This week in county government; Supervisors reject proposed 5 MW solar facility near Gordonsville; BOS clears way for equipment rental biz at Cuckoo, gets brief TOD update
Engage Louisa is a nonpartisan newsletter that keeps folks informed about Louisa County government. We believe our community is stronger and our government serves us better when we increase transparency, accessibility, and engagement.
Help our friends at Charlottesville Tomorrow build an informative voter guide: Charlottesville Tomorrow, a nonprofit news organization based in Charlottesville, plans to publish a voter guide with information about nearly 100 state and local races in Charlottesville and 11 Central Virginia counties including Louisa. Let them know what you’d like to see in the guide by filling out this short and simple survey. Survey closes July 24!
This week in county government: public meetings, July 24 through July 29
For the latest information on county meetings including public meetings of boards, commissions, authorities, work groups, and internal county committees, click here. (Note: Louisa County occasionally schedules internal committee/work group meetings after publication time. Check the county’s website for the most updated information).
Monday, July 24
Louisa County School Board, special called meeting, Central Office Administration Building, 953 Davis Highway, Mineral, 4 pm. (agenda) The meeting will be held primarily in closed session to discuss legal and personnel matters.
Wednesday, July 26
Community Policy Management Team, Louisa County Office Building, 1 Woolfolk Ave., Louisa, 1 pm.
Additional information about Louisa County’s upcoming public meetings is available here.
Interested in taking your talents to one of the county’s numerous boards and commissions? Find out more here including which boards have vacancies and how to apply.
Supervisors reject proposed 5 MW solar facility near Gordonsville
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors balked at a request to bring solar panels to the county’s western edge.
Supervisors voted 4-1 Monday night to deny Louisa Solar 1, LLC’s request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate an up to 5 MW utility-scale solar array on 49 acres of a 119-acre tract off Kloeckner Road just east of the Louisa-Albemarle line.
New Energy Equity, the project’s developer, had touted the facility as a good fit for the neighborhood and a benefit to the community, citing its proximity to other industrial uses and plans to participate in a subscription service that could save local residents money on their power bill.
Jesse Dimond, a New Energy Equity project manager, said the site offered a rare opportunity to place a large-scale solar facility next to “like things,” noting that the property abutted a railroad, Kloeckner Pentaplast’s manufacturing facility, a small power plant and substation.
He also pointed out that New Energy Equity had applied to place the project in Dominion Energy’s shared solar program. Established by the General Assembly in 2020, the shared solar initiative is designed to provide the benefits of solar panels to residents who might not be able to place them on their home. The power generated at the Kloeckner Road facility would’ve fed Dominion’s distribution system, but Dominion customers could’ve acquired renewable energy credits from the facility via a subscription from its operator. Dimond said that the facility would “bring savings to the community” in the form of a 10 percent reduction in subscribers’ power bills.
But most board members didn’t share Dimond’s enthusiasm for the project, especially his company’s request for a special exception to the county’s 300-foot setback requirement, which would’ve allowed a reduced setback on parts of the property. The board adopted the setback rule as part of a larger rewrite of its solar ordinance last year to protect neighbors from the negative impacts of large-scale solar generation.
Before moving to deny the project, Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes said that the request for a reduced buffer was a “non-starter” for him, recounting the issues at Dominion’s 88 MW Belcher Solar facility in his district where the county required a 150-foot tree-lined buffer. At Belcher, stormwater runoff from the sprawling 1300-acre facility has caused severe erosion and other damage to neighboring farms.
“I got a group of farmers who were pretty much taken advantage of from a solar project in the county as far as runoff and the damage to their property and I felt that was a buffer problem,” Barnes said.
Board Chair and Mineral District Supervisor Duane Adams agreed, saying that properly buffering solar arrays is a top priority.
“I have voted on about seven of these and buffers are always my number one concern and it remains my concern,” he said.
Along with Barnes and Adams, Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones, who represents the area, and Mountain Road District Supervisor Tommy Barlow voted to deny the CUP while Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry voted against denial. Jackson District Supervisor Toni Williams and Louisa District Supervisor Eric Purcell, two board members typically friendly to solar development, were absent. Purcell and his father, Charles, own about 1,800 acres slated for solar projects in central Louisa County.
Supervisors express skepticism
Throughout his presentation, Dimond pushed the benefits of the project and New Energy Equity’s efforts to build a facility in harmony with the community. But his arguments mostly fell flat.
Dimond pointed out that his company had only asked for a reduction in the setback on certain portions of the property. It asked for a 220-foot setback on a slice of the project that adjoins Kloeckner’s manufacturing facility and a 170-foot setback on an edge of the property adjacent to the railroad. The company also asked for a 170-foot setback on part of the parcel’s boundary with a neighboring farm. But Dimond said that area was home to 150 feet of mature trees, which adequately blocked it from view and that runoff from the facility wouldn’t flow toward the farm. He argued the buffer met the intent of the county’s ordinance.
Dimond also said that New Energy Equity worked closely with the neighbor, Tom Gilbert, to address his concerns, reconfiguring the layout of the solar array after talking with the farmer.
Gilbert echoed Dimond’s comments when he spoke during the public hearing. He said that, at first, he was staunchly against the project, but the developer had worked to alleviate his concerns. Beyond repositioning the solar panels, Gilbert said that he didn’t want the agriculturally zoned parcel to transition to industrial use. To remedy that, Dimond devised a plan to graze sheep among the panels as a means of managing vegetation and offered Gilbert the right of first refusal to graze his flock there. The area is currently home to a stand of loblolly pines.
“My biggest concern, being a farmer, was that it was going to be taken out of farming, be it forestry or as pasture. That was my biggest problem,” Gilbert said. “Through working with (the company) and (county staff), we’re going to graze sheep, which is going to keep it (in agriculture).”
Still, supervisors were skeptical.
Adams said that pleasing one neighbor wasn’t enough for the county to relax its rules and he wondered how the developer would prevent sheep from eating the pollinator-friendly plantings required by county code.
“You’re not the first solar project that has come to us and said ‘well, the neighbor doesn’t care if we reduce the buffer.’ Well, the neighbor may not own that property for the next 35 years. I think it’s really bad governance to govern based on what I can convince this neighbor over here to agree to right now when we’ve put an ordinance in place specifying buffers,” Adams said.
And Adams insisted that New Energy Equity chose to disregard the county’s rules simply because it wanted to squeeze more solar panels on the property to increase the facility’s profitability.
Jones said that she initially received calls from a number of constituents who expressed concerns about the project on Gilbert’s behalf and she found it “so hard to believe” that he’d changed his mind.
Beyond the project site, Dimond touted the benefits of shared solar. He said that, per program rules, the project’s owner is required to offer subscriptions to residents only in the locality where the facility is located and surrounding localities. Based on its 5 MW of power production, the facility was expected to serve between 150 and 220 residences per megawatt and save customers about $450,000 a year in electricity costs, Dimond said. He added that state law mandates that 30 percent of the program’s customers be low-income and there’s no charge to sign up for a subscription.
But board members seemed unconvinced that Louisa residents would reap significant benefits. Barnes questioned whether the program would work as designed. Jones asked if residents in other localities could acquire subscriptions or if the project would only serve people in Louisa. Dimond said that the company would prioritize providing subscriptions to Louisa residents, but they would also be available in surrounding counties.
While supervisors expressed doubts about Dimond’s proposal, few citizens weighed in during the public hearing. Besides Gilbert, Benjamin Ochs, the property’s owner, and Vicky Harte, a member of the Louisa Town Council and outspoken critic of utility-scale solar development, were the only people to address the board.
Ochs said that he purchased the property in 2021 as a home for his dad and its wooded eastern edge, where the solar panels would’ve been located, didn’t have much value as farmland. He said that solar was a good use given the other energy infrastructure in the vicinity. Harte largely echoed Barnes, rehashing the problems at Belcher and doubting that the project would benefit low-income residents.
New Energy Equity had brokered a siting agreement with the county, essentially a deal between a solar developer and locality to offset a facility’s impact. Under the agreement, the county would’ve received about $590,000 from the project over 40 years. In its current agricultural use, the county is expected to receive about $6,820 in real estate tax revenue from the property in roughly the same time frame. The siting agreement also required approval via a public hearing. But denial of the CUP rendered the hearing unnecessary.
Growing resistance to utility-scale solar development
The board’s rejection of New Energy Equity’s proposal reflects a growing resistance to utility-scale solar development in Louisa County and beyond.
In 2020, the General Assembly passed the Virginia Clean Economy Act, landmark legislation that requires the state’s largest electric providers—Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power—to pull all their energy from carbon-free sources by mid-century. The legislation turbo-charged large-scale solar development across the state especially in places like Louisa, home to friendly topography, vast tracts of rural land and numerous high-voltage transmission lines.
Between 2015 and 2022, supervisors approved seven utility-scale solar projects—five after VCEA passed—covering more than 5,000 acres. When all the projects are complete, they’ll produce about 500 MW of carbon-free energy for the grid and pour millions of dollars into county coffers via local taxes and other agreements. So far, only Dominion’s Belcher site off Waldrop Church Road and 20 MW Whitehouse facility off Davis Highway have been constructed.
But the fallout from Belcher and growing concerns from residents that solar development is marring the county’s rural character has tamed the enthusiasm for large-scale solar development among some board members. Spearheaded by Adams and Barnes, the board adopted a revised solar ordinance last year that not only beefs up development standards—it imposed the 300-foot setback requirement and stringent erosion and sediment control measures—but also limits future solar projects. The ordinance restricts utility-scale solar facilities to no more than three percent of the county’s land, about 9.800 acres.
Though the board approved several large-scale solar sites even after the problems at Belcher came to light, it hasn’t approved any new development since adopting the revised ordinance. Two active applications are in the county’s pipeline, however: the 15.6 MW Turkey Solar project off Kloeckner Road near Gordonsville and the 20 MW Horsepen site near Bumpass. The Planning Commission recommended denial of both facilities, but recommended approval of New Energy Equity’s project.
Other rural counties have followed a similar course as Louisa with officials initially embracing the promise of solar development before pulling back in the face of intense scrutiny from some residents who’ve complained that the proliferation of solar panels is turning farms and timberland into vast industrial landscapes and the benefits aren’t worth the costs.
Pittsylvania County, for example, has approved 18 utility-scale solar facilities. It passed an ordinance earlier this year limiting solar development to no more than two percent of land in each of the county’s zoning districts. Mecklenburg County, home to a pair of Dominion-owned facilities, passed an ordinance this month that caps solar development at 2,325 acres. If two pending projects are approved, no more solar facilities would be permitted in the southside Virginia county.
Correction: This story was corrected to clarify how many homes the solar facility was expected to serve.
BOS roundup: Supes ok equipment rental biz at Cuckoo, get updates on TOD, bridge
While a public hearing for a proposed utility-scale solar facility was the marquee item on Monday night’s agenda, the Board of Supervisors held two other public hearings, green-lighted a handful of action items and received a few notable updates. Five of seven board members were present. Supervisors Toni Williams and Eric Purcell missed the meeting. Check out a meeting roundup below.
Board green-lights CUP for equipment rental biz at Cuckoo: With little discussion, supervisors voted 5-0 to approve Sortie, Inc.’s request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an equipment rental business at 6043 Jefferson Highway (Route 33) near its intersection with Pendleton Road (Route 522) in the Cuckoo Voting District. The .75-acre property is zoned general commercial (C-2).
Ryan Odom, Sortie’s owner, plans to rent small equipment like tillers, pumps, generators, compressors and aerators and offer U-Haul and trailer rental. Odom told the Planning Commission at its May meeting that he started his business about a year ago to fill a void in the tool rental market and the Jefferson Highway location provides increased visibility. Odom is leasing the property, which is home to a building with multiple garage bays, from the Wayne R. Byrd Revocable Living Trust.
“Coming to an agreement on this CUP will allow Sortie to fill the missing equipment rental market in this area. Some of you may be familiar that the local hardware stores have stopped renting tools. I’ll be filling that market,’ Odom said.
Odom’s CUP includes eight conditions including that the business use dark-sky compliant lighting and open only from 9 am to 5 pm, Monday through Friday, and 9 am and 2 pm on Saturday. Truck and trailer drop-off will be permitted outside of normal business hours.
The CUP allows for a buffer that uses existing trees on an adjacent parcel. That parcel’s owners, Mark and Rebecca Wood, expressed support for the plan at the Planning Commission’s public hearing.
“(The Woods) already controlled their own destiny. They planted this as a proactive measure to go ahead and establish a buffer for the decades of use of that building and the various uses that have been there,” Community Development Director Josh Gillespie said. “I wouldn’t say this is much more intense than the previous uses. It does have outdoor storage for equipment, trucks and trailers. But that’s why it’s a Conditional Use Permit.”
Only one resident spoke at the public hearing Monday night though they didn’t explicitly support or oppose the project.
Supervisors made limited remarks about Odom’s request. Before voting to grant the CUP, Patrick Henry District Supervisor Fitzgerald Barnes said he’s excited to see the property in use.
“I drive by that property almost every day. it’s good to see a small business come up,” Barnes said.
Goodwin says entities are interested in locating in county’s Technology Overlay District: During his regular report to the board, County Administrator Christian Goodwin said that “several entities” have expressed interest in locating in the newly created Technology Overlay District, a special zoning designation aimed at attracting lucrative tech sector businesses to the county by essentially making it easier for them to locate here.
Goodwin asked for the board’s permission to begin negotiating performance agreements and related items with the entities for eventual consideration by the board. Supervisors voted 5-0 to grant him and his staff that authority.
Approved by the board in April, the TOD permits various tech sector uses by right, including data centers and high-tech manufacturing, on about 6,000 acres in parts of central, eastern and southern Louisa. The parcels included in the TOD were selected, in part, because they’re located near infrastructure critical to tech sector development like high-voltage transmission lines, public utilities and sufficient road networks, according to county staff. Many, but not all, of the parcels are in the county’s designated growth areas (See map below).
While Goodwin didn’t offer any details about the businesses or specify where in the TOD they might locate, he said that staff has had some “high-level discussions” with the entities and they’re potentially ready to move forward with more detailed talks.
“We would be interested in potentially working on some details, possibly performance agreements for the board’s future public consideration in that regard. As you well know, performance agreements could include project dates, infrastructure locations, capital planning, that type of thing, and also potential incentives should the board desire to offer any,” Goodwin said.
Goodwin’s comments are the first public acknowledgement that the county is talking with businesses interested in setting up shop in the TOD. But it’s possible that much more action has taken place behind closed doors. Discussions and negotiations related to economic development projects are largely exempt from Virginia’s open government law, allowing the board and staff significant leeway to conduct business out of public view.
County officials first publicly discussed establishing the TOD in February after Governor Glenn Youngkin announced that Amazon Web Services planned to invest $35 billion to develop data center campuses across the state. About two months later, supervisors approved a TOD ordinance, designating more than 100 parcels in six parcel groups for inclusion, identifying by-right uses and laying out development standards. The TOD includes property between the towns of Louisa and Mineral, around the Northeast Creek reservoir, along Interstate 64 and adjacent to the North Anna Nuclear Power Station.
The county’s decision to establish the TOD sparked opposition from neighbors, some of whom said they’re concerned about noise pollution from data centers. The giant warehouse-like facilities typically require large fans and other mechanisms to cool the racks of computer servers inside. The cooling systems produce what some describe as a persistent hum or whirring sound. In parts of Northern Virginia, a region dubbed “the data center capital of the world,” the proliferation of the facilities has led to protests and lawsuits with some residents saying their noise has ruined once tranquil suburban neighborhoods.
When establishing the TOD, supervisors amended the county’s noise ordinance to limit noise at the district’s property lines to 65 decibels during the day and 60 decibels at night. The county caps noise in residential and agricultural zoning at 65 decibels during the day and 55 at night. Sixty decibels roughly equal the sound of a normal conversation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Read more about the Technology Overlay District here.
Supes push to reopen Hamilton Road bridge: Supervisors voted unanimously to formally request that the Virginia Department of Transportation complete interim repairs to reopen the Hamilton Road Bridge as soon as possible and finalize permanent plans for improvement so that the bridge can operate at full capacity.
VDOT closed the circa 1929 steel truss bridge in late May after inspections found significant deterioration to one of the steel beams that supports its timber deck. The bridge spans the South Anna River in the Green Springs National Historic Landmark District and, according to the most recent traffic counts, served about 58 vehicles per day.
Though it’s an important link for people who live in the area, the aging bridge had a five-ton weight limit prior to its closure, preventing it from accommodating large emergency vehicles. Concerns about emergency response times and the bridge’s overall condition prompted the board to pass a resolution in March directing VDOT to work with stakeholders on a plan to rehabilitate or replace the bridge.
Because of the area’s historic designation, plans to significantly alter or replace the structure are subject to the National Historic Preservation Act’s Section 106 process, which allows the public to weigh in on federally assisted projects that could impact historic properties. VDOT walked away from a previous effort to upgrade the bridge about eight years ago after consulting parties, including the land preservation group Historic Green Springs, Inc. (HGSI), couldn’t agree on how to move forward.
Since closing the bridge, VDOT has been working on both short-term and long-term improvement plans. Board Chair Duane Adams asked County Administrator Christian Goodwin for an update Monday night. Goodwin said that VDOT had an interim plan to repair the bridge and reopen it with a three-ton weight limit, but he didn’t have a timeline for when the repair work would start.
“There have been some concerns expressed about the methods of repair. The repairs are not extensive or expensive from a time or cost standpoint. We would like to see that move forward,” Goodwin said.
That response sparked frustration from Adams and prompted the board to pass a resolution requesting action as soon as possible.
“It just looks to me like we have a tremendous number of people that are disenfranchised because (they can’t use the bridge). But it’s also a public safety issue and it looks like it’s impacting agriculture,” Adams said. “I’m not exactly sure what the hold up is, but I think the board has been more than patient in trying to figure out a solution. If I was the one cut off and had to make an eight to 10-mile circular route to my house, I think my patience would be running thin.”
At the board’s June 20 meeting, Thornton said that VDOT had submitted an interim repair plan to the Department of Historic Resources for review and was awaiting its approval. With respect to larger plans to improve the bridge, Thornton said that VDOT had taken a step toward initiating the Section 106 process by acquiring a third-party facilitator from UVA to work with stakeholders.
In an email to Engage Louisa last Thursday, Thornton said that, in a July 14 letter, DHR requested more information about VDOT’s short-term repair plan, which the department subsequently provided along with supervisors’ resolution. He said that DHR has 30 days to review the plan and provide feedback.
“If DHR approves the plan, our crews are standing by and ready to perform the repairs. The work is estimated to take approximately 2 days and we already have the materials available to begin once approval is given,” Thornton said.
In the letter, DHR archeologist Samantha Henderson asks for a “more detailed project description including construction plans and current photos of the bridge.” Henderson recommends that VDOT consult with Historic Green Springs, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Park Service National Historic Landmark office on the project and its potential effects on historic properties, noting that DHR was copied on a request from HGSI asking that the groups be directly consulted. Henderson also asks that VDOT share any comments it receives from the groups.
New state law prompts county to pull public hearing notices from local paper: Residents looking to the pages of The Central Virginian for public notices announcing public hearings in front of the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission will have to look elsewhere at least for now.
Deputy County Administrator Chris Coon told the board Monday night that a new state law tightens the timeline for the county to publish public hearing notices, preventing it from placing notices for Planning Commission meetings in the local paper. Coon said that the law requires 14 days’ notice, not including the day of publication or the day of the meeting, making it impossible for the county to meet the legal notification requirements via The Central Virginian, which puts out a paper every Thursday. The Planning Commission meets the second Thursday of each month.
While the county could still meet the legal requirement for Board of Supervisors meetings—the board typically meets on the first and third Monday of the month—Coon said that staff had opted to publish notices for both bodies in the Richmond Times-Dispatch for the rest of the year.
“We recommend that we publish in the Richmond Times-Dispatch for the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors for the rest of the year just to maintain the same meeting schedule that we have and we’d only advertise in one place,” Coon said.
Green Springs District Supervisor Rachel Jones said that many of her constituents on the western end of the county don’t get the Times-Dispatch and asked how the county would publicize notices beyond the legal requirement to put them in the newspaper.
Coon said that public notices are available on the county’s website and staff also uses social media to spread the word. He added that the county’s public relations manager, Cindy King, is developing a notification system that residents can sign up for and receive notices directly.
Board oks code amendment allowing the return of surplus tax revenue: Supervisors held a public hearing and voted unanimously to approve an amendment to county code that empowers them to return surplus real estate or personal property tax revenue to taxpayers.
The amendment is necessary because, during the FY24 budget process, supervisors approved a five percent real estate tax rebate that will essentially return to property owners surplus tax revenue received during the previous fiscal year.
Though the board agreed to tax homes and land at 72 cents per $100 of assessed value, the rebate means the county will effectively levy real estate taxes at a 69-cent rate. Property owners will see the reduction reflected on this year’s real estate tax bills and pay the reduced amount.
Board approves lease agreement that clears way for Health Department to move to Louisa Medical Center: With no discussion, supervisors voted 5-0 to approve a lease agreement between the county and the Virginia Department of Health. The agreement clears the way for the department to move its Louisa clinic from its current location in mobile units adjacent to the Betty Queen Center to a new home in the Louisa Medical Center at 101 Woolfolk Avenue across the street from the County Office Building.
Under the agreement, which is expected to take effect in December, the county will lease just over 7,000 square feet of the medical center to VDH at an annual cost of more than $224,000. The initial agreement lasts for 10 years with two five-year renewal options. During the first renewal period, the county would charge VDH just over $227,000 in annual rent. In the second, rent would rise to about $261,000.
The Louisa County Health Center Commission transferred the medical center to county ownership in 2019. A portion of the building is under renovation to accommodate the health department’s needs.
Goodwin suggests allowing Transportation Safety Commission to review speed study requests: Supervisors will consider giving the county’s Transportation Safety Commission the opportunity to review citizen requests for speed studies and minor road safety improvements before they are forwarded to either the Board of Supervisors or the Virginia Department of Transportation for consideration.
Under current protocol, requests for speed studies are forwarded directly to the board, which then passes a resolution to formally request that VDOT conduct a study. But County Administrator Christian Goodwin suggested that the commission could serve as an “intermediate step” in the process, noting that when citizens request speed studies they sometimes get results they weren’t anticipating.
“We’re very responsive to citizen requests. If someone asks for a speed study, we’re on it immediately and we’re getting it to VDOT immediately. Some of these studies can—as you all know they are very data driven—they can recommend speeds that are maybe in the opposite direction of where some of our citizens want them to go. They could recommend a higher speed based on the speed study. The numbers are what the numbers are,” Goodwin said.
Several supervisors expressed concern that adding another step to the process would mean that speed studies aren’t completed in a timely manner since the commission only meets quarterly.
But Cuckoo District Supervisor Willie Gentry, a former VDOT traffic engineer who currently serves on the panel, said that allowing the commission to review requests is a good idea because it would reinvigorate its members and allow them to lend their expertise.
“If we had more to do, we would meet more often,” he said.
Goodwin said that he would discuss the idea with commission members and brief the board again at an upcoming meeting.
County settles lawsuit with United Bank: At the request of County Attorney Helen Phillips, the board voted 5-0 to approve a settlement agreement related to a lawsuit against United Bank.
Phillips said that in 2006, during the development of the Pendleton Estates subdivision, two road maintenance bonds were posted, totaling almost $88,000, payable to the county. The developer subsequently went bankrupt, and the development was taken over by a bank, which eventually became part of United Bank. The subdivision’s roads were never completed to VDOT standards.
United Bank notified the county earlier this year that it wouldn’t renew the bonds, Phillips said, prompting the county to push for payment or upgrades to the roads. The bank refused and the county eventually filed suit. United Bank recently agreed to pay the $88,000, Phillips said.
Board oks three budget supplements: Supervisors okayed three supplemental appropriations to fill funding gaps in the budget from the previous fiscal year, which ended June 30.
The board authorized a $56,300 supplemental appropriation to the county’s Parks and Recreation Department to cover the cost of salaries and supplies. According to the approved resolution, the department pulled in $83,688 more revenue than was projected for FY23 due to increased programming and participation in programs and the appropriation will be drawn from those funds.
Supervisors authorized a $55,560 budget supplement to the Transportation Department to cover gas and vehicle repair and maintenance overruns. According to the approved resolution, $51,200 will be used for repairs and maintenance for Fire and EMS equipment while $4,360 will cover fuel costs. The money will be drawn from the county’s Revenue Recovery Fund.
Supervisors authorized a $90,000 supplemental appropriation to the Children’s Services Act fund. Of that money, $39,600 will be drawn from the county’s general fund while $50,400 will come from state funding.
Click here for contact information for the Louisa County Board of Supervisors.
Find agendas and minutes from previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings as well as archived recordings here.
Click here for contact information for the Louisa County School Board.
Click here for minutes and agendas for School Board meetings.
Click here to access past editions of Engage Louisa.
This newsletter is always loaded with useful information.