Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/2004 - Regular October 12, 2004 801 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 October 12,2004 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October, 2004. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice-Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Joseph McNamara, Michael A. Wray MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend Quentin White, St. John's AME Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. Vice-Chairman Altizer announced that Chairman Flora was out of town and unable to attend the meeting. 802 October 12, 2004 BRIEFINGS 1. Briefina and presentation !2ï Virainia Amateur Sports. Inc.. on the 2004 Commonwealth Games of Virainia. (Peter Lampman. President = Virainia Amateur Sports) Mr. Lampman advised that the Commonwealth Games celebrated its 15th anniversary this year and that over 126,000 athletes have competed in the games during these years. At the games this year, there were over 1 ,000 athletes attending from the northern part of Virginia, nearly 1 ,000 from the eastern part of Virginia, almost 1 ,200 from the central portion, 3,100 from the west, and 2,280 from the Roanoke Valley. Tourism in Virginia is a $13 billion industry and a $1 million industry in the Roanoke Valley. Each dollar spent on tourism returns from $4 - $6 in tax revenues. Almost 4,000 athletes spent the night during the games, and since the majority of the athletes are under the age of eighteen, the total number of people staying overnight was approximately 10,000 with the average length of stay being 2.36 days and average expenditure of $150 per day. There were 3,300 athletes who attended during the day only and the spectators were double that number. There were 1 ,200 volunteers and Virginia Amateur Sports (VAS) has three staff members and three interns. The total economic impact to the valley was approximately $4.2 million and the estimated local sales tax revenue was $192,920. He expressed appreciation to all the Parks and Recreation Departments in the Valley and advised that they did a great job of securing facilities and providing staff to assist with the events. He presented plaques of IN RE: October 12, 2004 803 appreciation to Vice-Chairman Altizer and Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation & Tourism. He advised that the dates next year for the 16th Commonwealth Games are July 15 through 17, 2005. Other events scheduled for next year are a national AAU girls basketball tournament and a national AAU boys baseball tournament. 2. Briefina and demonstration !2ï the Fire and Rescue Department of the mass casualtv and structural collapse trailers with associated eQuipment aCQuired throuah Homeland Security arants. (Rick Burch. Chief. Fire and Rescue) Chief Burch advised that the Fire and Rescue Department applied for this competitive grant in 2002 with approximately 80 other applicants across the state. They received $99,778 from the grant which requires no matching funds and was 130/0 of the available funding. The mass casualty trailer is designed to handle up to 50 injuries and/or deaths and is not only to be used for events involving weapons of mass destructions but for any other critical situation where it will be helpful. It is very important that training be provided for those who will be using the equipment. They will use the Start Triage system to assess the patients to determine what kind of assistance they need. The second trailer is to be used in the event of a structural collapse and will be used to make the building stable so that people can be removed. This equipment also requires a tremendous amount of training. Chief Burch introduced Division Chief Steve Simon who secured the grant for the County and Lt. David Jones who with his 804 October 12, 2004 team members was responsible for ordering and organizing the equipment. The Board viewed the equipment prior to the work session. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. ReQuest to approve ª Letter of Intent to participate in ª Reaional Jail Facility and the appropriation of monies to conduct the reQuired ¡ail studies. (John M. Chambliss. Assistant County Administrator) A-101204-1 Mr. Chambliss advised that he is requesting approval of a letter of intent for the participating localities of Montgomery County, Franklin County, the City of Salem and Roanoke County to continue to pursue the feasibility of a regional jail. He distributed a revised letter of intent because when the agenda was published, negotiations had not been completed for one of the studies and some of the numbers had to be changed. However, the amounts that were included in the Board report are correct. The County currently operates the Salem-Roanoke County Jail which is located behind the Roanoke County Courthouse in Salem. The facility is classified as a regional jail and provides jail capacity for Craig County, City of Salem and Roanoke County. This jail was opened in 1980 and is rated as a 108 bed facility. The Montgomery County jail was opened in 1953 and was rated for 40 inmates and an addition in 1988 increased the capacity to 60; however, at this time, they are currently housing an average of 134 inmates. Franklin County opened its jail in 1937 and was October 12, 2004 805 rated a 56 bed facility; since that time, it has been downsized to 49 but they are currently housing 75 to 80 inmates in the City of Roanoke's jailor other facilities in Souths ide Virginia. Last year Roanoke County averaged 248 inmates throughout the year and during weekends, the number is often over 285. There is a need in the participating localities for additional bed space. Mr. Chambliss advised that there are two specialized studies which must be completed on behalf of the localities desiring to build a jail facility. The community- based Corrections Plan serves as a needs assessment to project the number of total beds that will be needed, the types of programs and resources which are available that could modify that number, and the types of programs which should be used in the overall corrections program. They are working with a consultant who is currently preparing the first study which will be received this week and this study will be sent to another consultant who will perform the Program Plan which is the second required study. The Program Plan then becomes the schematic drawing and the budget document for the proposed facility. This study will be site specific and provides the basis for the amount of funding that the State will provide for the new facility. Both of these reports and other supporting documentation must be filed with the State before March 1, 2005 to be eligible for inclusion in the Governor's capital budget plan as a part of the 2006 General Assembly action. If the March 1, 2005 application date is not met, it will be two years before the request can be considered. 806 October 12, 2004 Mr. Chambliss advised that at the present time, there is a moratorium on constructing new jail facilities which means that General Assembly approval must be obtained before beginning the process. Last year, Salem and Roanoke County received a waiver to the moratorium from the State so they could move forward with the development of a regional jail facility. Because the County opened the jail with the City of Salem and provided space for Craig County, it qualified as a regional jail. One of the items which the County will ask to be considered in their legislative program is for Franklin County and Montgomery County to be granted a waiver by the General Assembly so that they can partner in this regional facility. Mr. Chambliss advised that he is requesting authorization to sign the letter of intent which will allow the County to perform the two required studies and a third review of existing jail facilities. Each of the three Sheriffs has indicated that they want to continue to operate the jail space already in place. One of the studies that has not been commissioned for all of the jurisdictions, but which must be accomplished, is for the architect engineering firm performing the program plan to look at the capabilities, capacities and capital needs in the existing jail facilities. The four jurisdictions have agreed to share in the cost of the two studies on the basis of population and the County's share is $57,522 or 35.4850/0 plus the cost of the evaluation of our existing facility which is $28,400. Mr. Chambliss advised that staff recommends approval of Alternative 1, participating in the development of a regional jail facility to meet the needs of Roanoke October 12, 2004 807 County, Montgomery County, Franklin County, and the City of Salem; authorizing the County Administrator to execute the Letter of Intent which allows the required studies to be completed; and appropriate the monies necessary to fund Roanoke County's Share of the studies ($85,922) from the Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance. Supervisor Church asked if it was correctly stated that the Roanoke County jail has 248 inmates and is rated for 108 beds. Mr. Chambliss advised that this number has increased, that it is averaging 280 at this time and they are using additional mattresses on the floors and in the gym. If you also add the people who use electronic monitoring, the numbers will increase dramatically in ten years time. Supervisor Church advised that this is a dire situation and needs to be addressed. In response to Supervisor Church's inquiry, Mr. Chambliss advised that they are looking at ten and fifteen year estimates based upon trends and other correctional programs. Mr. Chambliss advised that the State's share in the cost of a regional facility would be up to 500/0 of the allowable cost for that type of facility. If a single locality participates, the State's share would be up to 250/0 of the allowable costs so it is important for the jail to be approved as a regional facility. Supervisor McNamara asked why Craig County is not participating in the study. Mr. Chambliss advised that Craig County decided to join with Botetourt County to expand the Botetourt County facility. Supervisor Wray inquired if the cost of upgrading the existing jail was $28,000. Mr. Chambliss advised that these funds are to identify the items that will be 808 October 12, 2004 needed over the next five or ten years that will keep the current jail certified for use. Supervisor Wray asked if there was a proposed location for the regional jail, and Mr. Chambliss advised that while locations have been discussed, the search can be expanded because of the additional localities joining in the regional study. Mr. Chambliss advised that the local jails will be used for pre-sentenced and work release inmates and the regional facility will maintain the sentenced inmates, women inmates, medical cases, or other special needs inmates. Supervisor Altizer advised that building a regional jail makes sense and Sheriff Holt has exhausted all the avenues that he can to keep non-violent criminals out of the jails to make additional bed space. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the Letter of Intent. Mr. Chambliss inquired if the motion included the appropriation of funds. Supervisor McNamara restated the motion to include approval of the staff recommendation. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation. (Alternative 1, participating in the development of a regional jail facility to meet the needs of Roanoke County, Montgomery County, Franklin County, and the City of Salem; authorizing the County Administrator to execute the Letter of Intent which allows the required studies to be completed; and appropriate the monies necessary to fund Roanoke County's Share of the studies ($85,922). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: October 12, 2004 809 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First readina of an ordinance authorizina and approvina execution of an option and lease aareement with Virainia PCS Alliance. LC. d/b/a NTELOS. for ª 3.400 !9.:. ft. tower site at the Hollins Fire Station on Barrens Road. Hollins Maaisterial District. (Anne Marie Green. Director of General Services) Ms. Green advised that the County has begun advertising various pieces of County property for lease by cellular service providers for tower sites. Income received from these sites will then be available for improvements to County facilities and equipment. NTELOS, a cellular telephone company, has expressed interest in leasing space at the Hollins Fire Station for a tower, and has already received a special use permit from the Board for this project. Staff has been negotiating a lease with NTELOS, and a draft copy of the lease is available in the Clerk's Office. The major provisions of the lease are as follows: . NTELOS will construct the tower and three cabinets and/or buildings at the Hollins Fire Station site at no cost to the County. . NTELOS will provide space for the County's current communication equipment, and additional space will be reserved for another County antenna. 810 October 12, 2004 · NTELOS will move all current County equipment and provide a cabinet at the base of the tower for the County's use, at no cost to the County. NTELOS will also remove and dispose of the current tower at the site. · NTELOS will pay Roanoke County $6,000 annually for five years to lease the space at the fire station. The lease may be extended at the option of NTELOS for four additional five year periods, with an increase in rent of 200/0 for each extension. · If NTELOS leases space on the tower to other entities, the County will receive 200/0 of the rent from the third party. The County also has approval rights over any subleases. · NTELOS may not assign or sell the tower without the County's permission. Additionally, the County has the right of first refusal to purchase the tower, at fair market value at the time of the sale. Fair market value will be based on an appraisal by a certified appraiser, and take into consideration depreciation and income producing potential of the tower. · At the end of the 25 year lease period, NTELOS will either remove the tower or give it to the County, at the County's option. Ms. Green advised that there is no cost to the County. The County has a variety of other leases with cell tower companies, but those have not involved construction of a tower. As an example, NTELOS pays $18,000 annually in rent at the Salem Bank and Trust Building for antenna space. In that case, the County building acts as the tower, and the County has the associated costs of maintenance, insurance, etc. In this case, NTELOS will be constructing the tower, and assuming all maintenance, repair and liability issues. If space on the tower is leased to three other carriers as anticipated, the County's consultant predicts revenue of over $20,000 per year. Ms. Green advised that staff recommends that the Board approve the first October 12, 2004 811 reading of this ordinance and schedule the second reading of the ordinance for October 26, 2004. Supervisor Wray inquired if there is an insurance policy to cover liability for the County. Mr. Mahoney advised that the County has several different approaches with respect to liability. There are several different kinds of insurance policies and the County is also self-insured with respect to certain other risks and in this lease agreement, there is also an insurance obligation placed upon NTELOS. Ms. Green advised that this is correct and that NTELOS and the County are indemnifying each other against any acts. Supervisor Wray inquired if the policy was for $1 million. Ms. Green advised that the amount is $2 million and the worker's compensation is for $1 million. Supervisor Church advised that 34,000 square feet is mentioned but asked about the height of the tower. Ms. Green advised that it can be no taller than 199 feet which was approved in the special use permit by the Planning Commission and the Board. Supervisor Church inquired if the County is replacing a tower and what is the height of that tower. Ms. Green advised that one of the County's communications towers is being replaced and it is probably about 100 feet. It is an older tower and it is anticipated that some there will be concerns about it in the future because of the height. This will be an improvement for the County because of the added height on the NTELOS tower for better coverage. Supervisor Church advised that he thought the 812 October 12, 2004 tower would interfere with the airport but the terrain is well below the airport's landing patterns. Ms. Green advised that the FAA approved the location. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for October 26, 2004. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second readina of an ordinance to amend the Roanoke County Code Section 21-73. General PrereQuisites to Grant of Division 3. Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons of Chapter 21. Taxation to increase the various asset threshold amount provisions for real estate tax exemption for the elderly and handicapped. (Paul Mahoney. County Attorney) 0-101204-2 Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the second reading of an ordinance and there have been no changes since the first reading and the public hearing at the September meeting. This ordinance incorporates several amendments that the General Assembly authorized in the 2004 session to increase the asset threshold provisions so they could be incorporated into a local ordinance. This is an exemption program for October 12, 2004 813 elderly and disabled citizens and it has been a very successful program. Staff recommends that the Board adopt this ordinance at the second reading. He advised that since the real estate taxes are on a calendar year basis, this action would be effective for the 2005 tax year on January 1, 2005. Supervisor Church advised that he was successful some time ago in secunng Board approval to increase the threshold of combined net income from $35,000 to $50,000. He asked Mr. Mahoney to outline the changes that this legislation authorizes the County to institute. Mr. Mahoney advised that there are several eligibility criteria and the first is a net combined income of $50,000. This ordinance allows or increases the income of a relative, not a spouse, who is living in the house with the eligible party, to an amount up to $10,000. This means that a relative could live with an eligible person and earn up to $10,000 which would not be included in that net income eligibility criteria. The second eligibility criteria is combined net worth which is $100,000 for the eligible person and spouse. The third eligibility criteria excludes from that net worth calculation of $100,000 the family home and up to one area of land. Another provision of the ordinance is to allow a person to reside in the home with the eligible person and none of that person's income would be counted in the asset criteria if the sole purpose and benefit of that person living in the home is to enable that eligible person to avoid going into a nursing or convalescent home. 814 October 12, 2004 Supervisor Church moved to approve the ordinance and requested that the tax relief exemption ordinance be reviewed annually. Supervisor Wray inquired if the ordinance recommended increasing the net worth from $100,000 to $200,000 as allowed by the legislation. Mr. Mahoney advised that he was not recommending that this increase be incorporated into the ordinance. He advised that when looking at some of the statistical data for this part of the state in terms of per capita income and values of property, staff believes that the $100,000 amount is appropriate. If you look at areas like northern Virginia or Tidewater where real estate values have increased significantly, that would be a different analysis and it is legitimate for those localities to raise the net worth provisions. This legislation and the County's ordinance are intended to help eligible citizens retain their family home. It is a very difficult balancing situation for the Board to avoid placing an undue burden on the younger generation while protecting the elderly and handicapped. This ordinance and enabling legislation attempt to come to that balance by recognizing some of the economic conditions in our community and distinguishing those economic conditions from northern Virginia or other parts of the state. Vice-Chairman Altizer restated Supervisor Church's motion to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora October 12, 2004 815 ORDINANCE 101204-2 AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO GRANT OF DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS OF CHAPTER 21. TAXATION TO INCREASE THE VARIOUS ASSET THRESHOLD AMOUNT PROVISIONS FOR REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED WHEREAS, Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code establishes a restriction upon the total combined income for the exemption from or deferral of real estate taxes for certain elderly or permanently or totally disabled persons; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 84-232 adopted on December 18, 1984, increased this financial restriction from $15,000 to $18,000, and Ordinance 22388-9 adopted February 23, 1988, increased this financial restriction from $18,000 to $22,000, and Ordinance 82791-10 adopted August 27, 1991, increased this financial restriction from $22,000 to $30,000; Ordinance 052201-14 adopted May 22, 2001, increased this financial restriction from $30,000 to $50,000; and WHEREAS, the 2004 General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia amended Section 58.1-3211 of the 1950 Code of Virginia by increasing various asset threshold amounts; and WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing on this ordinance was held on September 28, 2004; and the second reading was held on October 12, 2004. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-73, General prerequisites to qrant of Division 3. Exemption for elderlv and disabled persons of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended to read and provide as follows: Sec. 21-73. General prerequisites to qrant. Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following conditions are met: (1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar year, from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not exceed fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); provided, however, that the first sixty fi\/e hundred dollars ($6,500) ten thousand dollars ($10,000) of income of each relative, other than the spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total. (2) That the owner and his spouse did not have a total combined net worth, including all equitable interests, exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one (1) acre of land. (3) Notwithstandinq sub-section (1) above if a person qualifies for an exemption and if that person can prove bv clear and convincinq evidence that his or her 816 October 12, 2004 phvsical or mental health has deteriorated to the point that the onlv alternative to permanentlv residinq in a hospital. nursinq home, convalescent home or other facilitv or phvsical or mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for that person, and if a relative does then move in for that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of the relatives spouse shall be counted towards the income limit. provided the owner of the residence has not transferred assets in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) without adequate consideration within a three year period prior to or after the relative moves into such residence. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after January 1 , 2005, and it shall become effective for the 2005 real estate tax year. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-101204-3 Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora RESOLUTION 101204-3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October 12, 2004, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 10, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - September 28, 2004 October 12, 2004 817 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Grievance Panel 3. Request from the schools to appropriate federal funds in the amount of $53,570.31 for implementation of state wide standards of learning assessment system 4. Request from the schools to appropriate a grant in the amount of $1,000 from the Virginia Department of Education for special education services 5. Request from the schools to appropriate technology fees in the amount of $7,200 for the online summer school program 6. Request from the schools to appropriate fees totaling approximately $8,000 for the online virtual high school program 7. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of $19,747 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services 8. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) in the amount of $13,544 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance 9. Request to reappoint Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, authorization to continue an agreement, and an appropriation of funds 10. Designation of voting delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) conference to be held November 7-9,2004 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS Mr. Hodge reported that some of the Planning Commission members had advised that they could not attend the November 1 work session to discuss the community plan with Dr. Chandler which was scheduled by the Board at their work session on October 4. The Planning Commission recommended that the work session be held on November 10. It was the consensus of the Board to re-affirm the work session on November 1 and if necessary, schedule another work session for November 818 October 12, 2004 10. The work session will be held at the Roanoke County Administration Center in the fourth floor training room at 5:30 p.m. IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Vice-Chairman Altizer advised that Mr. O. T. Angle submitted a request to speak but left before the agenda item was called. Supervisor Wray advised that he would comment on Mr. Angle's concern later in the meeting. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Continaency Fund 4. Future Capital Proiects 5. Report from VDOT of chanaes to the secondary road system in Auaust 2004 6. Joint proclamation sianed !2ï Vice-Chairman October 12, 2004 819 IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Wray: (1) He advised that Mr. O. T. Angle gave him a copy of a letter that he recently received from Senator Brandon Bell requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) take a look at the turning lane in front of Promenade Park at the intersection of Electric Road and Colonial Avenue. Supervisor Wray requested that Mr. Hodge follow up with VDOT. Mr. Hodge advised that he spoke with Mr. Angle and he would look into the situation. (2) He advised that there was an accident on Route 220 involving a County vehicle but no one was hurt. He has asked Chief of Police Lavinder to continue monitoring the road. If funds should become available, he asked that staff make every attempt to obtain them for Route 220 improvements from the Roanoke County line to the Franklin County line. Mr. Hodge concurred that the road is dangerous and there is a great concern about school buses using the road. Supervisor Wray advised that there was a close call recently between a tractor trailer and a school bus, and this is a dangerous situation that needs attention. Supervisor McNamara: (1) He advised that the recent storms created many water runoff problems but in general, the County came through the situation very well. There are still many citizens who need assistance and he and the other supervisors received many calls about drainage ditches filled with debris. He advised that there is no good method to remove the debris from the ditches County-wide but some community groups and citizens are volunteering to assist their neighbors. He expressed appreciation to the volunteers for their efforts and thanked the County staff 820 October 12, 2004 for going out of their way on numerous occasions to help people locate assistance to meet their needs. He also reassured the citizens that their County government is here to help them. Supervisor Church: (1) He requested that Mr. Hodge or Mr. Chambliss provide an update on the recent storm damage. Mr. Hodge advised that progress is being made and it is fortunate that the County did not have more severe damages. He advised that the Board has supported the drainage program for the past several years with increased funds and staff and this advance preparation helped. The total damages in the County were considerably less than some of the other localities. Senator Allen was successful in getting the County included in the emergency declaration so if there are any benefits, citizens will have an opportunity to participate. Most of the County facilities are back in order and the damaged areas are getting back into operation as quickly as possible. (2) He expressed appreciation to Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services, for the logistics and common sense approach that the department is taking to assist with requests from citizens with debris from the floods. He also expressed appreciation to Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, for his assistance in helping the Board to stay in touch with people in the valley. (3) He welcomed Chief Burch's father and sister to the meeting. (4) He welcomed Ms. Sarah Franklin, a County citizen who regularly attends Board meetings, back to the meeting after several absences. October 12, 2004 821 Supervisor Altizer: (1) He advised that reference was made in the newspaper today about the waste water plant. He toured the plant about two days after the torrential rains, and the plant sustained approximately $1 million in damages. He was impressed that the employees worked around the clock and in extremely undesirable conditions to get the plant back up and running in 8 to 9 days instead of the three weeks anticipated. He expressed appreciation to everyone who works in the plant for their service which benefits every citizen in Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Town of Vinton, City of Salem and Botetourt County which are the localities that use the plant. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:05 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract for an economic development performance agreement with Kahn Development, where discussion in open session would adversely effect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County; and Section 2.2-3711 A (5) discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or expansion of an existing business where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: 822 October 12, 2004 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: IN RE: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer None Supervisor Flora DEMONSTRA TION Vice-Chairman Altizer advised that before the work session and closed meeting, staff from the Fire and Rescue Department will demonstrate the mass casualty and structural collapse trailers acquired through the Homeland Security grants in the Administration Center parking lot. WORK SESSION 1. Work session to update the Board on Senate Bill 5005 (Car Tax Relief). (Elmer Hodae. County Administrator. and Diane Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer) The work session was held from 4:35 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Commissioner of Revenue Nancy Horn and Treasurer Kevin Hutchins were present. Mr. Hodge advised that Ms. Hyatt and Jesse Hall, Finance Director for the City of Roanoke, attended a work group sponsored by the State Department of Finance to interpret the effect and the implementation of SB5005, which was enacted as legislation during the 2004 General Assembly session. This legislation has major detrimental financial implications for the localities in the State that bill personal property taxes in the spring of the year and the shortfall for the County is expected to be around $10.5 million. IN RE: October 12, 2004 823 Ms. Hyatt reported on the meeting and advised that the two main concerns are: (1) A budget amendment is needed to add the $250 million back to the State budget because the current promise to pay the spring billers in July of 2006 is a one-year promise at best, and if it is only a cash flow problem, the County will need to be able to cover $10.5 million for up to a three month period. (2) Localities will now be required to adopt two or more tax rates each year and show these rates on the bill. The computation to arrive at the "reduced rate" will require estimation for the effect of proration, which will involve risk of over/under collection. The "reduced rate" will increase each year, making it appear that the local government is increasing the tax rate. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from held from 5:04 p.m. until 5:41 p.m. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION IN RE: R-101204-4 At 5:41 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora 824 October 12, 2004 RESOLUTION 101204-4 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 5:42 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: Brenda J. Holton Deputy Clerk to the Board Michael W. Altizer Vice-Chairman