place in the last year was in the adult riders.  Ms. Shaunesey said the amount of adult riders grew 43% in the last year.  Ms. Shaunesey said a lot of people were using the buses to get to work.

Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT buses were more on time than ever before over the last year.  Ms. Shaunesey said there were no accidents involving JAUNT buses over the last year, which meant the service was becoming even safer.  Ms. Shaunesey said employee turnover was reduced to an all-time low of 5%.  Ms. Shaunesey said five of the drivers who drive in Louisa County received safety awards this year.

Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT received grant money for the Mobility Management Program.  Ms. Shaunesey said some of the grant money could also be used to build bus shelters so no one had to wait out in the weather to catch the bus.  Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT had already been talking to the planning department about this.

Ms. Shaunesey said the most exciting new program was the Wellness Wheels Program.  Ms. Shaunesey said riders would be taken to the Health and Wellness Center in Louisa.  Ms. Shaunesey said this was one way to get people back and forth to the doctors office affordably and there would be no cost to the County.

Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT was working on a plan to ensure that bus services would still be available in a time of crisis, such as a flood or a fuel shortage.  Ms. Shaunesey said one of the challenges was JAUNT had to go to one of the State gas stations around the area and did not have a dedicated fuel source.  Ms. Shaunesey said she was asked by her Board to check and see if JAUNT could use the Countys gas source in a time of crisis.  Ms. Shaunesey said JAUNT was not asking for free gas and stated that JAUNT would be paying for the gas.  Ms. Shaunesey said she wondered if it was possible to work out some type of contract in case of an emergency.

Ms. Shaunesey thanked the Board for their financial support and for the dedication of two great appointees to the JAUNT Board of Directors.

Mr. Gentry thanked Ms. Shaunesy for her service to JAUNT and for helping to make the bus services successful in Louisa County.

Mr. Wright said it was a regular thing to see JAUNT buses in the Mountain Road District now and he appreciated that.  Mr. Wright said he felt JAUNT was one of the best investments the Board had ever made.

Mr. Barnes asked how late in the afternoon the JAUNT buses returned from Charlottesville.  Ms. Shaunesey said it was usually between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m.  Mr. Barnes said it meant a lot when the public could rely on the JAUNT bus service and he would continue to financially support the service.

Mr. Harper thanked Ms. Shaunesey for her presentation.

Presentation - Virginia Waste Tire Program; Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Mr. Allan Lassiter said he wanted to address the Board on the efforts being made in Louisa County regarding tire clean-up.  Mr. Lassiter said tire dumps have been cleaned up since 1993 and DEQ was hoping to be done in three years.  Mr. Lassiter said there were 1,200 tire dumps in Virginia with over 25 million tires total.  Mr. Lassiter said there were approximately 146 piles left with a total of 2 million tires.

Mr. Lassiter said any tire on the ground 1993 and earlier was not illegal.  Mr. Lassiter said a tire could be placed anywhere prior to that time.  Mr. Lassiter said local ordinances could have applied, but as far as the State was concerned, a tire could be dumped anywhere.
 Mr. Lassiter said there were also no facilities to recycle a tire prior to 1993.  Mr. Lassiter said there are currently ten tire recyclers in Virginia and another one coming soon in Louisa County.  Mr. Lassiter said tire piles are still being found to this day that were created thirty to forty years ago.

Mr. Lassiter said another problem was people who dumped tires on other peoples property.  Mr. Lassiter said the State of Virginia would take care of that problem as long as it was proved that the tires were actually dumped.

Mr. Lassiter said that “new” tire dumps created after 1993 by people who knew it was illegal did not qualify to be cleaned up by the State.  Mr. Lassiter said it was very hard to prosecute someone because they had to be caught in the act, but it had been done in the past.

Mr. Lassiter said anything over 100 tires was considered a “tire pile.”  
Mr. Lassiter said there were laws against this now and many recycling opportunities were available.  Mr. Lassiter said that almost every tire created in Virginia was now being recycled.

Mr. Lassiter said DEQ found seven or eight piles in Louisa County in 1993 when this program was first started.  Mr. Lassiter said at that time, some people took their own initiative to clean up tire piles at Route 250 Auto and the Dowell property on Route 22.
 Mr. Lassiter said those property owners got the tires recycled on their own because they can do that rather than waiting for the State to come in and do it.

Mr. Lassiter
said the big tire dumps were cleaned up first.  Mr. Lassiter mentioned the tire fire in Winchester, Virginia in 1983 that started many of the clean-up efforts.  Mr. Lassiter said this was a Nation-wide problem and efforts were being done all across the United States to help clean up tire piles.  Mr. Lassiter said the General Assembly funded this clean-up project because they wanted the tire piles gone.

Mr. Lassiter said DEQ cleaned up two smaller tire dumps:  one on the Gladfelter property on Chopping Road in 1993 and one on the Henderson property on Kentucky Springs Road in 2005.  Mr. Lassiter said DEQ ran out of money for this clean-up project in 2005 and they have been waiting four years to come back with money and finish up.  Mr. Lassiter showed pictures of the many tire piles on the Henderson property.

Mr. Lassiter said DEQ now had enough money and a contract was issued again with Louisa as the first location to be cleaned up.  Mr. Lassiter
discussed the following locations which are scheduled to have the tire piles cleaned up:

NameLocationNumber of TiresClean-up Cost

Daves Auto Parts

Route 250 at Ferncliff29,700$ 51,765

Walkers Auto Part

Cuckoo6,000 

Walker II

Oakland Road1,300 

McKeaton

East Jack Jouett Road500 

Tucker

Rt 250 at Gum Springs51,000 + “Part B” removal 

Mr. Lassiter said there were nine tire dumps total for Louisa in the beginning and there are now four left.  Mr. Lassiter said 5,200 tires were cleaned up by the property owners of the Route 250 Auto and Dowell properties and 32,500 tires were cleaned up by DEQ for an estimated cost of $50,000.  Mr. Lassiter said there are about 60,000 tires left to be cleaned up for an estimated cost of $150,000.  Mr. Lassiter said the bottom line total for Louisa County was about 100,000 tires and $200,000.

Mr. Lassiter said the tire clean
-up projects were paid for with a $1 tire recycling fee assessed on every tire that was purchased.  Mr. Lassiter said $0.50 of the fee went toward the tire clean-ups and the other half went to market support.  Mr. Lassiter said there were 1,200 tire piles with 25 million tires when this started and there are now 146 tire piles with 2 million tires remaining.  Mr. Lassiter said the total estimated cost upon completion was $30 million.

Mr. Lassiter said the money going towards market support was spent supporting the infrastructure built over the last ten years to make sure that tire dumps do no happen again.  Mr. Lassiter said there were ten tire recyclers in Virginia:  four were
owned by local governments and six were owned by private businesses.  Mr. Lassiter said the money was used to support the collection, processing and recycling of the 7 million “current flow” tires in Virginia each year.

Mr. Lassiter said the tire recycling center coming to Louisa County was unique.  Mr. Lassiter said there was not another tire recycling center like that one anywhere between Pennsylvania and Georgia.  Mr. Lassiter said the tires would be recycled down to a powder rubber whereas other tire recyclers only shred the tires.

Mr. Gentry asked if the property owner got paid for their tires.  Mr. Lassiter said no.  Mr. Gentry asked if the homeowner could be forced to participate or clean up their tires.  Mr. Lassiter said no because the General Assembly funded this.

Mr. Spencer
said he noticed the Westbound Rest Area on Interstate-64 was not included in the list of tire pile clean-ups.  Mr. Spencer said there were at least 1,000 tires there.  Mr. Lassiter said he would look into that location.

Mr. Harper thanked Mr. Lassiter for coming.

Presentation - Verizon; Landline Operations in Louisa County

Mr. Randy Dillard, Area Manager of External Affairs and Government Relations for Verizon, said he was attending the meeting to respond to questions from the Board and staff.

Mr. Dillard said the first question was whether or not Verizon planned any further expansion of DSL into the County.  Mr. Dillard said the County was currently serviced by five Central Offices and customers must be located within three miles linear feet of the Central Offices in order to receive DSL service.  Mr. Dillard said that was due to limited technology.  Mr. Dillard said there was no current expansion related to DSL for Louisa County to date and he could not answer for what would come in 2010.

Mr. Spencer asked if there were fiber optics or DSL lines at Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Dillard said no.  Mr. Dillard added that Verizon knew Zion Crossroads was a hot development and if any funding became available, Verizon would be looking towards Zion Crossroads.

Mr. Dillard said there was fiber optics in the County, but they were used to support the Verizon voice services and not the data services.

Mr. Dillard said it was not affordable for any provider to locate in an area that was not densely populated.  Mr. Dillard said wireless Broadband could be the answer in some areas of the County.  Mr. Dillard said the next generation of wireless would be better and would be able to penetrate buildings and trees better than the third generation wireless.

Mr. Gentry asked if the wireless Broadband that Mr. Dillard was referring to was based on a tower system.  Mr. Dillard said it was based on a tower system, but noted that fiber also had to be ran to that tower.  Mr. Dillard said Verizon was not in the tower business anymore, but would lease space on a tower.

Mr. Gentry said the County had a Telecommunications Master Plan and asked if the tower locations on the Countys Plan and Verizons plan were working together.  Mr. Dillard said Verizons recent acquisition of Alltel was going to cover areas closer to the Charlottesville area.  Mr. Dillard presented a wireless Broadband coverage map of Louisa County to the Board.  Mr. Dillard said the coverage map showed that there was decent Broadband coverage in Louisa County, but not all of the areas may have service because they might not be penetrable.  Mr. Dillard said that fourth generation wireless was expected to be available by 2013.

Mr. Gentry said tower applicants will sometimes tell the Board that they were working with Verizon to co-locate on the tower.  Mr. Gentry asked if that was believable or not.  Mr. Dillard said he thought it would be, but he was not in that area of business.

Mr. Wright said he lived in the Holly Grove area and when he purchased his house in 1991, he was told that he had fiber optic lines as well as regular phone lines across his yard.  Mr. Wright said he was told that the fiber optics were not hooked up to anything, which meant no one was using them.  Mr. Wright said he was also told that his area had some of the oldest land lines in the system.  Mr. Dillard said that he would be happy to look that information up for Mr. Wright if the location was provided to him.

Mr. Barnes said he had seen the Broadband coverage map before, but the problem was with loss of coverage.  Mr. Barnes said another thing was that Embarq had DSL at Kents Store, Virginia.  Mr. Barnes said he was frustrated because Embarq is not even close in size to Verizon and they offer their customers DSL just across the County line.  Mr. Barnes asked what commitment Verizon had to rural areas.  Mr. Barnes said there were people who wanted to work from home or people who were asked to work from home because of budget issues.

Mr. Dillard said he was not sure where Embarq was located, but noted that the technology of DSL was the same no matter if it was Verizon, AT&T or Embarq.  Mr. Dillard said the DSL customers with Embarq must be located closer to a remote terminal or Central Office.  Mr. Dillard said Verizons infrastructure had been in existence for over 100 years.  Mr. Dillard said no one even knew what DSL was back then.  Mr. Dillard said Verizon had stockholders and they had to invest in areas that would benefit the company.

Mr. Harper said he would like the Board to keep the questions in written form because it would be easier for Mr. Dillard to digest and process.  Mr. Harper said the Board was bouncing around between wireless and landline and DSL.

Mr. Byers said 2013 was the target date for the LTE network.  Mr. Byers asked if those people not currently being serviced would have to wait until 2013 before receiving service.  Mr. Byers asked what the fourth generation internet service would cost.  Mr. Dillard said 2013 was the target date for the whole Country.  Mr. Dillard said he was providing the National date because that was a date that he could share.  Mr. Dillard said the migration towards fourth generation would not happen all at one time.  Mr. Dillard said he knew where the project was starting and it was not far from Louisa and this area would probably be second in line.

Mr. Byers asked what the Board should tell their constituents when they are asked when they can expect service.  Mr. Byers asked what could be expected in the next two years.  Mr. Dillard said some citizens may not ever get wireless DSL service depending on where they live and whats located around them unless the technology gets better.  Mr. Dillard said Verizon did not have control over the topography of the County and there were some citizens who lived in lower-lying areas.  Mr. Dillard said that would not change unless the technology significantly improved.

Mr. Byers asked what Louisa could do as a County to help bring service to areas.  Mr. Dillard said there was Federal stimulus funding available, but Verizon was not participating in that.  Mr. Dillard said Verizon did have wholesale agreements with companies who wanted to become Internet Service Providers.  Mr. Dillard said Verizon was not taking stimulus money and there was no money that the County could offer that Verizon would be willing to take.  Mr. Harper added that Louisa County had not taken any stimulus money either.

Mr. Byers asked if there was any advantage to putting more towers up and if that would cause Verizon to provide more service.  Mr. Dillard said if there were more towers, then more people would be accessible to wireless Broadband.  Mr. Dillard said the service would be based on the strategic location of the towers and who the providers or carriers were.

Mr. Harper thanked Mr. Dillard for coming and for offering to keep open dialogue with the Board.  Mr. Harper said the conversation drifted considerably away from the landline topic.  Mr. Harper said there were many questions still left unanswered and he hoped that the questions could come through the County Administrators office and be forwarded to Verizon for answers.

OLD BUSINESS

Discussion - LCHS Gym Wall Repairs

Dr. Deborah Pettit, School Superintendent, presented a packet of information to the Board regarding the LCHS Gym wall repairs.

Mr. Spencer said Mr. Straley took him and Mr. Gentry on a tour and the first thing he noticed was that no one ever dug up any part of the back wall facing towards the Town of Mineral to check the foundation.  Mr. Spencer said one brick was taken out among the 24,000 bricks on that wall and thats what this decision was being based on.  Mr. Spencer said the only thing he had read was a letter saying it appeared that the foundation was okay.

Mr. Hoffman said that if the work was started and there were foundation problems, it would be an additional cost and there could be no recourse against the engineer.  Mr. Spencer said the letter was basically worthless then.  Mr. Hoffman said it was an engineers opinion letter.

Mr. Spencer said when he looked at the wall, there were two sways on the brick portion, but there were no sways in the concrete wall on the inside.  Mr. Spencer said removing one brick could not possibly determine the status of the entire 100 foot wall.  Mr. Spencer said he would like for some of the wall to be removed so the foundation could be checked.

Mr. Spencer said his second question was how long the cracks in the wall had existed.  Mr. Spencer said the response he received was that the cracks in the wall had been monitored for years.  Mr. Spencer said lack of planning on the School Boards part did not create an emergency on his part.  Mr. Spencer said he could not support this.

Mr. Barnes asked what caused the miscalculation in numbers between the $114,000 originally received and the low bid that was received at $345,000.  Dr. Pettit said Mr. Kevin Jones with Loughridge & Company was available to answer questions.

Mr. Glenn Keesecker, Vice President of Loughridge & Company, said he put together the bid that was submitted by Loughridge.  Mr. Spencer asked who put together the original estimate.  Mr. Keesecker said he was asked by the engineer in early summer to give some opinions on possible costs and a couple unit prices on block.

Mr. Barnes said his question was why the estimate price went from $114,000 to a bid price of $345,000.  Mr. Keesecker said Loughridge was brought in to provide a price on how much concrete block cost.  Mr. Keesecker said he was not sure what the engineers or architects had already shared with the Board.  Mr. Keesecker said the quantity of repairs did increase and the amount of block that needed to be torn down increased.  Mr. Keesecker said there was no shoring, no steel, no bond beams and no preparing the bearing for an existing joist the first time around.  Mr. Keesecker said comparing those two prices was like comparing “apples to oranges”.  Mr. Keesecker said what Loughridge helped budget along the way using very little information was not what was bid on.

Mr. Byers said one of the items was “mass demolition” and there was a $50,000 to $60,000 difference in the bid compared to the original estimate.  Mr. Keesecker said the amount of wall being removed increased and there was no shoring before.  Mr. Keesecker said there was a lot more involved.  Mr. Byers asked if the wall was taken down, wouldnt it have to be shored back up.  Mr. Keesecker said no because the wall that came down was not a load-bearing wall.  Mr. Byers asked why it was going to be shored up now.  Mr. Keesecker said the engineer included that on the bid drawings, so it was included in the bid.

Mr. Spencer said Mr. Keesecker estimated $10,428 for “general conditions and site requirements” the first time and pointed out that the amount had increased to $48,172 in the bid that was submitted.  Mr. Keesecker said it was like comparing “apples to oranges” because the first estimate was based on taking down a wall and putting up about ten feet of block and metal studs from there on out.

Mr. Keesecker said he was just the messenger because Loughridge went out on a competitive bid basis and was the low bidder out of all the other general contractors and the bid submitted was based on the bid documents provided to them.  Mr. Keesecker said the original estimate was just an opinion of possible costs based on the information provided at the time.

Mr. Barnes asked Mr. Keesecker who gave him the list that he bid on.  Mr. Keesecker said the architect.

Mr. Gentry said the Board saw the five options that were presented to the School Board and the $114,000 was the highest of those five options.  Mr. Gentry said it seemed to him there was a lack of communication in the change between the $114,000 estimate and the $345,000 bid.  Mr. Gentry asked if there should have been some communication so that the price difference was not such a shock to everyone.  Mr. Jones said what Loughridge was asked to provide an estimate for was not what was sent out in the request for bids.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Jones who asked Loughridge to provide an estimate.  Mr. Jones said the architect and the engineer.  Mr. Harper asked Mr. Jones who asked Loughridge to provide a bid.  Mr. Jones said it was publicly advertised as a competitive bid.  Mr. Harper said the specifications of the bid were designed by the architect and engineer.  Mr. Jones said that was correct.

Mr. Havasy said it appeared that the original estimate was to complete about one-third (1/3) of the wall in block and brick and the upper two-thirds (2/3) of the wall in steel.  Mr. Havasy said that was where some of the difference in price came from because the wall was now going to be done in complete block and brick.

Mr. Byers asked what the motivation was to switch from the block and steel design to the complete block and brick design.  Mr. Keesecker said he did not know because what he estimated and bid on was based on the information provided to him.

Dr. Pettit said the School Board understood the $114,000 option as removing the wall and replacing it.  Dr. Pettit said the School Board was not aware that the repairs would extend as far as they did.  Dr. Pettit said the architects and engineers said that as they began to design and investigate the repair and to completely fix the gym wall, they realized more of the wall would have to be repaired.  Dr. Pettit said the School Board asked for more alternates to help lower the cost and a $150,000 and a $200,000 option was offered.  Dr. Pettit said the options would not take the wall down, but would use horizontal bracing.

Mr. Gentry said the $114,000 estimate was based on an architects design and somewhere along the line between the estimate and the bid, the architect decided that more repairs were needed and did that without telling anyone.  Dr. Pettit said the School Board understood that the $114,000 option included taking the wall down and replacing it with brick and block.  Dr. Pettit said the School Board did not know at that time how many repairs would be necessary to the front and back walls of the Gym.

Mr. Gentry said it appeared that the architect made the decision that more repairs were needed and left everyone else out of the loop.  Dr. Pettit said that was correct.  Dr. Pettit said neither the architect nor the engineer was at the meeting.

Mr. Wright said he did not think the Board could make a decision without having the architect or the engineer available.

Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Keesecker if he had gone over the North, South and East walls of the Gym thoroughly enough to say that the $345,000 bid was firm.  Mr. Keesecker said he did not believe there was any reason to think that there would be a need for additional costs.  Mr. Keesecker said completing a project of this nature could be like peeling an onion because it was hard to tell what could be found once the project was started.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Keesecker if Loughridge would go down deep enough to be able to see the foundation once the work was started.  Mr. Keesecker said they would go far enough below grade to bring the new brick up and would not be removing the brick all the way down to the top of the foundation.

Mr. Spencer asked how anyone would know that the foundation was okay.  Mr. Keesecker said that was a concealed condition and he thought it was something that the engineer should test.

Mr. Byers asked Mr. Keesecker if there was a likelihood that the other Gym walls would have a problem in the future since something jeopardized the stability of one wall already.  Mr. Keesecker said the engineer would be a better person to answer that question, but added that there were different conditions on all four of the gym walls.

Mr. Byers said on the inside of the walls, there did not appear to be any damage on the cinder block side and the damage appeared to only be on the external side.  Mr. Jones said he ran string lines down the inside of the wall and there was considerable movement in the block work.

Mr. Byers asked if the exterior brick portion of the wall could be taken down and then have something adhered to the interior cinder block portion of the wall using ties.  Mr. Jones said no, in his opinion.

Mr. Barnes said he has been and still was supportive of the Schools.  Mr. Barnes said his first concern was that the students were safe and his second concern was that the work be done correctly so it would not have to be redone.  Mr. Barnes said there were a lot of questions and he really felt bad for Dr. Pettit being put on the spot to defend this work without having the architect or engineer available to help her.

Mr. Barnes said he would like to have a test done on the foundation by an engineer to answer the question regarding the stability of the foundation.  Mr. Barnes said the foundation questions needed to be addressed and the test needed to be done in an expedited manner.

Mr. Byers asked if an engineer did a test on the foundation, would there be anything the County could do to hold the engineer liable if the foundation or wall was to fail again.  Mr. Hoffman said yes.  Mr. Hoffman said it the foundation test went out to bid, that requirement could be placed directly in the bid package.

Mr. Havasy said Loughridge should be able to proceed with the work rather than wasting a few more weeks.  Mr. Havasy said if Loughridge found out that the foundation was bad, then it saved someone else from having to dig the foundation out.  Mr. Havasy said time was critical and he would rather Loughridge come in and tear down the wall and get a first-hand look at the foundation.  Mr. Havasy said his recommendation was to let Loughridge go to work and have the engineer come look at the foundation once the wall was down.

Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Havasy if he wanted to approve the request for money.  Mr. Havasy said it would have to be done either way.

Mr. Harper said his understanding was that Loughridge would not be exposing the foundation. Mr. Keesecker said he would be going below grade to about a foot above the top of the footer.  Mr. Harper asked Mr. Keesecker if he would know whether or not the foundation was sufficient at that point.  Mr. Keesecker said it would be easier for the engineer to come out at that point and dig test pits and test the soil.

Mr. Havasy said it would be a lot easier for the engineer to check the foundation once it was cleaned off.  Mr. Havasy said he would recommend checking the foundation on the corners of the building.

Mr. Harper said he realized that the $114,000 cost was not going to happen, but he didnt think the Board expected the $345,000 price either.  Mr. Spencer said the request was now for $375,000.

Mr. Barnes asked Dr. Pettit if there was an emergency bid process for the Schools that could come into play if a motion was made having a caveat to add the engineer requirement.  Dr. Pettit said yes.

Mr. Barnes motioned to approve the expenditures with the caveat that an engineer testing was done to answer the questions regarding the stability of the foundation.  Mr. Harper asked if a limit would be placed on the funding.  Mr. Barnes said it would be a competitive negotiation not to exceed $40,000.

Mr. Havasy asked if that amount was just to do the inspections.  Mr. Barnes said no, that was to do the project and allow them to do the engineering portion.

Mr. Spencer asked what that was going to do as far as the walls.  Mr. Barnes said the idea was if the foundation was bad, it was bad and it would have to be dealt with either way.  Mr. Barnes said this would allow Loughridge to move forward while still getting the information regarding the stability of the foundation.

Mr. Havasy seconded Mr. Barnes motion.

Mr. Harper said the motion was to allow the School Board to proceed with the presented numbers regarding demolition and reconstruction of the wall and to agree to a maximum of $40,000 for engineering work to determine if the foundation was substantial and in good tact.

Mr. Spencer asked where the $375,000 bid for the project was included.  Mr. Harper said it was included in the motion to approve the $375,000 if the foundation tests come back okay.

Mr. Mullen clarified the motion.  Mr. Mullen said the motion was to approve appropriation in the amount of $375,000 to repair the High School Gym walls and include a study of the foundation by a competitively-procured engineering firm not to exceed an appropriation of $40,000 from the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Barnes said that was correct and Dr. Pettit could have the School Boards attorney to tell staff how the bid process would work.  Mr. Barnes said he wanted a contractual statement from the engineer certifying the foundation.

Mr. Byers said if the work was started and they found out that the foundation was compromised, it may be reasonable to look at a different type of structure at that time.  Mr. Byers said it concerned him because the project could reach the point where the foundation had problems and would cost an additional $150,000 to fix.  Mr. Byers said he believed there were other construction types of walls that could be built rather than masonry.  Mr. Byers said the uncertainty of the integrity of the foundation was a critical component and he would hate to spend money or approve building the wall.  Mr. Byers said if the project went too far, the County would have to come up with the money to repair the foundation and then fix the wall.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Barnes if his motion meant that the determination of the status of the foundation must occur first.  Mr. Barnes said his motion was to proceed with the work because if a problem was found, it would have to be fixed either way.

Mr. Havasy said it seemed reasonable for Loughridge to tear the wall down, clean it up and then have an engineer look at the foundation.  Mr. Havasy said if a problem was found with the foundation, the project would have to come to a stop until such a time that extra money was allocated to fix and/or replace the foundation.  Mr. Havasy said at that time, the construction type of the wall may become an issue again.  Mr. Havasy said it was just a waste of time by not letting Loughridge start the project.

Mr. Harper asked if the wall had to be torn down before the foundation inspection could occur.  Mr. Spencer said no.  Mr. Havasy said the wall would have to be torn down either way.  Mr. Harper said that was not necessarily true.  Mr. Havasy said no one had stepped forward to say that the wall was safe.  Mr. Spencer asked if anyone had stepped forward to say that they had examined the wall other than the one brick that was removed.  Mr. Havasy said the Board was told that the wall was unsafe.

Mr. Harper said there were alternatives.  Mr. Harper said grout could be pumped into the bricks or the bricks could be shored up underside.  Mr. Harper said he liked the idea of the foundation being checked before the wall was torn down because that could also open up other alternatives.

Mr. Spencer said no one knew what was in between the brick veneer that was curling and the interior cinder block wall.  Mr. Spencer said he asked why part of the brick wall was not torn down to see what was in between.  Mr. Spencer said he did not understand how one brick could be removed from the wall and develop a $375,000 estimate.

Mr. Havasy said he did not think anyone on the Board was going to vote to keep that wall standing as is.  Mr. Havasy said it was his opinion.  Mr. Havasy said he could never vote to keep the wall standing.

Mr. Byers asked if the decision on what to do next would come back to the Board if the wall was torn down and it was determined that the foundation was compromised.  Mr. Barnes said it had to come back to the Board.  Mr. Byers asked if the School Board understood that.  Dr. Pettit said she would have to relay the information to the School Board.

Mr. Byers said the Board was proposing a contingency that the wall could be torn down and the foundation assessment could be made and the project could continue as long as there were no foundation problems.  Mr. Byers said if the foundation was compromised, the project would stop and the decision would have to come back to the Board as to what would happen next.  Mr. Barnes amended his motion to include Mr. Byers language regarding the contingency of the stability of the foundation.  Mr. Havasy, being the person who seconded the motion, agreed to Mr. Barnes amendment.

Mr. Harper said he did not think there was any question that any changes would have to come back to the Board.

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

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

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 4-3, with Messrs Spencer, Wright and Byers voting against, the Board voted to approve appropriation in the amount of $375,000 to repair the High School Gym walls, have a study of the foundation performed by a competitively-procured engineering firm not to exceed an appropriation of $40,000 from the Board of Supervisors, with the understanding that if there are foundation problems discovered, the project would be stopped and come back to the Board to determine the next steps.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD - 6:30 P.M.

There was no one wishing to speak during Citizens Information Period.

OLD BUSINESS (Continued)

Discussion - Request to proceed with LCPS CIP Project; Parking Lot Paving

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Havasy voting against, the Board adopted voted to allow the Louisa County Public Schools to move forward with the CIP project for the parking lot paving.

Discussion - Request to proceed with LCPS CIP Project; Electrical Upgrades

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

Mr. Byers asked if this brought the project back to the original numbers that were talked about.  Mr. Byers said the project was discussed a while back and there was a figure that was discussed.  Mr. Bruno Sestito, Director of Technology for Louisa County Public Schools, said the total project cost would not be $1.2 million, which was the cost originally discussed.  Mr. Sestito said the $1.2 million cost was based on the idea of replacing all the electrical lines in the buildings for a total electrical upgrade.  Mr. Sestito said it had now been decided to add electrical circuits to rooms rather than replacing all the electrical lines.  Mr. Sestito said the new electrical lines would be surge-protected and would take care of the new technology.

Mr. Byers asked if these electrical upgrades would be sufficient enough to handle the new electronic equipment.  Mr. Sestito said yes.  Mr. Sestito said the existing electrical lines would be used for the lights and miscellaneous, but the new electrical lines would be used for the new equipment.

Mr. Mullen said the total request for this project was $98,000.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to allow the Louisa County Public Schools to move forward with the CIP project for the electrical upgrades.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances designed to allow for limited overnight parking of recreational vehicles at parking facilities: AMEND - Sec. 66-2.  Definitions.; AMEND - Sec. 86-2.  Definitions.

Mr. Camp said in August 2009, the Board directed staff to work with the Planning Commission to prepare a draft amendment that would allow for overnight parking for recreational vehicles.  Mr. Camp said there was discussion at two Planning Commission work sessions and then the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 10, 2009.  Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission recommended the draft amendment that was before the Board now.  Mr. Camp said two individuals spoke in opposition of the draft amendment at the Planning Commission public hearing.

Mr. Camp said the current definition of a “campground” was very broad.  Mr. Camp said in the past, parking an RV had been considered camping.  Mr. Camp said the draft amendment from the Planning Commission would change that by making it clear that a parking facility was not a campground.  Mr. Camp said RVs would be allowed to park there subject to three conditions:  (1) the RV was not parked there for more than twelve hours, (2) there shall be no incidental services provided for RVs, and (3) the RV cannot create a safety hazard or interfere with traffic.

Mr. Camp said the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) provided staff with an interpretation letter of their regulation which indicated that any site that allowed two or more RVs was considered a campground.  Mr. Camp said it would require a campground permit from VDH
.  Mr. Camp added that the Planning Commission took into consideration the VDH regulations as well as input from citizens when the draft amendment was prepared.  Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission did not recommend limiting the number of RVs because they did not believe it was necessary and believed it would make an enforcement of the regulation more applicable to staff.  Mr. Camp said the correspondence from VDH was included in the Board packet.

Mr. Wright said he understood that the current Code did not allow for overnight parking.  Mr. Camp said the way the current Code was written, it could be classified and had been classified as a campground.  Mr. Camp said it would require a Conditional Use Permit.  Mr. Wright said if the Code was changed, it would be up to the individual business owners to decide if overnight parking was allowed.  Mr. Camp said that was the scenario.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Ms. Ruth Small, Patrick Henry District, one of the owners of Small Country Campground, said she was against free parking at the Wal-Mart in Louisa County and against the proposed changes to the zoning law.  Ms. Small said three years ago, a new tax was voted in by the Board and was to be collected by hotels, campgrounds and bed and breakfasts.  Ms. Small said the so-called “occupancy tax” required that she level a 2% sales tax over the 5% sales tax required by Virginia on every camper.  Ms. Small said that tax was generated and from Small Country alone, the County had received nearly $9,000 through August 2009.  Ms. Small said the Board passed the “occupancy tax” after they were asked not to.  Ms. Small said if overnight camping was redefined as parking, the County would no longer be receiving the “occupancy tax” on overnight camper parking.  Ms. Small said Wal-Mart would not be collecting the tax and campgrounds should not have to either because overnighters were simply parking.  Ms. Small said the Board could not have it both ways.

Ms. Small said that Small County had paid Louisa County nearly $80,000 in taxes over the past two and a half years, not including income tax, vehicle decals, permits, etc.  Ms. Small said they bought many goods and services and sent their campers into the community to shop and dine for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth.  Ms. Small said the Board passed a resolution earlier this year sponsoring a “Buy Local First”, which supported local businesses.  Ms. Small said the Board was now taking away income from local campgrounds in favor of free camping at a giant international chain.  Ms. Small said the Board had been very inconsistent.  Ms. Small said the Board chose “Buy Local”, but then took away income from local, well-established campgrounds. Ms. Small said the Board passed an “occupancy tax”, but then allowed free camping, which would eliminate the tax.  Ms. Small said the Board should make up their minds.

Ms. Small asked if the Board supported local businesses
that collected tax for the County or not.  Ms. Small said the choice was clear to her.  Ms. Small said rejecting the zoning change would put the Board on record for buying local and collecting taxes from tourists.  Ms. Small said that was good government practice and the choice belonged to the Board.

Ms. Small added that Mr. Spencer sent an email in 2007 to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Economic Development Director and the County Attorney saying that she and Mr. Small were greedy because they spoke against free parking at Wal-Mart.  Ms. Small said she did not think it was greedy to try and make an honest living and protect her business.

Mr. Bill Small, Patrick Henry District, owner of Small Country Campground, said he wanted to make four quick points.  Mr. Small said there had been no advocacy for this zoning change.  Mr. Small said Wal-Mart had not been to any of the meetings to speak up for the change.  Mr. Small said all the Board had heard was opposition and that was all the Planning Commission heard.  Mr. Small said he did not understand why the Board insisted on running the change through.

Mr. Small said, secondly, the Board was opening Pandoras Box.  Mr. Small said as soon as the changes were made, it would open parking, or overnight camping, up to anyone.  Mr. Small said the Board was not restricting it to commercial lots.  Mr. Small said the Board was not restricting it to two or fewer campers.  Mr. Small said the Planning Commission ignored the statement from the Virginia Department of Health, which was a regulatory responsibility for camping, which said if the regulation was written for two campers or less, it would not conflict with State law.  Mr. Small said this change was conflicting with State law.

Mr. Small said the Board was “killing the goose that laid the golden egg.”  Mr. Small said he wanted Wal-Mart and he did not have any campers who were not enthusiastic about Wal-Mart.  Mr. Small said he loved Wal-Mart and sent people to Wal-Mart.  Mr. Small said he also sent campers all over the community.  Mr. Small said he sent campers to restaurants and to the hardware store.  Mr. Small said his campers shopped at Food Lion and bought gas in Louisa.  Mr. Small said as soon as people started doing those things at Zion Crossroads, all they were going to see was the Wal-Mart parking lot and were not going to go around the community.  Mr. Small said if the Board wanted “Buy Local” and wanted to keep money in the community, they needed to let businesses like his handle business like theirs - camping.  Mr. Small said campers would then go out and use the rest of the facilities in the community.

Mr. Small said if this was truly a public hearing and the Board had
not already made up their minds, he suggested that the Board vote “no” on the proposed change.  Mr. Small said, at very least, the Board should send the amendment back to the Planning Commission with instruction to make it legal by changing it to two or fewer campers and limiting it to commercial parking lots only.  Mr. Small said that would make the change more palatable.  Mr. Small said his suggestion was, better yet, to say “no” all together to illegal camping.

Ms. Deana Meredith, Executive Director for Louisa County Chamber of Commerce,
said she was speaking on behalf of the Chambers Board of Directors and at the request of their Chairman.  Ms. Meredith said she wanted to keep the message simple.  Ms. Meredith said the Chamber supported Wal-Mart and were eager for its November 10, 2009 opening.  Ms. Meredith said the Chambers Board of Directors, by a majority decision, asked that the Board of Supervisors take no action on the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance as it pertained to the issue of overnight parking.  Ms. Meredith said it was felt that the current verbiage was sufficient and the Chamber Board respectfully requested that the ordinance was left as is.

Ms. Christie Bazzanella,
Mineral District, said she ran Christopher Run Campground located on Zachary Taylor Highway.  Ms. Bazzanella said she was at the zoning board hearing and she heard people loudly say that she was confused between the difference in parking and camping and she assured the Board that she was not confused.  Ms. Bazzanella said she was not opposed to people pulling over and resting because she felt there was a need for that.  Ms. Bazzanella said she was also aware that the State had closed rest areas throughout the State due to budgetary crises.  Ms. Bazzanella said she did not think it was Louisa Countys responsibility to take on that burden and become a rest area for the traveling public.

Ms. Bazzanella said the State Board of Health determined what an overnight stay in a campground was.  Ms. Bazzanella said in Section 14, it said that “overnight shall mean the occupation of a camping unit as temporary habitation between the hours of seven p.m. and seven a.m., or a major portion thereof.”  Ms. Bazzanella said according to her clock that was twelve hours.  Ms. Bazzanella said that period of time had already been defined.  Ms. Bazzanella said if someone was staying for twelve hours in a parking lot in a camper
, they were indeed camping, not parking.

Ms. Bazzanella said no one was opposed to camping or even parking in a parking lot.  Ms. Bazzanella said she was unaware, until she spoke to Mr. Camp, that parking in a parking lot in Louisa County in an RV was illegal.  Ms. Bazzanella said she asked Mr. Camp if someone pulled over in an RV at the truck stop in Zion Crossroads and stayed for four to twelve hours that it was illegal.  Ms. Bazzanella said Mr. Camp told her that was illegal.  Ms. Bazzanella said it seemed to make better sense to change the parking ordinance.  Ms. Bazzanella said Mr. Camp said that was discussed, but it was determined that it was easier to change the camping ordinance.  Ms. Bazzanella said she did not understand that.  Ms. Bazzanella said no one was going to know on the door of a camper at Wal-Mart to see if the people inside were sleeping.  Ms. Bazzanella said if the awning of the camper was down and there were chairs out, it would be obvious that someone was camping.  Ms. Bazzanella said if the RV was parked, then it was parked and no one was going to argue with that.

Ms. Bazzanella
said she was opposed to changing an ordinance that she felt did not need to be changed.  Ms. Bazzanella said she felt the Virginia Health Department had decided what camping was and it was a twelve hour stay in a temporary habitation between the hours of seven p.m. and seven a.m.  Ms. Bazzanella said it seemed to her that just changing the definition of parking to allow for an RV to park in a parking lot would be the best thing to do.  Ms. Bazzanella said she had a variety of articles and Wal-Mart camping and parking lot camping was a big issue Nationwide.  Ms. Bazzanella said most of her campers stay for at least twelve hours. Ms. Bazzanella said most of her campers who arrive in the middle of the night are the ones who cause havoc, dont pay, have parties and steal things.

Mr. Bob Meier, Mountain Road District, said “if it aint broke, why was the County trying to fix it.”


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

Mr. Camp said what he was directed to do was clarify the ordinance so someone would be able to park an RV in a parking lot.  Mr. Camp said the first sentence of the current definition of campground remained the same for the proposed definition where there would have to be camping or parking areas and incidental services.  Mr. Camp said those were the only two criteria really needed to make a broad interpretation.  Mr. Harper asked if both of those criteria were needed.  Mr. Camp said yes.  Mr. Harper said not only would an RV have to be parked, but there would have to be someone putting air in the tires or cleaning the windshield.  Mr. Camp said whatever an incidental service was because there was no exact definition.  Mr. Camp said it had been interpreted in the past that having a store, such as Wal-Mart, was an incidental service.  Mr. Camp said the new proposed definition would certainly clarify what was allowed and what was not allowed.

Mr. Camp said he looked at providing a new definition of overnight parking, changing the definition of parking facility, parking, and parking lot.  Mr. Camp said the changes were drafted to focus on what the problem was in the interpretation of a campground.  Mr. Camp said the interpretation of a campground was not really flawed, but RVs were being included because the definition was so broad.  Mr. Camp said additional verbiage was included to make it less broad so it was clear that RVs were not included.

Mr. Harper asked how this played into what the County was told to be the Health Department interpretation.  Mr. Camp said he talked to the Health Department about what the County was planning on doing and the word “conflict” was brought up, but he was not sure that was the right word to use.  Mr. Camp said that was implying that the County was breaking some sort of State law.  Mr. Camp said he understood that the State would still have every bit of power that they had before.


Mr. Byers
said one of the public comments was that the draft amendment was illegal and asked Mr. Hoffman to share his thoughts.  Mr. Hoffman said there was an email interpretation from a staff member at the Virginia Department of Health and Mr. Hoffman said that he did not agree with that staff members interpretation of the regulation.  Mr. Hoffman said he searched and there was no Attorney General opinion on point, but that could be requested.  Mr. Hoffman said the Health Department read the regulation to say that if there are more than three camping units on site, then it should be a campground under the VDH definition.  Mr. Hoffman said the VDH definition did not say that, but said a campground was a place on which three or more campsites are occupied or intended for occupancy.  Mr. Hoffman said a campsite was then defined as a plot of ground used or intended for the exclusive occupation of a camping unit.  Mr. Hoffman said these were parking spots in a parking lot that the County was talking about and many different things can park there.  Mr. Hoffman said it was not intended for the exclusive use of a camping unit.

Mr. Hoffman said facilities that were established or maintained wholly or in part for the accommodation of camping units for periods of overnight or longer.  Mr. Hoffman said that was just not the case.

Mr. Byers asked if there was any law in the State of Virginia that required vehicles to park
within the designated lines of the parking space.  Mr. Hoffman said not that he knew of.

Mr. Byers
said a comment was made from the public that what the County currently had in the ordinance was sufficient.  Mr. Byers asked what that meant.  Mr. Harper said he thought the purpose was to clarify an earlier opinion that was rendered.  Mr. Camp said what the County currently had was sufficient if the County wanted to restrict RVs from parking lots and classify them as campgrounds.  Mr. Camp said the change would make it the opposite to that.

Ms. Meredith said if tractor trailer drivers wanted to pull over and sleep, there was no ordinance
specifically allowing that.  Ms. Meredith said a blind eye was being turned towards the tractor trailer drivers and she asked why the same thing could not be done with Wal-Mart.

Mr. Hoffman said the Planning Commission asked him the same question.  Mr. Hoffman said there was a prior interpretation by a former County employee, Mr. Darren Coffey, that the current definition was broad enough to prohibit this kind of activity.  Mr. Hoffman said if Mr. Coffey rendered that opinion, it was foreseeable that someone in the future could render that same opinion.  
Mr. Hoffman said it appeared to be the will of this Board to permit such activity.  Mr. Hoffman said if that were the case, the best way to do that would be to clarify the will of the majority of this Board by changing the definition.

Mr. Harper said to pardon him for stepping out of line, but he did not consider someone stopping for a few hours to be camping.  Mr. Harper said camping was hooking up to connections, etc.

Mr. Spencer said this issue came up about a year and a half ago when he was on the Planning Commission. Mr. Spencer said the idea came up that tractor trailers who have sleepers in the back of their cab and pull over at the truck stop were camping.  
Mr. Spencer said there are over 1,000 trucks coming in per day to Wal-Mart and there was no way they could all be sent to a campground.  Mr. Spencer said this clarification was asked for back then.  Mr. Spencer said he could not see any reason why the County should stop Wal-Mart from conducting their business when the County worked so hard to get Wal-Mart.

Mr. Havasy said the Board would have to start regulating the fat in a hamburger pretty soon.  Mr. Havasy asked where this was going to and why was the County involved.  Mr. Havasy said he did not want to get involved in this and wanted common sense to prevail.  Mr. Havasy said he was for tourism and economic development.  Mr. Havasy said
one of the things he found out while being on the Planning Commission was that opinions change.  Mr. Havasy said he did not feel that this Board had the right to regulate the thoughts or actions of the next set of Board members.  Mr. Havasy said his opinion was that if it was not “broken”, it did not need to be “fixed.”

Mr. Barnes said he could certainly understand the campgrounds position and if he owned a campground, he would probably take the same stand.  Mr. Barnes said most of the people who had RVs and were going to park at Wal-Mart were not going to the campgrounds anyway.  Mr. Barnes said he did not want to prohibit someone who was driving through the County getting tired from staying the night and buying supplies from Wal-Mart that the County would earn tax dollars from.  Mr. Barnes said most of the people who pull off of the Interstate were not going to go to the campgrounds either way and were just looking for somewhere to pull off.

Mr. Barnes said there are other retailers
and truck stops who invited RVs because of the monetary benefit.  Mr. Barnes said this was “clean green” because these were people who got off the Interstate, spent their money in the County, got back on the Interstate and left.  Mr. Barnes said he did not think this would negatively affect Small Country or Christopher Run Campgrounds.  Mr. Barnes said this would be a great addition to the tax base.

Mr. Havasy said he agreed, but when he read the original definition that currently existed, he did not see anything that prohibited someone from pulling over in a parking lot to rest.  Mr. Havasy said some of the people were going to stop just to shop.

Mr. Barnes said most of the Wal-Marts that do not allow RV parking was because the local government had an ordinance that prevented it.

Mr. Harper said the previous Zoning Administrator had already rendered his opinion which had been enforced.  Mr. Hoffman said that opinion had some weight to it.  Mr. Hoffman said if the County kept the ordinance, then he or Mr. Camp could render the opinion that it was not broad enough to cover this type of activity.


Mr.
Barnes motioned for approval to adopt the new verbiage as presented. Mr. Spencer seconded the motion.

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

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

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 5-2, with Messrs Byers and Gentry voting against, the Board adopted a resolution to decide on amendments to the Louisa County Subdivision Ordinance, Section 66-2 Definitions, and the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance, Section 86-2 Definitions.

Public Hearing - CUP04-09 - Acorn Community, Applicant; G. Paul Blundell, Agent; Twin Oaks Community, Owner, requests the issuance of a conditional use permit for the establishment and operation of an agricultural enterprise (Southern Exposure Seed Exchange).  The property is located on the west side of Indian Creek Road (Route 699) north of E. Old Mountain Road (Route 640).  The property is further identified as tax map parcel 81-26, in the Cuckoo Voting District.

Mr. Camp said this was a request for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment and operation of an agricultural enterprise.  Mr. Camp reviewed the staff report which included the tax map number, acreage, zoning, owner, applicant, and property location.

Mr. Camp said if the CUP was approved, it would allow for the existing and proposed expansion of the Southern Exposure Seed Exchange (SESE).  Mr. Camp said SESE was a business that ordered, packaged, and shipped seeds across the United States.  Mr. Camp said some of the seeds grown by SESE were grown on-site, but the majority was shipped in from other suppliers and re-packaged for re-shipment.

Mr. Camp said the proposed expansion of the facility would include a new packaging and warehouse building.  Mr. Camp said there were employees on-site, but they were not the normal arrangement for employees.  Mr. Camp said the employees were actually people who lived on-site.

Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 13, 2009, and they voted 5-2 in favor of the use, but not requiring a CUP and requesting that the application fee be refunded to the applicant.  Mr. Camp said some of the Planning Commission members had concerns about regulating agricultural activity.  Mr. Camp said no one spoke in opposition to the CUP at the Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Camp said his recommendation was to approve the proposed use as recommended by the Planning Commission, but do that through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit application for an agricultural enterprise with the following conditions:

  1. Submission of a site plan shall be made to the Department of Community Development for review.  At a minimum, the site plan shall be drawn to scale and, in combination with the site plan application, the following information shall be provided prior to approval:
  2. No retail sales on-site related to the seed exchange business.
  3. Submission of a sign permit shall be made to the Department of Community Development for review and approval. The site is limited to one (1) identification sign.
  4. The Board of Supervisors or their designated representative reserves the right to inspect the site at any reasonable time without prior notice.
  5. Violation of any condition of this permit shall be grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Camp said the waiver of application fees was at the discretion of the Board, but staff had only been advised in the past to waive fees for churches and non-profit organizations.

Mr. Spencer said the application turned in noted that there was a multi-family dwelling on the property for use by the residents and interns.  Mr. Spencer asked why there was a multi-family dwelling in an agriculturally-zoned area.  Mr. Camp said it was a dormitory setting and the residents were operating as one family.

Mr. Spencer asked if it was a multi-family dwelling or not.  Mr. Camp said he would call it a dormitory.  Mr. Spencer asked if that was allowed in A-1 or A-2 zoning districts.  Mr. Camp said under the current ordinance, he believed it required a CUP.  Mr. Spencer asked if it was part of this CUP to have the multi-family dwelling.  Mr. Camp said no because this CUP was only for the agricultural enterprise.  Mr. Camp said the multi-family dwelling was part of the overall operations and had already existed for quite some time.

Mr. Havasy asked if it were true that on agriculturally-zoned property, there could be a main house as well as subordinate houses.  Mr. Camp said farm tenant housing was permitted.  Mr. Havasy asked if this would apply as farm tenant housing.  Mr. Camp said he didnt think so.

Mr. Byers asked Mr. Camp why he was recommending that the application fees be waived.  Mr. Camp said it was the Planning Commission who made that recommendation.  Mr. Byers asked what the rationale behind it was.  Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission was concerned with regulating agricultural uses.

Mr. Paul Blundell, agent, said he could answer any questions the Board may have.  Mr. Blundell said, in reference to Mr. Spencers question about the multi-family dwelling, that one of the dwellings was legally classified as a farmhouse and the others were farm worker housing.  Mr. Blundell said he did not think that either dwelling was illegally classified as a multi-family dwelling.

Mr. Spencer said he did not have a problem with the operation, but he was just questioning the multi-family dwelling.

Mr. Havasy asked why this was not presented as a Home Occupation.  Mr. Camp said it was not a Home Occupation because the operation better met the definition of an agricultural enterprise.  Mr. Camp said a Home Occupation was usually one single-family house and a small business.

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

Mr. Byers asked for some understanding as to why the County would not assess a fee for this CUP.  Mr. Byers asked if it was because the Planning Commission felt that the County should not be regulating the agricultural activity.  Mr. Harper said that was the feeling of the Planning Commission and not of the Board.

Mr. Spencer said a few years ago, there was a man who wanted to make lamps in his garage so he could sell them at yard sales and the County tried to force him to get a permit.  Mr. Spencer said there was someone selling flowers on Valentine Mill Road and the County was going to go after him.  Mr. Spencer said the County had the same obligation to change the ordinance to allow agricultural activities to take place instead of going through all the permits.  Mr. Spencer said the smallest, simplest things get turned into something so big.

Mr. Gentry said he would like to support the resolution as presented.  Mr. Gentry said at least five members of the Planning Commission felt that there was no harm done and this operation would take place in an agricultural area.  Mr. Gentry said there were no complaints from neighbors and Twin Oaks would be doing what they have already been doing for many years.  Mr. Gentry said there are buildings falling down and additional structures were needed in order to continue the use of their operation.

Mr. Gentry motioned to approve the resolution.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Barnes said he would like to see the Planning Commission revisit agricultural operations because he wanted to make it easier for farm operations to operate without going through a bunch of “red tape.”

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to decide on the request for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment and operation of an agricultural enterprise (Southern Exposure Seed Exchange).

Mr. Hoffman said there was some confusion as to whether or not the fees were going to be waived and refunded.  Mr. Gentry said the resolution presented to the Board said that the fees would be refunded and that was what the Board voted for.

OLD BUSINESS (Continued)

Discussion and Resolution - Board Action from November 17, 2008; 1) Irrigation at MNES, 2) Water Storage Container and Pump at MNES and 3) Power from MNES Junction Box to Corner of Athletic Fields

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

Mr. Barnes said the projects came in at budget and no higher.  Mr. Barnes said it was the $164,000 that the Board voted on last fall.

Mr. Byers said it was the same amount that was voted on last fall and he asked if only the infrastructure was being installed.  Mr. Barnes said there were no lights being installed.

Mr. Spencer asked if this was money leftover in the CIP. Mr. Mullen said there was some confusion about whether or not an additional $24,000 was moved over.  Ms. Shelhorse said last fall $140,000 was transferred over and $24,000 was held out trying to figure out if Parks and Recreation would just subcontract and put in the irrigation or whether it would be part of the school project.  Ms. Shelhorse said, as presented now, it was all part of the school project totaling $164,000 and only the $24,000 would be moving over from Parks and Recreation CIP, which was re-appropriated at the last Board meeting.

Mr. Mullen said he needed approval to move the additional $24,000.  Mr. Mullen said the risk with the current pricing was there was only a razor-thin margin for error on this project.  Mr. Mullen said the intent was to make the project come in under budget.  Mr. Mullen said anything that was not under budget would have to come back to the Board.

Mr. Barnes amended his motion to include transferring $24,000 from the Parks and Recreation CIP to the School Board for a maximum of $164,000 including the $140,000 that was transferred to the School Board last fall.

Mr. Spencer asked if there was any additional funding.  Mr. Barnes said no.  Mr. Barnes said he was in support of this project, but it was not to exceed $164,000 in cost.  Mr. Mullen said he wanted it to be clear that any change orders would increase the price of the project.  Mr. Spencer said any change orders would have to come back before the Board for approval.  Mr. Barnes said yes.

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

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

        On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 3-4, the motion failed to allow the School Board to move forward with the irrigation, water storage container and pump and the power from a junction box to the corner of the athletic fields at Moss-Nuckols Elementary School as well as failed to allow transfer of $24,000 from the Parks and Recreation CIP to the School Board.

Mr. Barnes motioned to appropriate $140,000 and the irrigation would be done by Parks and Recreation.  Mr. Gentry seconded the motion.

Mr. Wright asked if that was a reconsideration.  Mr. Barnes said the amount of money changed and he was allowed to do that.

Mr. Hoffman said the School Board already had the $140,000.  Mr. Barnes said that was correct, but the Board had to appropriate it.

Mr. Linhares said it was important to understand that the infrastructure had to be done because the contractors were getting ready to finish off the fields.  Mr. Linhares said if this waited until a later date, the
field would have to be torn up just to get the irrigation in.  Mr. Linhares said the piping for the irrigation and the electrical work out to the fields would be completed right away upon approval.  Mr. Linhares said the County could later do the infrastructure for the actual irrigation systems and that was where the savings would be.  Mr. Linhares said that would be done directly through the subcontractor to save money.  Mr. Linhares said it was his understanding that if this was not approved, the project would move ahead and the fields would be completed without it.

Mr. Barnes said he was informed that the $140,000 was already appropriated.  Ms. Shelhorse said the $140,000 was already transferred to the School Board for this project.

Mr. Bernard Proctor, Site Engineer for Moss-Nuckols Elementary School, said he was authorized to design the irrigation system and power line extension for future lighting.  Mr. Proctor said the shortfall was approximately $60,000.  Mr. Proctor said about $20,000 of that had to do with contractor mark-up on the subcontractors pricing and he understood that the budget also included engineering fees.

Mr. Proctor said he completed “value engineering.”  Mr. Proctor said he checked all his numbers for the irrigation and that was under budget at $14,625.  Mr. Proctor said the lighting proposal to extend the power line and install the junction box was under budget by $9,000 or $10,000.  Mr. Proctor said what was over budget was the actual infrastructure - the storage tank for the irrigation water, the feed lines to fill the tank and the well pumps to force the irrigation system.  Mr. Proctor said he could get the irrigation infrastructure down to about $85,000.  Mr. Proctor said he made some other changes in respect to transformers and came in slightly under budget.  Mr. Proctor said he was confident that his numbers were correct as far as the production and project cost.  Mr. Proctor said the irrigation needed to be installed promptly so that the top soil and seed could be installed.  Mr. Proctor said the power line extension should be done when the new power line was run to the School on September 25, 2009.

Mr. Proctor said the irrigation could be done under a separate contract not being marked-up and it would meet the $164,000 budget.  Mr. Proctor said no engineering fees were included and he would provide a certificate of substantial completion.

Mr. Mullen said $140,000 was appropriated and transferred to the School Board last year.  Mr. Mullen said it was re-appropriated this fiscal year.  Mr. Mullen said what would be approved was the transfer of the additional $24,000 with the caveat that change orders would raise the project cost and they would all have to come before the Board for approval.

Mr. Spencer asked if there was any guarantee that the project was going to come in under budget or would there be change orders for someone to come back for more money.  Mr. Proctor said he would make sure that before the irrigation of the field was authorized, there would be an extension on the seeding of the fields until all the numbers were confirmed in writing.

Mr. Byers motioned to transfer and appropriate the $24,000 from the Parks and Recreation CIP to the School Board.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Havasy asked if anyone remembered the Governor sending a letter out about two weeks ago discussing Statewide reductions.  Mr. Havasy asked if anyone remembered how much the School Board budget was reduced last year.  Mr. Havasy said $100,000 here and $100,000 there eventually added up to substantial money.  Mr. Havasy said this was not money going into the classroom.  Mr. Havasy said he was in support of teachers and classrooms, but this type of project could be put off for a few years.

Mr. Barnes said the County also made a commitment that all the schools would be equal and would be upgraded to the equivalency of Moss-Nuckols Elementary.  Mr. Barnes said he agreed with instruction and children, but added that school was made of more than one component because otherwise there would not be any recess or athletic teams.

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

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

On the motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 5-2, the Board voted to transfer and appropriate $24,000 from the Parks and Recreation CIP to the School Board and allow the School Board to move forward with the irrigation, water storage container and pump and the power from a junction box to the corner of the athletic fields at Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.

Discussion - Tax relief for the Elderly and Disabled

The Board agreed to carry this item over to the next meeting.

Discussion - Options for Zion Crossroads “Footprint”

The Board agreed to carry this item over to the next meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Discussion - Davenport & Co. Recommendation for Financing of the James River Water Authority

*Mr. Barnes left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.

Mr. Courtney Rogers, Senior Vice President of Davenport & Company, made a presentation to the Board discussing the financing options for the James River Water Authority, including borrowing strategies, County comparisons, Virginia Resources Authority financing, Rural Development financing, debt services and credit ratings.

Mr. Harper asked why King George County was included in the comparison, but Orange County was not.  Mr. Rogers said Orange County could be added to the comparison.  Mr. Harper said he just thought it was odd because Orange County was right next door to Louisa County.

Mr. Byers asked what the debt services versus expenditures for the County would look like once the money for the James River Water Project was borrowed.  Mr. Rogers said the County currently had about $25 million outstanding and once the money was borrowed, the County would still be well within the peer average of the surrounding counties.  Mr. Rogers said most localities would stay within the 8% to 10% range for debt services versus total expenditures.

Mr. Byers said through VRA, funds would be available by December 1, 2009 and asked what the County would do with the money once it was received.  Mr. Rogers said the funds would be held by a trustee and invested.

Mr. Gentry asked if the County should be trying to get a credit rating.  Mr. Rogers said yes. Mr. Rogers said Rural Development did not require a credit rating at all and VRA did not currently require one.  Mr. Rogers said Louisa had strong finances and he did not think the County would have problem obtaining credit approval through VRA.

Mr. Mullen said there may come a point in time when VRA would require a credit rating.  Mr. Mullen said because of the $2 million savings, he felt VRA with the shorter term would be the better option.  Mr. Mullen said the credit rating could conceivably add $30,000 to $40,000 in additional cost and he did not think now was the time to do that if it was not necessary.

Resolution - Financing of the James River Water Authority

The Board agreed to carry this item over to the next meeting.

Discussion and Resolution - Zion Crossroads Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion

Mr. Mullen said it was time to expand the Zion Crossroads Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Mr. Mullen said a letter from Mr. Bar Delk covered the need for expansion.  Mr. Mullen said the Plant was designed and intended to be expanded.  Mr. Mullen said the Plant would be expanded from 0.1 million gallons per day to 0.7 million gallons per day.

Mr. Mullen said each of the eight options were studied up to, and including the idea, that the County should have a state-of-the-art expansion at the Zion Crossroads Wastewater Treatment Plant with a forced main gravity discharge to the James River Watershed via the Rivanna River.  Mr. Mullen said it was immediately necessary to expand and the expansion would take the County 15 to 20 years out on the wastewater treatment plant needs at Zion Crossroads.

Mr. Mullen said once the plant reached a 6.23 million gallons per day mark, it should have a plan for re-use.  Mr. Mullen said that did not need to be decided right now.  Mr. Mullen said he needed the Boards approval to move forward with Option A - a 0.7 million gallon per day state-of-the-art expansion at the current wastewater treatment plant location.

Mr. Spencer asked about the ensured funding from the Water Quality Improvement Fund and asked if it was $2.5 million that would be taken out of the project.  Mr. Mullen said the County would probably be able to get at least $1 million.  Mr. Skip Notte with Dewberry said the goal was about $2 to $2.5 million at Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Bar Delk said it would be determined by a percentage.

Mr. Gentry asked if the County was giving up on stimulus money.  Mr. Mullen said no.  Mr. Mullen said if the expansion project moved forward, he would use that as evidence that stimulus money should fund the re-use portion of the project.

Mr. Byers asked if this would posture the County to be in a good place for re-use in the future.  Mr. Mullen said yes and added that this expansion was absolutely necessary in order to have re-use.

Mr. Byers asked where the funding was coming from for the expansion.  Mr. Mullen said some of the money had been included in the CIP and some would be transferred from the savings at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted a resolution proceeding with the expansion of the Zion Crossroads Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Discussion - Information on an Expedited Review Process in Community Development Department

The Board agreed to carry this item over to the next meeting.

Discussion - Community Development 2010:  A Plan for Improving Service through Structured Systematic Change

The Board agreed to carry this item over to the next meeting.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

None.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

None.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Ms. Reidelbach announced a ribbon cutting for the re-location of the Fabric Hut Gift Gallery and reminded the Board of several important events.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

A Resolution Proclaiming the Month of October 2009 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2009 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

A Resolution Recognizing the NAACP for 100 Years of Service and the Louisa County Branch of the NAACP for its Service for the Citizens of Louisa County

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing the NAACP for 100 years of service and the Louisa County branch of the NAACP for its service to the citizens of Louisa County.

A Resolution to Award a Contract for the Realignment of the Landfill Perimeter Road to Comply with VPDES Permit

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted a resolution to award a contract for the realignment of the Landfill perimeter road.

A Resolution to Appoint Certain Members to the Department of Social Services Advisory Board

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted a resolution to appoint certain member to the Department of Social Services Advisory Board.

A Resolution to Amend and Correct the Minutes for the August 3, 2009, Louisa County Board of Supervisors Meeting

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted a resolution to correct the August 3, 2009 minutes of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

CORRESPONDENCE

None.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

Mr. Byers asked when the final
financial balances and information would be available from FY 08-09.  Ms. Reidelbach said it should be available at the next meeting.

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent and Messrs Byers and Gentry abstaining from their reimbursements only, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the first half of September 2009 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $452,380.96.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted the minutes of the September 8, 2009 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 8:40 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

  1. In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (1) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussion, consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment, appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; and evaluation of performance of departments where such evaluation will necessarily involve discussion of the performance of specific individuals.
  2. In accordance with §2.23711 (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).
  3. In accordance with §2.2-3711 (A) (29) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds, including interviews of bidders or offerors, and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, where discussion in an open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body.

REGULAR SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 9:54 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 21st day of September 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 21st day of September 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.

OTHER

Mr. Byers said it was impressive that Chief Dubé had completed the Executive Fire Officer Program and Mr. Byers said that employees should continue to be recognized.

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board voted to authorize Mr. Mullen to advertise and hire an Economic Development Director to replace Mr. Bob Gibson as he would be retiring.

ADJOURNMENT

On the motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board voted to adjourn the September 21, 2009 meeting at 9:57 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


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