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

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
OCTOBER 1, 2007
5:00 P.M.

Board Present: *Fitzgerald A. Barnes, Willie L. Gentry, Jr., Willie L. Harper, Richard A. Havasy, Allen B. Jennings, Eric F. Purcell and Jack T. Wright
Others Present: C. Lee Lintecum, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Patrick Morgan, County Attorney; Darren Coffey, Director of Community Development; Jason Pauley, County Engineer; Kevin Linhares, Director of Facilities Management; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Mike Schlemmer, Director of Emergency Services; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Amanda Lloyd, Office Manager and April Jacobs, Deputy Clerk

*Fitzgerald A. Barnes arrived at 5:14 p.m.


Chairman Wright called the October 1, 2007 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Purcell led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.


Dr. Deborah Pettit said the State officially announced that all five of Louisa Schools were fully accredited.  Dr. Pettit added that maintaining full accreditation took a lot of hard work by students, staff and support of parents and the Community.    

Dr. Pettit stated the School Committee had been making site visits and studying various schools and the market.  Dr. Pettit indicated that the Committee would meet again on Thursday and they hoped to be able to make a report to the combined Boards as soon as a date could be set when all members were available to meet.  


Mr. Garland Nuckols, Louisa District, stated he was speaking on behalf of EMSAL.  Mr. Nuckols said EMSAL had previously discussed the possibility of hiring additional EMTs to help the career staff and volunteers.  Mr. Nuckols said from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007 the career staff ran 1,052 calls and the volunteers ran 1,669 calls, which totaled 2,721 calls.  Mr. Nuckols indicated that he knew there were possibly four open positions for Emergency Services and requested the Board to hire EMTs, which would required a lesser salary than medics.  Mr. Nuckols said instead of having two medics on every truck, EMSAL was hoping to have EMTs that would provide for more crews on the road, which would still carry a high standard of care.  Mr. Nuckols added that several counties do this and the six rescue squads all voted unanimously on this topic.  Mr. Nuckols requested that the Board add this topic to the agenda.    


Mr. Havasy stated he would like to add discussion of hiring EMTs to old business.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to add the DMV operation in Mineral to presentations.  Mr. Gentry stated he would like to add discussion of planned growth in the County to old business.  Mr. Wright stated he would like to add discussion of personnel reporting directly to the Board to closed session.  

Mr. Barnes arrived at 5:14 p.m.

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the October 1, 2007 agenda was adopted as amended.


VDOT Monthly Update
- Jamie Glass, Resident Administrator, provided an update of VDOT activities, which included the following:


Construction: Land Use: Traffic Engineering:

Mr. Barnes questioned what the status was of re-repairing Captain Meade Road (Route 641).  Mr. Glass indicated that VDOT was currently working with the quarry and the option was given for them to complete the repairs themselves or to allow VDOT to complete the repairs and send them a bill.

Mr. Havasy questioned if there was a possibility that the bridge on Hamilton Road (Route 695) could be widened.  Mr. Glass stated it was a possibility for a future project.

Dominions request for a traffic light at the intersection of routes 700 and 652

Mr. Page Kemp stated Dominion would work with VDOT to determine the cost of the traffic light and figure out a way to fund it to enhance the safety of their employees and the public at that intersection.  Mr. Gentry indicated that it took many years to get the flashing signal at that intersection and it was the intent to try to get a full-time signal.  

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for Dominion to proceed in installing a traffic light at the intersection of routes 700 and 652.  

DMV Operation in Mineral

Mr. Harper indicated that the DMV in Mineral was a very valuable and convenient service to the County.  Mr. Harper said there were about 49 units in the State of Virginia that did the same work as the facility in Mineral and this was the second year in a row that the Mineral DMV had been recognized for performing the most transactions across the State of Virginia.

Mr. Gentry questioned what the status was for a new DMV office.  Mr. Harper said the property had finally been obtained and he would hope to see groundbreaking for a new office this year.  

Resolution - Recognizing T. Hubert Ellis for his years of service to Louisa County

        On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution recognizing T. Hubert Ellis for his years of service to Louisa County.


Discussion - Draft TJPD Regional Legislative Program

Mr. David Blount, Legislative Liaison, indicated that the 2008 Draft Regional Legislative Program was recommended by the Mayor and Chairs Group.  Mr. Blount stated the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) was the top priority for the Legislative Program this coming year and for the next General Assembly session.  Mr. Blount said the TJPD was trying to address some of the challenges posed by CSA in the jurisdictions, specifically the low level of State funding provided to localities for CSA administrative costs and the rapid rise in the costs of residential services.  Mr. Blount added the Program also noted specific proposals that would be presented to the legislators at the Legislative Luncheon that is scheduled for Friday, October 12, 2007.

Mr. Blount indicated that other action priorities included the following:

Mr. Blount said included in the program this year were areas of continuing concerns in the environment, public safety, housing, and health and human services.

Mr. Gentry indicated that he thought the sentence concerning road impact fees that stated “for uses other than just roads” should be emphasized.  Mr. Purcell agreed with Mr. Gentry and stated that this was an excellent plan that acknowledged prior concerns from the Board members.    

On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Jennings, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board approved the 2008 Draft TJPD Regional Legislative Program.

Discussion - Fire Chief for Louisa County

Mr. Lintecum stated he drafted two job descriptions relating to the discussion of hiring either a Fire Chief or a Fire Administrator for the County.

Mr. Lintecum said the first job description, Fire Chief, described a higher-level position where the incumbent would come into the organization, perform a needs assessment, report his/her findings to the Board and make recommendations on how the department should be structured.  Mr. Lintecum added, in this role, all of the volunteers and career staff would report to the Fire Chief.

Mr. Lintecum said the second job description, Fire Administrator, would come into the organization and, in conjunction with the volunteers, manage the system that the County already had in place.  Mr. Lintecum added, in this role, only the career fire and EMS staff would report to the Administrator.  Mr. Lintecum added the Fire Association recommended this description.

Mr. Gentry questioned why both job descriptions couldnt have the title of a Fire Administrator and the Board determine which job description they wanted to use.  Mr. Wright indicated that the job description would have to match the job title.  Mr. Lintecum said in other areas, the more authority that was given, the designation of “chief” went along with it.  Mr. Gentry said the County already had seven fire chiefs and he thought a fire chief working for a fire chief would create problems.  Mr. Wright said the current fire chiefs were volunteer groups that didnt fall under the States definition.

Mr. Purcell said the Fire Chief job description seemed to have more of a “chief” mentality and, at the same time, was very specific.  Mr. Purcell noted that he thought the Fire Administrator job description seemed nebulous.  Mr. Harper agreed and stated a Fire Chief was what the County needed at this point.  Mr. Barnes said the ultimate goal was safety and getting the organization under control, which would require a Fire Chief.      

Mr. Gentry questioned why the Fire Association recommended the description of a Fire Administrator over the Fire Chief.  Mr. Ricky Bywaters, President for the Fire Association, indicated that the Association was requesting an Administrator over a Chief because he understood that a Fire Chief would only be in charge of the career staff, but he/she would still need to coordinate with each individual organization because they were recognized by the State of Virginia.  Mr. Bywaters indicated that he didnt think the Board could legally hire a Fire Chief that would have direct supervision over the volunteers.  Mr. Bywaters said the Association wanted the County to hire a Fire Administrator, which would be someone who would be in charge of the fire fighting people that would be hired to compliment the existing volunteer force.  Mr. Bywaters said the Administrator would also be required to have strong communication skills to be able to work with the seven different chiefs to coordinate the new career staff along with the volunteer staff.  Mr. Bywaters added that the career staff and the volunteers needed to be a joint venture.        

Mr. Morgan said a Chief appointed by the Board of Supervisors would not have the legal authority to direct the day-to-day operations of each fire company because they were independent organizations established under the State Code.  Mr. Morgan said on the other hand, if there was a fire that involved more than one company and the appointed Fire Chief of Louisa County was there, he/she would be the person that should take charge to coordinate what was being done.

Mr. Harper said the Fire Chief would provide the best service to the citizens of Louisa County because he/she would have a uniform responsibility for every aspect of Emergency Services.  Mr. Harper indicated that the seven individual fire departments werent only State recognized, but they were locally recognized as well and they would be asked to help make the program a success.  Mr. Barnes agreed and said the volunteers and the career staff needed to work together for the publics safety.

Mr. Gentry commented that he liked the job description of the Fire Chief, but he didnt like the title.

Mr. Barnes stated he would like to make a motion to move forward with the concept of hiring a Fire Chief.  Mr. Harper seconded the motion.  Mr. Wright requested a roll call vote.

Allen B. Jennings Yes
Eric F. Purcell Yes
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. No
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy Yes

With the votes reflecting 6-1, the motion passed to move forward with the concept of hiring a Fire Chief.

Discussion - Revenue Recovery Ordinance

Mr. McLeod said the Revenue Recovery Committee drafted an ordinance for the program that included sections from several different counties ordinances.  Mr. McLeod indicated that the Committee had reviewed and approved the draft ordinance and they were requesting the Boards approval to set the matter for a public hearing on November 5, 2007.

Mr. Barnes indicated that the biggest thing with this proposal was education.  Mr. Barnes said the public needed to understand that they would not be denied medical service because of their ability to pay.  Mr. Barnes questioned if brochures would be available to the citizens.  Mr. McLeod indicated that a brochure could be put together because other counties had used that method as a way of education.  Mr. Harper stated he would feel more comfortable if insurance agents attended the public hearing and presented to the Board on how the program was applied to insurance polices.  

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to set a public hearing for the Revenue Recovery Program on November 5, 2007.

Discussion - Hiring EMTs

Mr. Lintecum said the County was performing a trial program, where they would hire EMT Bs, but the other staff members were either EMTs or Medics.  Mr. Lintecum said Mr. Nuckols stated that an EMT B could run a lot of the calls and a Paramedic or Medic wasnt needed for all calls.  Mr. Lintecum added that Mr. Nuckols said EMT Bs could also be hired to save money.  Mr. Lintecum said when he first came to the County, the Board then told him that they wanted to hire the best training equipped personnel, so staff came up with an experimental program to see how it would work.  Mr. Lintecum said the County would hire an EMT B and the individual would be sent to school for training to be an ALS provider.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that part-time help was used to handle the responsibilities for paid staff when individuals were in training.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that he would report back to the Board about the EMT B program.  Mr. Lintecum added that he would also provide the Board with recommendations for approved additional emergency services staff.    

Mr. Havasy said he thought the reason the volunteers brought this up was because sixty percent of the calls only required basic life support and they were looking at teaming up an EMT B with a Medic.  Mr. Havasy said with that method, more staff could be hired, which made good sense.  Mr. Havasy indicated that he had been fully assured by the volunteers and Mr. Schlemmer that this would not affect the quality of care.  Mr. Gentry agreed.

Mr. Nuckols said his request was different from the program that staff was completing now.  Mr. Nuckols indicated that his request was to hire EMTs to stay as EMTs, not to provide training for them because that was an expensive program.  Mr. Harper said he thought full-time employees needed to continue their training.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that the Board had always emphasized the need for continuing education and training and anyone that the County paid for would have to make an obligation to the County.    

Discussion - Draft ordinance on parking in fire lanes

Mr. Morgan said it had come to the attention of Mr. Wright that there had been some difficulty with local enforcement of the prevention of leaving parked cars in clearly marked fire safety lanes.  Mr. Morgan said apparently, some local law enforcement officials were reluctant to have cars removed from the fire lanes without a local ordinance in place that provided for such a procedure.  Mr. Morgan said at Mr. Wrights request, he reviewed the ordinance adopted by other jurisdictions and drafted a proposed addition to the Louisa County Code.  Mr. Morgan indicated that if the Board found the ordinance to be desirable, the matter should be set for public hearing.  

Mr. Purcell questioned how cars were being ticketed if there wasnt an ordinance.  Mr. Morgan said Mr. Wright had discovered that they werent mandated.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that he thought the Town of Louisa had an ordinance.  Mr. Barnes questioned if the Sheriff had reviewed the ordinance.  Mr. Morgan stated no, but he would send a copy of the ordinance to the Sheriff.  

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Mr. Purcell voting against, which carried by a vote of 6-1, the Board voted to set public hearing for the matter of parking in fire lanes.  

Discussion - Planned Growth in the County

Mr. Gentry said he thought the County had done an excellent job of establishing growth areas, but he thought the County needed to look forward to the next step, which was managing the growth and making very important decisions as to what would go into the growth areas.  Mr. Gentry said recently, there had been PUD applications that generated a lot of concerns in the County.  Mr. Gentry indicated that PUDs in growth areas made sense, but he was concerned about how fast the County was growing in the growth areas.  Mr. Gentry said he would like the Community Development Department to do research to determine the real needs of the County as far as affordable housing and workforce housing.  Mr. Gentry added he thought the numbers would also give the County an opportunity to plan for future schools based on a build-out analysis of the growth areas.  Mr. Gentry indicated that numbers were needed if the long range planning needs for the County were going to be looked at.

Mr. Purcell said there were growth areas around the County, but you only had water and sewer with a PUD and without water and sewer, the PUD didnt exist.  Mr. Purcell indicated that he thought most large projects would be phased over a long period of time.  Mr. Purcell added that the County had established growth areas for a reason; to grow in them.  Mr. Purcell agreed that the growth areas needed to be managed, but he didnt understand where the fear was coming from.    

Mr. Harper indicated that he would like to see income breakdowns for citizens within the County because affordable housing was driven by income.  Mr. Lintecum said he thought that information could be obtained from State taxes.  Mr. Wright said he had yet to see an acceptable definition for workforce housing and affordable homes.  

Mr. Gentry said he wanted the Community Development Department to start thinking about the concerns so that the next step for planning for the future could begin.

Mr. Barnes said if the growth areas werent utilized properly, the County would run into situations where it wouldnt get the tax benefit from the tax base of commercial.  Mr. Barnes indicated that after the homes were built, industries would come.  Mr. Barnes added that growth management was an on-going task.

Mr. Havasy said he thought growth should be located within the growth areas and infrastructure would be the main thing that would control it.  Mr. Havasy agreed with Mr. Gentry and said the better prepared the County was, the better off it would be.


On motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the meeting at 6:42 p.m.  


The Board returned to open session at 7:37 p.m. following dinner and a presentation by members of the Town Council and the Louisa Arts Center.  


Discussion - Locating cell towers on County owned property

Mr. Lintecum said it was determined at the last meeting that the Board would contact him about their thoughts on locating cell towers on County owned property and he received one email from Mr. Gentry, which was included in the Board Packet.  

Mr. Purcell questioned if Mr. Gentry would explain his email.  Mr. Gentry said he suggested that if the property locations met the master plan, that should be the controlling factor instead of the revenue projections.  Mr. Gentry added he didnt think the County should be competing with residents; however, he thought it was okay to locate a cell tower on County owned property if the County happened to have a piece of property that fit the master plan.  Mr. Barnes said he didnt want the County to solicit the towers, but if the opportunity presented itself, he thought the Board would have to be prudent to heed it.  Mr. Wright indicated that the only way he would approve to locate a cell tower on County owned property was if there were no interested private citizens that owned property within the same area.  Mr. Havasy indicated that CityScape would determine which property would provide the best coverage for the individual tower.  


Mr. Gentry said the Impact Fee Advisory Committee held an introductory meeting last Tuesday.    


Mr. Havasy stated he would like to appoint Valery Lytle to the Jefferson Area Disability Services Board.  

        On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Lytle to the Jefferson Area Disability Services Board.


Mr. Lintecum said the Community Development Department was proceeding with the Industrial Reclassification Project as instructed by the Board.  Mr. Lintecum stated the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing on November 15, 2007 at the Louisa County Middle School and in order to meet notification requirements, the Board could hold a public hearing after December 10, 2007.  Mr. Lintecum added the auditorium at the Louisa County Middle School was available during the week of December 10, 2007 and questioned what day of the week the Board would like to hold their public hearing on the Industrial Reclassification Project.

It was consensus of the Board to hold the public hearing on December 12, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Lintecum said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be conducting the first of its public awareness meetings about Unit 3 at the North Anna Power Station on October 24, 2007.  Mr. Lintecum added there would be three meetings during the day; the first of which was a “Government to Government” meeting between the NRC and the local governments surrounding the North Anna Power Station.  Mr. Lintecum added that meeting would begin at 2:00 p.m. in the Extension Meeting room.  Mr. Lintecum said there would be an open house at the Louisa County Middle School at 6:00 p.m. and the public meeting would begin at 7:00 p.m.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that the Board would be receiving an invitation from the NRC in the mail.

Mr. Lintecum said he was working with Dr. Pettit to schedule a joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board and questioned which date best suited the Board.

Mr. Wright said he understood that the School Board wanted to meet with the Board of Supervisors before their October 15, 2007 meeting because they wanted the Board to decide on a figure for Moss-Nuckols Elementary School at that meeting.  Mr. Harper questioned why the Board would give the School Board a figure to bid because he thought the bid would provide the figure to work with and to give a number upfront defeated the purpose of bidding.  

Mr. Purcell said according to what Dr. Pettit reported earlier in the meeting, it seemed like sufficient progress was being made with people coming forward stating what they could do for what costs, which is what the Board wanted.  Mr. Purcell said if that process was continuing, he didnt understand why the School Board wanted a number now.  Mr. Wright indicated that Dr. Pettit said the architects were told at the meeting at the school site that the School Board wanted a school that could be built at or below State average costs for square footage and they also wanted a school built that looked like a school.  

Mr. Lintecum said the next step in the process was to get authorization to move forward in entering a contract with an architect, which needed to be done expeditiously so that the goal of opening the school in fall 09 could be met.  Mr. Purcell questioned if the Board could theoretically give guidance to the School Board that the Board expected the square footage costs to not be above the State average.  Mr. Purcell said that would provide somewhat of a moving number, but not one that could be exploited in a contract by an architect.  Mr. Wright indicated that the number was being left open-ended since the Board couldnt specify the square footage of the building.      

Mr. Havasy questioned if $16 million, the original number that was given to the School Board, had ever been withdrawn.  Mr. Wright said no.  Mr. Gentry said that was an open-ended number and justification over $16 million would have been considered.  Mr. Wright said the Board needed to be cautious to either include or exclude the costs for the work that had already been completed.    

Mr. Barnes said he didnt think the School Board needed a price, but he thought the Board needed to give them the authority to hire an architect and to let the architect put the program together.  Mr. Gentry said technically, the only thing the Board had control over was appropriating the funds and he thought the idea of the Committee, knowing that the Board was concerned about what was previously done, was to take on the challenge of trying to keep the project brief in all respects of the costs and size.  Mr. Gentry said the Board decided that the Committee would be the controlling factor as far as working out the architect and he didnt think the Board was ready, based on the way it was approached with the Committee, to provide a number to the School Board.  

Mr. Wright said he understood that the School Board wanted to meet with the Board so that they could provide the Board with specifics of the project.  Mr. Gentry said the Board had a meeting on October 10, 2007 to discuss the budget and he thought the joint meeting with the School Board was to discuss the school, as well as the budget; therefore, he didnt see where a meeting on October 9, 2007 would be beneficial and he thought October 22, 2007 would be a better date to follow up on what the Board would discuss on the 10th.  

Mr. Harper questioned if all schools started with a footprint based on minimum standards of the State.  Mr. Barnes said there were basic footprints based on the number of students and the student to teacher ratio, but Louisas school division had a lower standard with a 20:1 student to teacher ratio than what the State required.  

Mr. Barnes made the motion to authorize the School Board to hire an architect.  Mr. Harper seconded the motion.  

Mr. Gentry questioned why the Board was taking action to give the School Board authority that they already had.  Mr. Barnes said the School Board could not enter into an agreement for an architect without having the monetary commitment from the Board.  Mr. Morgan indicated that the School Board needed comfort that they would get the money before signing a contract.  

Mr. Havasy questioned if the County would own the blueprints.  Mr. Lintecum said yes.

Mr. Gentry said the School Board had advertised for an architect and received ten applications, which they have now narrowed down to three and questioned wasnt it the assumption that the School Board was already authorized to go through the architect process.  Mr. Lintecum said the School Board didnt have the money to sign a contract.  Mr. Gentry said by the Board giving the Schools the approval to hire an architect didnt mean that they approved any money that they would spend.  Mr. Lintecum said he thought the Board was implying that by their action.  Mr. Morgan agreed.  Mr. Jennings indicated that if the School Board went into a contract with the architect, it still didnt guarantee that the architect would keep the costs of the school at or below the State average.  Mr. Harper said Mr. Barnes had alluded to a clause in the contract that stated if the costs go over, the architect would redesign at no cost.

After discussion, Mr. Barnes withdrew his motion and Mr. Harper withdrew his second.  

Mr. Harper made the motion that the subject matter be tabled indefinite.  

Mr. Barnes said the target opening date of the School was fall 09 and he didnt wanted to see a stalemate that prevented that from happening.  Mr. Barnes said the School Board did not know whether they had the Boards permission to hire an architect and he wanted the Board to give them that approval.    

Mr. Havasy said the Committee had looked at six specific schools and he didnt understand why the Board hadnt heard what the schools cost.  Mr. Lintecum indicated that the Committee had some indication, but they were trying to get a better comfort level with the number and that was the reason that Dr. Pettit stated the Committee would meet again on Thursday.  

Mr. Harper questioned what drives the price.  Mr. Lintecum said the market.  Mr. Harper said we didnt know what the market was and the only thing being done now was speculation.  
Mr. Barnes questioned if the School Board had the ability to hire an architect now.  Mr. McLeod said currently, the School Board had no money without going into the bond proceeds, which wouldnt come until November.  Mr. McLeod added he thought the School Board could get into a contract and by the time they had to make their first payment, the bond proceeds would be in.  

After discussion, Mr. Harper withdrew his motion.  

On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recommend that the School Board hire an architect with the understanding that the Board is very concerned with the price of the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School design.

Mr. Lintecum stated letters from the Louisa County Water Authority and the County Attorney were included in the Board Packet.  Mr. Lintecum said he understood that until the documents were signed transferring the ownership of the Zion Crossroads water and sewer properties and facilities to the Water Authority, the Board of Supervisors had control over the rates.

Mr. Barnes acknowledged the independence and the accomplishments of the Water Authority and stated he respected anyone who volunteered to serve on that Board.  Mr. Barnes said however, with regards to Zion Crossroads and the water rates, he thought it was bad timing to increase the rates because of the current economic situation.  Mr. Barnes indicated that the Board had not legally turned over Zion Crossroads to the Water Authority; therefore, he thought the Board should suspend the rate increases for up to 12 months for a detailed analysis to be completed on alternative ways to finance improvements.  Mr. Purcell agreed and said it seemed to him that the Board had the right to look out for the investment of the people of Louisa County and, in so doing, the Board would have to observe what was going on.  

Mr. Gentry questioned who managed the hook up fees and the work being done in Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Lintecum said the Water Authority kept a portion of the connection fees and the rest of the money came to the County.

Mr. Purcell said the only decision the Board had to make was to accept the rates that the Water Authority recommended at this time.  Mr. Morgan said if the Board determined that they wanted to adjust the rates from what the Board set in 2003, a public hearing would have to be held.  

Mr. Purcell made the motion to hold the rate increases for a 12-month period.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.  

Mr. Havasy indicated that he was concerned that the County was providing a service to future homeowners through developers and the Board was asking the rest of the County at large to pay for the services.

Mr. Harper questioned how the Water Authority held a public hearing and changed the rates if Zion Crossroads were never turned over to them from the County.  Mr. Morgan said the Water Authority operated because the County asked them to, but there was no formal agreement; therefore, they had the authority to change the rates over the assets that they owned, but not over the ones they didnt own.      

After Discussion, Mr. Purcell withdrew his motion.  Mr. Barnes withdrew his second.  

Mr. Wright said he thought Mr. Morgan should advise the Water Authority that the County never turned the assets over to them; therefore, they had no authority to change the rates.  Mr. Morgan said that could be done.  

Mr. Harper disagreed and stated the County asked the Water Authority to operate and they accepted; therefore, it was at least a verbal contract.  Mr. Morgan said there was no articulation that the Board wanted them to set the rates.  

On motion of Mr. Purcell, seconded by Mr. Barnes, with Messrs Harper and Havasy voting against, which carried by a vote of 5-2, the Board voted to write a letter to the Water Authority stating that they respected their position and understood their concerns, but for a plethora of reasons, the Board decided to, for a 12 month period, maintain the rates as they were and examine the rate increases at that time.  


Resolution - To take one (1) street in the Dailey Hills subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia

        On motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to take one (1) street in the Dailey Hills subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways in Louisa County, Virginia.


Mr. Lintecum said the public meeting to give citizens the opportunity to review and provide comments on projects and programs that are candidates for inclusion in the FY 09-14 Six-Year Improvement Plan would be held on November 1, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at VDOTs Culpeper District auditorium.  

Mr. Lintecum said the Governor had requested that Louisa County be designated as a disaster area.

Mr. Lintecum said he received a letter from the Commonwealth Attorneys Office commending the technical assistance Bob Hardy and Scott Raettig provided to them in connection with the capital murder trial that took place.  

Mr. Lintecum said he received a letter from the Secretary of Transportation regarding impact fees.  


        On motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Harper, with Mr. Barnes abstaining on bills pertaining to him, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of September 2007 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $508,679.47.


        On motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Purcell, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the September 17, 2007 meeting.


Mr. Wright stated he would like to postpone closed session for the purpose of discussing personnel reporting directly to the Board until the next meeting.  


On motion of Mr. Jennings, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to recess the October 1, 2007 meeting at 8:35 p.m. until October 10, 2007 at 6:00 p.m.