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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
NOVEMBER 2, 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

* Mr. Barnes left the meeting at 5:18 p.m.
Others Present: Dale Mullen, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Greg Hoffman, County Attorney; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; David Holtzman, Senior Planner; Kevin Linhares, Director of General Services; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration and Kimberly Smith, Records Clerk, Administration

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the November 2, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Havasy led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper added the introduction of a new employee to Presentations.  Mr. Harper added a resolution proclaiming Thursday, November 19, 2009 as Educator for a Day in Louisa.  Mr. Harper added a discussion of the GASB 45 Committee to Old Business.  Mr. Harper added a resolution transferring unused Trevilians Volunteer Rescue Squad FY 2010 CIP funds to Emergency Services for the purchase of a replacement vehicle to Old Business.

Mr. Barnes asked that the Consent Agenda be moved up to the beginning of the meeting.  The Board agreed.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the November 2, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

Presentation - Introduction of New Employee

Mr. Camp introduced
Mr. David Holtzman, the newly-hired Senior Planner, to the Board.  Mr. Camp said Mr. Holtzman had six years of professional experience in journalism and three years of experience in planning.  Mr. Camp said Mr. Holtzman had an Undergraduate Degree in Government and a Masters Degree in Urban and Environmental Policy.

Mr. Harper said he saw Mr. Holtzman at the Thanks-A-Latte and it was nice to see that he was already participating in County activities.

Presentation - A Resolution Recognizing Nancy Wheeler for Her Years of Service on the Social Services Board

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

Mr. Harper thanked Ms. Wheeler for the time she spent serving on the Social Services Board.

Presentation - A Resolution Recognizing Edward Massey for His Years of Service on the Social Services Board

Mr. Mullen read the resolution and Mr. Spencer presented a signed, framed copy to Mr. Massey.

Mr. Harper said the Board really appreciated Mr. Masseys efforts with the Social Services Department.  Mr. Harper said it was not an easy task all the time and he appreciated the work and time put into it.

Presentation - A Resolution Recognizing Doris McCray for Her Years of Service on the J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College Board

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

Mr. Gentry said that Ms. McCray was a tremendous ambassador for Louisa County and was full of energy and enthusiasm.  Mr. Gentry said if it had not been for the limit on terms, he was sure that Ms. McCray would serve again.

Mr. Spencer said he had known Ms. McCray and her late husband since about 1969.  Mr. Spencer said the McCrays had done about everything possible to be helpful to Louisa County and were a huge asset to the community.  Mr. Spencer thanked Ms. McCray

Mr. Barnes said the President of J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College thought the world of Ms. McCray.  Mr. Barnes said he wished there was some way to change the rules so that Ms. McCray could continue to serve on the Board.

Ms. McCray thanked the Board for the privilege and opportunity to serve.  Ms. McCray said she met some wonderful people and it was a great feeling knowing that she was helping kids and adults get their degree.  Ms. McCray said community colleges were wonderful and she hoped the Board would continue to support them.

Presentation - Educator for a Day

Ms. Rebecca Jasman said “Educator for a Day” was part of American Education Week.  Ms. Jasman said the Louisa County Education Association wanted to invite each of the Board members to attend a local school and be an educator for a day.  Ms. Jasman said the Board members could be an educator in a “host classroom,” which would allow them to take over the responsibility of teaching a group of students with lesson plans provided by a teacher.  Ms. Jasman said the offer to teach was in the spirit of “Louisa Connects,” the theme adopted by the Louisa County Public Schools for this school year.  Ms. Jasman said volunteers from the Board or responses could be sent to her.

Mr. Barnes said he supported this idea, but he was not going to attend because Moss-Nuckols Elementary School was not yet open.  Mr. Barnes said he had been in the education field for 22 years and he might go along to help tutor some of his colleagues on the Board.  Ms. Jasman said Moss-Nuckols Elementary School would be pulling students from the other elementary schools and he was more than welcome to attend one of the other schools.

Resolution - Proclaiming Thursday, November 19, 2009 as Educator for a Day in Louisa County, Virginia

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution proclaiming Thursday, November 19, 2009 as Educator for a Day in Louisa County, Virginia.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - Requesting a Traffic Speed Study off Route 640, East Jack Jouett Road, in the Reedy Creek I Subdivision

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting a traffic speed study off Route 640, East Jack Jouett Road, in the Reedy Creek I Subdivision.

Resolution - Requesting a Traffic Speed Study on Route 15, James Madison Highway, just South of the Intersection of Route 33, Jefferson Highway, and Route 15, James Madison Highway

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution requesting a traffic speed study on Route 15, James Madison Highway, just South of the Intersection of Route 33, Jefferson Highway, and Route 15, James Madison Highway.

* Mr. Barnes left the meeting at 5:18 p.m.

Presentation - VDOT Monthly Update

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

Maintenance Work Completed


Maintenance Work Planned

Construction

Traffic Engineering

Status Changed Since Last Month

Route

LocationRequestAction

15

Between Rt. 33 & Rt. 22Speed Study Extend 45 ZoneTo BOS For Review

615

Between Rt. 22 & Rt. 694Install CenterlineInstallation Scheduled

625

Between Rt. 22 & Rt. 624Speed Study 55 to 45To BOS For Review

669

At Rt. 651Flashing Warning SignRequest Denied

687

Between Rt. 522 & Rt. 613Deer Crossing SignsInstallation Scheduled

734

Between Rt. 635 & E.S.M.Speed StudyInstallation Scheduled

1334

Between Rt. 640 & E.S.M.Speed Study Reduce 55 to 25To BOS For Review

  

Status Unchanged Since Last Month

Route

LocationRequestAction

208

Between Rt. 640 & I-64Speed Reduction to 35 MPHPending CBT Approval

636

Between Rt. 22 & Rt. 33Speed Study Reduce 55Request Submitted

676

Between Rt. 250 & Rt. 627Speed Study Reduce 45Request Submitted

700

Between Rt. 652 & Rt. 618Speed/Safety StudyRequest Submitted

700

At Rt. 700Speed StudyRequest Submitted

750

From Rt. F-191 to E.S.M.Speed Study Reduce 55 to 45Request Submitted

Permits and Land Development
           

Louisa County

Jan.Feb.MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctYTD Total

Site Plan Review Subdivision/Commercial

3128811151177587

New Entrance - Commercial

541321023425

New Entrance - Private

1069468477667

Total Permits Processed

915181014177121215129

Total Utility Permits Processed

444348332540

Inspection of New Subdivision Streets

101635121121

Inspection of New Entrances

5910101595101215100

Miles of Streets Accepted Into System

4.8600.420000.540.21006.03

Mr. Spencer asked about Valentine Mill Road (Route 636).  Mr. Glass said he sent the speed study request to Traffic Engineering.  Mr. Glass said a citizen followed up with him on that road today.  Mr. Spencer said he told his constituent that the speed study request was in the capable hands of VDOT.

Mr. Byers said there were times when someone applied for a permit in the County for a small business and they were required to get a commercial permit with turn lanes
and a commercial permit.  Mr. Byers said there were times when he felt the requirements were extreme.  Mr. Byers asked Mr. Glass if he felt any of the requirements would be changing in the future to become friendlier to the small businesses.  Mr. Glass said the guidelines were not really set in stone and there was a process where the applicants could request an exception.

Mr. Havasy thanked Mr. Glass again for the work on the bridge on Hamilton Road (Route 695).

Mr. Havasy said the “park and ride” at Zion Crossroads needed some cleaning up.  Mr. Havasy said there was a public telephone there and he had heard several complaints that the only light pole that did not work was the one over the public telephone.

Mr. Gentry said a final decision was still not determined on the closing of the Residency.  Mr. Gentry asked if there was anything else the Board could do to support non-closing of the Residency.  Mr. Glass said the Board had already passed resolutions and made phone calls and he did not think there was anything else left to do.  Mr. Glass said he should have an answer by the middle of December 2009.  Mr. Glass said he was certain that the consolidation was going to go forward.
 Mr. Glass said there were still several weeks before a final decision was made and that nothing was set in stone.

OLD BUSINESS

Report - “Grey Water”

Mr. Camp said the information he provided the Board in their packets was for informational purposes only.  Mr. Camp said the “grey water” idea was mentioned at an earlier Board meeting.  Mr. Camp said his report mentioned what “grey water” was and what the advantages were.  Mr. Camp said it was a conservation strategy that was being promoted more and more to help save and reuse water.

Mr. Camp said he looked at what the County could do and he felt that education was the way to go as far as promoting “grey water.”  Mr. Camp said it would be promoted on the Community Development website for the month of November.  Mr. Camp said he wanted the Board to be aware of “grey water” and consider using it the next time there is a public project.

Mr. Harper said he agreed that education would be a big part of this.  Mr. Harper said the public would have to buy into it because they are the ones who would make it happen.  Mr. Harper said he would rather “grey water” be a choice than a requirement.  Mr. Harper said he did notice that a lot of the magazines will offer ideas for water barrels.

Mr. Havasy asked how this would effect subdivisions.  Mr. Havasy asked if the Homeowners Association would have to regulate something like this.  Mr. Havasy said he had a lot of constituents who were on city water and they like to use water to water their lawns.  Mr. Havasy said if a “grey water” system could be installed, those homeowners would probably do it.  Mr. Havasy said he knew some of them were “sticker shocked” when they received a $700 water bill.

Mr. Camp said the community “grey water” systems could be done, but that they were a lot more complicated.  Mr. Camp said this would mostly be done on an individual basis.  Mr. Camp said the property owner would take on the responsibility of the system.

Mr. Spencer asked if the Virginia Department of Health would be in control of whether or not these systems were allowed.  Mr. Camp said these systems were permitted in the Building Code and there were certain requirements.  Mr. Camp said the actual system would have to be permitted through the Health Department.  Mr. Spencer said there was no way the Board could say that individuals had to use this kind of system.  Mr. Camp said this system was not a requirement and was just something that was allowed if someone ever wanted to install one.  Mr. Camp said his idea was just to educate people on the idea and explain what the advantages were.  Mr. Camp said the system could be quite expensive.

Mr. Harper said some of it could be quite expensive, but a rain barrel at the bottom of your gutter downspout would not be expensive.

Resolution - Releasing Lake Anna Volunteer Rescue FY 2010 CIP funds to EMSAL

Mr. Mullen said through Resolution 09.197 passed on September 8, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved a CIP process for all departments, agencies, Constitutional Officers and the Louisa County Public Schools.  Mr. Mullen said the Boards desire was that all appropriated CIP projects must seek final approval prior to starting the project or purchasing any capital asset.  Mr. Mullen said one of the further requirements by the Board of Supervisors was that when capital money was used to purchase vehicles, the vehicles would be titled in the Countys name.

Mr. Mullen said Lake Anna Volunteer Rescue Squad representatives were present at the meeting.  Mr. Mullen said there was $8,000 towards the purchase of an ambulance that was ordered and committed to purchasing in February 2009 prior to enactment of Resolution 09.197.  Mr. Mullen said there was also $17,000 for the installation and improvements to the HVAC system.

Mr. Mullen said the proposed resolution would release $17,000 to Lake Anna Rescue for their FY 2010 CIP fund and allow them to proceed with installation and improvements to the HVAC system.

Ms. Reidelbach said she just had a conversation with the Lake Anna Rescue Treasurer and Captain in regards to the remaining $8,000.  Ms. Reidelbach said Lake Anna Rescue would like to use their remaining funds for the purchase of medical equipment and not for the ambulance.

Mr. Mullen said the total $25,000 was capital money.

Mr. Harper said what was typically done was $25,000 CIP funds to each department.  Mr. Harper said the Board did not get into the “ins and outs” except for the fact that the money was capital.  Mr. Harper asked if that was still the understanding.  Mr. Mullen said not exactly.  Mr. Mullen said the idea was that Capital Improvement Projects from here forward would require final approval for release of the funds for the project.

Mr. Harper asked if it was $25,000 per company per year.  Mr. Mullen said yes.
 Mr. Mullen said the only thing that had changed was how the Board would proceed.

Mr. Spencer said he thought the purchase of medical supplies was operational funds and not capital funds.  Mr. Mullen said it was his opinion that the purchase of expendable supplies was operational and maintenance funds.

Ms. Reidelbach clarified that the discussion was that the money would be used for large equipment such as an IO machine.  Mr. Kenny Bennett, Captain of Lake Anna Rescue, said it was for the purchase of the Easy IO Drill which was used to start IVs in the bone marrow.  Mr. Spencer asked what the cost of that was.  Mr. Bennett said the price of the Drill itself was not bad, but all the supplies and accessories were the most expensive.  Mr. Bennett said it would cost every bit of the $8,000 and more.

Mr. Harper said the way he read the resolution was $17,000 for the HVAC system, which would be capital, and $8,000 for an ambulance.  Mr. Mullen said Lake Anna Rescue would only receive the $8,000 for the ambulance if the ambulance was titled to the County.  Mr. Mullen said titling the ambulance to the County would put it in compliance with the directive from the Board.  Mr. Mullen said if the intention of Lake Anna Rescue was not to title the ambulance to the County, they would not receive the $8,000 for the ambulance.

Mr. Harper said the resolution as he read it applied to the $17,000 for the HVAC and $8,000 for the ambulance.  Mr. Harper
asked if the Board wanted to change that now and allow Lake Anna Rescue to move forward with what some would call a disposable item.  Mr. Mullen said the Board learned this information at the same time as he learned it.  Mr. Mullen said he did not know what an IO Drill was.  Mr. Mullen said he would be happy to look into this further if the Board only wanted to move forward on the $17,000 for HVAC and hold off on the $8,000.  Mr. Harper said that seemed to be a legitimate approach to him.

Mr. Havasy said he was asked by EMSAL about why it was so important for the vehicles to be titled in the Countys name.  Mr. Havasy said he did vote in favor of that requirement because it seemed to be the consensus of the Board.  Mr. Havasy said if the Board really thought about it, all of the equipment belonged to the citizens of Louisa County.  Mr. Havasy said he did not care if it was tax money or donations that paid for it because it still belonged to the citizens.

Mr. Havasy said he did not like what was going on, but he understood why it was going on.  Mr. Havasy said when it came to budget time, people tended to move money around to fit the criteria thats offered.  Mr. Havasy said people were moving money around and they would still buy things they were buying in the past, which was equipment to support County residents.  Mr. Havasy said he would like to go back to the old system because he did not care whose name the vehicles were titled in.  Mr. Havasy said that he did not want to be insistent that every unit that was purchased by the volunteer agencies had to be titled to the County.

Mr. Byers asked Mr. Bennett what the urgency was behind the $8,000.  Mr. Bennett said the ambulance was purchased a while back and it would be arriving in two weeks.  Mr. Bennett said the contract was signed and the ambulance had been built already.  Mr. Bennett said Lake Anna Rescue had the HVAC work done and had some paving work done, which should have come out of capital.  Mr. Bennett said someone wrote a check for those projects out of the fundraiser money instead of out of the capital improvement money.  Mr. Bennett said the $8,000 would not only be used for the IO Drill, but would also be used to buy airway manikins and IV arms to practice airways and IVs.

Mr. Byers said when this issue was first brought up, an ambulance unit was purchased for Zion Crossroads Rescue using all County funds and the ambulance was titled to Zion Crossroads Rescue.  Mr. Byers said he thought that was what started all of this.  Mr. Byers said he must acknowledge that he did vote in favor of having the vehicles titled to the County, but he felt this issue was different with Lake Anna Rescue.

Mr.
Bennett said this ambulance was not purchased with all County funds.  Mr. Bennett said Lake Anna Rescue received a grant and used fundraiser money.  Mr. Bennett said the fundraiser money was used to pay for other things, like the paving, which should have come out of the capital money.

Mr. Wright said there was more to this than just the name in which the vehicle was titled.  Mr. Wright said $8,000 was a small part compared to the full price of the ambulance that Lake Anna Rescue had to pay.  Mr. Wright said if the vehicles are titled in the Countys name, then the County would have to take over the responsibility of paying for the insurance and the maintenance.  Mr. Wright said he felt the way this was handled in the past worked just fine.  Mr. Wright said if the County put out $475,000 for an ambulance like the one that Mr. Byers was talking about, then that was different.  Mr. Wright said if the County was only paying for a minor portion, then it should not matter.

Mr. Spencer said the resolution presented included $8,000 for an ambulance.  Mr. Spencer said the Board should just drop the $8,000 and approve the resolution without it and then someone could come back with a formal request on what the $8,000 would be used for.  Mr. Spencer said he would not support the $8,000 without knowing exactly what it would be used for.

Mr. Gentry asked if Lake Anna Rescue did not need the $8,000 for the ambulance, was there a way where the County could change the $8,000 to serve as a partial reimbursement for the paving job that they already paid for.  Mr. Mullen said it could be done whatever way the Board wanted it done.  Mr. Gentry said it would not be changing from capital to operation then.

Mr. Harper said there was a common purpose among these volunteer agencies.  Mr. Harper said by putting the names in one organization, the County was looking for simplification and efficiency.  Mr. Harper said there would be more changes to come whether it was from this Board or not. Mr. Harper said the changes are supposed to be there to help improve the efficiency and operation of the services provided to the people.  Mr. Harper said he did not understand the problem with titling the vehicles to the County other than the natural resistance to change.  Mr. Harper said he was in support of all the vehicles working their way towards being titled to the County.  Mr. Harper said the County may even look at common insurance for all.  Mr. Harper said these were things that the Board would be looking at and the changes could even be positive for the citizens of the County.  Mr. Harper said the study that the State was performing may yield different results or opinions, but in the meantime this would remain until someone came back with a better recommendation.

Mr. Spencer motioned to remove the $8,000 and only approve the $17,000 until a formal request was made on how the $8,000 would be spent.  Mr. Spencer said the $8,000 was a spur-of-the-moment thing and the Board just learned about it.  Mr. Spencer said he had no problem with the $8,000 as long as he knew what it would be used for.

Mr. Spencer said there was a time when the Board would not approve any capital projects toward the building or for mowing or paving.  Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Mullen to look into when the County started paying for these things.

Mr. Byers seconded the motion.

Mr. Havasy asked if Mr. Mullen could be allowed to make the decision once the formal request for the $8,000 was received from Lake Anna Rescue.  Mr. Spencer said no.  Mr. Havasy asked if the Board wanted to delay the decision until the item was able to come back to the Board.  Mr. Spencer said when the request came in, it could be included in the Board packet and the Board would know what was going on.

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

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

        On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 5-1, with Mr. Havasy voting against and Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board voted to approve the request from the Lake Anna Volunteer Rescue Squad for $17,000 for the HVAC and have Lake Anna Rescue come back to the Board with a formal request and explanation for the use of the $8,000.

Discussion - Formation of GASB 45 Committee

Mr. Harper said Mr. McLeod discussed GASB 45 with the Board at their last meeting and he was not sure if any of the Board members gave any thought to serving on the Committee.  Mr. Harper said Mr. McLeod made a recommendation to the Board on how the representation on the Committee would work.

Mr. McLeod said his recommendation was to have himself, the LCPS Finance Director, two Board members and one citizen.  Mr. McLeod said the Committee could be formed however the Board chose.

The Board decided to appoint Mr. Harper and Mr. Byers as the Board representatives and Mr. Tommy Luck as the citizen representative.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Harper said Mr. McLeod had been working on some numbers and the County was trying to monitor the jail costs and match up the State contribution versus the County contribution.  Mr. Harper said he wanted the County to have a good handle on how that was working.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Gentry said he would like to appoint Ms. Rebecca Wood to the Social Services Advisory Board.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 5-0, with Mr. Byers being absent at the time of the vote and Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board appointed Ms. Rebecca Wood to the Social Services Advisory Board.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Mullen reminded the Board of several upcoming events.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Mullen if he would have a report about the Combined Courts.  Mr. Mullen said he called Mr. Karl Hade last week and he was unavailable.  Mr. Mullen said the Board should have an update soon.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 5-0, with Mr. Byers being absent at the time of the vote and Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted the minutes of the October 19, 2009 meeting.

Resolution - Transferring Unused Trevilians Volunteer Rescue Squad FY 2010 Capital Improvement Plan Funds to Emergency Services for the Purchase of a Replacement Vehicle

Mr. Mullen
said this resolution detailed the recent changes to Trevilians Volunteer Rescue Squad.  Mr. Mullen said the Emergency Services Department would need a replacement vehicle and associated equipment to replace the pick-up truck that was being transferred to Trevilians Rescue.  Mr. Mullen said Emergency Services wanted to purchase the same vehicle type as the Sheriffs Department used for their unmarked patrol units.  Mr. Mullen said the resolution would approve the replacement vehicle for Emergency Services.

Mr. Harper said he was confused about the unmarked patrol unit.  Mr. Harper asked why it would be unmarked.  Chief Dubé said the cars that just came in were unmarked, but that did not mean that this replacement vehicle would not be marked.

Mr. Harper said he was not sure what the Sheriffs Department had.  Mr. Mullen asked what kind of vehicle it was.  
Mr. Linhares said it was a Dodge Charger.  Mr. Spencer asked if Emergency Services needed a vehicle with a HEMI for someone to drive around in.  Chief Dubé said he would end up driving the car and the Lieutenant would end up driving the Ford Explorer that he was currently driving.  Mr. Spencer asked Chief Dubé what he needed a HEMI for.  Chief Dubé said the replacement vehicle was just going to be a similar vehicle and it did not have to have a HEMI motor.  Chief Dubé said Emergency Services did not need to replace the vehicle with another pick-up truck, though.

Mr. Harper said it would be off the State bid.  Chief Dubé said the replacement vehicle would be purchased off the same bid that the Sheriffs Department just got their cars from.  Mr. Mullen said the idea was to take advantage of the cooperative procurement so that this did not have to go back out to bid.

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

Mr. Spencer said this related back to the discussion that the Board just had about having the vehicles titled in the Countys name.  Mr. Spencer said these ambulances that were transferred to the County were originally titled to Trevilians Rescue Squad and their Chief was kind enough to let the County know that they were not able to run anymore rescue calls.  Mr. Spencer said those ambulances are now coming back to the County.  Mr. Spencer said this situation was not going to be a problem.  Mr. Spencer said the money for Trevilians was going to be used for buildings and grounds repairs and maintenance.  Mr. Spencer said he really wanted to know when the County started giving capital money for operations and maintenance.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted a resolution transferring unused Trevilians Volunteer Rescue Squad FY 2010 Capital Improvement Plan funds to Emergency Services for the purchase of a replacement vehicle.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of October 2009 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $681,686.21.

OTHER

Mr. Havasy said black powder season started this week and he had been asked by several hunters why the County did not allow slugs in shotguns even though they were allowed in black powder rifles.  Mr. Spencer said the public hearing was already being advertised.

Mr. Harper said the issue was moving forward.  Mr. Harper said with a black
powder rifle, there was only one shot, but in a shotgun, there were five shots.  Mr. Havasy said there were three in a shotgun.  Mr. Harper said there were five if the plug was taken out.  Mr. Havasy said that was not legal.  Mr. Harper said the plug could be taken out for deer, but not for migratory birds.

CLOSED SESSION #1

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 voted to enter Closed Session at 6:01 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) (3) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of discussing the acquisition of real property for a public purpose where discussion in an open meeting 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 6:29 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
P.T. Spencer, Jr. Yes
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Absent
Dan W. Byers Yes
Willie L. Gentry, Jr. Yes
Willie L. Harper Yes
Richad A. Havasy Yes

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 2nd day of November 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 2nd day of November 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

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Havasy, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board voted to allow Mr. Mullen to advertise and investigate the possibility of filling the vacant position of Grants Writer with the decision on salary, contract or commission to be determined by Mr. Mullen.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD - 6:30 P.M.

Mr. Harper opened Citizens Information Period.  With no one wishing to speak, Mr. Harper closed Citizens Information Period.

CLOSED SESSION #2

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:31 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

  1. In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on actual or probable litigation (specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel).

REGULAR SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Byers, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:02 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
Jack T. Wright Yes
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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 2nd day of November 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 2nd day of November 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.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing - On a proposed resolution entitled “A Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Property, in lieu of condemnation, on Route 208” for the purpose of providing required Right of Ways to VDOT in connection with the construction of the Moss-Nuckols Elementary School.

There were no questions or comments from the Board.

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.

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 adopted a resolution authorizing the purchase of property, in lieu of condemnation, on Route 208.

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances designed to allow the Planning Commission to grant waivers to the Countys sign regulations when a master signage plan is submitted:  Article VI. Sign Regulations (Sections 86-361 through 86-390) and corresponding changes to Section 66-2 and Section 86-2.

Mr. Camp said on October 8, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the sign regulations to allow for limited waivers to the height, size and number of signs permitted within a development.  Mr. Camp said a master signage plan would have to be submitted from anyone requesting a waiver and it would be reviewed by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Camp provided example scenarios of when the waivers could be used.  Mr. Camp said allowing for waivers could help reduce sign clutter, help with aesthetics and help sustain property values.

Mr. Byers asked if the intent of these amendments was to force someone to move towards signage that was more aesthetically pleasing.  Mr. Byers asked if applicants would be allowed to continue with signs the way they currently were.  Mr. Camp said “force” was not the word he would use.  Mr. Camp said this would be an option and the applicant was welcome to prepare an overall signage plan that was better that what would have been allowed.  Mr. Camp said the Planning Commission could be flexible in the design standards.

Mr. Camp said Louisas current sign ordinance was pretty good, but was not perfect.  Mr. Camp said applicants could place signs under the current ordinance or they could apply to do something better.  Mr. Camp said the applicant may want a larger sign.  Mr. Camp said these slight adjustments could allow for that.

Mr. Spencer said he felt this was great to allow some leeway for signs.  Mr. Spencer said he felt one of the driving ideas behind these amendments was allowing the Zoning Administrator to have the authority to make these decisions on his own.  Mr. Spencer asked if the County was allowing that.   Mr. Camp said no.  Mr. Camp said the proposed amendments would allow for the Planning Commission make those decisions.  Mr. Camp said the authority would rest with the Planning Commission.  Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Camp if he had a problem making the decisions himself.  Mr. Spencer said he would not like to see an applicant have to go through the Development Review Committee, the Planning Commission and a Public Hearing.  Mr. Spencer said he thought Mr. Camp was intelligent enough to make these decisions on his own.  Mr. Camp said he would feel comfortable if the sign ordinance was set up to allow him to make the decision, but that was not what was discussed.

Mr. Harper said what was being considered tonight was for the waivers to go before the Planning Commission for a decision.  Mr. Harper said if it was changed now, the entire public hearing would have to be re-done.  Mr. Hoffman said he would have to do some legal research because there were certain things that were mandated to go through the Planning Commission.

Mr. Harper asked if the process would be prolonged or if the sign application for a waiver would go directly to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Camp said it would not require a public hearing so there would not be any notices published.  Mr. Harper asked if it would have to go to the Development Review Committee.  Mr. Camp said no, that it would go directly to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Havasy asked Mr. Camp if the process would be longer, shorter or remain the same.  Mr. Camp said it was mostly up to the applicant because no applicant would have to request a waiver.  Mr. Camp said if a waiver was requested, it would be a slight delay because the waiver would have to go to the next Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Havasy said he was really glad to see the word “flexibility” used, especially in hard economic times.

Mr. Gentry said there was a similar deal with shoreline management.  Mr. Gentry said if the applicant had a better plan, they could ask for something different.  Mr. Gentry asked if those cases were reviewed strictly in the office or by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Camp said special exceptions for shoreline management went to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Gentry said he knew that process was working.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Mr. Paul Sprouse, Rebkee Company, said he wanted to speak in support of these amendments.  Mr. Sprouse said he was sure that everyone was reading the same newspaper as him and as a developer, it was no secret that he was developing a property near Wal-Mart at Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Sprouse said he received a lot of push-back from potential tenants regarding signage.  Mr. Sprouse said he was trying to get additional signage for potential tenants.

Mr. Sprouse said Rebkee wanted to do business specifically in Louisa County.  Mr. Sprouse said most of the complaints from the potential tenants dealt with signage and increased visibility.  Mr. Sprouse said he wanted to re-iterate that Rebkee was in support of the proposed amendments.  Mr. Sprouse said he had been working with Mr. Camp on this and any consideration from the Board would be greatly appreciated.

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

Mr. Gentry said the Planning Commission spent several work sessions discussing these amendments.  Mr. Gentry said the main boost was the fact that it gave the option of allowing applicants to look into something a little more different than what was in the ordinance.  Mr. Gentry said the Planning Commission put a lot of effort into this.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Camp how many times he estimated that there would be additional signage.  Mr. Harper asked if this was only to “trade-off” square footage or combine the signs differently.  Mr. Camp said it would be based on the development and every development would be different.  Mr. Camp said there was a cap built into the ordinance where the square footage could not be more than double what would originally be allowed.  Mr. Camp said if only one sign was allowed, they would only be allowed to add one more.

Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Camp if he had the authority to take care of a sign issue without having to send it to the Board.  Mr. Camp said he did not have any discretion.  Mr. Camp said it would be helpful.  Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Hoffman to look into that for the Board.

        On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board adopted a resolution to amend the Louisa County Zoning Ordinance to allow the Planning Commission to grant waivers to the Countys Sign Regulations while requiring a master signage plan from the applicant.

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances designed to promote the growth and improvement of wireless broadband service and public safety communications:  Article IX. Telecommunications Regulations (Sections 86-481 through 86-489) and corresponding changes to Section 66-2, Section 86-2 and Appendix A.  Significant changes include the reduction of fees for broadband facilities; exemption of un-licensed collocations; allowance for certain small towers without a conditional use permit; and adjusted screening requirements.

Mr. Camp said these were proposed amendments to the Louisa County Telecommunications Ordinance, which was a complicated ordinance.  Mr. Camp said the first change was to add a purpose or intent.  Mr. Camp said the proposed amendments included reasonable considerations that promoted Broadband in the County and included reasonable regulations that promoted the more efficient operation of government-provided services.  Mr. Camp said Broadband and government-related services were the two key items associated with the proposed changes.

Mr. Camp said one of the items that received the most feedback from local Broadband companies was the fees.  Mr. Camp said the fee structure was reviewed and the proposed changes were as follows:

APPLICATION TYPECURRENT FEEPROPOSED FEE

CUP application/review for WCF

$4,500$4,500

CUP application/review for BWCF

n/a$1,250

Licensed collocation application/review

$4,000$4,000**

Un-licensed collocation application/review

$2,000$0*

* Subject to zoning and building permit fees

** At the advice of the Countys telecommunication consultant revised from $750

Mr. Camp said the top two fees specifically related to towers and the bottom two fees were for co-locations.  Mr. Camp said there was a $4,500 fee for a new tower, which was $500 for the CUP and $4,000 for the consultant fee.  Mr. Camp said there was not a current process that even considered Broadband, which was why there was no current fee listed.  Mr. Camp said for a licensed co-location there was a fee of $4,000.  Mr. Camp said that meant that regardless of whether or not there was a tower, an applicant would have to pay $4,000 to place up an antenna.  Mr. Camp said the fee for unlicensed co-locations was $2,000.

Mr. Camp said the proposed amendments would reduce the fee for unlicensed co-locations to $0, but they would be subject to any zoning and/or building permit fees.  Mr. Camp said a reduced rate of $1,250 fee would be assessed to Broadband towers.  Mr. Camp said the wireless towers and licensed co-location fees would remain the same.

Mr. Camp said a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) was any manned or unmanned location for the transmission and/or reception of radio frequency signals, or other wireless communications, and usually consisting of an antenna, or group of antennas, transmission cables, and equipment cabinets, and may include an antenna support structure.  Mr. Camp said Wireless Communication Facility was the technical term for a tower.

Mr. Camp said a definition of a Broadband Wireless Communication Facility (BWCF) was added.  Mr. Camp said a BWCF was a wireless communication facility (WCF) that was not regulated (un-licensed) by the FCC, as described in the Telecommunication Act of 1996, or as may be amended in the future, and did not include an antenna support structure more than 100 feet in height, and offered the general public in the vicinity with broadband internet service at a reasonable cost.  Mr. Camp said facilities that did not meet all of the above criteria were defined as WCFs for the purpose of this ordinance.

Mr. Camp said a definition of a Government Wireless Communication Facility (GWCF) was added.  Mr. Camp said a GWCF was a wireless communication facility (WCF) that was owned and operated by a local, state or federal government entity.

Mr. Camp said proposed exemptions included all unlicensed co-locations.  Mr. Camp said BWCFs, GWCFs and On-site WCFs for a business could be exempt subject to the following eight (8) criteria:

  1. 100 feet or less in height
  2. Limit of 2 additional carriers which must be a BWCF or GWCF
  3. Certification from a professional engineer
  4. Zoning and Building Permit
  5. No more than 1 tower per property
  6. Setback greater than 200 from public road
  7. Not visible from another support structure (at the base of tower)
  8. Compliance with §86-484 for BWCFs

Mr. Harper asked if the eight (8) criteria applied in every instance.  Mr. Camp said the eight (8) criteria only applied for exemptions.  Mr. Camp said if a tower was not eligible for an exemption, the applicant would have to get a CUP.

Mr. Byers asked if there were any towers that were currently unlicensed that should have been licensed.  Mr. Camp said the only towers that were not licensed were Cavalier Towers and they did not even exist anymore.  Mr. Camp said there were no other towers that he was aware of.

Mr. Byers said the discussion before was that there needed to be significant changes made to the fee structure.  Mr. Byers said he did not see many significant changes or reductions.  Mr. Camp said the County had not received much input about the fees being too high for a regular tower application.  Mr. Camp said this was designed to help out the Broadband industry because they were going from $4,500 to $1,250.

Mr. Byers said Rappahannock Electric Co-op were the ones who came in and talked to the County.  Mr. Byers asked how these changes were going to benefit them.  Mr. Camp said it would help Rappahannock if they wanted to put up their own pole because they would be allowed to do that by-right under certain conditions.  Mr. Camp said a broadband company could co-locate on a tower like that with no fees.

Mr. Harper asked what constituted licensed and unlicensed.  Mr. Camp said that was determined by the FCC.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Camp if he would measure these changes to see if they had any effect or not.  Mr. Harper asked if this would really make any difference.  Mr. Hardy said yes.  Mr. Harper said if a company could not make any money, they were not going to do this.  Mr. Harper said if the changes were approved, he would ask that there be some kind of measurement to see if the changes really made a difference.  Mr. Byers said he would like to see if Rappahannock would utilize the changes.

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

Mr. Spencer said he would like to add a caveat that Mr. Camp provide a report on the measurable changes brought on by the amendments.  Mr. Camp asked for a time period in which the Board would like to receive a report.  Mr. Mullen said six (6) months.

Mr. Byers asked if the County would contact the companies that had been working with the County in the past on some of the issues.  Mr. Camp said yes.

        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 adopted a resolution to amend the Louisa County Telecommunications Ordinance to promote the growth and improvement of wireless broadband service and public safety communications in Louisa County.

Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Mullen to review the contract that the County was currently in for the $4,000 consultant fee.  Mr. Gentry said he wanted to see if the fee was in line and if the contract needed to be opened up for re-bid.

Mr. Spencer said he forwarded an email about “white spaces” and asked Mr. Hardy if he was familiar with the term.  Mr. Hardy said since analog frequencies were dropped for TV, it freed up a lot of frequencies.  Mr. Hardy said the cell phone companies were saying that they do not have enough bandwidth to carry all the conversations, data and voice.  Mr. Hardy said those companies wanted to start using some of the frequencies.

CLOSED SESSION #3

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 voted to enter Closed Session at 7:32 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

  1. In accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on actual or probable litigation (specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel).

REGULAR SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Barnes being absent, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:36 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 2nd day of November 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 2nd day of November 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.

ADJOURNMENT

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 voted to adjourn the November 2, 2009 meeting at 8:37 p.m.


BY ORDER OF


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