Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/7/2004 - Regular December 7, 2004 959 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 December 7, 2004 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the first Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of December, 2004. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph McNamara, Michael A. Wray MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Pastor Jack D. Woods, Oak Grove Assembly of God. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS December 7, 2004 960 Supervisor Church announced that the Board will hold an evening session at 7:00 p.m. tonight Mr. Hodge requested that Item Q-2 be postponed until December 21, 2004. He also noted that the Police Department will provide a demonstration of a new police vehicle following the afternoon session. Mr. Mahoney requested that Item J-4 be removed from the consent agenda due to a problem that has arisen with the proposed changes to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare bylaws. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Introduction of Katherine Howe Jones, Assistant County Attorney Mr. Mahoney introduced Ms. Jones. 2. Recognition of the Finance Department for receiving the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for fiscal year 2002-2003 The following individuals were present to accept the award: Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance; Laurie Gearhart, Assistant Director of Finance; Margaret Bacon, Finance Manager; Karen McMillan, Financial Information Systems Coordinator; Elizabeth Atkinson, Financial Analyst; Lisa Greer, Financial Analyst. Ms. Owens also recognized Tonya Long, Financial Analyst, and Debbie Harris, Financial Analyst, who were unable to attend the meeting. In December 7, 2004 961 addition, she expressed appreciation to Geraldine Barber, former Assistant Director of Finance, for her contributions to the report. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request preliminary approval for the purchase and funding of five fire vehicles to continue the Fire and Rescue vehicle replacement plan for fire apparatus. (Richard Burch, Chief, Fire & Rescue) A-120704-1 Chief Burch reported that the Fire and Rescue Department has an established program for replacing fire apparatus. The five new apparatus will be replacing six pieces of equipment, reducing the existing fleet by one. Five of the trucks being replaced are 24 years old and one is 29 years old, which exceeds the department goal of replacing the equipment by 20 years. Chief Burch stated that replacement of the equipment is crucial to maintaining existing service levels to the citizens. He noted that the Board authorized proceeding with the purchase of the trucks, and bids have been received. Four of the new vehicles will be pumper trucks and will be placed at the following stations: Cave Spring, Hollins, Clearbrook, and Read Mountain. One pumper tanker truck will be assigned to Fort Lewis. Chief Burch advised that Attachment A, included in the agenda packet, outlines a plan for rotating vehicles from the busiest stations to slower stations, and then out of the system. This extends the useful life of the vehicles. The plan was developed by both career and volunteer personnel. Chief December 7, 2004 962 Burch advised that Kovatch Mobile Equipment (KME) was the successful bidder for the trucks. Supervisor McNamara noted that approximately five years ago, the County focused on combination ladder/pumper quint trucks. He questioned if the philosophy has changed or have these vehicles not performed as well as expected. Chief Burch replied that the quint trucks are replacements for the ladder trucks and they are favored because they only require one driver/operator. Chief Burch advised that the goal of replacing all ladder trucks with ladder/pumper/tanker quints has been achieved. Supervisor Church questioned, with respect to the truck going to the Fort Lewis station, how citizens can relate to the 2,500 gallon or 1,500 per minute capacity. Chief Burch stated that the initial water carried on a truck can be used for many purposes, i.e., extinguishing a vehicle fire. In some situations the initial supply is sufficient to extinguish the fire; however, if it is a structure fire, hydrants or larger tanker trucks are utilized. He stated that pumper tankers are designed so that if a pumper is out on a call, the pumper tanker can handle the call. Supervisor Altizer questioned if all five trucks will be purchased at one time. Chief Burch responded in the affirmative. Ms. Owens reported that in an effort to expedite the financing process and save the County issuance costs, the purchase of the fire trucks will be financed internally through a loan from the risk management fund in the amount of $1,539,270.74. The risk management fund is used to account for revenues and December 7, 2004 963 expenses related to workers compensation, automobile, and general liability insurance programs. Over the past several years through safety programs, employee awareness training, and good claims experience, the County has been able to accumulate a reserve that allows for the financing of this purchase while maintaining adequate reserves. Ms. Owens advised that Attachment B in the agenda packet illustrates a schedule for repayment of the loan. She noted that since the time the packet was distributed, rates in the market have decreased and staff is recommending that the loan be financed at an amended interest rate of 2% annually. The financing recommendation includes an interest charge because utilizing these funds will decrease the amount of interest income earned which has already been budgeted. Ms. Owens reported that Chief Burch has $400,000 of budgeted funding to apply each year to this loan, as well as $354,603.40 coming from Botetourt County per an agreement dated April 25, 2003, with the final payment in July 2007 of $403,032.16 for a projected total interest cost of approximately $19,000. This could, however, vary depending on the delivery date of the trucks as well as when the payment from Botetourt County is received. Ms. Owens stated that staff is requesting the Board’s concurrence to approve the purchase of the five fire vehicles and the concept of financing this purchase in the amount of $1,539,270.74 through the risk management fund at an interest rate of 2% annually. Since a public hearing will need to be held before this item can be December 7, 2004 964 approved, staff requests that the public hearing for this item as well as the adoption of a resolution authorizing the purchase and funding of the fire vehicles be scheduled for the meeting on December 21, 2004. Supervisor Altizer inquired about the County’s portion of the cost for the pumper truck to be placed at the Read Mountain station. Chief Burch advised that Roanoke County has an agreement with Botetourt County to divide expenses based on percentage of responses. The current percentage split is 60% Botetourt and 40% Roanoke County. He further advised that when the building addition was undertaken in 2003 at Read Mountain, Botetourt County was not in a position to participate in the funding of the project. They offered to participate in a future capital project, and they are therefore paying a larger portion at this time to cover their portion of the earlier building addition project. Supervisor Altizer noted that Botetourt County’s payment for the $354,000 being borrowed will be received in the second year. He questioned what they will be paying Roanoke County in interest. Chief Burch responded that Mr. Hodge has been in discussions with Gerry Burgess, Botetourt County Administrator, and this amount will be included in the budget process. He noted that funding will be available from Botetourt County on July 1, 2005. Mr. Hodge reported that he spoke with Mr. Burgess this week, and the Botetourt funding schedule for vehicles differs from Roanoke County’s. Since these trucks do not arrive until next fiscal year, Roanoke County does not incur an December 7, 2004 965 expense until they are received. Supervisor Altizer advised he wanted to ensure that Roanoke County taxpayers are not fronting the money. Supervisor Wray inquired if the City of Roanoke furnishes any equipment at the joint Clearbrook station. Chief Burch stated that since the equipment was already in place at that station, there is no provision for sharing equipment purchases. He noted that the City pays $1,000 per month toward EMS supplies, fuel, etc. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve staff recommendation with the interest rate modified to 2%: (1) approve the purchase of five fire vehicles and the concept of internally financing this purchase through the risk management fund as outlined in Alternative 1. (2) hold a public hearing and request for adoption of a resolution authorizing the purchase and funding of the fire vehicles at the December 21, 2004 Board meeting. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None 2. Request to adopt a restated debt policy for the County of Roanoke. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) R-120704-2 Ms. Hyatt advised that staff has been working with the schools to develop a series of fiscal policies for both the County and schools. The first of these policies is a revision of the existing debt policy, and future policies will be presented to the Board for consideration. She advised that the debt policy was originally adopted in May 1996 and December 7, 2004 966 the overall document is still very pertinent. Most of revisions deal with reformatting and further explanation of the topics. Ms. Hyatt advised that there is one substantive change which should be noted. The core of the document consists of the following three ratios which are used in examining debt: 1. Net debt as a percentage of assessed value will not exceed 3.0% 2. The net debt per capita will not exceed a ratio of $1,500 3. General obligation debt service as a percentage of general governmental expenditures will not exceed 10% Ms. Hyatt stated that when this matter was discussed in work session several months ago, the second of these ratios was out of line with the other three ratios as far as limiting the amount of future borrowings. After surveying other localities and looking at rating agency recommendations, two options were determined: (1) eliminate the ratio completely; or (2) raise the ratio to a level that puts it in line with the other two ratios. She advised that staff has chosen to raise the ratio of net debt per capita to $2,500. As a point of reference, Ms. Hyatt advised that as of June 30, 2004, the current ratios for the County were as follows: (1) net debt to assessed value was 2% as compared to the 3% cap; (2) net debt per capita was $1,480 compared to the newly established cap of $2,500; (3) general obligation debt service to expenditures was 5.63% as compared to the 10% cap. She stated that all these ratios leave the County in a good position with respect to future borrowings for County and school needs. December 7, 2004 967 Supervisor McNamara stated that the impetus for the debt policy is the new funding formula for capital improvements.He indicated that over time, the level of overall debt should decrease so that the County will be well within these ratios. He noted that at the meeting between the County and schools, different schedules and outflows for capital improvements were discussed which would show contributions of $450,000 on each side annually. There would also be a one-time infusion of cash from the schools and one of the County projects would be delayed by a year.He questioned if this revised schedule has been prepared.Ms. Hyatt responded that this is part of the information which will be presented to the Board in January 2005. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None RESOLUTION120407-2 ADOPTING A DEBT POLICY FOR THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE WHEREAS, one of the measures of a fiscally well managed locality is the adoption of formal fiscal policies; and WHEREAS, these policies should be reviewed and amended periodically; and WHEREAS, the County previously adopted a debt policy on May 14, 1996, with Resolution 051496-9.a; and WHEREAS, the County now wishes to amend and restate its debt policy. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Debt Policy adopted by Resolution 051496-9.a is rescinded, and 2. That the following Debt Policy for the County of Roanoke is hereby adopted, and 3. That this policy shall be in effect from and after the date of its adoption. December 7, 2004 968 On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None 3. Request from Public Facility Consortium, LLC for a refund in the amount of $50,000 for PPEA review fees for the public safety building project. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator) A-120704-3 Mr. Hodge advised that this is a request from Public Facility Consortium (PFC) for a refund of the $50,000 review fee, which is part of the PPEA policy adopted by the Board in 2003. This policy provides for a $50,000 review fee for unsolicited proposals which are considered by the County. He stated that PFC was not the successful proposer on the public safety building project, but they helped considerably in defining the product and they assisted staff with the needs assessment and design process. Mr. Hodge indicated that one of the reasons staff supports the request is that since this was the County’s first time to utilize the PPEA process, much more was requested of the proposing firms than will likely be required with future projects. Both firms were requested to prepare 30% drawings, which was a great expense to the proposers. The County also benefited from the competition by having two proposing teams, and the benefit to the County exceeds the $50,000 deposit. Mr. Hodge stated that if the Board wishes to refund the deposit, it will also encourage participation by small corporations on future projects of this type. December 7, 2004 969 Supervisor Church questioned how much money the County spent in services, time, personnel, etc. Mr. Hodge reported that the actual out-of-pocket expense was $39,000; however there was staff time above and beyond this amount and the savings which resulted exceed several million dollars. Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator, advised that staff time was not taken into consideration, but there were hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff time over a one-year period. Supervisor Church questioned if it is a routine practice for local governments to issue such a refund. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the only projects which have utilized the PPEA process up to this point are schools, so it is difficult to obtain a comparison. Mr. Hodge advised that the procedures adopted by the Board allow for refunds; however, this is usually done at Phase I. There were originally three proposing firms and the one firm which withdrew after Phase I received a refund. During Phase II, requests for refunds must be authorized by the Board. Supervisor Church questioned what the purpose of the deposit is if they are going to be refunded. Mr. O’Donnell stated that the purpose is to pay for the County’s costs. He indicated that this is an unusual project due to the complexity of the communications equipment, and it is also the first time a comprehensive agreement has been developed for a project this complicated with technical systems as well as building systems. Mr. O’Donnell noted that there were many legal costs in the review process. He stated that since this process will be utilized in the future, the County wants to December 7, 2004 970 encourage the process to remain open and competitive and the refund is a show of good faith to the private sector. Supervisor Church questioned how the County will level the playing field for other firms who want a refund. Mr. O’Donnell stated that this encourages small and mid-size firms to participate because they know they will be treated fairly and if the County requests extensive design proposals, they may be more willing to continue participating. Mr. Hodge further advised that in the letter from PFC requesting the refund, they advise that their total cost of participation was in excess of $750,000. He also indicated that with this being the first time the County has utilized this process, more was required of the participating firms and this level of detail is not anticipated in future projects. Supervisor Church inquired how this will benefit County citizens. Mr. O’Donnell stated that one of the criticisms of the PPEA process is that it encourages the use of larger firms because the process shifts the risk to the developer who submits the proposal. This gesture shows that the County is willing to work with smaller firms. Supervisor Church noted that the project has involved thousands of hours and much planning. If the request for the refund is approved, the citizens need to be aware that the County has gained a substantial value in trying to provide the best facility possible. Supervisor Wray questioned if the County will also be refunding the deposit made by the firm who was awarded the contract. Mr. O’Donnell responded that December 7, 2004 971 this deposit will not be refunded. Supervisor Wray noted that competition is good and encourages smaller companies to become involved in the process. If the refund is approved, the County gained millions through the competitive process. Supervisor McNamara stated that any bidding organization knows the rules when they enter the playing field. He questioned if refunding the deposit increases competition and stated that if the firm incurred $750,000 worth of costs, it is likely because they are also learning the process and they will be more efficient in the future. He stated that if the costs of participating in the process are high, it will not open up the playing field to smaller firms. Supervisor McNamara stated that if it is the policy throughout the Commonwealth to refund the deposits, he would support the request. He stated that his preference would be to wait until the next meeting to take action on this matter and research whether deposits are routinely refunded in other localities. He also requested clarification regarding the reasons why the first vendor who dropped out was refunded their deposit. Mr. Hodge reported that the policy allows staff to make the decision regarding a refund during Phase I of the process where the deposit is $5,000. He stated that Roanoke County is the first locality to use this process for a facility of this type, and staff wanted to ensure that local firms remain involved in future proposals. Supervisor McNamara advised that the Board should remain consistent with their decisions to refund the deposits. Supervisor Altizer concurred with the need to remain consistent with all firms, and noted that PFC also gained residual value from going through the process. December 7, 2004 972 They did not come away empty handed for future endeavors, and their participation in the process increased their chance of gaining future contracts based on the experience gained in this project. Supervisor Church stated that if this is done in the future, it should be determined if other localities are refunding the deposits. He stated that he feels the benefits in this case will outweigh the costs. Supervisor McNamara advised that he is supporting the request since the precedent has been set by refunding the first proposer’s fee. He encouraged staff to conduct research to see how other localities are handling this, and noted that an up- front fee is factored into the cost of doing business. He stated that to charge the fees and then refund them is the worst possible option. Supervisor Flora advised that he supports the request and advised that during the negotiating phase, PFC stayed in the process at the strong urging of the County in order to keep the process competitive. Supervisor Wray moved to approve staff recommendation: (refund the full $50,000 to the Public Facility Consortium. LLC. and appropriate these funds from the Minor County Capital Fund). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES December 7, 2004 973 1. First reading of ordinance amending and re-enacting Section 19- 4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours and at certain locations and enacting a new Section 19-28, Permit for Street Solicitation of Article II, Chapter 19, Solicitors and Solicitations, of the Roanoke County Code to authorize a procedure for permits for street solicitation by qualified charitable organizations. (Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney advised that this matter was discussed by the Board in work session several months ago. He provided background information to the Board regarding this matter and indicated that in the past, the Board had received complaints regarding aggressive solicitation at road intersections. As a result of these complaints, an ordinance was adopted prohibiting this form of solicitation. In the summer of 2004, the Roanoke County Firefighters Association and the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) approached the Board about relaxing this prohibition to allow them to engage in charitable solicitation activities. He advised that staff has examined how this process is handled by other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, and the most acceptable method was the approach utilized by the City of Norfolk. Mr. Mahoney indicated that in the City of Norfolk, the permit process includes an insurance requirement whereby the organization secures insurance to protect the locality from damages or injuries that occur as a result of solicitation in public roads. The County has modeled the draft ordinance under consideration on the one utilized by Norfolk. The City of Norfolk December 7, 2004 974 provides for a $500,000 liability insurance requirement, and the County has included a $1 million liability insurance requirement. Mr. Mahoney further advised that on Page 4 of the draft ordinance, the application permit fee of $100 should be changed to $10 due to a State Code limitation. He further reported that the remainder of the ordinance places a variety of restrictions on the activity such as limiting the solicitation to a certain number of days, requiring the individual conducting the solicitation to have an official identification with a photograph and a copy of the solicitation permit, and requiring that the individual must be 18 years of age. Mr. Mahoney stated that as indicated on Page 5, no solicitor may impede traffic at any time, nor can they touch or reach inside a vehicle without the consent of the occupant. It further provides a means by which the Chief of Police or their designee may refuse to approve a permit at one or more requested locations if it appears that the solicitation could create a potential for injury to the solicitors, other pedestrians, or vehicle occupants. Mr. Mahoney stated that in the staff report, there is a reference to fiscal impact. The fiscal impact will reflect the Chief of Police’s participation in the review of these applications. What is not addressed in the fiscal impact is whether paid firefighters are authorized to conduct solicitations while they are on duty. The County report is based on the assumption that these will be off-duty solicitations. Mr. Mahoney stated that if a firefighter is injured while conducting solicitations and they are on duty, December 7, 2004 975 this could result in a workmen’s compensation claim. He advised that this is not addressed in the draft ordinance. Representatives from the Roanoke County Firefighters Association and MDA were present at the meeting. Supervisor Wray questioned what the term “legitimate” 501c(3) means. Mr. Mahoney stated that it refers to those organizations who have received this designation from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).Supervisor Wray questioned how hard it is to obtain this designation. Mr. Mahoney reported that in his experience, it is fairly hard to secure and can take up to nine months for an organization to qualify. Supervisor Wray questioned how many 501c(3) organizations are in the Roanoke Valley. Mr. Mahoney advised that he did not have this information. Supervisor Wray noted that each of these organizations could apply for this type of solicitation and if the request is denied, there would have to be a legitimate basis for the denial. Mr. Mahoney stated that staff has attempted to establish some criteria that could be utilized to support a denial; however the more difficult focus would be treating all eligible organizations equally and he noted that the County cannot discriminate against an organization based on the content or nature of the solicitation. The County can examine issues with respect to the proposed locations where the solicitation will occur, and there will always be a problem at busy intersections such as Route 419 and Starkey Road. Mr. Mahoney advised that the majority of the complaints received in the past were focused on the intersection of Route 419 and Starkey Road. He indicated December 7, 2004 976 that staff can work with the Chief of Police to determine necessary levels of safety. Mr. Mahoney also reported that staff can examine issues such as whether the applicant made false or misleading statements on their application, as well as past practices of the organizations. Supervisor Altizer questioned if it is possible to prohibit soliciting during certain months (i.e., November). Mr. Mahoney stated that this could be done, and it would be similar to the limitations placed on the time of day that the solicitation can occur. He stated that the government can regulate First Amendment activities with respect to time, place, and manner and this would be regulation based on time; however, justification would have to be made for the months during which this is banned. Supervisor Altizer questioned if you can limit the number of permits issued each year. Mr. Mahoney responded that it would be difficult to limit the number of permits issued because eligible organizations might be prevented from engaging in these activities based on an arbitrary limit. Supervisor Altizer noted that there are many questions regarding what could be done. He moved to approve the first reading and requested that the second reading be postponed until February 22, 2005. He further requested that a work session be scheduled on January 25, 2005 to discuss this matter. Supervisor Church stated that with respect to 501c(3) organizations, he noted that he is on the Board of the Roy Stanley Memorial Foundation and this December 7, 2004 977 organization received their 501c(3) designation in a short period of time, possibly within 30 or 40 days. He further noted that the ordinance states that no solicitation is allowed after 9:00 p.m.; however, it is dark at 5:00 p.m. at this time of year. He stated that the reason for initially adopting the ordinance was to address concerns regarding safety. He questioned if traffic has decreased since the ordinance banning solicitations at intersections was adopted. Police Chief Ray Lavinder responded that traffic has not decreased. Supervisor Church questioned what has changed since the ordinance was adopted in 2001 with respect to safety and traffic concerns. Mr. Mahoney responded that he is not aware of any safety factors which have changed. He indicated that the Firefighters Association and MDA can provide information showing that in other jurisdictions, their activities have been successful and no injuries have resulted. Supervisor Church stated that he is in the insurance industry, and he advised that you can go six months with no losses but one wreck or fatality can shut down the operation. He questioned why the County would want to reverse a previous Board decision and subject the citizens to solicitations on public roads. He questioned why the solicitations could not be conducted on private property such as the corner of the Tanglewood Mall parking lot. With respect to insurance concerns, Supervisor Church advised that the insurance provided by any petitioner would do little to ease the burden on Roanoke County. By naming the County as an additional insured, it would do little more than put the County at risk rather than removing risk. He advised that a December 7, 2004 978 named insured is someone who will be named in a lawsuit. He also stated that this would be reversing a prior decision by the Board which was designed to protect citizens stopped in traffic at intersections. He noted the potential for rear-end accidents and advised that he will not be able to support this request at the first or second reading. Supervisor McNamara stated that the proposed ordinance is designed to allow this activity once per year at controlled intersections; however, the potential exists for many organizations to begin requesting permits for this purpose and he advised that the ordinance was adopted due to problems experienced in the past. Supervisor McNamara stated that holding a future work session will not provide any additional information. He questioned if it is possible to develop a temporary ordinance that would be in effect for a period of one year to see how the process evolves. Mr. Mahoney responded that this could be done. Supervisor Church stated that he does not think he has ever voted no on a first reading, but he indicated that he does not know of any information that will assure him that citizens will be safer if this change is adopted. He stated that it only takes one fatality and he is not willing to reverse a decision that he feels was correct. Supervisor Wray advised that the level of liability insurance required is irrelevant in situations where the solicitation might lead to an accident wherein a citizen rear ends the car in front of them. This would be viewed as inattentiveness by the driver. He stated that this is a situation he is not willing to test for a year and noted that the prior Board had the wisdom to act to resolve those problems and avoid liability. He December 7, 2004 979 stated that allowing the solicitations will cause inattentiveness of drivers at intersections. Supervisor Wray indicated that delaying the process will not change anything. Supervisor Altizer’s motion to approve the first reading, postpone the second reading until February 22, 2005, and schedule a work session on January 25, 2005, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer, Flora NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray 2. First reading of ordinance amending Article II, Taxes on Tangible Personal Property, Section 21-16, Returns, of the Roanoke County Code to change the date of filing tangible personal property tax returns on motor vehicles and trailers from thirty (30) days to sixty (60) days. (Nancy Horn, Commissioner of the Revenue) Ms. Horn read the following proposed revisions to the ordinance: “Whereas, the Board finds that amending Section 21-16 (d) of the Roanoke County Code to permit the change of the date for filing of tangible personal property tax returns on motor vehicles and trailers with a situs or status occurrence from thirty (30) days to sixty (60) days and by changing the time from which any penalty will be assessed thereon from thirty (30) days to sixty (60) days.” Ms. Horn advised that this only applies to the late filing penalty and has no bearing on the penalty or interest. Supervisor Church voiced support for the amendment and stated that the change is long overdue. He indicated that many citizens do not realize there is a time December 7, 2004 980 limit or sometimes forget that they need to file these changes. The proposed change allows additional time for these changes to be filed. Supervisor Altizer also advised that this change is long overdue, and he noted that the number of car dealerships who handle titles and tags for their customers is increasing. He stated that when this occurs, citizens assume that the dealers are also notifying the locality of these changes. He indicated that this will be a more friendly process for the citizens. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for December 21, 2004. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of an easement to Appalachian Power Company to provide electric service to Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C., d/b/a/ NTELOS, for a 3,400 sq. ft. tower site at the Hollins Fire Station on Barrens Road, Hollins Magisterial District. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) O-120704-4 Mr. Hodge advised that he is substituting for Ms. Green because her husband is in the hospital and she is unable to attend the meeting today. He stated December 7, 2004 981 that this is a second reading of an ordinance which will donate an easement to Appalachian Power Company (APCo) on property owned by the County at the Hollins Fire Station. This will allow for the extension of power to a new tower being installed by NTELOS at this site. The Board has already authorized the tower, and it was noted that the County receives a great benefit from the tower. Mr. Hodge stated that there has been no change since the first reading, and staff recommends approval. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None ORDINANCE120704-4 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY THROUGH PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP #27.13-4-1) TO PROVIDE ELECTRIC SERVICE TO VIRGINIA PCS ALLIANCE, L.C., D/B/A NTELOS, FOR A 3,400 SQ. FT. TOWER SITE AT THE HOLLINS FIRE STATION ON BARRENS ROAD IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner of a parcel of land, containing 2.51 acres, located at 7401 Barrens Road in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map #27.13-4-1, and commonly referred to as the Hollins Fire Station; and, WHEREAS, by Ordinance #082404-9 adopted on August 24, 2004, the Board approved a Special Use Permit for this project at the County site; and, WHEREAS, by Ordinance #102604-7 adopted on October 26, 2004, the Board approved a lease with NTELOS of a portion of the Hollins Fire Station Site to construct a new telecommunications tower, with space available for the County’s equipment and facilities; and, WHEREAS, in order to provide electric service to the tower site an easement is required by Appalachian Power Company across County property; and December 7, 2004 982 WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including easements, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 16, 2004; and the second reading was held on December 7, 2004. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power Company for the provision of electrical service in connection with the location of a new telecommunications tower at the Hollins Fire Station, located at 7401 Barrens Road in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, by Virginia PCS Alliance, LC, d/b/a NTELOS. 2. That donation to Appalachian Power Company of an easement and right- of-way for underground transmission lines and related improvements, within the “proposed 10' easement area” on the County’s property (Tax Map #27.13-4-1) as shown on APCO Drawing No. V-1531, dated November 1, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved. 3. That the County Administrator, or any assistant county administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an ordinance approving a residential lease at the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology, Catawba Magisterial District. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) O-120704-5 Mr. Hodge reported that this is property owned by Roanoke County at the Center for Research and Technology (CRT). Access to the property is off December 7, 2004 983 Glenvar Heights Boulevard.He stated that there have been tenants at this property in the past, and the Board has adopted an ordinance allowing rent from the property to go back into a maintenance account. When the last tenant moved out, the County accepted applications for tenants. It is recommended that Melinda Rector be allowed to rent the facility from January 1, 2005 to January 31, 2006 and continuing thereafter on a month-to-month rental of $600 per month. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None ORDINANCE 120704-5 APPROVING THE RESIDENTIAL LEASE OF THE LOG CABIN LYING GENERALLY IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROPERTY (TAX MAP NO. 54.00-1-2) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County is the owner of a tract of land containing 457.60 acres, and being located in the Catawba Magisterial District and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No.54.00-1-2, which is being developed for economic development purposes as the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology; and, WHEREAS, by Ordinance 031098-7, the Board of Supervisors authorized the continued rental of the three residences on the property until such time as construction would begin and require termination; and WHEREAS, the leases for 5365 Glenmary Drive and 5393 Glenmary Drive were terminated by the County, effective November 1, 1999, to permit commencement of construction and, WHEREAS, the log cabin at 4958 Glenmary Drive had been rented until recently; and December 7, 2004 984 WHEREAS, it would serve the public interest for the County to have the log cabin occupied and maintained until such time as all or portions thereof may be needed for economic development purposes; and, WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, the Board authorized creation of a self balancing account entitled Glenn Mary Capital Account for acceptance of rent payments and expenditure of the funds on maintenance of the property; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 16, 2004; and the second reading was held on December 7, 2004. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is Melinda W. Rector hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement with for the log cabin residence having the address of 4958 Glenvar Heights Boulevard, from February 1, 2005, to January 31, 2006, thereafter continuing on a month to month basis, for a monthly rental of $600.00 to be paid into the Glenn Mary Capital Account. 2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is authorized to execute said lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke and to execute such other documents and take such further actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions approved by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) Supervisor McNamara nominated Al Thomason to serve an additional four-year term that will expire on December 31, 2008. He advised that while Mr. Thomason plans to serve a portion of this term, it is likely that prior to the end of the term there will be a replacement. December 7, 2004 985 2. Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Supervisor Wray advised that he anticipates having a nomination for this appointment at the December 21 meeting. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-120704-6; R-120704-6.b; R-120704-6.c; R-120704-6.h Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the consent resolution with Item J- 4 removed. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None RESOLUTION120704-6 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 December 7, 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 12, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – November 16, 2004 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 3. Request to accept Great Glen Drive and Celtic Circle into the state secondary road system 4.Request to approve amendments to the Bylaws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 5. Request from the Library to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $1,385 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to purchase a computer 6. Request from the Library to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $15,100 from the Friends of the Library December 7, 2004 986 7. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of $6,924 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of extrication equipment 8. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of $13,000 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of cardiac heart monitors 9. Request to concur in the adoption of mandatory water and sewer connection policy by the Western Virginia Water Authority 10. Request from Parks, Recreation & Tourism Department to accept and appropriate $20,792 from the Commonwealth of Virginia for reimbursement for expenses incurred for the construction of the Wolf Creek Greenway 11. Request from the Treasurer to amend the existing banking services contract with SunTrust to allow for lock box operation 12. Request to approve an agreement with Clearbrook Volunteer Fire Department regarding disposition of vehicles and outstanding loan balances 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 McNamara to adopt the resolution with Item J-4 removed, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None RESOLUTION120704-6.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF GREAT GLEN DRIVE AND CELTIC CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements, and December 7, 2004 987 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Supervisor McNamara Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors, McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora Nays: None RESOLUTION120704-6.c RATIFYING AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS OF BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE WHEREAS, the Board of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare has unanimously approved Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Amended Bylaws”) and has requested that the governing body of each political subdivision participating in Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare ratify the Amended Bylaws which are attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is a participating political subdivision in Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, and this Board desires to grant the requested ratifications. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that this Board hereby ratifies the Amended Bylaws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, a copy of which are attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None RESOLUTION120704-6.h CONCURRING WITH THE ADOPTION BY THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY OF A MANDATORY WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION POLICY PURSUANT TO VIRGINIA CODE § 15.2-5137 WHEREAS, on July 1, 2004, the Western Virginia Water Authority assumed all water and sewer utility functions from the County of Roanoke, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Water Authority has adopted a policy on November 18, 2004, relating to mandatory water and sewer connections pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-5137; and WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Water Authority has asked the County of Roanoke for a concurring resolution pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-5137(A). NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that: December 7, 2004 988 1. The County hereby resolves and concurs with the mandatory water and sewer connection policy adopted by the Western Virginia Water Authority on November 18, 2004 pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-5137. 2. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the appropriate officials at the Western Virginia Water Authority. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Major Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Minor Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 4. Board Contingency Fund 5. Future Capital Projects IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Church requested that this item be moved to the evening session. Supervisor McNamara requested that Board members be allowed to comment at both the afternoon and evening sessions.It was the consensus of the Board to allow comments at both the afternoon and evening sessions. December 7, 2004 989 Supervisor McNamara: He congratulated Chairman Flora and School Board Chair Jerry Canada on a job well done at the recent State of the County Address. Supervisor Flora: He reminded citizens that there will be an evening session at 7:00 p.m. He advised that at that time, the Planning Commission will call their meeting to order and then adjourn to the conference room on the third floor. The Board of Supervisors meeting will be held in the Board meeting room at 7:00 p.m. and overflow seating is available on the second and fourth floors. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:47 p.m., Supervisor Flora moved to go into closed meeting following (3) discussion the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A or consideration of the disposition of publicly held property. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Work session to review the drainage maintenance program. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) The work session was held from 5:25 p.m. until 5:57 p.m. Staff present included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; George Simpson, Assistant Director of Community Development; Butch Workman, Drainage Engineer; Aaron Hofberg, GIS Technician; Jeff Altice, Supervisor – Drainage Maintenance. December 7, 2004 990 Mr. Covey advised that staff will provide an overview of the following: (1) history of the drainage program; (2) drainage complaint procedure; (3) maintenance responsibilities; (4) review project list; and (5) review of the 1995 regional storm water master plan. He stated that the goal of the work session will be to establish a prioritization of new projects to be adopted by the Board on December 21. Mr. Workman provided a historical overview of the drainage maintenance program and presented the following procedures for prioritizing projects: (1) life threatening situation where there is potential threat to life resulting from a severe drainage condition (rating = 25); (2) potential damage to a house or structure posing a threat to its inhabitants or the public (rating = 10); (3) potential damage to property which could result in the loss of use or value of the property (rating = 2); (4) minor damage that does not result in the loss of use or value of the property (rating = 1). Mr. Workman also defined maintenance responsibilities as follows: (1) VDOT is responsible for all drainage within road right-of-ways, drainage easements acquired by VDOT and other drainage easements upstream and downstream of right- of-way necessary to prevent inundation of the pavement; (2) Roanoke County is responsible for the right of drainage easements for all concentrated storm waters leaving the right-of-way of state maintained roadways to a natural watercourse. Roanoke County is responsible for keeping all drainage easements functional beyond VDOT’s responsibility. (3) Private property owners are responsible for maintaining retention/detention facilities required by their development. Under the “common enemy December 7, 2004 991 doctrine”, private property owners are responsible for maintaining natural watercourses and surface drainage on their property and can neither increase nor decrease flows or change drainage ways to the detriment of upstream or downstream properties. Mr. Workman advised that 84 projects have been completed since 1998 and 28 are remaining. He noted that six emergency projects were completed in 2004. He also provided an overview of the project list status which reflects a current budget of $800,000. Mr. Simpson advised that the master plan has identified major projects which cannot be accomplished by the County alone. A dedicated revenue source for these improvements will be needed. At present, Roanoke City is conducting a feasibility study to determine an appropriate rate structure for storm water. He advised that a fee of $3 - $5 per household would generate $4 million revenue stream for these improvements. 2Work session to discuss reciprocal trash collection with the City . of Roanoke. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) This work session was postponed until December 21, 2004. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 5:15 p.m. until 5:23 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-120704-7 December 7, 2004 992 At 7:05 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, Flora NAYS: None RESOLUTION120704-7 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, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to exercise options for the acquisition of land for the location of a regional jail facility. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) A-120704-8 December 7, 2004 993 Sheriff Holt stated that the jail was constructed in the late 1970s and opened on October 1, 1980 with a capacity of 108 inmates. Although the population has grown and overcrowding exists, they have been able to operate since 1999 as a nationally accredited facility. The average inmate population is currently 280 in the facility, with an additional 100 - 120 housed outside the facility. He noted that there are incentives for building a regional facility, and the County is in discussions with Montgomery and Franklin counties regarding their participation in the project. Sheriff Holt stated that the projected needs for all four localities would be a 600 bed facility. This would result in a $3 million annual savings in operational costs by building a regional facility. He noted that there is a deadline of March 1, 2005 to submit the plan to the Department of Corrections (DOC). This deadline is extremely important for a number of reasons: (1) If the deadline is missed, the County cannot re-submit an application until 2007. If the County proceeds with the project in 2005, the facility will not open until 2008. This is the first year of a five-year process. Sheriff Holt advised that there have been misunderstandings and some citizens feel that the process is moving too fast. He advised that staff has to follow the plan of action prescribed by the State for funding, and one of these requirements is that the plan be site specific. Sheriff Holt stated that there has been a moratorium on jail expansions and construction since 1996. Roanoke County and Salem received an exemption in the 2004 General Assembly session and this exemption is good for the current year only. It is not known if this exemption or funding will be available in future years. Failure to December 7, 2004 994 meet the deadlines will create problems for everyone in Roanoke County and he cited the potential for incurring greater liabilities, the potential loss of regional partners, the possible loss of State funding, and concerns over safety issues. He stated that staff is currently working in a very unsafe environment due to inmate overcrowding and the County needs to move forward with plans for a new facility. This is above all a public safety issue because programs have had to be created to divert convicted criminals out into the public due to lack of space in the jail. In addition, inmates are also being housed in the Roanoke City jail to relieve overcrowding. Sheriff Holt stated that missing the deadline will result in increased construction costs of approximately 10% per year. In 2011, the inmate population is projected to grow to 354 and the County will continue to see a deterioration in conditions.Currently the County cannot provide all the program space that is needed, and he noted that food service is now being contracted with outside agencies due to the existing facility’s inability to meet needs. He further advised that the HVAC system is inadequate and that conditions are critical at this time. He requested that the County move forward with the project. With respect to overcrowding, Sheriff Holt advised that inmates are housed in double and triple bunks wherever possible. There are situations where inmates are sleeping on mattresses on the floors outside of cells, and deputies conducting periodic mandatory checks have to step over inmates on the floor. Sheriff Holt displayed several photographs showing current conditions in the jail. He advised that in an effort to reduce the inmate population, inmates are diverted outside the December 7, 2004 995 facility. To further meet these needs, housing in areas outside of Roanoke County has been examined. He noted that this problem is not only being faced by Roanoke County. The State Compensation Board jail cost audit report states that 16,857 inmates was the total rated jail capacity in Virginia in 2003; however the state population in jails in 2003 was 23,897 inmates. This is a state-wide problem and Roanoke County is fortunate to have the opportunity to receive State funding assistance to meet this need. Randy Leach, Roanoke County Commonwealth Attorney, stated that Roanoke County needs a jail. The lack of space is causing problems in the prosecution and punishment of prisoners in Roanoke County. He stated that incarcerating prisoners is not taken lightly but when jail time is recommended, there is a reason for this. It is difficult to explain to victims of crimes when a convicted criminal is released into a diversion program due to lack of space in the jail. He advised that staff in the Sheriff’s Office has to consistently check with the Commonwealth Attorney’s office to determine mandatory jail times that must be adhered to in order to determine when convicted criminals can be released. He stated that a potential for a future liability exists if a convicted criminal is out on a diversion program and commits another crime. He advised that it is imperative that the jail project move forward, and it is up to the Board to determine how the process proceeds and where the facility might be located. He stated that the judges are frustrated with the situation when they feel that jail time is needed but they are unable to sentence criminals due to lack of availability in the jail. December 7, 2004 996 He stated that when an individual needs punishment, the County needs a place to put them. Supervisor Church questioned if the capability to place convicted criminals in the Roanoke City jail exists. Sheriff Holt advised that some can be housed in Roanoke City, depending on their classification. He indicated that some charges involve mandatory sentences and others do not. Supervisor Church questioned who makes the decision regarding placement in Roanoke City versus a diversion program. Sheriff Holt advised that the Sheriff’s Office coordinates these matters with Roanoke City based on jail rules and regulations. Supervisor Church requested that the amount of time for the staff presentation be limited so that the citizens present at the meeting can be heard. Sheriff Holt expressed appreciation for the citizens’ comments and understanding. He advised that the moratorium imposed in 1996 has held the County back until this year; however, we now have an opportunity to proceed. Mr. Chambliss noted that as mentioned by Sheriff Holt, Roanoke County is currently working with three other partners: Franklin County, Montgomery County, and the City of Salem. He advised that Roanoke County and the City of Salem have operated a regional jail since 1980, and the other two jurisdictions have applied to the General Assembly for a waiver to join the County and Salem as partners. December 7, 2004 997 Mr. Chambliss advised that the Jail Study Committee established set criteria by which to evaluate each of the potential sites. These criteria include the following: The willingness of the seller or current owner of the property to sell the property at this time The proximity of the site to the four court systems The proximity of the site to the potential partner localities and the ability to easily get inmates or visitors to the facility How the neighboring properties are being used and the impact that this type of facility might have on the community are two of the most significant factors The availability of utilities (water, sewer, gas) The general lay of the land (topography) and other features that enhance or hinder development Proximity to major highway for access to the facility. Other limitations (or lack thereof) which could hinder development of the site Asking or marketing price of the marketed sites Mr. Chambliss provided the following overview of the proposed sites: (1) Higginbotham Farm: located off of U.S. Route 460 and containing 41 acres. Concerns include limited access, property is located in a floodplain, and there is a cemetery located on the property. (2) Horn: located across the railroad tracks from the December 7, 2004 998 Higginbotham Farm site, 47 acres zoned industrial. Concerns include the salvage business located on the property. Staff has had discussions with the owner about not purchasing this part of the property. (3) Ingersol Rand: utilities are already available on site. Concerns include the distance to the highway, proximity to partner localities, and proximity to residential development. (4) Dixie Caverns: 61 acre site zoned AR. Concerns included the limited amount of developable land, and it was noted that this Meacham Drive: located to the north of I- site is too tight for the proposed facility. (5) 81, 43 acres zoned AR with access off of Twine Hollow Road. Concerns include the proximity to residential development, and a single family residence located in the center of the tract. (6) Old Mountain Road: 50 acre site located behind Ingersol Rand, zoned industrial. The concerns are the same as those noted for the Ingersol Rand site; in addition, water and sewer are located near but not on the site. This site also has significant rock outcropping. (7) Newland Road: located off of Peters Creek Road near Airport Road. The tract is comprised of two properties – one which is zoned R-1 and one which is zoned C-2 for a total 25 acre site. Concerns include the existence of a flood plain in the center of the site. (8) Taylor Tract-Merriman Road: 28.7 acres located across from Penn Forest Elementary School. Concerns include the proximity to residential development. (9) College of Health Science: 37.6 acre site. Concerns include two sets of high tension electrical wires and towers which would be difficult to relocate, making the site non-developable. In addition, the site contains major sink holes. (10) Salem Filtration Plant on West Main Street: 15 acre site. Concerns include December 7, 2004 999 the fact that the site is too small for the overall development. (11) American Electric Power (AEP): located beside the College of Health Sciences site. Concerns include the amount of rock and the overall topography which make this site infeasible. (12) Franklin Road-Indian Grave Road: 48 acre site. Concerns include the fact that the site is located in the Clearbrook Overlay District, the proximity to the proposed I-73 corridor, and the access to utilities. Mr. Chambliss reported that six additional sites were suggested at the community meeting held on November 30 and staff has attempted to contact the property owners. An evaluation of these additional sites has not yet been completed, Bradshaw Trust: 125 acre but a brief overview of the sites includes the following: (1) site near Ingersol Rand zoned I-1. Concerns include the fact that the property is not currently being marketed for sale. (2) Valley Gateway: located on Route 460 east, this is a 26 acre tract zoned C-2. Concerns include the site drainage and acreage, as well as proximity to courts and partner localities. (3) Newbern: This is tentatively deemed a good site which could be easily developed and utilities are in proximity to the site. Concerns include the proposed widening of I-81 and the possible redesign of the interchange. (4) Huffman Trust: 27 acre site near Pinkerton Chevrolet. Utilities are near the site; however the interchange is slated for major renovations in conjunction with the widening of I-81. (5) ValleyPointe Phase II: approximately 90 acre site zoned R-1 and I-2. Concerns include the fact that the property is not currently marketed for development. (6) Center for Research and Technology (CRT): 200 acres of the 464 December 7, 2004 1000 acres available for development. This is a planned technological district which allows combination development; however the issue of restrictive covenants would need to be addressed. Mr. Chambliss advised that the schedule being followed is imposed by the DOC. If the State participates in a regional jail project, up to 50% of the allowable costs could be received; however if the County proceeds with a local facility, they will only be eligible for up to 25% of the allowable costs. Staff is requesting that the Board consider obtaining options on two properties to begin the process of site evaluation including environmental and geological studies. If the site specific report is submitted by March 1, 2005, the Board of Corrections will make a recommendation in May or July 2005. If the recommendation is approved, it will be referred to the Governor’s Office for inclusion in the December 2005 capital budget to be considered by the General Assembly in 2006. If approved by the General Assembly, the monies will be available in July 2006 for construction to begin. The project would take 24 months for construction and the County could anticipate occupying the facility in 2008. Mr. Chambliss stated that obtaining options is the first step in a multi- faceted procedure. The option provides a deposit to the property owners in exchange for allowing the County to conduct tests on the site. If the tests are satisfactory, the County can move forward with purchase of the property. The purchase of any property would require a first and second reading and public hearing. In addition, development of the property for a jail would require a rezoning, special use permit (SUP), and a December 7, 2004 1001 Section 2232 review. These would all require public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. If approved, staff could then proceed with construction of the facility. He advised that there will be multiple opportunities for public input and this is not a done deal. The County does not have a purchase document for any of the properties discussed. Should the application be filed by March 1 and a site becomes disqualified, the County can file an amended site for consideration by the DOC. Mr. Chambliss stated that staff recommends securing options on the top two rated sites and if the Board wishes, staff will complete the evaluation process on the remaining six sites. Supervisor Church questioned how many sites have been identified by citizens following the November 30 community meeting. Mr. Chambliss responded that six sites have been identified, three of them in the last week. Supervisor Church requested that Mr. Chambliss clarify, with respect to the new sites, that staff has not had sufficient time to conduct the normal committee study. Mr. Chambliss indicated that this is correct, and advised that he has spoken with several property owners and has conducted a drive-by review of the proposed sites. Supervisor Church stated that he feels this project is on the fast track and noted that the Board was presented a list of 10 or 12 sites on November 16 that were committee approved quickly. He questioned whether there was a week for the other 12 sites to be evaluated and advised that the time frame is a concern to him. He noted that a week has passed and the six sites have December 7, 2004 1002 not been evaluated, yet over the Thanksgiving holiday with only several working days the key sites were evaluated and narrowed down to two sites. Supervisor McNamara noted that we are currently a regional jail with Roanoke County and Salem. Based on this fact, he questioned whether the County was proceeding along two paths: one with Montgomery and Franklin counties and one without these partner localities. Mr. Chambliss reported that the consultant is developing criteria for each jurisdiction individually, as well as for the partners as a whole. If one of the jurisdictions pulls out of the process, it will reduce the size of the facility by approximately 100 beds. The design allows for the flexibility of reducing the facility size if this becomes necessary. Supervisor McNamara voiced questions about the cost savings of four partners versus two since the County is already part of a regional facility. He noted that if there were only two partner localities, this would reduce the overall size of the facility that will need to be constructed. Mr. Chambliss stated that as a point of comparison, when the County had the need to develop a juvenile detention center, Roanoke City was already in the process of renovating their facility at Coyner Springs. The Department of Juvenile Justice (DOJJ) reduced the maximum capacity of the facility to 29 beds and this eliminated the ability of outside agencies to place individuals at this facility. He stated that when the County began the needs assessment study, they examined the needs of the City of Salem, Roanoke County, and Franklin County. He stated that the DOJJ advised that they would only participate in funding for one facility December 7, 2004 1003 and this would have to be a regional facility. With respect to the proposed jail, Franklin and Montgomery counties are the only localities not currently participating in a regional project. Mr. Chambliss advised that the State strongly encourages regional participation. Supervisor McNamara questioned if the County only partners with Salem, will the State turn down the application. Mr. Chambliss responded that the State could deny the request or may strongly question why the County did not proceed with a regional approach. If, however, Franklin and Montgomery counties declined to participate, the State would take this into consideration. He advised that Salem and Roanoke County have needs beyond what can be handled within the existing facility. He further advised that a 30 acre site is being considered to allow for future expansion needs. Sheriff Holt advised that based on jail cost audit reports compiled by the State, a 600 bed regional facility will operate at $3 million per year less operational costs than several smaller jails would. Over six years, this will result in a savings of $18 million. Supervisor Wray requested an explanation of AG-3 zoning with a SUP. Mr. Chambliss stated that AG-3 is the zoning designation in the community plan set aside for a regional jail facility, and it also requires a SUP. Since this is not currently included as a potential site in the community plan, this would require a Section 2232 review. December 7, 2004 1004 Supervisor Wray questioned if any AG-3 property adjoins any R-1, R-2, or R-3 property in RC. Mr. Chambliss responded that he did not know but he could research this and provide the information at a later time. Supervisor Wray questioned if the Board has received a copy of the feasibility study and what it authorized. Mr. Chambliss indicated that the study is being completed at this time and preliminary reports indicate a facility for the four jurisdictions would require approximately 600 beds. The final report is anticipated to be received by the end of December 2004 or the first part of January 2005. Supervisor Wray inquired if there is a guarantee that State funding will continue. Mr. Chambliss responded that there is no guarantee that funding will continue and the levels of funding are subject to change. Supervisor Wray asked if the County examined a private industry study and any potential cost savings. Mr. Chambliss advised that this was not done for the adult facility; however when this type of study was conducted for the juvenile detention facility, the cost was approximately the same and there were some problems with the management companies involved. Supervisor Wray questioned when the County expected to receive a firm commitment from the other participating localities. Mr. Chambliss advised that the partner localities have provided Roanoke County with a letter of intent and have met with their state legislators requesting support in the General Assembly. Further, they are sharing in the costs and have indicated their willingness and desire to continue December 7, 2004 1005 moving forward. He advised that a jail authority is being considered as part of the project, which would allow for the issuance of bonded debt. Supervisor Altizer noted that the cost per bed has been reported as being approximately $100,000. Mr. Chambliss stated that this is correct, and construction costs plus the cost of the site and site development result in a cost of approximately $100,000 per bed. Supervisor Altizer inquired about the projections that must be provided to the DOC. Mr. Chambliss advised that the County must provide a six-year operating budget and certain state-mandated construction cost estimates. He then provided information regarding the capital budget submission requirements. Supervisor Altizer further questioned who determines the number of beds required. Mr. Chambliss reported that this is based on the results of the studies currently being conducted and allowing for the projected needs 20 years from now.In addition, the localities are attempting to keep the local cells available for pre-sentencing inmates which would reduce the number of beds needed in the regional facility. Supervisor Church questioned with respect to the proposed jail authority, does this mean that the “keepers” would become “jailors” and could this change result in the loss of any State funding. Mr. Chambliss stated that the facility would continue to operate under the Sheriff’s Office and the corrections officers would remain deputies. He advised that a number of different models for jail authorities have been used across the state, and some have been essentially privately owned firms. Based on discussions December 7, 2004 1006 with the partner localities, it is anticipated that the facility will remain under the Sheriff’s Office but will utilize the authority structure. This would provide benefits such as the ability to issue debt. Supervisor Church inquired if there were additional presentations to be made by County staff. Mr. Hodge advised that AG-3 is the zoning classification necessary for the facility but the matrix also examined other criteria. The six sites shown tonight have been suggested by citizens and some of these sites will not make it through the matrix process, just as some of the existing sites will need to be removed from the list. He indicated that the Board has been provided with two documents at tonight’s meeting: (1) The Standards Manual for Planning, Design, Construction and Reimbursement of Local Correctional Facilities. This manual dictates the schedule and process for localities. (2) The Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies Manual developed in 1989 by the citizens’ group working with the County on the landfill. This manual was adopted by the Board, included in the permit and operates under the State permitting process, and includes protective guidelines put together for the citizens in the Smith Gap area. The protection process for land values, outlined in the manual, is not handled by the County; all requests for refunds go through the landfill authority which has addressed these requests and awarded funds. Mr. Hodge advised that the process for the jail is determined by the state DOC. The review committee formulated the site evaluation criteria. He stated that no December 7, 2004 1007 one has questioned the validity of the matrix and if this is true, then much progress has been made towards a regional jail. He noted that questions have been voiced regarding environmental concerns, the role of the Planning Commission, etc. He stated that any site chosen will need evaluation and hearings before the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and the General Assembly. He stated that the most important decision is when to open and occupy the new jail:in 2008 or 2010. He indicated that this decision drives the rest of the process. He further indicated that he would like to pursue a similar process with the jail project which is similar to the one followed with the landfill citizens’ advisory manual. He recommended establishing a citizens group to work with on the regional jail project. He encouraged letting the process work and the sites be evaluated, then subsequently qualified or disqualified based on the evaluation criteria. Mr. Hodge recommended an opening date of 2008 for safety and liability reasons. Supervisor Church advised that the brochures were put before him three minutes before the meeting, and stated that it would have been nice if he could have had those some time ago. He indicated that Mr. Hodge had made the statement that no one has questioned matrix. He stated “who has had the time to question it?” Supervisor Church noted that on October 12, a work session was held with the Board to discuss the need for a jail. On November 15, he received an email from Mr. Hodge stating that four sites had been selected and that a closed session was scheduled for the Board meeting on November 16 to discuss options on properties for a new regional jail. Supervisor Church stated that in the email from Mr. Hodge, he also advised that December 7, 2004 1008 the sites the County is interested in were located in the Dixie Caverns area. Mr. Hodge inquired if there was any special information that Supervisor Church would need for the closed session. Supervisor Church advised that his response to the email was “what is going on?” On November 16, the Board was advised that there were up to 12 sites which over night had been pre-approved. Supervisor Church advised that during the next week, the County held a hastily called community meeting for the entire County at the Salem Civic Center. He stated that when he asked how many of those in attendance at the meeting lived in Catawba, about 99% raised their hands. He stated that this was supposed to be a community meeting for the entire County. On top of this, four of the five priority sites were located in the Catawba District. Supervisor Church reported that on December 7, the Board is now being advised that there was not enough time to evaluate the six additional sites, yet twice this number of sites was pre- approved in a much shorter time frame if they were done when the Board was told they were selected. He requested that Mr. Hodge explain the email regarding the four sites. Mr. Hodge stated that John Chambliss has advised that the committee reviewed the various sites, and they evaluated the sites based on the need for a certain size. The committee conducted evaluations of the sites over a period of two months. The sites were then ranked based on the criteria. The six sites recommended by the citizens at the December 7 meeting have not been evaluated because the committee does not meet on a daily basis. Mr. Hodge noted that some of the sites do not have a willing seller, and some will not qualify due to rock on the property. Some of the December 7, 2004 1009 additional six sites may, however, qualify based on the evaluation criteria. He questioned if the Board wants staff to add these sites to the list for consideration. Supervisor Church stated that it was his perception on November 16 that there were 12 sites. He questioned why this was not made public.Mr. Hodge reported that there were 12 potential sites all along; however following the ranking of the 12 sites, staff was requesting permission to obtain options on the top ranked sites. Supervisor Church stated that the County went from four sites to 12 and then back to the original four sites that had been presented the week before. Mr. Chambliss clarified that the list began with seven sites; additional sites were identified during the months of September and October. Following evaluation based on the criteria, four sites were deemed suitable for moving forward. These are the four sites identified at the November 16 meeting of the Board. IN RE: RECESS Chairman Flora recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m.The Board returned to open session at 8:35 p.m. IN RE: CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION The following citizens were present to speak on this item: Buck Simmons, 1000 College Avenue, commended Mr. Hodge and stated that the citizens need to understand that Mr. Hodge is not alone in making decisions for the County. He advised that with respect to the cemetery on the Higginbotham property, his business is capable of relocating the cemetery. With respect to the December 7, 2004 1010 Meacham property, he noted that there are also residences in the center of some of the other sites being considered. He stated that citizens cannot just say “not in my back yard”. He stated that the biggest problem is that the citizens were not involved in the process. He suggested selecting a site that is owned by the County to allow time to meet the March 1 deadline; then explore the possibility of other suitable sites. With respect to the cost of the property, he stated that if the price increases, the Board should not purchase the property. He questioned if the County is getting the cart before the horse by including Franklin and Montgomery counties. He indicated that the decision is in the fast lane and noted that he was told that if Roanoke County uses land that they already own, then the State will not fund the costs of the project. If this is true, he can understand why this would not be done. Chris Spraker, 6001 Poor Mountain Road, stated that the process began in early spring and the residents should have been brought into the process sooner. He noted that a 30 acre site is needed, but staff is requesting options on 100+ acres. He referenced an article in the Roanoke Times that mentioned the proposed purchase of land adjacent to the jail site for an industrial park or possible park site. He stated that the Board is not looking at these issues; they are looking at jail sites. Marvin Parsons, 5120 Poor Mountain Road, stated that his main concern is not where the jail is located but what it is. He indicated that Montgomery County already participates in the New River Valley regional jail; and stated that if they want a jail, let them build a jail. He stated that Roanoke County taxpayers should not be made December 7, 2004 1011 to pay the bill for a regional jail and the Board should take care of Roanoke County and not the other localities. J.C. Whitlock, 5839 West River Road, presented a petition and advised that he had obtained 1,075 signatures opposing the regional jail and industrial park. He stated that in the flood of 1972, damages in the Route 460 area of the County were devastating. He voiced concerns about property values, higher taxes, and the perception that citizens are being railroaded. He recommended that the Ingersol Rand site be given more consideration and requested that the vote on this matter be delayed. Mark Layman, 6302 Dry Hollow Road, stated that he knows three things: (1) The jail is overcrowded and the County needs a new jail; (2) There is a deadline of March 1, 2005; (3) The committee has left a ton of unanswered questions. He voiced the following concerns: (1) How much of taxpayers money will be paid to each of the individual landowners for the options? (2) If the land is found to be unusable or the County elects not to purchase the property, is the money refunded to the County? He noted that the County already owns sites suitable for this project which have not yet been evaluated and which could save the citizens millions of dollars. He stated that the decision to buy land instead of using land already owned by the County shows arrogance. William A. Scott, 3809 Harborwood Road, noted that the deadline is less than 90 days away and advised that the Board should not make a hasty decision. He voiced concerns about a tax increase to support the regional jail. December 7, 2004 1012 Frank D. Porter, 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, referenced an article in the Cave Spring Connection. He noted that the CRT site is in close proximity to the proposed site, is owned by Roanoke County, and only has one business located in the park. He questioned why the citizens were not polled to see if they wanted to be part of an expanded regional jail with additional jurisdictions. He questioned how the $3 million annual savings for a regional facility was calculated and stated that citizens should be provided with a breakdown of the costs for a local versus regional project. He stated that no land options should be exercised until all the sites have been evaluated, and he requested an independent analysis of the proposed sites and the cost. He noted the following suitable alternate sites: (1) Expand the existing jail by adding additional floors and tearing down the Court Services Building (former Salem Office Supply Building) and constructing a multi-level parking garage which could support additional jail cells. An overhead bridge could be built connecting the two facilities. (2) The Center for Research and Technology (CRT). (3) The Boxley Quarry site north of ValleyPointe. Ruth B. Ashworth, 5832 West River Road, noted that the proposed site is in her front yard. She voiced concerns about the way the process was approached and stated she would have been able to accept the project if it was approached differently. She expressed concerns that the project was already a “done deal”, and questioned how Montgomery County came to the idea that this was a done deal on November 15. She further questioned if adjacent sites are needed and if so, when will residents be December 7, 2004 1013 notified that these sites are under consideration. She questioned if adjacent property owners have to be willing sellers and what that means. Richard P. Rider, P. O. Box 6154, voiced concerns about house to house searches if there is a breakout at the jail. He supported the recommendation of building on the site across from the existing jail with a bridge connecting the facilities. RonKeith Adkins, 3057 Timberlane Avenue, advised that he is in favor of a new jail which is needed. He voiced support for the management staff in Roanoke County, and advised that the citizens must have faith in the management process used by the administration. He encouraged a vote to allow the process to move forward. Chris Henson, 4963 Poor Mountain Road, stated it is hard to find anything in the Code of Virginia that mandates that sites submitted by March 1 be site specific. He further stated it has been suggested that it is possible to petition the Governor for an extension. He inquired if it is necessary to make a decision at this time on these two sites. Henry Bryant, 6585 Stoneskeep Lane, advised that he called every member of the Board of Supervisors from the proposed partner localities. He indicated that one of the supervisors in another locality advised him that the site has been acquired, funding has been secured, and it is a done deal.He questioned how citizens can monitor the County and engineering firms that will conduct the studies to ensure compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. December 7, 2004 1014 Rand Bowden, 5225 Lipps Road, voiced support for the excellent job done by Mr. Chambliss and Mr. Hodge in providing information to the citizens. The misunderstanding appears to focus on relative costs of a regional jail versus a local facility. He noted that the regional facility will get greater state support and result in a savings for the taxpayers. Herman L. “Larry” Garman, 5676 Dry Hollow Road, inquired with respect to real estate taxes, if the zoning is R-1 and it is converted to commercial, can the real estate taxes increase by as much as three times? If so, will it stop at this? He stated that if a proposed site needs environmental cleanup, the taxpayers should not have to bear this burden. He questioned if this would be the case.He inquired if the prison is built, could the citizens request that walls be built to hide the facility. Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, voiced concerns about the Dixie Caverns site. He noted that CRT is within walking distance of the chosen sites and impacts less residents. He questioned why the CRT site was not on the list since it does not flood, has considerably less rock, and all utilities are in place. He stated there is no potential of a scrap yard, it has better access, and it does not cross the railroad tracks or a river. Beverly Porter, 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, referenced the covenants to be addressed if the CRT site is used. She questioned what are those covenants and are these major hurdles. She further questioned who authorized the study and plans for the new jail and how much did these studies cost. She requested more consideration by the Board and that the County request an extension of the deadline from the Governor. December 7, 2004 1015 James Vonderhaar, 5048 Cherokee Hills Drive, voiced concerns about the impact of increased traffic on Route 460. He also questioned what is done with the petitions submitted by the citizens and are they wasting their time in signing them. Debbie Davis, 7091 Southerland Circle, voiced concerns about traffic on Route 460. She questioned why Roanoke County should bear the costs for Franklin and Montgomery counties, how big the facility will be, what the 10 year projected level of need is, what will be the impact on property values, and what will be the radius of the property protection program that the Board provides. Jim Gregory, 7026 Campbell Drive, supported utilizing the CRT site or the expansion of the existing site in downtown Salem. He stated that Dixie Caverns is a scenic gateway to Roanoke County and should not be degraded. Robert Seymour, 7552 Boxwood, noted that photos of the crowded inmates resembled the crowding situation that exists with school students in trailers. He questioned how the County has the ability to place such a priority on making the lives of the inmates better when there is not enough room for the students. He stated that in examining the current community plan, he found references to the jail twice; however, schools were mentioned 167 times. He questioned where is the credibility and accountability that makes this a priority above all other County needs. IN RE: RECESS Chairman Flora recessed the meeting at 9:57 p.m.The Board returned to open session at 10:12 p.m. December 7, 2004 1016 IN RE: CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION Mr. Chambliss addressed the following citizen concerns which were expressed at the meeting: (1)Cemetery on the site: He stated that the property owner is looking at relocating the cemetery; however if this cannot be accomplished, the site is larger than the required 30 acres and the cemetery can be worked around. House on the site: With respect to the Meacham Road site, it (2) contained a house in the center of the site which was not owned by the same individual who owned the remaining 43 acres. Houses are on the other sites being considered and in one case; the entire site is under consideration for purchase. In this case, access is available on the other side of the property and would not require the removal of the home; however the homeowner is willing to discuss a possible sale. Former Salem Office Supply building: There is a creek under this (3) building and there are restrictions regarding the extent of renovations or new construction that would be allowed. To utilize this site would have required building a much more narrow building and building up vertically. Property value protection program: This process was implemented for (4) the landfill and the policy was developed by a citizen committee. Mr. Chambliss provided a brief overview of some of the guidelines in the policy and advised that John Hubbard, Executive Director of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA), advises that there were 146 parcels of property located within the allowable radius of December 7, 2004 1017 the landfill. Of those, 57 have changed ownership and of those 57, 10 were awarded monetary damages by the RVRA. One property was purchased for 114,958 and sold by the RVRA for 95,000. The total damages paid equal $101,865. Mr. Chambliss recommended that a citizens committee be formed for this project. County-owned property: If the County owns the property, the State (5) does not provide a reimbursement for the property; however they will assist with rental costs if the facility is being rented. In this case, there could be a cost savings to the County by using County-owned property since the purchase price of the land would not be a factor; however, factors such as the proximity of utilities and site development costs must also be evaluated. Flood of 1972: In the Roanoke Valley area, storms have inflicted (6) damage to different parts of the County during different storms. A regional jail facility would be a self-sustained operation. If inmates had to be held until roads became passable, this is a possibility that is recognized and will be part of the project plan submitted to the State. Options on property: Securing options will give the County an (7) opportunity to go on-site to conduct the required testing. The cost of an option is typically a percentage of the purchase price of the property. If the site fails, the option deposit will be returned to the County. If the County chooses not to exercise an option for purchase, then a portion of the option fee may be forfeited to the property owner. When the report is filed with the State, this information would be given to the DOC and December 7, 2004 1018 subsequently sent to the Board of Corrections for a recommendation. If approved, then it would be submitted to the Governor’s Office in December and forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration in their 2006 session. A decision must be made regarding what point to exercise the options and move forward with the project. Comments by Montgomery County officials: He advised that he spoke (8) with some of the corrections officials at the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, and their response to this issue was that the person had stated that Montgomery County is “working with the County, sites have been identified in the Dixie Caverns area, and if it is in the Dixie Caverns area that would be beneficial to Montgomery County”. Mr. Chambliss reiterated that staff has not exercised options, has not purchased any property, and this is not a done deal. Requirement for site specific application: The Board of Corrections (9) Standards for Planning, Design, Construction and Reimbursement of Local Correctional Facilities adopted July 1, 1994 refers on page 17 to the planning study. It lists required submission information under Item D as follows: Site data, including site size, availability of utilities, a geotechnical investigation report, and any features of the site which would impact the facility design or cost. Mr. Chambliss advised that staff has questioned Ron Elliott, Local Facilities Supervisor with the DOC, regarding the issue of site specificity. When asked if the County must own the specific site, Mr. Elliott responded in the negative but advised that the County would need access to the site in order to conduct the required studies for the site. The County could then move forward December 7, 2004 1019 at a later date with purchase of the property. Staff also inquired what would happen if the proposed site fails during the due diligence study phase. Mr. Elliott advised that in this situation, the County could file an amended site plan; however, this does not change the March 1 deadline for filing the original report with budget documents which are required. Impact to property: If the property is rezoned, tax assessed values (10) are based on comparable property sale values in the area to determine current market value. In many cases, larger tracts of open land present opportunities for property owners to participate in land use assessment, which is a reduced tax on properties for agricultural, open forest, etc. spaces. When the property is sold, there is a rollback tax on these properties. Landscaping, screening, and buffering: There have been (11) suggestions regarding possible screening and buffering. Many of the facilities demonstrated reflect a community college building design and berms, trees, etc. can be utilized for buffering. The County wants to minimize fencing and other features that would detract from the appearance of the facility. Security will be addressed through the use of sally ports to move inmates in and out of the facility. Traffic impact on Route 460: Improvements to this road have been (12) requested of VDOT for a number of years. Traffic patterns differ on some of the other roads and staff will evaluate these potential impacts. December 7, 2004 1020 (13)Size of the property if partners withdraw from the process: Up until construction is bid for the jail, the design could be adjusted to allow for the withdrawal of a partner. The consultant is still evaluating the final number of beds that will be recommended for the facility; however the facility will be built to accommodate needs 10 years from now. CRT site: This is a planned technology district and the property was (14) set aside because it is difficult to assimilate large tracts of land. This center provided an opportunity for Roanoke County to enter the technology marketplace. The County worked with citizens groups, and there is a citizens’ architectural review board that must review any plans for these sites. It is possible to put the jail on this site, but an evaluation of the restrictions on the property must be conducted. Calculation of the $3 million cost savings: Sheriff Holt advised that (15) the engineering firm has advised as a result of changes in the State Code, that no additional construction on the current jail site can be done. In addition, the State is very strict regarding funding appropriations and they examine operational costs when evaluating funding requests. This is why a six-year projected budget must be developed. A six-story facility, such as the current jail, is no longer supported by State funding. With respect to the calculation of the $3 million cost savings, this is taken from the jail cost audit report conducted by the Virginia Compensation Board in 2003. There are a total of 75 jails; 18 are regional jails, and the remaining 57 are local December 7, 2004 1021 facilities. An average per diem cost of housing inmates in a regional jail is then determined. With a population of 600 inmates at $49.85 per diem = $29,916 per day in operational costs. Local jails’ average cost was $57.86 x 600 = 34,716. Theoretically, this is a savings of $1,752,000 per year. In a regional jail, the State pays $14 per day reimbursement for upkeep and housing of prisoners; a local facility only receives $8 per day. The additional $6 per day reimbursement for a regional facility times 600 inmates results in an additional $1,413,000 which totals approximately $3,066,000 per year. Sheriff Holt advised that these are estimates based on past history. Number of beds: Citizens had mentioned that if a 600 bed facility is (16) constructed, it will be at 90% of capacity when it opens. Sheriff Holt advised that this does not take into consideration the fact that 217 beds will be maintained in the local jails which will continue to operate. Attorneys having to drive to the jail facility: Pre-sentencing inmates (17) will remain in the local facilities, eliminating the need to commute from the courthouse. Class of inmates held at the facility: All classes of inmates, including (18) maximum, medium, and minimum security, will be housed in the facility. There are currently no medium and minimum security inmates in the jail because there is nowhere to put them unless mandatory sentencing is required. Supervisor Wray questioned if the facility will house federal prisoners. Sheriff Holt advised that when the facility initially opens, there will probably be additional bed space available and staff would attempt to house some federal prisoners to offset December 7, 2004 1022 the operational costs. As bed space becomes needed for the local inmate population, the process of housing federal inmates would be discontinued. Supervisor Wray questioned the amount of the per diem reimbursement. Sheriff Holt advised that this must be worked out with the federal government. Charlie Poff, Roanoke County consultant on this project, advised that Roanoke City is currently paid approximately $50 per day. Supervisor Wray questioned if there is a state law that mandates that inmates will be released in their home community. Sheriff Holt responded that there are several pilot programs in place which return inmates to the locality in which they were sentenced to go through rehabilitation programs in the last 90 days of their sentence. He advised that Roanoke County was unable to participate in the pilot program, and he indicated that it is possible that legislation mandating this process may be passed in the future. Supervisor Church stated that he sincerely believes Sheriff Holt he will get a new jail, but he does not know where or when. He noted that at the 3:00 p.m. session, the Board delayed an item for solicitation on public roads. He stated that he voted against this on the first reading and that Supervisor Altizer moved to delay it until February 2005; yet a decision on a regional jail is on the fast track. He stated that he spoke with Ron Elliott, Local Facilities Supervisor with the Department of Corrections, and he was advised that the proposal does not have to be site specific. By November 2005, the DOC needs a site specific location but not by March 1. He stated that he December 7, 2004 1023 does not like things to be brought to the Board when there has been knowledge of the project for at least a year. The public has been questioning activities of the Board in the past few months and instead of calming the waters, issues such as this are brought forward. He stated that the Board works for all the citizens in the County. Due to the outcry of concerns raised by the citizens, he questioned how the Board can proceed with this in such a short time frame. He stated that the people deserve a better effort than is being given to them. He further advised that he is confident that a land purchase has not occurred. He indicated that the Board has to correct this situation. Supervisor McNamara inquired if the cost figures are based on the fact that regional jails are larger or is it the result of simply being a regional jail. He questioned why the County wants a multi-jurisdictional jail if the savings are based on size versus regional participation. Sheriff Holt advised that the savings results from both components and that by participating in the regional concept, the County could receive a higher per diem reimbursement from the State. Supervisor McNamara requested that something be provided to the Board in writing specifying whether Roanoke County and the City of Salem are currently a regional jail, what constitutes a regional jail and the pros and cons to the multi- jurisdictional versus single jurisdiction jail. Supervisor Altizer inquired if there is a residual value to the County of reimbursements by the partner localities if land owned by the County is used. Mr. Chambliss stated that the provision of land for the facility could be counted as part of December 7, 2004 1024 the County’s contribution toward the facility or a share of this cost could be reimbursed from participating jurisdictions. The difference is the State will not participate in this cost. Supervisor Altizer further inquired if the property is appraised at $1 million and Roanoke County’s share is 50%, would the remaining $500,000 be paid back from the participating localities. Mr. Chambliss responded that this would be one method of handling the allocation of costs. Supervisor Flora requested clarification on whether the money would be returned on the options if the County walks away from a site. Also he questioned if the site is not suitable, will the County get the option money back. Mr. Chambliss indicated that the intent is if the site is proven unsuitable, then the entire option price will be refunded to the County; if the County chooses not to exercise the option, a pro rata share of the cost might be forfeited. Supervisor Flora requested that Mr. Chambliss clarify the terms “screening” and “buffering” for the citizens. Mr. Chambliss advised that these terms refer to steps that would be taken to minimize the impact of the facility on adjoining properties and would include planting of trees, earth berms to minimize visibility, and the structuring of lighting and parking facilities to minimize disruption to the community. Supervisor Flora questioned whether the issue of extending the March 1 deadline had been addressed. Mr. Chambliss referenced a memorandum sent to the Board of Supervisors today from Ron Elliott. In the memo, Mr. Elliott states that an individual “indicated that he had heard a local radio interview this morning in which a December 7, 2004 1025 Department of Corrections official had voiced an opinion that the March 1, 2005 submission deadline might be handled on a case-by-case basis. Please be advised that this statement, if so stated, is not accurate. The deadline for submission of the referenced documents is governed by Section 53.1-82.3 of the Code of Virginia. The Code stipulates that localities seeking state construction funding reimbursement shall, on or before March 1 biennially in the odd-numbered years, submit to the Governor, in a format prescribed by the Department of Corrections for such purpose, a community- based corrections plan and specifications, including detailed cost estimates of any facility construction. As is apparent, the Code clearly mandates a submission deadline st of March 1 of any odd numbered year.” Supervisor Church advised that he spoke personally with Mr. Elliott and he advised him that it does not have to be site specific and can be worked on until November 2005. He voiced concerns about the conflicting information he is receiving. He further advised that this occurred in a phone conversation and not in a radio interview. Mr. Chambliss responded that the State standards require site data including site size, availability of utilities, geotechnical investigation report, and other features of the site that would impact the facility design or cost. When staff previously spoke with Mr. Elliott and other individuals in his office, the question was specifically asked if the submission must be site specific. Staff was advised that yes, it must be site specific because that is required in order to evaluate issues such as any necessary extensions of utility lines or other factors which will impact the development costs of the project. December 7, 2004 1026 This is needed to develop the capital budget to be included with the submission to the State for reimbursement. Additionally, staff inquired what would happen if a site is chosen and subsequently fails. Staff was advised that an amendment can be filed to allow for the change in location. Mr. Chambliss advised that he did not specifically inquire what would happen if the County changes their mind regarding the proposed site. He stated that some factors such as geotechnical work and sub-surface exploration may not be known by the March 1 submission deadline, and these could result in increases in the projected costs. In addition, other issues may arise in other evaluations. The State has advised that they would work with the County in this regard. The Catch 22 is when the Governor’s budget is developed for submission in December, and it is not known if the cost estimates can be amended at that point. The guidelines that staff has been operating under are the ones developed by the State. Supervisor Church advised that he spoke with Mr. Elliott and is disturbed by the conflicting information. He further noted that Mr. Elliott advised that he has received inquiries from Roanoke County citizens regarding this project. Supervisor Church stated that Mr. Elliott was very clear in his response to the inquiry about site specificity. Mr. Chambliss stated that a question had previously been presented requesting clarification of who authorized the studies currently being performed. He stated that these items were brought to the Board of Supervisors on October 12 and they authorized an appropriation for the community based corrections plan in the December 7, 2004 1027 amount of $42,000 and the project plan for $120,000. The cost of these studies is shared between the four localities. Supervisor Flora recommended that the Board delay a decision until the remaining sites are evaluated. He requested that questions regarding the present site be evaluated by an expert. He also stated that the funding question and the site specific questions must be addressed in a written response from the DOC. Also, the County Attorney should research this issue and provide an opinion to the Board. He stated that most everyone concurs there is a need for a new jail facility. He recommended that any action be delayed for approximately 30 days to give staff time to evaluate other sites. He instructed staff that if there is not a willing seller, the site is not viable, or the acreage is not sufficient for a Roanoke County-Salem facility minimum, then it should be removed from the list.He advised that the Board is not willing to condemn property. Supervisor Church requested designating citizen representative(s) to be included in the process. Supervisor Flora requested that the evaluations of the sites be made available by December 17 to the Board and public. Supervisor Altizer stated that every supervisor should inspect the sites prior to the next Board meeting. Supervisor Wray suggested that a citizens committee be formed and each Board member appoint a representative plus several at-large members. He stated that December 7, 2004 1028 the County may only need to look at Roanoke County and Salem, and the citizens need to be more involved in the process. He requested that the committee be formed quickly and that they report to the Board. Supervisor McNamara moved to delay action until January 4, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Following discussion, Supervisor McNamara amended the motion to delay action until January 11 at 7:00 p.m. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora NAYS: None Chairman Flora advised that the January 11, 2005 meeting will not be a public hearing. Supervisor Altizer questioned if staff knows what is expected for the meeting on December 21. Chairman Flora stated that by December 17, an evaluation of the six new sites will be submitted to the Board. If any of the original 12 sites are not feasible, they should be removed from the list. Supervisor Church stated that the meeting on January 11 may not be a public hearing, but every meeting has a citizens’ comment section where citizens are allowed to speak on any topic. There was a consensus of the Board to form a citizens’ advisory committee for the regional jail project. Each Board member will appoint two citizen representatives from each of the five magisterial districts, and the Clerk will be notified of these appointments no later than Thursday, December 9. December 7, 2004 1029 There was a consensus of the Board to reschedule the organizational meeting from January 3, 2005 to January 11, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Mahoney advised that he will draft a resolution for the December 21 meeting to accommodate this change. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 11:33 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ________________________________________________ Diane S. Childers Richard C. Flora Clerk to the Board Chairman December 7, 2004 1030 This page intentionally left blank.