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

Menu
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
DECEMBER 7, 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. Havasy arrived at 5:58 p.m.
Others Present: Dale Mullen, County Administrator; Ernie McLeod, Deputy County Administrator; Greg Hoffman, County Attorney; Heather Amrhein, Paralegal; Jeremy Camp, Director of Community Development; Kevin Linhares, Director of General Services; Robert Carter, Solid Waste Coordinator; Bob Hardy, Director of Information Technology; Robert Dubé, Fire Chief; Jane Shelhorse, Director of Parks and Recreation; Sherry Vena, Director of Human Resources; Pam Vaughan, Human Resources Generalist; Andy Wade, Director of Economic Development; Amanda Reidelbach, Office Manager, Administration; and Alyson Simpson, Deputy Clerk, Administration

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Harper called the December 7, 2009 regular meeting of the Louisa County Board of Supervisors to order at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Gentry led the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Mr. Harper said he would like to carryover the discussion on solid waste options (Item 8) to a later meeting.  Mr. Harper said he would like to add a resolution authorizing a budget transfer within the CIP for Route 208 Road Improvements at Moss Nuckols Elementary School to New Business.  Mr. Harper said he would like to add a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriffs Office for the K-9 Program to New Business.  Mr. Harper said he would like to add a discussion on Thalia Shores Old Milk Route to New Business.  Mr. Harper said he would like to add a presentation of a resolution for recognition to New Business.

Mr. Barnes said he would like to add a discussion for the extension of hunting season.  Mr. Harper said it would be added to New Business.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS

Ms. Pleasants, Commissioner of the Revenue, said it was brought to her attention late last week that the County did not have
a list of the members of the Gordonsville Fire Department.  Ms. Pleasants said the County was late getting a copy of the Auxiliary Members.  Ms. Pleasants said it was her understanding that there were Louisa County residents that lived in the Gordonsville area and were serving on the Gordonsville Volunteer Fire Department.  Ms. Pleasants said the person who notified her of this situation was going to get the information from the Chief of the Gordonsville Fire Department and give it to Chief Dubé for the Countys consideration.

Ms. Pleasants said some of the people had probably already paid their license fee.  Ms. Pleasants said once the names were provided to Chief Dubé, she would be asking the Treasurer to refund those license fees to the volunteers.  Ms. Pleasants said she would make sure that Gordonsville Fire Department members were covered on the license fees next year.

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA (Continued)

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Havasy being absent, the December 7, 2009 agenda was adopted as amended.

PRESENTATIONS

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
Changes from last month are shown in bold.

Traffic Engineering

Status Changed Since Last Month

Route

LocationRequestAction

15

Between Rt. 33 & Rt. 22Speed Study Extend 45 ZoneApproved by BOS

208

Between Rt. 640 & I-64Speed Reduction to 35 MPHInstallation Completed

615

Between Rt. 22 & Rt. 694Install CenterlineInstallation Completed

625

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

669

At Rt. 651Flashing Warning SignRequest Denied

734

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

739

From Rt. 652 to E.S.M.Speed Reduction to 25 (RR)Installation Completed

750

From Rt. F-191 to E.S.M.Speed Study Reduce 55 to 45Installation Scheduled

783

From Rt. 656 to E.S.M.Speed Reduction to 25 (RR)Installation Completed

1334

Between Rt. 640 & E.S.M.Speed Study Reduce 55 to 25Installation Completed

  

Status Unchanged Since Last Month

Route

LocationRequestAction

636

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

676

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

687

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

700

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

700

At Rt. 700Speed StudyRequest Submitted

Permits and Land Development

Louisa CountyJan.Feb.MarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovYTD Total

Site Plan Review Subdivision/
Commercial

31288111511775390

New Entrance - Commercial

5413210234025

New Entrance - Private

10694684776471

Total Permits Processed

9151810141771212158137

Total Utility Permits Processed

4443483325444

Inspection of New Subdivision
Streets

1016351211122

Inspection of New Entrances

59101015951012154104

Miles of Streets Accepted Into
System

4.8600.420000.540.210006.03

Route 644, Bridge Replacement Project:

Mr. Gentry asked why the speed limit reduction for Moss Nuckols Elementary School was not continued all the way out to Interstate 64.  Mr. Glass said he did not think that could be done because it could only be for the school zone.

Mr. Byers
said he was traveling on Dusty Road in the Mountain Road District and it was almost impassable.  Mr. Byers asked if there was anything the Board could do to help.  Mr. Byers said the road was horrible and was a disgrace to the County.  Mr. Glass said at this point, the citizens would have to do the work to the road.  Mr. Glass said it was up to the County to pursue placing the road on the list of Rural Addition projects.

Mr. Wright said the road had been on that list since 1998.  Mr. Glass said the issue would be funding.  Mr. Glass said the County had little, if any, rural addition funding at the current time.  Mr. Glass said he was not sure what priority the project was, but it was up to the County to determine at which level the Road would be placed.  Mr. Glass said that up to 5% of the Countys allocation could be placed on Rural Addition projects.

Mr. Gentry asked if the right-of-way was ever completed.  Mr. Wright said he had been involved with Dusty Road since February 1998.  Mr. Wright said the County had never been able to get the right-of-way from one resident who recently passed away.  Mr. Wright said that persons wife told him that she would sign off on the right-of-way if her husband died.  Mr. Wright said only a portion of the road was the appropriate width and the rest of the road was narrow.  Mr. Wright said the work would be extensive and noted that the County had not tried to get the right-of-way on the second half of the road.
 Mr. Wright said the Road was approximately 1.5 miles long and it would be an expensive project.

Presentation - Refuse Site Procedures and Training

Mr. Carter said effective this year, Louisa County moved away from the use of vehicle decals.  Mr. Carter said the refuse and recycling site attendants used those decals to their advantage to identify County residents.  Mr. Carter said since July 2009, a random proof of residency check had been taking place at the refuse sites.  Mr. Carter said site attendants were required to perform a random proof of residency at least once per hour.  Mr. Carter said the site attendants were asked to receive identification such as drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, lease agreements, etc.

Mr. Carter said the implementation of this policy was to help deter out-of-County waste from being dumped at the sites.  Mr. Carter said training sessions were performed on November 10 and 17, 2009.  Mr. Carter said the purpose of the training sessions was to teach site attendants how to properly ask for proof of residency and how to deal with potentially confrontational situations.  Mr. Carter said the training began with opening remarks, followed by a PowerPoint presentation from Human Resources and himself.  Mr. Carter said the presentation was followed by an interactive role-playing session.  Mr. Carter said the training sessions ended with a question and answer period.  Mr. Carter said he wanted each site attendant to feel 100% safe asking for identification or proof of residency.  Mr. Carter said he and Ms. Vena had made a trip to each refuse site last week.

Mr. Carter showed the Board a sign that would be placed at each one of the refuse sites explaining that all vehicles would be subject to random proof of residency checks and video surveillance.

Mr. Byers
asked Mr. Carter to explain what would happen if a person brought items that could not be dumped and the attendant had to speak with them and they became unruly.  Mr. Carter said if a person became unruly, the site attendants were taught to walk away from the situation if they felt threatened, physically or verbally.  Mr. Carter said the attendant was to go into their office, lock the door and immediately call the Sheriffs Department.

Mr. Harper asked if the attendant would get a vehicle license number.  Mr. Carter said yes.

Mr. Gentry said
that when the County first talked about doing away with the County stickers, he had suggested that someone look into setting up a camera where people would actually show their drivers license.  Mr. Gentry asked if there was a reason why that could not be done because it seemed easier than what was being proposed.  Mr. Gentry said that type of system would require that everyone automatically show their drivers license.  Mr. Carter said he was not aware of that idea, but he would do some research on it.

Mr. Spencer thanked staff for what they were doing to take steps to defend the employees at the refuse sites.
 Mr. Spencer said the site attendants appreciated what staff had done for them and that they were proud of Mr. Carter and Mr. Linhares for putting on the training sessions.  Mr. Spencer said he wanted to keep track of people who repeatedly hit the sites so that something could be sent to them from the Sheriffs Department.

Mr. Wright
said one of his friends, who was a contractor, was told to drive back through this muddy portion of the Landfill a few weeks ago and he saw asphalt shingles lying in the middle of the Landfill road where the mud was.  Mr. Wright said that contractor got out and checked the shingles and there were nails sticking up through the middle of the shingles.  Mr. Wright said the contractor would not drive through the shingles and pulled over.  Mr. Wright said the contractor saw boards in the road that also had nails in them.

Mr. Wright said the same person also went to
a recycling site.  Mr. Wright said the person had dog food bags that were empty and he used them as trash bags and put his trash in them.  Mr. Wright said the person was told that he could not place the dog food bags in the dump because they were not household trash.  Mr. Wright said the dog food bags were filled with household trash.  Mr. Wright said the person had already thrown one box of trash in the dump and the attendant told him that he had to get the box of trash out of the dump because he was not allowed to throw cardboard in there.

Mr. Wright said he was not sure how the attendants were going to check the licenses because 90% of the time when he went to
the Holly Grove site, no one ever came out of the building.  Mr. Wright said he didnt know how residency would be checked if the attendants never came out of their buildings.

Mr. Barnes said he would like to commend staff for training the refuse site attendants.  Mr. Barnes said training was always a good approach to educate the workforce.  Mr. Barnes said he also shared some of the concerns Mr. Wright had.  Mr. Barnes said the attendants were not being paid enough money to deal with the backlash that they receive.  Mr. Barnes said he did not want the attendants to get into a confrontational situation with someone who was really disorderly.  Mr. Barnes said if a random checkpoint was set up at the refuse sites once every two months or so, the word would spread that the checkpoint was taking place.  Mr. Barnes said he thought that might deter the out-of-County trash being dumped.

Mr. Barnes said he did not want the site attendants to be put in a confrontational situation.  Mr. Barnes said it may be possible for the County to work with the Sheriffs Department to set up random checkpoints at the refuse sites every other month.  Mr. Barnes said once
word got out, that would suffice.

Mr. Harper
said he appreciated staff being proactive about the situation at hand.  Mr. Harper said he hoped the program was continued because he felt it was a right way to go.  Mr. Harper said keeping people knowledgeable of what was expected out of them was the way to go.

OLD BUSINESS

Resolution - To Establish a Financial Policy for Louisa County

Mr. Wright said there was a clause in the Financial Policy that would allow the County Administrator to move an unlimited amount of funds within a department to cover potential overruns.  Mr. Wright said he had no problem with Mr. Mullens ability to do that.  Mr. Wright said his question was what would happen with this Policy once Mr. Mullen was gone.  Mr. Wright said the Board may not know the next County Administrator that well and may want some time to be exposed to that County Administrator before the Board granted the unlimited power.  Mr. Wright stated that if this clause remained in the policy as shown, it would apply to every County Administrator who followed.

Mr. Wright said he would like a limit to be placed on the amount that could be transferred within a department.  Mr. Wright said he knew Mr. Mullen was capable of handling more than $20,000.  Mr. Wright said he would like a separate resolution to be done and presented to the Board to allow a special exception to Mr. Mullen personally and not to grant that exception in the actual Policy itself.  Mr. Wright said that would make it applicable to any County Administrator in the future.  Mr. Wright said he thought there should be a specific limited amount because he did not think anyone should have an unlimited amount.

Mr. Wright said he felt that the amount the County Administrator was allowed to approve on contracts, purchase orders and budget supplements should be increased to $30,000 or $35,000.  Mr. Wright said the amount had remained at $20,000 for several years now.

Mr. Wright said if the special exceptions on the monetary amounts for the inner-department transfers and the contracts were increased by separate resolution for Mr. Mullen only, then the amounts would drop back down to the basic numbers in the Financial Policy if he were to ever leave the County Administrator position.  Mr. Wright said once the Board was comfortable with the new County Administrator, a separate resolution could be done for that person as well.

Mr. Harper asked if this Financial Policy was adopted “as is,” could the Board come back and do a second one that would allow for the special exceptions for Mr. Mullen.  Mr. Harper said the Board could put the limits in the Financial Policy and then come back and grant the special exceptions for Mr. Mullen.  Mr. Wright said he wanted the standard amounts placed in the Financial Policy and the higher amounts could be granted to Mr. Mullen through a separate special resolution.

Mr. Wright said he would remove the clause that would allow for unlimited transfers within a department budget and insert a limit.  Mr. Harper asked Mr. Wright what his suggested limit would be.  Mr. Wright said $50,000.

Mr. Wright said he would like to see $20,000 as the basic amount in the Financial Policy for the limit on contracts, purchase orders and budget supplements to be approved by the County Administrator.  Mr. Wright said he would like to see $50,000 as the basic amount in the Financial Policy for the limit on the amount the County Administrator could transfer within a department budget.  Mr. Wright said he would like to then do a separate resolution with the special exceptions for Mr. Mullen.

Mr. Byers said he somewhat agreed with Mr. Wright.  Mr. Byers said the Board met twice a month and the Board should be able to address some of these issues.  Mr. Byers said he did not see the point in granting unlimited or $100,000 limits on what Mr. Mullen could transfer within department budgets.  Mr. Byers said most of the inner-department transfers were going to be below that number and it would be setting a standard.  Mr. Byers said he was more in favor of setting a limit that was reasonable because the Board met regularly.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Byers if he was suggesting that $50,000 be set as the limit on inner-department transfers and leaving $20,000 as the authorized amount that the County Administrator could approve in the actual Policy itself.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. McLeod to make the changes suggested by the Board and bring it back for approval.  Mr. Harper said Mr. McLeod should also consider an additional resolution to grant the special exceptions to Mr. Mullen.

Mr. Hoffman asked if there was a determined amount for the special exception resolution.  Mr. Harper said Mr. Byers felt that $50,000 was sufficient for both amounts.

Mr. Harper added that $50,000 should be the limited amount for department transfers and $20,000 should be the limit for contracts in the actual Financial Policy itself.  Mr. Harper said the separate resolution for Mr. Mullen should allow for $50,000 for both amounts.

Discussion - Titling of Volunteer Fire and EMS Vehicles

Mr. Harper said it was suggested that this discussion be tabled pending the State study that should be received in March 2010.  Mr. Harper said this discussion would take place at the second meeting in March 2010.  The Board concurred with that decision.

Update - James River Water Authority

Mr. Mullen said he had promised an update on the James River Water Authority.  Mr. Mullen said there were recent changes on the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors as a result of the November election.  Mr. Mullen said he was certainly hopeful that the changes would not effect the outcome of the project overall.  Mr. Mullen said he wanted to provide reasons why this was the right project at the right place and the right time.

Mr. Mullen said it was really important to understand the way Louisa saw taxes as a reality.  Mr. Mullen said there was really only one way available to raise the necessary money to conduct County business and that was through taxes.  Mr. Mullen said 75% of Louisas taxes were from general property tax.  Mr. Mullen said of that 75%, 58% was real property tax, 30% was real and public personal service corporation tax and 9% was personal property tax.  Mr. Mullen stated that without this money, Louisa County could not survive.  Mr. Mullen said if the taxes were divided into two separate categories, the County could either tax rooftops and families or they could tax businesses.  Mr. Mullen said that most all counties, as Louisa, do a combination of both.

Mr. Mullen said in these economic times, it was preferable to build business.  Mr. Mullen said Louisa County was currently doing that.  Mr. Mullen said the County was continuing to build quality businesses, in which citizens could work in and spend their money in.  Mr. Mullen said that was important for the County.

Mr. Mullen said part of building business was infrastructure.  Mr. Mullen said it was fair to say that the United States competed with every other country in the world for location of business.  Mr. Mullen said that Virginia, as a state, competed with all the other states as a location of business.  Mr. Mullen said the Central Virginia Region competed with the rest of the State and Louisa County competed with all the other counties in the State.  Mr. Mullen said if public service infrastructure, such as credible emergency response, schools, water and wastewater treatment and technical infrastructure, was not available, Louisa County would not have the backbone to compete in the race for location of business.  Mr. Mullen said Louisa County needed the tax dollars that businesses generated.

Mr. Mullen said this water project was the right project in the right place at the right time.  Mr. Mullen said Louisa and Fluvanna Counties had never been closer than they were right now to making the James River Water Authority a reality.  Mr. Mullen said in April 2009, the James River Water Authority received what many people said wouldnt happen - - a Certificate of Corporation from the State Corporation Commission.  Mr. Mullen said the James River Water Authority immediately encountered litigation, but he felt confident that the Authority would withstand that litigation.  Mr. Mullen said he was happy to say that an order was entered by the Virginia Supreme Court dismissing that case and ruling that the James River Water Authority was a valid corporation.

Mr. Mullen said it was important for the Board of Supervisors to know that the first invoice for the James River Water Authority was paid in October 2007.  Mr. Mullen said this project was first conceived around 6 or 7 years ago, but the first invoice was paid in October 2007.  Mr. Mullen said projects like this one did not create themselves and required substantial legal work, staff time and engineering.  Mr. Mullen said the first invoice was paid prior to the incorporation of the James River Water Authority.

Mr. Mullen said prior to the incorporation of the James River Water Authority, over $238,000 was expended to make water coming 26 to 30 miles up from the James River a reality.  Mr. Mullen said after incorporation of the James River Water Authority, an additional $137,000 was expended.  Mr. Mullen said some of that money was paid under the old arrangement where a bill was received from Fluvanna and half of it was paid by Louisa.  Mr. Mullen said some of that was taken from the $50,000 that the Board of Supervisors initially invested as seed money.  Mr. Mullen said he could say with certainty that he would be asking for an additional $101,000 at least to pay the invoices and bills going forward.  Mr. Mullen said that was the money that was necessary to defend the creation and existence of the Authority and to move the engineering points forward.

Mr. Mullen said since formation in April 2009, the James River Water Authority had expended over $50,000 defending that one single taxpayers lawsuit.  Mr. Mullen said the Authority did come out successful in that case.

Mr. Mullen said these numbers were a financial reality and that meant that any county who was a partner in this project must understand that failing to move this project forward would be throwing away nearly half a million dollars in expended funds to bring the project to where it currently was.  Mr. Mullen said he failed to see how that was a smart economic decision for either county.

Mr. Mullen said Louisa County did not currently have a public utility crisis.  Mr. Mullen said the County had excess water every day and had excess wastewater treatment capacity available every day.  Mr. Mullen said the County was continuing to add capacity on the wastewater treatment side.  Mr. Mullen said this was a regular planning event for a County that wanted to grow economically.

Mr. Mullen said this project was a good deal for Louisa County and was the number one option in his opinion.  Mr. Mullen said it was the most sustainable option to bring water to the Zion Crossroads area and related economic development areas.  Mr. Mullen said he would also add that he felt this project was absolutely essential for Fluvanna County.  Mr. Mullen said Louisa County had other options for water infrastructure, but those options were sub-optimal in his opinion.  Mr. Mullen said Louisa was not solely dependent on this option to provide water.  Mr. Mullen said the story was much different in Fluvanna County.  Mr. Mullen said both Counties had invested about $250,000 a piece to make this a reality.  Mr. Mullen said this water project was important and added that it would not kill Louisa Countys economic development plan.

Mr. Mullen said he wanted to present some figures to the Board and was available to answer any questions.  Mr. Mullen added that Mr. Goodman Duke and Mr. John Thomasson, Louisa Countys James River Water Authority members, had been tremendously helpful in providing a true picture of economic development and meaning of what this project meant to both Counties.

Mr. Byers asked if Invoice #91166464 from McGuire Woods in the amount of $45,882.65 specifically related to defense rather than development.  Mr. Mullen said yes.  Mr. Mullen said he had itemized copies of the invoice in his office available for the Board to review, but he preferred not to discuss in the open meeting because it dealt with pending litigation.

Mr. Spencer thanked Mr. Mullen for the update.  Mr. Spencer said there were some Board members who had been involved with this project ever since it was started back in the 1990s.  Mr. Spencer said when he first came on the Board, no one wanted any infrastructure at Zion Crossroads.  Mr. Spencer said the battle was fought and Louisa won.  Mr. Spencer said the Wal-Mart Distribution Center, Lowes and Wal-Mart were built and between the three over them, there were over 1,800 employees.  Mr. Spencer said he supported this project 100% and he would stay behind this project.  Mr. Spencer said the money that was already spent would be a drop in the bucket compared to what the County could get back from it.

Mr. Mullen said that was correct.  Mr. Mullen said none of his information was secret or privileged and he talked about this project to anyone who would listen.  Mr. Mullen said for about $9 million in investments, the County had already received about $11 million in revenue.  Mr. Mullen said after the initial investment, the revenue would continue to grow.  Mr. Mullen said there were only two things left to happen:  1) Fluvanna and Louisa Counties had to sign an inter-jurisdictional agreement after the first of the year and 2) the County had to pay a certain amount of money to acquire the Pleasant Grove site.  Mr. Mullen said the James River Water Authority was still working on the actual site, but the last step would be financing.

Mr. Mullen said right now the County had a great opportunity.  Mr. Mullen said at the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion at Zion Crossroads, the County realized a 30% savings on the infrastructure project.  Mr. Mullen said that was because excavation, concrete and masonry contractors were hungry for business.  Mr. Mullen said that was what these projects were all about:  pipe in the ground, steel and concrete.  Mr. Mullen said bids were extremely aggressive right now and they would not be like that forever.  Mr. Mullen said this was a special time to be able to use that to the Countys advantage.  Mr. Mullen said he could not say how much the County could save on the James River Water project, but he guessed there would be some.

Mr. Mullen said another advantage was the fact that there was money available to be lent to counties that had a good credit history.  Mr. Mullen said Louisa County was financially strong and was ready to go to work on this project.  Mr. Mullen said the County could potentially be financing in the less than 3% range.  Mr. Mullen said it was an exciting time to be building infrastructure.

Mr. Mullen said the third advantage was that a project like this would put people to work right now.  Mr. Mullen said the County would soon be making announcements about new businesses in the Zion Crossroads area.  Mr. Mullen said he would be more than happy to talk to the Board about the overall development of the Zion Crossroads area.  Mr. Mullen said he hoped that would be a reality with this water project.

Mr. Byers said he considered himself a conservative person, but added that he supported this project ever since he was elected to the Board.  Mr. Byers said this was an excellent move in which two counties could work together.  Mr. Byers said if this water project was becoming a reality, then the County needed to get their economic development program in high gear.

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution - For a Supplemental Appropriation to Louisa County Public Schools for Additional Federal Funding

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Havasy being absent, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to Louisa County Public Schools for additional Federal funding.

Discussion and Resolution - Establishing a Tourism Advisory Committee

Mr. Wade said the Tourism Advisory Committee was already an established committee.  Mr. Wade said the members were established by Mr. Bob Gibson.  Mr. Wade said the members were very instrumental in putting together the Louisa Visitors Center and the grand opening ceremony.

Mr. Wade said the Tourism Advisory Committee was a group of volunteer Louisa County citizens.  Mr. Wade said he wanted to make clear that the members served strictly in an advisory capacity only.  Mr. Wade said the members would advise him on new strategies and on how to implement those new strategies to increase the tourism and tourism revenue in the County.

Mr. Wade requested that the list of current members be sanctioned by the Board tonight until a date in the future where he would come back to the Board with a committee structure, including terms, term limits and bylaws.

Mr. Harper asked Mr. Wade if he intended to expand the group going forward.  Mr. Wade said he had a structure in mind that he would like to give more thought to before presenting.

Mr. Wright commented that he was glad to know that this Committee existed because this was the first time he had ever heard of it.  Mr. Wright said he knew all but one of the Committee members and that they were excellent choices.  Mr. Wright asked if there would be a term limit.  Mr. Wade said there would be a term limit identified when he presented the Committee development structure to the Board.

Mr. Harper said the Board would approve an endorsement now on an interim basis until Mr. Wade could come back with the development structure.

Mr. Spencer said he just wanted it to be clear to the members that they were strictly advisory only.  Mr. Spencer said all the members appeared to be good choices.  Mr. Spencer said he hoped the Committee would be able to get together and develop a brochure about Louisa County.

Mr. Gentry said he had the privilege of seeing the Committee in action.  Mr. Gentry said they were good people with many good ideas.

Mr. Byers urged Mr. Wade to make sure that each area of the County had representation on the Committee.

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0, with Mr. Havasy being absent, the Board voted to endorse the Tourism Advisory Committee members on an interim basis and have Mr. Wade come back to the Board with a development structure for the Committee.

Discussion - Code Enforcement Alternatives for Dilapidated Structures

Mr. Camp said Mr. Paul Snyder had been working on this with Mr. Gentry.  Mr. Camp said he and Mr. Snyder had extensively discussed this issue.  Mr. Camp said Community Development received many complaints on structures that were unsafe or dilapidated.  Mr. Camp said there were a lot of people who felt the County could do more about it.  Mr. Camp said the present Ordinances did not allow for the enforcement of most situations, except in some cases where rental houses were involved.  Mr. Camp said the purpose of this was just to be able to discuss open ideas and thoughts with the Board.

Mr. Gentry said there were structures in every district of this County that were falling in and it was obvious that the structures were a safety issue.  Mr. Gentry said there was no way to put any pressure on the property owner to clean up the property at all.  Mr. Gentry said there were also cases where a house had been burnt out and it could be located next to a million dollar property and the homeowner just leaves and the house becomes a safety issue.  Mr. Gentry said children or animals could get into these unsafe structures and then it became a big deal.

Mr. Gentry said unfortunately the County did not have any way to get in touch with the homeowners to make them clean up their property within 90 days.  Mr. Gentry said he was unsure what could be done about this, but it was obvious that there was a problem in the County.  Mr. Gentry said he felt the Board should at least let Mr. Camp look into the problem and provide a suggestion back to the Board.

Mr. Wright said a few years ago, a Property Management program of this type was supposed to be developed by Mr. Tom Williams, former Planning Director.  Mr. Wright said there was a property in his district that was like this.  Mr. Wright said the grass grew waist-high and then it became a fire hazard and became a health hazard to other people because of rats.  Mr. Wright said he was told that after Mr. Williams left, the idea was put on the shelf and someone must have forgotten which shelf it was put on.

Mr. Barnes said this certainly was an issue throughout the County.  Mr. Barnes added that it was a tough issue on top of that.  Mr. Barnes said regardless of how the County viewed other peoples property, it was still their property.  Mr. Barnes said there were some situations where rodents would run onto neighboring properties because of the condition of the structure.

Mr. Barnes said he had a situation like this in his District and the way he was trying to handle the situation was to have the homeowner turn it over to the fire department to have a controlled burn.  Mr. Barnes said in this case, he thought that was being worked out.  Mr. Barnes said the Board had to be very careful with what they brought forward on this issue because in the end, the property belonged to the owner.

Mr. Byers said when talking about this issue, it reminded him of the junk cars.  Mr. Byers said whatever was put in place needed to be something that could be enforced.  Mr. Byers said there was no need in having rules if they could not be enforced.

Mr. Hoffman said he felt one of the best ways to be able to enforce this was to put together a thorough options chart for the Board to make sure it was understood what all the options were.  Mr. Hoffman said the Board should have the ability to input on what they wanted and did not want as opposed to just putting together a recommendation from staff.  Mr. Hoffman said he felt the first step would be to develop an options chart.  Mr. Hoffman said that could be done through Community Development with the assistance of the County Attorneys Office.

Mr. Gentry said he agreed with the points being made.  Mr. Gentry said property rights were always a major issue and always would be.  Mr. Gentry said with the junk car ordinance, cases were much easier to process when the cars were clearly identified as abandoned.  Mr. Gentry said that should be the same idea with the properties at hand.  Mr. Gentry said there were houses in the County that were in bad shape, but they were not abandoned and he felt it would be important for the County to focus on the abandoned houses.

Mr. Spencer said he was not hot about the junk car ordinance.  Mr. Spencer said what bothered him was that the County kept using complaint-based enforcement.  Mr. Spencer said this could really affect people, especially if it were complaint-based.  Mr. Spencer said that meant that County staff could ride right by a structure that was falling down and could not do anything about it unless someone called and complained.  Mr. Spencer said someone could have a turkey coop in their back yard that was getting ready to fall down and if a neighbor complained about it, the County would jump all over it.  Mr. Spencer said the County could not move forward with any kind of ordinance until it was determined how it would be enforced.

Mr. Harper asked that these questions be covered in the presentation of alternative options.

Mr. Hoffman said complaint-based versus enforcement against all violations was something that should be considered.  Mr. Harper said he felt the County got lucky with the junk car ordinance because it was planned just right.  Mr. Harper said it caught the market and brought in some money.  Mr. Harper said this was a totally different scenario.

Mr. Harper thanked Mr. Camp and Mr. Hoffman and asked them to present the options to the Board at a later meeting.

Discussion - County Administrators Discretionary Authority

Mr. Harper said this had already been addressed with the Financial Policy.  It was the consensus of the Board to move on and have this item brought back with the Financial Policy.

Discussion and Resolution - Byrne Grant, Homeland Security Grant and County CIP

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

Mr. Hardy said a number of different grants and projects were put together over the last several years and were combined into one large project to replace the hardware and software in Dispatch for the 911 phone system, CAD and RMS.  Mr. Hardy said there was about $20,000 left over.  Mr. Hardy said he was requesting that the Dispatch area continue to be upgraded.  Mr. Hardy said Mr. Chris Lee, Deputy Director for Dispatch, was looking at completing a grant application for monitors to be mounted to the walls that would replicate what the Dispatchers were seeing on their computers.  Mr. Hardy said other involved parties, such as the Sheriffs Department and EMS personnel, could see what was going on in Dispatch.

Mr. Hardy said the monitors would be on the walls in Dispatch, EOC and in the Deputies Room.  Mr. Hardy said it would alleviate people crowding around Dispatch and talking while they were trying to answer the phones.  Mr. Hardy said weather maps and news events could be displayed on the monitors, which was not currently available.

Mr. Hardy said the total project was $9,000 and that the money had already been approved and appropriated.  Mr. Harper asked if this was for $9,000 out of the $20,000 that remained.  Mr. Hardy said yes.

Mr. Wright asked who would have the authority to initiate the monitoring and under what circumstance would the monitoring be done.  Mr. Hardy said it would be up to the discretion of the Sheriffs Department or EMS.  Mr. Hardy said Dispatch could also turn it on themselves.  Mr. Hardy said he has had Deputies call him down for a situation and everyone would be crowded around the computer while the Dispatchers were trying to answer the phone.  Mr. Wright said he thought only the Dispatchers were supposed to be in that area.

Chief Dubé said the monitors would usually be used when the EOC was activated for an emergency or for the North Anna Drill.  Chief Dubé said the Deputies did go back and forth through Dispatch.  Mr. Wright said he knew the Deputies spent some time in there.

Mr. Spencer asked if these monitors were going to be hooked up with cable TV.  Mr. Hardy said no.  Mr. Hardy said there was a Direct TV monitor in Dispatch for weather and news events.

* Mr. Havasy arrived at 5:58 p.m.

Mr. Byers asked if these monitors would be in a controlled environment away from the general public.  Mr. Hardy said yes.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution approving the expenditure of unspent funds to purchase wall-mounted monitors for the EOC, Dispatch and Deputies room for observers during operations and events.

Resolution - Authorizing a Budget Transfer Within the CIP for Route 208 Road Improvements at Moss Nuckols Elementary School

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution authorizing a budget transfer within the CIP for Route 208 road improvements at Moss Nuckols Elementary School.

Resolution - For a Supplemental Appropriation to the Sheriffs Office for the K-9 Program

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the Sheriff's Office for the K-9 Program.

Discussion - Thalia Shores Old Milk Road

Mr. Hoffman said this was a follow-up on a project that the Board asked him to work on regarding the abandonment of an old milk road in Thalia Shores.  Mr. Hoffman said he made a recommendation to Mr. Spencer that the County not abandon the old milk road and that was directly reflected in a November 25, 2009 letter to Ms. Karen Williams.  Mr. Hoffman said Ms. Williams was the leader of the request to the County.

Mr. Hoffman said the old milk road lies substantially, if not exactly, in the same location as the entrance to Thalia Shores and the Board voted in March 2009 to not abandon the road.  Mr. Hoffman said it was his opinion that this was essentially the same road and the same request and the Board of Supervisors had already denied.

Mr. Hoffman said there was a small portion of the road in the back of the development that ran across some lots that was not currently being used as a road.  Mr. Hoffman said he advised Ms. Williams on the phone that the lots in the back may be considered for abandonment, but that did not seem to be the interest of the residents of Thalia Shores.  Mr. Hoffman said the residents were interested in the front of the road, which was currently the entrance to the development.  Mr. Hoffman said he made this recommendation to Mr. Spencer.

Mr. Spencer said this situation started when a gate was put up at the entrance to Thalia Shores and they were going to prohibit seven families from having gate codes.  Mr. Spencer said it was determined that this was a County road and the gate was on State property.  Mr. Spencer said when this issue was brought to the Board, Mr. Mullen was kind enough to go out to the site with several other staff members.  Mr. Spencer said the next day, there was a nasty email going out from one of the residents about the County employees sulking up in the shadows.  Mr. Spencer said the people then went to VDOT and told them the opposite of what Mr. Mullen had told them.  Mr. Spencer said this had been a battle in his District for months now.  Mr. Spencer said he sent out an email covering the situation and explained that he did not want staff wasting any more time on the issue.

Mr. Spencer said it was not the Countys fault that the property owners had easements on their property.  Mr. Spencer said it was shown on all the deeds.  Mr. Spencer said if the property owner did not bother checking on that, then it was not the Boards problem.

Presentation and Resolution of Recognition

Mr. Mullen called Mr. Wright before the Board.  Mr. Mullen read a resolution recognizing Jack Wright for his many years of service on the Board of Supervisors.

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

Mr. Spencer said he had only been on the Board for a little while when Mr. Wright was elected to serve.  Mr. Spencer said Mr. Wright had been one of the truest gentlemen he had run across his entire life.  Mr. Spencer said all Mr. Wright had to do was give his opinion on insurance and that was the way he followed.  Mr. Spencer said Mr. Wright worked for a Fortune 500 insurance company for years and he knew more about insurance than anyone he knew.

Mr. Havasy said he first met Mr. Wright 12 or 14 years ago when he first came on the Planning Commission.  Mr. Havasy said Mr. Wright had been such a help and had always been honest.  Mr. Havasy said Mr. Wright would teach what was right and wrong and had taught many people who had been through the system.  Mr. Havasy said he had a lot to be grateful for that Mr. Wright was a man of such great character and was such an honorable person.  Mr. Havasy said Mr. Wright was not always the easiest person to get a long with, but he was always straight forward and honest.  Mr. Havasy said he always knew where Mr. Wright stood and he thanked him for all the help he had given him over the years.

Mr. Gentry said it was easy to make comments about someone who was always “Wright.”  Mr. Gentry said when he first joined the Board, Mr. Wright was serving on many committees and he probably never got the credit he deserved for the long hours and traveling.  Mr. Gentry said he had the opportunity to follow after Mr. Wright on some of the committees and it was easy to see that Mr. Wright had provided many services to the citizens of Louisa that were not seen in black and white.  Mr. Gentry thanked Mr. Wright for all of his service to Louisa County.

Mr. Harper said he felt diligent and faithful were two words that could always be used to describe Mr. Wright.

Mr. Barnes said he could say that he and Mr. Wright came on the Board on the same day.  Mr. Barnes
said the first time he ever met Mr. Wright they were on a tour with Mr. Lanny Woolfolk and were both candidates up for election.  Mr. Barnes said that even though he and Mr. Wright had not always agreed with each other, they had always respected each other.  Mr. Barnes said it was hard to say that about all people, but he always knew that Mr. Wright would operate fair and square.  Mr. Barnes said he felt that Mr. Wright had not gotten the recognition that he should have for being such a strong supporter of education.

Mr. Byers said Mr. Wright was one of the reasons that he had even considered serving on the Board.  Mr. Byers said Mr. Wright was so diligent, not only in the County, but also in church and other important areas of his life.  Mr. Byers said he thought that most of the constituents in Mr. Wrights District had no idea how many hours Mr. Wright spent in doing work for the County and making this place a better community in which to live.  Mr. Byers said he and Mr. Wright did not always vote the same, but he never once felt any pressure from Mr. Wright, even though they were friends outside of work and went to church together.  Mr. Byers said Mr. Wright had always been a “straight shooter” and he appreciated him for that.

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 6-0-1, with Mr. Wright abstaining, the Board adopted a resolution honoring Jackson Wright for his many years of service on the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.

Discussion - Extension of Hunting Season

Mr. Barnes said he would like the County to look into a late firearms hunting season to help lower the deer population in the County.  Mr. Barnes said there were a lot of deer in the County and he would like the Board to talk to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries about qualifying for a late firearms season.

Mr. Harper said he thought there would be someone attending a later meeting to address the issue.

Mr. Wright said he brought this up because statistics showed that within the next 12 months, 1 out of every 137 drivers in Virginia would hit a deer with a vehicle.  
Mr. Wright said that statistic was scary.  Mr. Wright said at night time, drivers had to be careful and watch for deer on both sides of the road.  Mr. Wright said there was not always one or two deer, but sometimes there were large groups of them.

Mr. Wright said the County could not favor one group of hunters over another.  Mr. Wright said there would have to be an extended season for the regular hunters and then another season for the black powder hunters and another season for the bow hunters.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Wright said the minutes from the Health Center Commission meeting stated that the $400,000 twenty-year mortgage was paid off in nine years and nine months.  Mr. Wright said that was an indication of good management and fiscal responsibility.  Mr. Wright said he would like the County Administrator to send a letter of commendation to the Health Center Commission.

BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Spencer said he would like to appoint Ms. Susan Dubé to the Library Advisory Board in place of Ms. Patricia Driskill.  Mr. Spencer said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Jeff Feagans to the Health Center Commission.

Mr. Barnes said he would to re-appoint Ms. Faye Rosenthal to the Library Advisory Board.  Mr. Barnes said he would like to re-appoint Mr. Roy Hopkins to the Transportation Safety Commission.

Mr. Barnes asked if the Clean Community Commission was appointed by District.  Mr. Harper said yes.

Mr. Wright
said he would like to appoint Mr. Hunter Bowles to the Social Services Advisory Board.  Mr. Wright said he had talked to Mr. Tommy Barlow and Mr. Barlow concurred with this appointment.  Mr. Wright said Mr. Bowles was a former Social Services Director and would be well suited for the position.

Mr. Byers asked if the terms on the Library Advisory Board were supposed to run concurrent with the Board members term.  Mr. Gentry said he thought they were supposed to.

Mr. Byers
said he would like to re-appoint Ms. Pam Matthews to the Library Advisory Board, but to have her term run concurrent with his.

Mr. Byers said he thought the Library Advisory Board terms were supposed to be concurrent with the Board members term, but it appeared that the term dates were off.  
Ms. Reidelbach said that not all of the committees had terms that were concurrent with the Board members term.  Ms. Reidelbach said the term limits could be reviewed by the Board and amended if necessary.  Ms. Reidelbach said the Library Advisory Board was not currently set as one of the committees that had concurrent terms.  Mr. Harper said he would like to make the terms of the Library Advisory Board concurrent with the Board members term.  Mr. Harper asked Ms. Reidelbach to bring back the information that was necessary to make that change.

Mr. Hoffman asked the Board if they would like to make all the terms concurrent.  Mr. Harper said it could be worked on as they came up.

Mr. Spencer said Mr. Jeff Garnett called him and his term was supposed to expire in January 2010, but our records showed that he did not expire until December 2010.  Mr. Spencer said he thought all the committees should be checked on.

Mr.
Spencer said there was an email from Mr. Rich Gasper, Assessor, regarding the Board of Equalization.  Mr. Spencer asked that Mr. Doug Whitlock be re-appointed to the Board of Equalization as quickly as possible.

Mr. Byers
said he would like to appoint Ms. Brenda Martin to the Transportation Safety Commission as the Jackson District representative in place of Mr. Milton Cosby.  Mr. Byers said he would like her term to run concurrent with his.

Mr. Gentry said it did make sense to try and change the Library Advisory Board terms because six of the seven members expired at the same time, which was not reasonable.

Mr. Harper said he would like to
re-appoint Ms. Eugenia Bumpass to the Library Advisory Board.

On the motion of Mr. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board appointed Ms. Susan Dubé to the Library Advisory Board, re-appointed Mr. Jeff Feagans to the Health Center Commission, re-appointed Ms. Faye Rosenthal to the Library Advisory Board, re-appointed Mr. Roy Hopkins to the Transportation Safety Commission, appointed Mr. Hunter Bowles to the Social Services Advisory Board, re-appointed Ms. Pam Matthews to the Library Advisory Board, re-appointed Mr. Doug Whitlock to the Board of Equalization, appointed Ms. Brenda Martin to the Transportation Safety Commission and re-appointed Ms. Eugenia Bumpass to the Library Advisory Board.

Mr. Harper asked for a report on which committees and boards had concurrent terms and which ones did not.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT

Mr. Mullen said the Board recently approved a new expedited schedule for the budget.  Mr. Mullen said the Boards desire was to considerably accelerate the schedule so that the Board could get a better look at the budget.  Mr. Mullen said a copy of the new budget schedule had been provided to each Board member.

Mr. Mullen reminded the Board of the County Office closings and some scheduled events.  Mr. Mullen reviewed the correspondence in the Board Packet including a letter from the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board regarding the Route I-64 Zion Crossroads Interchange Improvements, a “thank you” email from Ms. Valeria Shifflett regarding Emergency Services personnel, a letter from Dominion Virginia Power regarding the potential acquisition of land, quarterly report of activities for the Louisa County Water Authority, and VACo forms.

Mr. Mullen said there was a memo from Chief Dubé regarding vehicles.  Mr. Mullen said the Boards desire was to economize and make things more economical and effective.  Mr. Mullen said because of that, purchases of SUVs are required to be pre-approved prior to purchase.  Mr. Mullen said when the base prices of the Dodge Charger, the Ford Crown Victoria and the Ford Explorer were compared, the Ford Explorer was the cheaper option by at least $5,000.  Mr. Mullen said the total appropriation for the replacement vehicle was $25,000.  Mr. Mullen said the Ford Explorer was not only the best option, but it was the only option that met the appropriated amount.  Mr. Mullen said he would ask the Board to resolve to allow the purchase of the Ford Explorer.

        On the motion of Mr. Havasy, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to allow Emergency Services to purchase a Ford Explorer with the appropriated funds of $25,000 rather than purchase a Dodge Charger.

Mr. Wright said one of the reasons he thought the Crown Victorias price was so high was because the wording said the car was built to Sheriffs Department specifications.  Mr. Wright said that was quite a bit different from the standard Crown Victoria, which would increase the price.

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Resolution - For a Supplemental Appropriation to the CIP for the Sale of Capital Assets

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution for a supplemental appropriation to the CIP for the sale of capital assets.

Resolution - Proceeding with the Louisa County Public School Capital Improvement Plan HVAC Project

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution proceeding with the Louisa County Public School Capital Improvement Plan HVAC Project.

Resolution - To Take Two (2) Streets in the Noahs Landing Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways for Louisa County, Virginia

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to take two (2) Streets in the Noahs Landing Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways for Louisa County, Virginia.

Resolution - Supporting the SEEA Application for DOE Grant Funding in Order to Provide Specific Funding for Leaps Programs and Services

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution supporting the SEEA Application for DOE Grant Funding in order to provide specific funding the Leaps programs and services.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD - 6:30 P.M.

Ms. Vicky Harte, Louisa District, said Mr. Ralph Davis, Mineral Rescue Squad member, passed away and she would like to have the Board acknowledge his service to the County as a volunteer.  Ms. Harte said she was a lifetime member of Louisa Rescue Squad and was a current member of Holly Grove Rescue Squad.

Ms. Harte said she apologized for coming in late, but she read on the internet that meetings started at 7:00 p.m.  Ms. Harte said she was surprised to learn that the meeting started at 5:00 p.m.  Ms. Harte said there was a discussion on
the titling of volunteer EMS vehicles that she was not here for.  Mr. Harper said the item was carried forward and that no discussion took place.  Mr. Harper said the 7:00 p.m. session was for public hearings and that the regular meeting started at 5:00 p.m.

Ms. Harte said she had lived in Louisa County for a long time and that she had been to many houses.  Ms. Harte said there were quite a few dilapidated structures that people still lived in.  Ms. Harte said she did not hear anything
during the Board discussion that addressed situations of structure that had people living in them.  Ms. Harte said she did not hear anything discussed about what would be done to assist the individuals living in those homes.  Ms. Harte said she just wanted to bring it to the Boards attention that a lot of the structures were actually inhabited by County residents who did not have the resources to do what the County wanted them to do.

Ms. Harte said the reason she was here was to request a more effective volunteer recruitment and retention campaign be established.  Ms. Harte said it took a lot of time
and effort on the volunteer part as far as training and time commitment.  Ms. Harte said with the increase in County population, squad members had not seen any tangible efforts to help the volunteers improve.  Ms. Harte said, as a citizen, she wanted to request that a committee or something else be formed to address the volunteer recruitment and retention issue.  Ms. Harte said posting signs up around the County asking for volunteers had not been effective.

Mr. Harper said the County Attorney would be gathering a list of options to present to the Board regarding what could be done with the dilapidated structures.
 Mr. Harper suggested that Ms. Harte talk with the County Attorney regarding that issue.  Mr. Harper said regarding volunteer recruitment, Ms. Harte needed to talk to Chief Dubé because he was the one responsible for setting up a recruitment program.  Ms. Harte said she had spoken with Chief Dubé.

Mr. Spencer said the EMSAL contract that had been in place for years said that EMSAL would be responsible for all recruiting and retention of volunteers.  Ms. Harte said that was correct and added that she had already went to EMSAL.
 Mr. Harper asked Ms. Harte to let the Board know when she had made those communications so it could be monitored.

Mr. Gentry
said he just wanted to clarify that when he was talking about dilapidated structures, he used the word “abandoned.”  Mr. Gentry said he was talking about structures that had been abandoned and not about ones who had people living there and had just not been maintained very well.

Mr. Harper said he appreciated Ms. Harte bringing this to the Boards attention.  Mr. Harper suggested that Ms. Harte make her contacts and then let the Board know what the outcome was.  Mr. Harper said the Board could continue to monitor that as well.

Ms. Harte said she had attended EMSAL meetings and the reason she came before the Board was because the efforts of EMSAL were very ineffective.  Mr. Harper asked Ms. Harte if she would communicate that in some sort of writing to the County.

Ms. Harte said she would also like to ask the new Mountain Road District Board member to come out and visit the Holly Grove Rescue Squad and attend one of the meetings.
 Mr. Wright said he had often attended those meetings.  Ms. Harte said she was aware of that and said she was extending an invitation to the new Board representative.

Mr. Havasy said that he worked with both fire and rescue.  Mr. Havasy said as far as recruitment, Chief Dubé, Garland Nuckols, all the rescue captains and all the fire chiefs had worked very hard trying to
find ways to recruit and retain volunteers.  Mr. Havasy said this was an ongoing problem.  Mr. Havasy said to make the statement that EMSAL had been ineffective could be somewhat correct, but it was not because of lack of trying.  Mr. Havasy said that was the way the world was today, where employees could not leave work at will.  Mr. Havasy said it was very difficult to find new volunteers.  Mr. Havasy said he was sure that people had been working very hard to recruit new volunteers.

SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 6:41 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

  1. Meeting between the Louisa County Board of Supervisors and the Louisa County Water Authority in accordance with §2.23711 (A) (7) VA Code Ann., for the purpose of consultation with legal counsel on actual litigation.

REGULAR SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Byers, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 7:05 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

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

WHEREAS, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors has convened a Closed Meeting this 7th day of December 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 7th day of December 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.

CITIZENS INFORMATION PERIOD (Continued)

Mr. Lee Shiflett, Green Springs District, thanked the Board and said he wanted people to be aware that the Board was responsible for doing more than raising taxes.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Code of Ordinances to allow the use of slugs when hunting in Louisa County: Chapter 54. Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions, Sec. 54-8.  Same --With rifles larger than .22 caliber or with shotgun slugs.

Mr. Mullen said Mr. Scott Renalds was a former employee of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and was currently a Detective with the Louisa County Sheriffs Department and would be making a presentation to the Board.

Mr. Scott Renalds said he was employed by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) for about 15 years, but he wanted to be clear that he did not speak on their behalf because he was no longer employed there.

Mr. Renalds said for three years of his employment with the VDGIF, he was Hunter Education Coordinator.  Mr. Renalds said VDGIF used to receive requests from localities regarding ordinance changes such as allowing rifles.  Mr. Renalds said the VDGIF opinion at that time was that slugs and rifles were not hunter safety issues.  Mr. Renalds said proposing different projectiles was a matter up to the County and that there was no hunter safety data to indicate that it should not be done.  Mr. Renalds said he did contact the VDGIF and their position was that this was a matter for the County to determine.

Mr. Renalds said since 1959, there had been only 5 hunting incidents in the State of Virginia involving the use of slugs and none of those incidents involved two parties.  Mr. Renalds said that meant that someone had hurt themselves while hunting with a slug.

Mr. Mullen said Legal had been struggling with coming up with the appropriate language.  Mr. Mullen said Mr. Renalds was kind enough to contact the legislative services and determined that VDGIF had a model ordinance.  Mr. Mullen said VDGIF recommended approving Model Ordinance 2 if the County no longer wished to prohibit slugs.  Mr. Mullen presented a copy of Model Ordinance 2 to the Board.  Mr. Mullen said Model Ordinance 2 stated that it “shall be unlawful to hunt with a rifle larger than .22 caliber rim fire except rifles of a larger caliber may be used for hunting groundhogs between March 1 and August 31.”  Mr. Mullen continued reading the proposed Ordinance, saying that “any person who violated the provision of the ordinance shall be guilty of a Class 3 Misdemeanor.”

Mr. Mullen said the proposed Ordinance did not specifically mention slugs, but that was because the Ordinance would only restrict and would not permit.  Mr. Mullen said by not restricting slugs in the Ordinance, it would be permitting them.  Mr. Mullen said the Ordinance would still prohibit the use of rifles or a larger than .22 caliber.

Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Renalds if there was any reason why the County should not make this change.  Mr. Renalds said no.  Mr. Harper asked Mr. Renalds if there was any reason why the County should make the change.  Mr. Renalds said such opinion would be a personal opinion.  Mr. Renalds said he had to be careful not to take an opinion on behalf of his current or former employer.  Mr. Harper retracted his question.

Mr. Harper said for at least 50 years, since he was a child, slugs were not allowed.  Mr. Harper asked why that was.  Mr. Renalds said it was still a County choice at that time, so he could not speculate why the County chose not to allow them at that time.

Mr. Barnes said he grew up as a country boy and he knew that muzzleloaders were allowed.  Mr. Barnes said that just as much damage could be done with a muzzleloader as with a slug.  Mr. Barnes said he felt this would be a humane way to hunt a deer.  Mr. Barnes said many hunters had been asking him why Louisa County did not allow slugs.  Mr. Barnes said he personally did some research and he did not see any reason why the County should not allow hunting with slugs.

Mr. Barnes said his other question was if this Ordinance was passed, would it go into effect immediately.  Mr. Hoffman said yes.  Mr. Harper said it could be made effective immediately, but it did not have to be.  Mr. Hoffman said the way it was drafted, it did not have a date to be effective in the future, so it would be effective immediately.

Mr. Havasy said he had been hunting varmints, groundhogs, foxes and coyotes when those were legal.  Mr. Havasy said there was no restriction on using high-powered rifles against varmints in Louisa County.  Mr. Harper said he thought there were certain months.  Mr. Havasy said not necessarily because some of them were in season all year long.  Mr. Havasy said he felt this proposed Ordinance was going to be more restrictive.  Mr. Havasy said he had shot groundhogs in December before on a nice, warm day.  Mr. Havasy said the proposed ordinance was being more restrictive, at least in that area.  Mr. Havasy said he supported hunting with rifles and slugs, but he would like it to be modified to the current system where people could hunt all year round for varmints that did not have designated seasons.

Mr. Wright said this would allow that to be done with a .22 caliber.  Mr. Havasy said nothing could be hurt with a .22 caliber.

Mr. Spencer said he deer hunted for years, but he got tired of shooting deer with buckshot and watching them fall and then get back up repeatedly.  Mr. Spencer said hunting dogs would not chase the deer after they were hit.  Mr. Spencer said the deer got injured and lost and then infection would set in.  Mr. Spencer said the slugs were a one shot deal.  Mr. Spencer said instead of having ammunition that sprayed out pellets, the hunter would be down to one slug and whoever shot it would make sure they had a good target.  Mr. Spencer said these slugs would not even outlast buckshot in shooting distance.

Mr. Harper opened the public hearing.

Mr.
Pembroke Pettit, Cuckoo District, said he was in favor of going with the slugs. Mr. Pettit said he had approximately 25 people who hunted on his property.  Mr. Pettit said he encouraged muzzleloaders, but a lot of people still used shotguns with buckshot.  Mr. Pettit said every year, he would discover 3 to 4 dead deer that someone lost.  Mr. Pettit said this had been a problem for him for years and he encouraged the Board to approve hunting with slugs.  Mr. Pettit said that at 100 yards, a slug and a muzzleloader would be quite effective as well as buckshot.  Mr. Pettit said buckshot had more than one pellet and if it was aimed toward a group of people at 100 yards away, every person would be in danger.  Mr. Pettit said slugs would be much safer because it was only one projectile and would drop to the ground within 100 to 150 yards.  Mr. Pettit said he would also like to see it set up where varmints could be hunted all year round.

Mr. Tyler Pieron, Green Springs District, said he was in favor of introducing slugs back into hunting.  Mr. Pieron said when slugs were originally banned from use in the County, they were entirely inaccurate and would fall off at about 50 yards.  Mr. Pieron said with the advent of the rifle barrel, accuracy and reliability were increased.  Mr. Pieron said the slugs were just as potent as a rifle round without the distance.

Mr. Pieron said a few weeks ago he was hunting with his hunt club and one of the youth members shot at a deer with a 20 gauge.  Mr. Pieron said the deer was hit, fell down and got up again.  Mr. Pieron said the boy was running after the deer for about 400 yards until he shot the deer for the fourth time.
 Mr. Pieron said the shots were clean and the hunter was hitting the deer, but the problem was in the shotgun.  Mr. Pieron said it was hardly to cleanly aim at the vitals.  Mr. Pieron said even if the shot was accurate, a hunter was not guaranteed a clean kill as with bow hunting or rifles.  Mr. Pieron said he just wanted to reiterate his support for hunting with slugs.

Mr. Howard Scheurenbrand, Jr., Louisa District, said he had lived in Louisa since 1965 and only buckshot was allowed in 1965.  Mr. Scheurenbrand said he lost two deer - - one in 1966 and one in 1967 - - using buckshot and he quit hunting after that.  Mr. Scheurenbrand said he would not do it anymore because it was inhumane.

Mr. Scheurenbrand said he was the Forester in the County for 31 years.  Mr. Scheurenbrand said one of his jobs was to mark seed trees on a tract of land in the late 1960s.  Mr.
Scheurenbrand said the tract of land was almost 700 acres and he had to walk compass lines every 100 feet.  Mr. Scheurenbrand said in the 3 or 4 days it took the crew to finish that job, they found 27 dead deer and 3 dead turkeys.  Mr. Scheurenbrand said it was inhumane to have an animal go off and suffer.

Mr. Scheurenbrand said he was 100% in favor of the slugs and also allowing predator hunting with a gun larger than a .22 caliber.
 Mr. Scheurenbrand said even though they were predators, they still deserved humane treatment.

Mr. Alex Pinter, Patrick Henry District, said he was in support of slug and rifle hunting.  Mr. Pinter said he had hunted in 15 states and he really enjoyed hunting with a rifle because it was a sportsmans way of hunting.  Mr. Pinter since the advent of muzzleloaders, he had always used one and they were good out to 200 yards.  Mr. Pinter said he felt extremely confident shooting a muzzleloader.  Mr. Pinter said slugs were just about as good.  Mr. Pinter said he liked rifles and slugs and added that it was a sportsmans way of hunting and it was humane.

Mr. Pinter said he got 15 to 20 deer each year on his farm that were just brutalized.  Mr. Pinter said that was a shame and was a waste of good environmental resources provided by the good Lord.  
Mr. Pinter said it was a shame to see the animals suffer, but if the animals were shot with a rifle or a slug, it was rather deadly but was safer.

Mr. Pinter said
his one concern was that Louisa County had an Ordinance that prohibited hunting with firearms across the road, including ditch to ditch.  Mr. Pinter said he believed it was 1957 and rifles were allowed in Louisa County.  Mr. Pinter said ditch to ditch was considered being one step off the road on either side.  Mr. Pinter said someone was shooting at a deer across the road and shot into a windshield and that was the end of rifles in Louisa County.  Mr. Pinter said if slugs and rifles were considered, he felt it would be prudent for the County to be a more restrictive limit on road hunting to make the person have to be 50 or 100 yards off the road.  Mr. Pinter said in Orange County, it was unlawful to hunt with a firearm less than 100 feet from the road.  Mr. Pinter said that was something that should be considered if slugs were going to be used.

Mr. Rodney
Hopkins, Mountain Road District, said he would like to echo what the other speakers said.  Mr. Hopkins said shooting with a slug was one of the most humane ways to kill a deer.  Mr. Hopkins said when using a slug, hunters actually aimed at a deer instead of just pointing their gun at it.  Mr. Hopkins said when using a slug, it was one shot and one projectile and the hunter had to make it count.  Mr. Hopkins said he strongly encouraged the Board to allow hunting with slugs.

Mr. Hopkins said he also encouraged the Board to allow the use of rifles.
 Mr. Hopkins said that if a hunter hopped out of their truck on the side of the road to take a shot at a deer running through the field, he would venture to guess that was not a firearm problem, but was a people problem.  Mr. Hopkins said the type of people who do that kind of irresponsible behavior, were going to do that no matter what laws were in place.  Mr. Hopkins said he knew there were some localities that allowed hunting with rifles from 10 feet and above, as if someone were in a tree stand.  Mr. Hopkins said that law would actually penalize those hunters who wanted to still hunt in the woods.

Mr. Gerald Harlow, Green Springs District,
said he commended the Board for advancing this issue, which was brought forward initially about 15 years ago.  Mr. Harlow said it was placed on the referendum where it died.  Mr. Harlow said slugs only made sense for a county that allowed shotgun hunting.  Mr. Harlow said the slugs would present a good alternative to people who already owned or carried a shotgun.  Mr. Harlow said a scoped, 20-gauge shotgun was an excellent beginning weapon for a young person learning to hunt.  Mr. Harlow said muzzleloaders would be too much for a beginner hunter to handle and the smaller gauge guns shooting buckshot just dont kill the deer. Mr. Harlow said he wanted to promote hunting in the young people to keep the tradition alive and he felt this would be a great alternative to that.  Mr. Harlow said he felt the slugs had proven their safety record and he encouraged the Board to adopt them.

Mr. Lee Shiflet, Green Springs District, said he had been deer hunting for many years, but he would not hunt with a shotgun.  Mr. Shiflett said he had seen too many instances where a deer would absorb some of the shot and just keep going.  Mr. Shiflett said he hunted from a tree stand using a muzzleloader and he had never had a deer get away from that.  Mr. Shiflett encouraged the Board to pass what was necessary to allow hunters to hunt using slugs.

Mr. Shiflett said he did not intend to use slugs because he preferred his muzzleloader,
but he knew that the slugs and the muzzleloaders were much more humane ways to take a deer.  Mr. Shiflett said he knew of an instance where someone killed a deer and took it home to clean it only to learn that he had to throw it away because it was full of infection where someone had previously shot it.  Mr. Shiflett said that was a waste of meat because he would not shoot anything he could not eat.  Mr. Shiflett urged the Board to allow slugs.

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

Mr. Hoffman said VDGIF could not enforce any ordinance passed by the County unless notice was provided prior to May 1 of the year in which the ordinance was to take effect.  Mr. Hoffman said he assumed that was because the game officers would have to be trained on any new ordinances.  Mr. Hoffman said regardless of whether or not the ordinance was passed today, VDGIF could not enforce it until next year.

Mr. Harper asked what would happen if hunters were hunting with slugs the next day and they were stopped by an officer.  Mr. Hoffman said he thought that was problematic.  Mr. Hoffman said he thought the ordinance should not be made effective until next year.

Mr. Harper said he heard a lot of convincing argument tonight, but he did take notice to what Mr. Pinter had to say about ditch hunting.  Mr. Harper said there may be other items that the Board would like to address at the same time.

Mr. Byers said this week he talked with some of the people at VDGIF and he was unable to find any statistical data that supported the fact that slugs presented any greater threat.  Mr. Byers said one of the things he was cautioned about was that VDGIF would often not enforce things that were beyond what the State allowed.  Mr. Byers said if the Board was going to implement something, it needed to be enforceable.  Mr. Byers said he thought the rifles were a separate issue and he hoped the Board was only focusing on slugs at the present time.  Mr. Byers said he did not want to be so restrictive as to limit the enforceability.  Mr. Byers said he wanted to make sure that what was passed would be enforceable, but that he did not see any compelling reason why slugs should not be allowed.

Mr. Spencer said he read the Model Ordinance 2 and he did not think he could ever support using high-powered rifles to hunt deer.  Mr. Spencer said there were coyote problems in the County and there were all kinds of varmint problems.  Mr. Spencer said he did not see any reason why this should be stopped from March 1 to August 31.  Mr. Spencer said he could not think of a reason why the Board should not move forward with this.

Mr. Hoffman said it was true that the purpose of enforcement was to cite violations for things that were illegal.  Mr. Hoffman said his concern was that if VDGIF did not receive notice of this change, they may write tickets in this County for people who were hunting with slugs, not knowing that it was no longer illegal.  Mr. Hoffman said if the Ordinance was made effective tomorrow, the tickets would be of no affect if the person went to court and fought it because it would probably be dismissed.  Mr. Hoffman said it may cause inconvenience for the person who was cited.  Mr. Hoffman said if the Ordinance was made effective immediately, he thought it could be done, but it would be much cleaner if it was effective next year.

Mr. Gentry asked how many people would have to be notified who would actually be patrolling in the County to enforce this.  Mr. Gentry said a simple memo would take care of 90% of the problem.  Mr. Hoffman said he just wanted to make the Board aware of the possibility.

Mr. Harper said it was very unlikely that anyone was going to get caught anyway because VDGIF usually did not have anyone patrolling in the County.  Mr. Harper said he was a little more convinced now than he was when he came into the meeting.  Mr. Harper said there were some other things that he felt the Board should look into as well, one of them being ditch to ditch hunting.  Mr. Harper said he would like to have time to look into the other issues.

Mr. Gentry said he would like to move ahead and act on the slug issue and deal with the other issues at another Board meeting.  Mr. Gentry motioned to allow for slugs to be used and have it be effective as soon as possible.  Mr. Barnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Hoffman said to be clear, he felt the motion should be to adopt Model Ordinance 2 from the VDGIF.  Mr. Mullen said that Model Ordinance 2 would appear to permit larger caliber, high-powered rifles to be used to hunt groundhogs during the applicable dates.  Mr. Hoffman said that was currently allowed in the Ordinance.  Mr. Mullen said that was included in Model Ordinance 2 and he wanted to make sure all the Board members were aware of all the parts.  Mr. Hoffman said it was currently in the County Code as well.

Mr. Barnes said he would like to have staff come back to the Board as soon as possible with the ditch to ditch hunting issue that Mr. Pinter mentioned.  Mr. Barnes said he did not want to cloud the slug issue at hand, but he did want the ditch to ditch hunting to be examined, too.  Mr. Barnes said he would be supporting the current motion.

Mr. Mullen said that Subsection B should say permits muzzleloaders during general firearm season.

Mr. Gentry, being the person who made the original motion, amended his motion to reflect that the intent of the Board was to adopt Model Ordinance 2 from the VDGIF.  Mr. Barnes, being the person who originally seconded the motion, agreed to the change.

Mr. Harper said coming into the meeting, he was not that convinced about allowing the slugs.  Mr. Harper said he was convinced now, but he was not going to move this fast.  Mr. Harper said this needed more deliberation and he thought the other issues should be addressed at the same time.  Mr. Harper said it seemed to him that there were some uncertainties and that the County Attorney was not even sure about the enforcement.  Mr. Harper said he was not going to support this at the current time.

Mr. Gentry said he came here with the idea of finding reasons to not pass the amendment and he never heard any.

Mr. Harper requested a roll call vote of Mr. Gentry's motion.

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

        On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mr. Harper voting against, the Board voted to adopt amendments to Chapter 54, Section 8 of the Louisa County Code to allow the use of slugs when hunting in Louisa County in the form of Model Ordinance 2 from the VDGIF.

Mr. Spencer asked if this would be effective immediately.  Mr. Gentry said yes.

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following section of the Louisa County Code of Ordinance to change the requirement for resubmission of erosion and sediment control plans should land disturbing activities not commence within 180 days of plan approval or cease for a 180 day period: Chapter 38  Environment, Sec. 38-34. Resubmission of plans.

Mr. Camp said this ordinance amendment proposed to change one word - - “will” to “may.”  Mr. Camp said that would effectively give the program the authority to not require resubmission of plans after 6 months.  Mr. Camp said the reason why the County would not always want to require resubmission of plans was because it was sometimes unnecessary if regulations had not changed or if the development project had not changed.  Mr. Camp said it was just an added burden and cost to the engineer and applicant.  Mr. Camp said under the current economic conditions, it made sense to be as flexible as possible.

Mr. Camp said another reason to make the change was because of Federal and State requirements which would sometimes make resubmissions impossible to do.  Mr. Camp said the State required certain projects wait six months before any work was started.  Mr. Camp said that would create a continual spiral of waiting and resubmitting.

Mr. Harper asked if making this change would give Mr. Camp the latitude he needed to be able to tell an applicant that they didnt have to reapply.  Mr. Camp said yes and that it would be reviewed on a case by case basis.  Mr. Harper asked if this prevented the cost of the applicant having to go back to soil engineers for the second and third times.  Mr. Camp most of the times it was the same plan being resubmitted over and over.  Mr. Camp said it kept applicants from having to go through the resubmission process if it was unnecessary.  Mr. Harper asked if it was taking away a fee.

Mr. Byers asked who would make the determination.  Mr. Camp said he would.

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. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Gentry, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend the Louisa County Code, Chapter 38, Environment, Section 34, Resubmission of Plans, to allow the program administrator the discretion to determine if circumstances warrant the resubmission of E&S plans after 180 days of inactivity.

Public Hearing - Amendments to the following sections of the Louisa County Code of Ordinances with respect to real estate tax relief to elderly or disabled person by considering the income of non-relatives who are living in the residence with the elderly or disabled person: Chapter 70. Taxation, Article II. Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly or Totally Disabled, Sec. 70-33.  SameRequirements.; and Chapter 70. Taxation, Article II. Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly or Totally Disabled, Sec. 70-34.  Same--Claiming.

Ms. Pleasants said this year, the General Assembly changed the State Code so that this item could be incorporated if localities wanted to.  Ms. Pleasants said she did ask Mr. Hoffman to bring this item up for Board consideration.

Ms. Pleasants said she was not sure how much of this there would be as of yet, but this would allow the County to use the income of other people who may be living in a house who were not family.  Ms. Pleasants said there had been a few situations where this would have applied, but it would not have changed much money one way or the other.  Ms. Pleasants said she could see it as a growing thing as time went on, which was why the General Assembly went ahead and put this in place.  Ms. Pleasants said there were more people who were choosing to live together for whatever reason.

Ms. Pleasants said she just wanted to make sure the County was being fair to everyone.  Ms. Pleasants said she did not want to penalize married couples.  Ms. Pleasants said she could have a married couple who could only qualify for 25% tax relief with both incomes, but there could be a couple who had just chosen to share a home together and she would only be able to use the applicants income.  Ms. Pleasants said that person may, therefore, be entitled to 100% tax relief because the other persons income wasnt counted because they werent married.

The Board agreed with Ms. Pleasants reasoning behind asking for this amendment to be made.

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. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted a resolution to amend the Code of Louisa County, Chapter 70, Taxation, Sec. 70-33. Same - Requirements, and Sec. 70-34. Same - Claiming.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Barnes said he understood that the State was going through problems with transportation, but the Zion Crossroads interchange on the Six Year Plan was on the chopping block.  Mr. Barnes said interchange was becoming a hot spot.  Mr. Barnes said he knew there were problems, but the County had been in the pecking order with that project.  Mr. Barnes said Senator Houck and Delegate Janis both needed a letter from the County asking for support in keeping that project going.

Mr. Barnes said the new, incoming Governor said that economic development was going to be his top priority and Zion Crossroads was one of the biggest economic development points in Central Virginia.

Mr. Gentry said if he remembered correctly, there were two separate projects in that area.  Mr. Gentry said one was for
ramps.  Mr. Gentry said according to Mr. Jamie Glass, the County could probably take care of that without any major construction.  Mr. Gentry said the other problem was reconstruction of bridges to allow for additional turning lanes.  Mr. Gentry said if he remembered correctly, Mr. Butch Davies said he had money at that time on the interstate system where he could have moved to that project.  Mr. Gentry said there needed to be an update on the project as well.

Mr. Barnes said he would send a letter to Delegate Janis, Senator Houck and Governor-Elect McDonnell asking them for help with the project.


Mr. Havasy said he would like to add one statement to that for VDOT.  Mr. Havasy said most people were familiar with the on/off ramps at Zion Crossroads and all of them were wide enough for two lanes.  Mr. Havasy asked why the ramps were not repainted with a line down the middle and arrows for left and right turns.  Mr. Havasy said he thought that would eliminate some of the problem.

Mr. Gentry said it was started off with the ramps.  Mr. Gentry said money was set aside for revenue sharing to take care of the ramps.  Mr. Gentry said Mr. Glass told him later that the ramps could be widened and lengthened.  
Mr. Gentry said one of the biggest problems was the turning lanes on Route 15 did not allow enough storage.  Mr. Gentry said Mr. Davies was going to transfer interstate money that was left over in this district.  Mr. Gentry said that never happened.

Mr. Harper asked if a letter could be sent to all parties, including Mr. Davies,
to remind them that this was what the County thought was in place.

Mr. Harper
asked the Board if they were interested in the efforts for tax relief for hybrid vehicles and for solar and recycling equipment.  Mr. Spencer said he wasnt.  Mr. Gentry said he wasnt.  Mr. Wright said he did not see the point in it.  Mr. Harper said it was encouragement for people to use hybrid vehicles or to start using solar energy and recycling.  Mr. Barnes said he did not know enough about it.  Mr. Harper said he interpreted that as being no interest from the Board to move forward at this time.

APPROVAL OF BILLS

On the motion of Mr. Spencer, seconded by Mr. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, with Mr. Gentry abstaining from his mileage reimbursement, the Board adopted a resolution approving the bills for the second half of November 2009 for the County of Louisa in the amount of $570,897.83.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On the motion of Mr. Wright, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board adopted the minutes of the November 16, 2009 meeting.

CLOSED SESSION

On the motion of Mr. Gentry, seconded by Mr. Spencer, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to enter Closed Session at 7:52 p.m. for the purpose of discussing the following:

  1. 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.
  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. Barnes, seconded by Mr. Wright, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to return to Regular Session at 8:46 p.m.

RESOLUTION - CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION

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

PRESENTVOTE
P.T. Spencer, Jr. Yes
Jack T. Wright Yes
Fitzgerald A. Barnes Yes
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 7th day of December 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 7th day of December 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. Barnes, which carried by a vote of 7-0, the Board voted to adjourn the December 7, 2009 meeting at 8:47 p.m.



BY ORDER OF


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

LOUISA COUNTY, LOUISA, VIRGINIA