Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/14/2023 - Regular March 14, 2023 79 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of March 2023. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES Before the meeting was called to order, Pastor Mark Moefield of Melrose Baptist Church provided the invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hooker called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Martha B. Hooker; Supervisors Paul M. Mahoney, Phil C. North, P. Jason Peters and David F. Radford MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator; Doug Blount, Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Hooker requested a new briefing as C-2 Briefing to review proposed changes to the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County School Board regarding additional joint capital funding for a new CTE Center or other school capital needs. Mr. Caywood added a new closed session pursuant to Section 2.2- 3711(A)(5) of the Code of Virginia for discussion concerning prospective businesses or industries where no previous announcement has been made of the businesses' or March 14, 2023 80 industries' interest in locating in Roanoke County. Discussion will focus specifically upon prospective businesses that have expressed interest in locating at the Wood Haven site in the Catawba Magisterial District. There were no objections. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing by the Roanoke Regional Partnership (John Hull, Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Partnership) Mr. Hull provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board. All Supervisors offered their thanked to Mr. Hull. 2. Briefing to review proposed changes to the proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County School Board regarding additional joint capital funding for a new CTE Center or other school capital needs (Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator) Ms. Owens provided a PowerPoint presentation a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board. Supervisor North stated while it's in the MOU specifically, and you didn't mention it, and he just wanted to bring it up to the listeners here and also at home. Article four (IV), additional provisions, subparagraph B contains another alternative source of potential funds to offset these numbers, and that is contained in the Commonwealth budget based on regional Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth CTE School. If that budget gets passed with that item in there next year, we're going back to Richmond to try to get bipartisan support to have that included in our budget request. We also, as I understand it from some school board sources, have MOUs that make us regional now, which is paramount to apply for this legislation outside of the construction grants. So, if we were fortunate enough to get 20% on any construction grant and fortunate enough to get a separate bill for $20 million, then what she presented would be mitigated by those amounts. Am I not correct? Ms. Owens responded in the affirmative. Supervisor North added that could make the indebtedness lower for everyone. Supervisor Radford commented so the two administrations have met in regards to this and is there any information you can share in regards to what you just presented or did they just absorb the information when you presented it to them? Ms. Owens responded we've certainly had discussions with school staff and that's what brings us before you today, because the feedback they had provided previously, they were looking for additional borrowing capacity to try to address some of March 14, 2023 81 their other priorities. We wanted to share this with you today before we communicate that back formally to the Roanoke County Public Schools. Supervisor Radford then stated he just wanted to share with our Board that he has several conversations in regards to the demographic study, He has had citizens come up to him and ask us to please do a demographic study because they don't want us to build schools and we can't fill them. We've talked about that as a group and does not know where the administration and the school board stand, but thinks that's important for our citizens to understand that and to make sure we don't build something too small. We don't build something too big. We want the right mix in there. Supervisor Peters commented in the out years, or once we start this, he understands that the school board will continue to pay $1.8 million, which is based off of their 2009 bonds, and then we're going to ask them to pay another 1.4 million, which is $3.2 million on top of what they're normally be contributing to the debt servicing fund. Do you know what that total will be what they will be required to pay each year? Ms. Owens responded currently today the County and the schools each were contributing $2.9 million each into this capital fund and that's the amount that incrementally gets increased each year. In the 2024 year, it will be increased $300,000, and then beginning in fiscal year 2025, it needs to increase for each County and schools $550,000. So that amount will grow over time. In addition to that, Roanoke County Public Schools is currently putting in $1.8 million approximately for VPSA as is the County. We are putting in about $1.2 million for that extra debt issue that we did back in 2008. Yes, because of their need of additional money really outside of the plan, $21 million for 20 years, and that's really using all of the calculations on the literary loan. So, it's really given them the benefit of the doubt and what the least amount that we would require. So, the literary loan we're assuming will be 3% interest calculated over 20 years; $1.4 Million. Supervisor Peters added so basically, we're going to be asking them to fund almost $7 million a year in debt service once all this comes in. He has shared this with a couple of my Board members and he will share with everyone. The process started 18 months ago or so. We began a very deep conversation with our school board to discuss the need for CTE. We have met with our business community. We enlisted the help of 10 citizens of Roanoke County to come be a part of our committee. This Board put what he would consider our reputation on the line. We said that CTE was important and that we wanted to see that move forward because we understood the needs and the vacancies within our business communities and we strive to do that. We want to fill those vacancies. We've tried to be a valued partner with our businesses, with apprentices and so on and so forth. Here we are today. He knows this was voted on by the board back at the end of last year, but he is back again to say that he cannot support what's here. He is worried that the CTE is going to get muddied up in all of this. He has said to some of my Board members and even to some school board members, he would like to see a clean MOU just for CTE. That is a joint project. We have the land acquired, we have the scope of the project. In my opinion, we're ready to go with that March 14, 2023 82 project. There's a lot of things we don't know about these elementary schools yet. I know that they've had consultations with our MM or AA or whatever the group is, and we don't really know the scope of those projects yet. As Mr. Radford rightfully said, we don't have the information for the demographic study. So, there's things within this MOU that he does not think fits. He thinks we need to address the CTE because it is ready to go. It is something we have committed to as both boards that was a priority for this area. He would like to see it that whatever money's necessary to put forth towards that and to Mr. North and to others points that if we get other grant money, then that's great. Then we can now shift that money over to whatever the next project will be. But I feel like that we, have got our reputation on the line when it comes to the CTE, and he does not want to see anything to muddy those waters. He asked staff to prepare a clean MOU for just the CTE. Let's get that piece behind us. He is not going to loan someone money on a hypothetical. to see what's where it's going to be, what it's going to look like, and I feel like I'm now applying that to this. We know what the CTE's going to look like. We've got a square footage. We know what's going to be needed. We've had those conversations. We have visited other parts of the state, and I just feel like that we need to make sure that there's nothing slowing that process down. Supervisor Mahoney stated he supports forwarding the revised MOU to the school board. He thinks it is critically important that we get this process moving forward. He agrees with many of the comments that my colleague, Mr. Peters made. He had lunch with the chairman of the school board, a week and a half ago, and made the same suggestion. Let's have a very clean, straightforward MOU. Let's do CTE first, and we can worry about the other capital needs later in large part because we have no idea what the future economic consequences and situation is. Inflation is still high. We have banks failing. We have no idea what the Fed is doing and what effect that has on municipal borrowing and municipal debt. So, let's do what we can do, which is CTE and we'll worry about other capital needs later. But, he understands the school board feels very strongly that they want some kind of acknowledgement with respect to other capital needs. Let's try to get together. We've fooled around too long with the CTE project and it should have been moving quicker and faster. He reiterated what his colleague Mr. Radford mentioned in terms of how critically important the CTE is, but also how critically important the demographic study is. All of us have had an opportunity to look at the school board's work session data that they had. Their own data shows, their school age population and our average daily membership dropping. So why are we continuing to build new schools or renovate existing schools when our existing population is dropping? But that's a fight and a discussion and a debate for another day. We have to move forward and move forward more quickly, but let's, at the very least, let's forward this on, let's continue that conversation. It appears as though it touches many of the concerns that the school board had articulated back to us in February. Let's see how things play out and let's see how our future economic situation is. He keeps listening to my banker on the right. He keeps warning that recessions are here. I have no idea what that does. He hopes a recession would lower construction costs, but I don't think it March 14, 2023 83 would. So, we have a lot of difficult issues, but at the very least, let's move career and technical education forward as quickly as we can. Chairman Hooker asked if Supervisor Mahoney was saying you're opting for, we want this to go forward, but with the priority of CTE and put the elementary schools on hold? Is that what I hear you saying? Supervisor Mahoney responded, no, he thinks in the MOU we indicate that CTE is our priority and we're going to continue to talk about the other capital needs. But for my purposes, he just wants to emphasize that that's his priority, but doesn’t want to hold the process up. We ought to go forward with what we have and put the ball in the court and see what their response is. Supervisor Peters commented, we're putting money out there for projects. We don't know what it's going to be, what they're going to cost. And we don't know what the scope's going to be. And that's why I said, we know what the CTE's going to look like. We know the capacity we need. We need to move that forward. These other two, while are important one's in my district. I mean, I get it. I understand it's important, but we don't have the information to make that decision. We're throwing money at something that we don't know what it's going to look like. What's the size is going to be or anything. Supervisor Mahoney stated he is scared to death to add $100 or over $100 million in debt and put that on the backs of our citizens and taxpayers. And he understands what staff has done. They're trying to squeeze everything together to make it work. But there is a big difference. But there is a big difference between paying penalty or principle, not penalty principle interest on a 20-year debt versus a 30-year debt and how that carries forward. And that is going to restrict the capacity of this County when all of us are gone. Because when we put a 30-year debt out there that ties the hands of future boards, future school boards, future Board of Supervisors, that scares me, but we have to do CTE. That's critical. Supervisor Hooker asked what is the timeline for the demographic study? Ms. Owens responded staff is in the process of defining the scope and then the next steps would be partnering with someone with the schools to be on our committee, getting that to procurement so they can actually put the Request for Proposal out. So, it is an approximately four (4) month process from today. Once we actually select the vendor then the real work can begin. She is thinking it should be later this fall or early next year. Supervisor Hooker advised her concern is that we get this demographic study back and if there is a continuing trend and let's say that it's even worse with a demographic decline of school age children and yet we've already obligated ourselves in this MOU for this funding. How does that work? Ms. Owens responded we've worded the MOU in such a way that it basically spells out school capital priorities and that funding, fiscal year 26, so that would be July 1st, 2025. We have some time to get that study back, understand what it means, work with the schools on that. And then in addition to that, any bond, any requests for issuing bonds for any project, those have to March 14, 2023 84 actually come and all the resolutions and ordinances and documents have to be approved by this County Board before we can move forward with issuing the debt. Supervisor Hooker stated so even though this MOU has an outline of how we will take on debt, it would still have to come to us to vote for the actual bonding. But this wouldn't take priority that we wouldn't have someone pointing a finger at us and say, but you said you would. Mr. Caywood responded keep in mind two points with that. One point is that as you saw a few minutes ago, $21 million of that total funding is proposed to be paid for by Roanoke County Public Schools. So certainly, they would want to carefully consider whether or not they want to take on that stream of payments. But then when you do authorize bonding, you are authorizing that project by project in all cases. So, you're bonding a project, not just that amount of money. One of the places where we made some changes is to the draft document was to try to strengthen the language around the demographic study shaping those future projects. So, the only specific projects that are mentioned in the draft MOU, is the CTE and then the two (2) elementary schools, but only in context of the $2 million that the Board had previously offered to help construct walls in those schools. Outside of that, it simply shows school priorities to kind of give both boards that flexibility so you're not locked into specific projects for the great reasons mentioned with demographic studies. Supervisor Peters stated if that's the case, then they can go on and do Hidden Valley Middle School, change projects. He is back to the same point of we need a clean MOU for the CTE once we have the other data for the elementary schools and then we tidy that up. Another concern that he had not thought about, there could be a new change on their side, and now those elementary schools are not a priority and now they're going to take the money and go to wherever and do whatever and we've already put it in writing. Supervisor North stated the demographic study is needed for no other reason except this. The last one that was done is the 2016, so that's seven years ago. I looked at some of the data the other day and shared this with the chair. One school had a demo projection of 498 students when it was written back in 2016 for the 2022 year, that school in 2022 had 376 students. That's a variance of minus 122. The school's also at 80% capacity today. Another school surprisingly had 85 fewer students in the projection back in 2016 in the demo study than it has today. That school is at 56.5% capacity. So just on those two numbers alone, without getting into specifics of the schools and anybody wants to do the same thing for all the schools, he welcomes them to go ahead because he is not going to take that endeavor on. We need to have the demographic study just to validate what we want to do in the future. The message that can be taken from here in the current MOU form is that we have looked at what they've asked us to look at. We have given them what we think is the best plan forward and with that said, we should send it back to them. County Attorney Peter Lubeck stated it seems though there is some to some extent a question as to what would happen in the future here if this Board changed its mind or the school board changed their minds. Can we be held legally to March 14, 2023 85 the provisions of this MOU and in general, memorandums of understanding are not legally binding documents and that's recognized in this document as Ms. Owens emphasized in her presentation. We specifically referenced the fact that we know that this Board can't bind future boards. The school board can't bind future school boards. But also, the whole purpose of this is set forth in the first enumerated paragraph under purpose. It's to set out expectations in order to finance necessary projects in a fiscally responsible manner and to thereby avoid unnecessary budgetary conflict between the two boards. So, the whole point of this is to set forth expectations as to what the money is going to be spent on and when it's going to be spent on those, that there is acknowledgement of both the CTE need in this MOU as well as a reference to the school's emphasis on the need to renovate Glen Cove and W.E. Cundiff. So, for the first years, looking at page three of six, under items one and two, the third item specifically sets forth the expectation that the $80 million from fiscal years, 2024 and 2025 will be used for the construction of a CTE facility. But there is no such binding expectation with regards to the borrowing in future years. So those could potentially be used for other projects. Again, this is not a binding legal document. Supervisor Radford stated to him, the demographic study, will give us some information that'll help the school board also be efficient with these funds. So, for example, in my study looking at visiting solar schools in South Carolina and talking to other architectural firms that are in that industry, the trend nationwide has been going to create a K through eight instead of separate elementary schools. So, the demographic study might show us if that trend is occurring. So, the question Mr. Lubeck is, let's say we get this demographic study and we see we can be more efficient with the money. How does that play now if they decide, okay, let's do a K through eight school and combine it. So, how's that going to play with this? Mr. Lubeck responded that he thinks the theme of the question is how to manage expectations and, can we come back and take a look at this in the future if circumstances change? Absolutely. The only trick is what Madam Chair emphasized a few moments ago is, but what if we have a different vision than the school board does in future years? Can they come back and point their fingers and say, well this is what the MOU says and you had committed to doing something differently. And again, while this is not a legally binding document, to the extent that we deviate from what's set forth in here, there's potential for friction. Supervisor Hooker stated in summary, because she really appreciates the discussion from her fellow board members and the information staff has given us, it's been very good. There's great concern about getting that information from the demographic study, and there's future economic concerns I think with the bank failures of recent and even just looking at that 6% wondering, oh my goodness, that's what we've always historically said was our high mark. That might be our starting point at some point. And so that would throw all these numbers off, and these are uncertain times for sure. Supervisor North stated he can call John Hull on a Friday and get an answer on a Monday because this wasn't a study or a grant request. This was a March 14, 2023 86 spreadsheet back of the envelope. What's a quick answer? He thinks a year from now is too long. All you got to do is take the current study that was done and ask them to update it and not reinvent the wheel and start from a fresh sheet of paper. That's all they got to do. Go back in there, take what they got, update the numbers, take it out five years, take it out 10, just do it and do it within the next three to six months and start, stop waiting for a year. I'm telling you, there's someone who would do that. And all you got to do is tell them that this, that need is critical. If we wait and get this next year in January, what is January? It's budget season again, both for the schools and us. And so, I'm saying there is a better way to do this. You've just got to prep, talk to some people and get a study update. You don't need to start a brand-new study all over again. And if you can't get someone to do it, and he bets you can give that 2016 report to John Hall and he could spend some time on it, maybe a week or two and come back with some numbers that we need to consider going forward. Mr. Caywood suggested, he thinks we're obligated to procure this. However, Mr. North has provided excellent criteria to use in our selection, which is one of the things when we do these types of procurements is what folks capacities are to do the work and how quickly they can do it. He is hearing loud and clear from the Board that you all would like that sooner rather than later. And in some procurements that is the deciding factor to speed. We will make every effort to have that to you sooner rather than later. Supervisor Radford commented on the construction piece for the schools, two (2) supervisors said we don't know the scope, but they don't have to reinvent the wheel. They can go out, the school boards already said we want to do the design build format. That's when they go, they can go hire somebody like RMM or Balzer and they can do a tier, different tiers on different occupancy levels on Glen Cove and Cundiff. They can tell us with pretty good accuracy with square foot and they can tell us really quick, it doesn't take a long time, they might have already done it and they can tell us what those costs will be and that scope from their program for those two schools. So, they could tell us that really quick. It's not going to take a long time. Just like the demographic study, you can find out really quick, and the same with CTE. They've got the program data, they've got the design people close to getting on board, so they're going to get really close with that number too. So, it's real close by. Supervisor Peters stated he is struggling with what you just said, Supervisor Radford, is that what are we going to do with the two older schools? At first there was going to be talking about building new schools, but now he is looking at those schools and it was Hardy Road Elementary when I went there, but W. Cundiff, I'm guess He is struggling understanding what we're going to spend 30 million on to put walls up. He is trying to figure out what that scope of the project's going to look like. And that's the other reason why, he is not against doing the elementary schools. Anybody's talked to me, knows that he wants to make it happen. He just feels like we don't have enough information to push it forward. Because he is going to spend $30 million and has heard as much at $38 million. What are we getting for $38 million that he couldn't build a new March 14, 2023 87 school? Maybe a new school, depending on what the demographic says that I think we have land at both schools. He knows W. Cundiff if we can go up on the hill and build a new one, we just don't know. Those are the things that kind of keep popping up to me is why do I have this reservation by putting everything in the MOU. So, we are going to spend $30 some million on these two old schools with the question of what am I really going to get out of them? And that scope's not really been shared with us. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing for citizen comments on the Real Estate effective tax rate for calendar year 2023 (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this agenda item. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 031423-1 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM F- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for March 14, 2023, designated as Item F - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – November 9, 2022 2. Confirmation of appointments to the Local Office on Aging Advisory Council (LOA) 3. Ordinance authorizing the approval of new variable width drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia properties located along Denise Circle for the purpose of drainage improvements, Vinton Magisterial District (First Reading and request for Second Reading) 4. Ordinance authorizing the approval of new variable width drainage easements to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, properties located within Eton Hill Subdivision along Girard Drive for the purpose of drainage improvements, Cave Spring Magisterial District (First Reading and request for Second Reading) March 14, 2023 88 5. Ordinance approving and authorizing an Amended Agreement with the City of Salem to allow Roanoke County to act as the Erosion and Sediment Control Authority and the Virginia Stormwater Management Program Authority for the West Roanoke River Greenway, Phase 1 (VDOT UPC No. 97171), located in the City of Salem and in the Catawba Magisterial District (Second Reading) 6. Ordinance approving and authorizing an Agreement for construction and maintenance of the West Roanoke River Greenway Phase 1 (VDOT UPC No. 97171) Project with the City of Salem (Second Reading) 7. Ordinance authorizing the release and vacation of existing waterline, temporary construction and drainage easements located on 0.933 acre +/- on property of Margaret O. Klapperich, Instrument Number 201507683, Tax Map #027.06-05-06.00-0000, Hollins Magisterial District (Second Reading) A-031423-1.a A-031423-1.b A-031423-1.c ORDINANCE 031423-1.d APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE WEST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY PHASE 1 (VDOT UPC NO. 97171) PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF SALEM WHEREAS, the Roanoke County and the City of Salem are working together to develop the West Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park in Roanoke County and West Riverside Drive in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, Phase I of the project will include a 1.4-mile section of greenway, of which 0.6-mile section of greenway lies in the City of Salem on Salem Tax Parcel IDs 165-1-4, 178-3-7.3, 178-4-1; WHEREAS, the trailhead parking lot for this section of the greenway will be on West Riverside Drive extending east along the Roanoke River to the existing greenway in the City of Salem across from Kingsmill Drive; and WHEREAS, this greenway extension further promotes and exemplifies regional cooperation between the County and the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, staff for the City of Salem and the County have drafted an agreement to outline responsibilities to construct, operate, maintain, repair and replace the greenway facilities located in their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 28, 2023, and the second reading was held on March 14, 2023; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that March 14, 2023 89 1. The Agreement between City of Salem and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for the County construction and maintenance of the West Roanoke River Greenway Phase I Project with the City of Salem is approved; 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, such agreements shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading for approval of this Agreement was held on February 28, 2023, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on March 14, 2023. 3. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the execution of this Agreement, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None ORDINANCE 031423-1.e APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SALEM TO ALLOW ROANOKE COUNTY TO ACT AS THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AUTHORITY AND THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AUTHORITY FOR THE WEST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY, PHASE 1 (VDOT UPC NO. 97171) LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SALEM AND IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County and the City of Salem are working together to develop the West Roanoke River Greenway between Green Hill Park in Roanoke County and West Riverside Drive in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, such development will include land disturbance activities for which an Erosion and Sediment Control Permit and a Stormwater Discharge Permit are required; and WHEREAS, more than fifty percent of the disturbed regulated land lies within Roanoke County, and County Development Services Staff recommends that it is in the best interests of the project for Roanoke County to act as the permitting authority for the West Roanoke River Greenway project; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 28, 2023, and the second reading was held on March 14, 2023; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that March 14, 2023 90 1. The Agreement between City of Salem and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for the County to serve as the permitting authority for the West River Greenway project; 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-1300 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the acquisition of any interest in real estate shall be accomplished by ordinance, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 28, 2023, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on March 14, 2023. 3. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the execution of this Agreement, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None ORDINANCE 031423-1.f AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE AND VACATION OF EXISTING WATERLINE, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED ON 0.933 ACRE +/- ON PROPERTY OF MARGARET O. KLAPPERICH, INSTRUMENT NUMBER 201507683, TAX MAP #027.06-05-06.00-0000, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by Instrument No. 201507683, dated 16 July 2015, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, Guy O. Plymale and Mary P. Plymale granted to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County right of way, a waterline easement measuring 0.009 acre, a temporary construction easement measuring 0.082 acre and a drainage easement across two parcels of land owned by them, Tax Map Nos. 027.06-05-07.00-0000 and 027.06-05-08.00-0000, and identified more particularly on a Right of Way Plan Sheet entitled “Plantation Road, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Streetscape Improvements Project” dated January 30, 2015, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the County has not utilized the easements at issue and does not anticipate using the easements as described in Instrument No. 201507683 and depicted on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, by Instrument No. 202209719, dated 15 September 2022, and recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, the March 14, 2023 91 current owner of the property, Margaret Ochoa Klapperich, vacated and combined Tax Map #027.06-05-06.00-0000, #027.06-05-07.00-0000 and #027.06-05-08.00-0000 to create New Lot A1, Tax Map #027.06-05-06.00-0000, measuring 0.933 acre; WHEREAS, Margaret O. Klapperich has requested that the County release and vacate its existing easements on the property so that she may complete the sale of the property to InSite Real Estate Investment, LLC to facilitate future commercial development; and WHEREAS, County staff has reviewed and approved the vacation and release of these easements described in Instrument No. 201507683 and depicted on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of these easements, and this vacation will not involve any cost to the County, and the affected agencies and County departments have raised no objection; and WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on February 28, 2023, and a second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on March 14, 2023. 2. That the subject easements situated on a 0.933 acre parcel of land owned by Margaret O. Klapperich, and identified more particularly as described in Instrument No. 201507683 and on a Right of Way Plan Sheet entitled “Plantation Road, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Streetscape Improvements Project” dated January 30, 2015, attached hereto as Exhibit A, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2270 of the Code of Virginia 1950, as amended. 4. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner. 5. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2270 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None March 14, 2023 92 IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor North moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Radford carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Proclamation signed by the Chairman – Multiple Sclerosis Education Awareness Month IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:22 p.m., Supervisor Hooker moved to go into closed meeting following the work session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1) To consider and discuss prospective appointments to the Roanoke County Economic Development Authority; and Section 2.2-3711(A)(7) - For consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to probable litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body. The probable litigation concerns a Roanoke County business that is in violation of the provisions of the Roanoke County Code and Section 2.2-3711(A)(5) of the Code of Virginia for discussion concerning prospective businesses or industries where no previous announcement has been made of the businesses' or industries' interest in locating in Roanoke County. Discussion will focus specifically upon prospective businesses that have expressed interest in locating at the Wood Haven site in the Catawba Magisterial District The motion was seconded by Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None The closed session was held from 5:25 p.m. until 6:32 p.m. Chairman recessed to the third floor for work session and closed session at: 4:24 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS March 14, 2023 93 1. Work session to discuss the opioid abatement process with the Board of Supervisors (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Madeline Sefcik, Assistant to the County Administrator) In attendance was Nancy Hans, Executive Director for the Prevention Council of Roanoke; Christine Wright and she is Behavioral Health program manager at Bradley Free Clinic. And Robert Natt, who is our director of Roanoke Valley Collective Response at the Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission. Supervisor Radford asked Mr. Lubeck if there is any money in the abatement for the families of deceased with Mr. Lubeck responding from what he has read and what's been put out by the Abatement Authority, it would be designed to treat those with mental health disorders that are linked to current use or if they are imminently likely to use or to prevent use of opioids. So, if it's simply grieving families that are suffering, which of course is very real from deaths from opioids, he does not think that that would qualify as an abatement activity. Supervisor North asked if it could be put towards the Catawba Hospital initiative; would that qualify with Mr. Lubeck responding in the affirmative. Ms. Sefcik then outlined the information on the “Gold Standard.” It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the gold standard and to appoint someone to apply for grants. The work session was held from 3:47 p.m. until 5:14 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION Chairman Hooker called the meeting back into session at 7:01 p.m. RESOLUTION 031423-2 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 member’s 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 March 14, 2023 94 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 North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS 1. Public hearing for citizen comments on the maximum 2023 calendar year tax rates for Real Estate, Personal Property and Machinery and Tools Taxes (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this item. 2. Resolutions to set the following maximum tax rates for calendar year 2023 to support the fiscal year 2023-2024 operating budget: (a) Resolution to set the Real Estate maximum tax rate for calendar year 2023; RESOLUTION 031423-3 TO SET THE REAL ESTATE MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2023 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2023 to support the fiscal year 2023-2024 operating budget; and WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates was held on March 14, 2023 at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2023 calendar year tax rates on April 11, 2023 following a public hearing for citizen comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Real Estate Tax for calendar year 2023 is set at a rate of not more than $1.09 per $100 of assessed valuation. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: March 14, 2023 95 AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None (b) Resolution to set the Personal Property maximum tax rate for calendar year 2023; RESOLUTION 031423-4 TO SET THE PERSONAL PROPERTY MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2023 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2023 to support the fiscal year 2023-2024 operating budget; and WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates was held on March 14, 2023, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2023 calendar year tax rates on April 11, 2023, following a public hearing for citizen comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Personal Property Tax for calendar year 2023 is set at a rate of not more than $3.50 per $100 of assessed valuation. On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None (c) Resolution to set the Machinery and Tools maximum tax rate for calendar year 2023 (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services) RESOLUTION 031423-5 TO SET THE MACHINERY AND TOOLS MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2023 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2023 to support the fiscal year 2023-2024 operating budget; and WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates was held on March 14, 2023, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and March 14, 2023 96 WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2023 calendar year tax rates on April 11, 2023, following a public hearing for citizen comments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the Machinery and Tools Tax for calendar year 2023 is set at a rate of not more than $2.80 per $100 of assessed valuation. On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Peters reiterated that we are still in the budget process. There is a desire by this Board as a whole to reduce taxes, but we are in the midst of trying to figure out exactly where everything is going to land, so we will be working diligently over the next 30 days to resolve that and to bring some relief to our citizens. Supervisor North emphasized as others have, that we are going to be evaluating personal property relief as well as the real estate tax rate. He asked staff to let the Board know as soon as possible when we have the data on personal property. Last year it was a rush to get it done so he hopes that it can be done in an efficient manner this year. The only this he has to share is he is on the I-81 Advisory Committee and Delegate Austin, who is our Chairman, wrote to Secretary of Transportation Miller and said basically, look the budget has not passed yet. It has $500,000 earmarked to study I-81 corridor for future improvements. So, let’s not wait, let’s go use VDOT resources and start in the direction of a study. He applauds Chairman Austin is moving st ahead and not waiting for the budget and his instructions on March 1 to the Secretary of Transportation. I-81 is an ongoing subject that will continue for many years beyond 2023 and the current funding to see what we can do to get it in better shape sooner rather than later. th Supervisor Mahoney stated on March 8, he had the pleasure of attending the meeting of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee (CEDS). This is a committee of the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission. We met in Covington; it was a very good meeting and was well attended. The Allegheny County and Covington folks talked about some exciting cooperative action with EDA grants for some of their trails. We had a good meeting. The second item is with the indulgence of the Board, he would like the Board to agree to amend the agenda. What he would like the Board to consider is the adoption of a resolution asking the Roanoke County Planning Commission to study and provide some recommendations to the Board whether or not to amend the industrial use types in our zoning ordinance. Those provisions are defined in Section 30-29.6 of the Roanoke March 14, 2023 97 County Code. If you look at the County Code, those provisions were probably adopted in 1992, early 1990’s, and he thinks they should be amended to reflect what the current economy is like in terms of the new technologies that are there in the industrial zone classification. There were no objections to adding the resolution. RESOLUTION 031423-6 DIRECTING THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO STUDY AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING WHETHER TO AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL USE TYPES SET FORTH AND DEFINED IN SECTION 30-29-6 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, Section 30-29-6 of the Roanoke County Code sets forth and defines “Industrial Use Types” as applied in the County’s Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, it has been suggested that these use types might benefit from updates to reflect the nature of developing technologies, in order to facilitate desirable economic development in the County; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Board refer this matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County that this matter (whether to amend the industrial use types as set forth and defined in Section 30-29-6 of the County Code) be referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation. On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker NAYS: None Supervisor Radford commented he was at Bent Mountain last night going over the Roanoke County 200 plan and at Hidden Valley High School last week. The Bent Mountain meeting had 93 participants and he could have stayed longer and chatted with those people; they are really interested in their community and what we have planning. It is just good talking to all those people. At Hidden Valley High School, he knew quire a few people there. It was a smaller crowd, but still well attended. He appreciated County Staff, Alex Jones along with Megan Cronise on the transportation side. It looks like everyone is looking forward to moving on through the next process. There is another meeting this week, at South County Library, tomorrow night. Supervisor Hooker noted the Board had some pretty dynamic conversation today dealing with the MOU for the schools. She really appreciated the input and hope that the public understands some of the deliberation and what all is involved in coming forward with these types of issues. She wanted to make sure too that the citizens know that we hear you with regard to taxes. We’ve all had a lot of 98 March 14, 2023 phone calls and concerns with some assessments, etc. We that the needs of the County continue to increase and it is increasingly difficult for some of our citizens and resident. This Board has heard you and we will go forward, very sensitive to our next steps. Just a reminder that if you have not attended one of the Roanoke County 200 meetings yet, there is still time as there are two (2) available. So far, we have completed meetings with over 240 in attendance, which is really great. We have met with Catawba, Mason's Cove on February 7th and Peters Creek on March 1. Bonsack and Vinton on March 6th and there are two more. Cave Spring and Clearbrook community planning areas are meeting tomorrow evening, March 15th, at the South County Library auditorium. It is an open-house format beginning at 4:30 p.m. and ending at 6:30 p.m. There will be a fairly short presentation at 5 p.m. that will be given by Alex Jones and then on March 23rd, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on option #1 at Green Ridge Recreation Center. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hooker adjourned the meeting at 7:18 p.m. • • itted by:411 Approved by: 4a104 ) - tar*4.44fifigipAS i = •orah .r'cks Martha B. Hooker Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman