Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/22/2005 - Regular February 22, 2005 177 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 February 22, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February, 2005. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph McNamara, Richard C. Flora 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 Reverend Tommy London, First Baptist Church - Cloverdale. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS February 22, 2005 178 Mr. Hodge requested the addition of a work session, Item P-2, to discuss fire and rescue staffing needs. There was a consensus of the Board to add this item. Mr. Hodge requested the addition of a closed session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (5) discussion concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has been made. Following discussion, there was a consensus of the Board to allow citizen comments prior to a decision regarding the regional jail facility. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring the month of February 2005 as School Board Appreciation Month in the County of Roanoke Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to Drew Barrineau, School Board Chair. Also present was Dr. Linda Weber, School Superintendent. 2. Certificate of recognition to David Craighead, Roanoke County Communications Officer, for his services to the community Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to Communications Officer Craighead. Also present were Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police; Donna Furrow, Assistant Chief; Pat Shumate, Communications Supervisor; Scott Smith, Lieutenant in Charge of Services; and Aleta Coleman, Lead Communications Officer. 3. Certificate of recognition to Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, for obtaining the Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) designation February 22, 2005 179 Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to Ms. Childers. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Annual report from the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership. (Phil Sparks, Executive Director) Mr. Sparks reported that since 2000, there has been $206.7 million in announced new investment in the Roanoke Valley, 2,657 announced new jobs, and 22 different companies. The average cost per job created since 2000 is $1,580.70 with an average salary for those jobs of $27,000. He advised that some of the notable successes include the following: Integrity Windows and Doors, Cardinal Glass, Novozymes Biologicals, and Trinity Packaging. In addition, there were expansions at Maple Leaf, MW Windows, and Arkay. Mr. Sparks advised that highlights for the year included the following: (1) 205 advertisements were placed, reaching 6.5 million readers and generating approximately 1,000 inquiries. (2) Exhibited at 47 trade shows with exposure to an estimated 92,000 companies. Eight of these shows were done jointly with the New River Valley. (3) 16 marketing missions generating 160 qualified leads, 15 suspects, and 3 prospects. Eight of these marketing missions included the New River Valley Alliance. (4) At least 150 public relations placements which reached approximately 6 million readers. Mr. Sparks also discussed a focus on regionalism, and cited the creation of a regional brochure and joint marketing missions and trade shows with the February 22, 2005 180 New River Valley Alliance as examples of this effort. In addition, a Shenandoah Valley Partnership has been formed to market the I-81 corridor. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution supporting the designation of the Blue Ridge Parkway as an All American Road. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; Gary Johnson, National Park Service) R-022205-1 Ms. Scheid advised that the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) staff is in the process of preparing a nomination for All American Road status for the BRP and has asked the County to write a letter of support for the nomination. The All American Road program has been established within the Federal Highway Administration to pay tribute to the best of the nationally significant scenic byways. Ms. Scheid stated that the All American Road designation is one of recognition only and does not involve a monetary award. She advised that the designation is being sought to leverage the sources of money to assist the parkway in protecting its resources. She further indicated that the designation is a source of national and community pride. The National Park Service (NPS) is working with representatives of the State of Virginia to prepare the nomination for the parkway and also for the George Washington Memorial Parkway, the Colonial Historic Parkway, and the Shenandoah National Park. Three roads within the State of Virginia are up for nomination. February 22, 2005 181 Ms. Scheid stated that there is no fiscal impact to the County and staff recommends that the Board approve a letter and resolution of support to the All American Road Committee. Supervisor Wray requested an explanation of the leveraged sources of money. Mr. Johnson advised that as a part of the program, there is a discretionary pool of money at the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). He stated that one of the most important parts of being designated as a national scenic byway or an All American Road is the marketing aspect of making people aware that these are the best scenic roads designated by states. He stated that several million dollars is set aside each year for competitive funds obtained through planning, building facilities such as visitors’ centers or new overlooks, and also working with gateway communities on projects that benefit both participants. Mr. Johnson stated that they have been waiting for the BRP to be designated as an All American Road so that they will have the leverage to pursue this funding source. This will provide additional funding for the parkway without taking money out of the state’s enhancement funds from the DOT. Supervisor Wray questioned how this designation relates to the Last Chance Landscape. Mr. Johnson stated that these are separate designations. He advised that Scenic America worked with the County, the State, Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the Western Virginia Land Trust to designate this as a Last Chance Landscape in order to address scenic issues. He advised that Scenic Virginia has been February 22, 2005 182 working with the BRP on the All American Road nomination. He indicated that both designations speak to the scenic qualities of the road and its value. Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 022205-1 SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY AS AN ALL AMERICAN ROAD WHEREAS, the designation of the Blue Ridge Parkway as an All American Road by the Federal Highway Administration would enhance the importance of this scenic highway, both nationally and internationally; and WHEREAS, the Blue Ridge Parkway represents a cultural, natural resource and tourism attraction for the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the Parkway has been in existence for over 60 years and over this period of time its significance as a natural resource has grown; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, in recognition of the importance of the Parkway to our community, has been involved in protecting the viewsheds of the Blue Ridge Parkway for future generations. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors that we support the Blue Ridge Parkway’s nomination to the Federal Highway Administration as an All American Road and direct the Clerk to the Board to forward copies of this resolution to the All American Road Selection Committee. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Request to approve 2004-2005 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) supplemental revenue sharing projects. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) A-022205-2 February 22, 2005 183 Mr. Covey stated that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) annually provides localities the opportunity to request additional funds from the unused allocations from the revenue sharing program. The County’s participation in this program allows the opportunity to provide maintenance and proceed with construction items that would otherwise take several years to accomplish. Mr. Covey advised that Roanoke County is one of twenty-six counties eligible this year to receive these funds, which total over $1,000,000. VDOT has limited the request of each locality to $100,000 each. Mr. Covey indicated that a list of project requests was provided to the Board and includes the following: Tobey Road, Farmington Drive, Horseshoe Bend Road, Girard Drive, and Friendship Lane. He stated that these were various projects relating to drainage, as well as one area requiring the building of a shoulder and installation of guardrail. Mr. Covey indicated that the Department of Community Development has $50,000 in the budget to cover one-half of the costs. They are now requesting that the remaining allocation be appropriated through the County’s Minor Capital Fund. In addition, staff requests that the Board approve the project list and authorize the County Administrator to sign a letter of intent to appropriate $50,000 from the County Minor Capital Fund. Supervisor Church expressed appreciation for the prompt response to the safety concerns on Tobey Road. February 22, 2005 184 Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (approve the project list and authorize the County Administrator to sign the Letter of Intent and appropriate $50,000 from County Minor Capital Fund). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1. First reading of an ordinance to consider spot blight abatement of property located at 3821 Colony Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Building Commissioner. 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for a private kennel on 4.38 acres located at 4509 Red Barn Lane, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Wayne and Martha Pike. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first readings and set the second readings and public hearings for March 22, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None February 22, 2005 185 IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance amending Division 3. Courthouse Parking Lot of Article III. Parking of Chapter 12. Motor Vehicles and Traffic of the Roanoke County Code to provide for a new Section 12-76. Authorization to Remove Vehicles. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney advised that the County Code attempts to regulate parking at the Courthouse complex in Salem. There is specific authorization in the State Code that grants authority to counties to regulate parking on its property. He noted that one provision not included in the Code is permission to tow vehicles that may be parked in violation. This proposed ordinance would specifically grant authorization to the Sheriff’s Office to tow or remove vehicles parked illegally at the courthouse parking lot. He advised that he has communicated with the Circuit Court judges, the Sheriff, and the Commonwealth’s Attorney regarding this matter. Mr. Mahoney requested that the Board favorably consider the first reading of the ordinance. Supervisor Wray questioned why this matter is not being handled by the City of Salem. Mr. Mahoney responded that there are several reasons. First, this is an outgrowth of the historical relationship between the City of Salem and the County. He advised that Salem used to be a town and as a town, it was the County seat. Salem still remains the County seat even though it has transitioned into an independent city status. Secondly, counties have traditionally maintained law enforcement authority with respect February 22, 2005 186 to the courthouse complex and other ancillary facilities and parking areas. The Sheriff is typically in close proximity to the courthouse and it has traditionally been their role to enforce powers relating to the public safety and security of the courthouse complex. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for March 8, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. First reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of approximately 0.2785 acres of unimproved real estate fronting on Pleasant Hill Drive from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors for road improvements. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney stated that this ordinance authorizes the conveyance of real estate and dates back to July 2000 when the Board of Supervisors was working with the School Board to undertake improvements to Pleasant Hill Drive, which is the entry road into Hidden Valley High School. He stated that the motivating factor for the ordinance is to conclude the real estate transaction. Since the School Board is unable to deal directly with VDOT, the County must go through the process of having the School Board convey the surplus property to the Board of Supervisors, who can then either convey the property to VDOT or guarantee right-of-way in order to resolve the secondary road issues. Once the secondary road issues are resolved, the County can receive a February 22, 2005 187 reimbursement from VDOT for a portion of the funds supplied by the School Board with respect to this transaction; subsequently, these funds will be allocated to the school capital account. Mr. Mahoney advised that if the County had waited for VDOT to complete this project, it would likely not yet be completed. The County undertook this process to accelerate the completion of the project, which necessitated upfront funding by the School Board and Roanoke County. Supervisor McNamara questioned if the road improvements cost $400,000. Supervisor Flora, who also serves as Director of Operations for Roanoke County Schools, advised that it cost substantially more than this amount and noted that the project involved the installation of a signal light, as well as the purchase of a home which was relocated to secure the right-of-way. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for March 8, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 3. First reading of an ordinance to authorize conveyance of a 0.0348- acre parcel of land to Michael S. & Deborah W. Harless as a reversion of property in connection with an abandonment of the rural addition of Artrip Lane, Catawba Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) February 22, 2005 188 Mr. Covey reported that this is a housekeeping item and advised that in December when the six-year road plan was presented to the Board, one of the items addressed was the rural addition program. At that time, Artrip Lane was identified as being removed from the rural addition program. This was due to the fact that there are utility costs associated with the road improvement which are borne by the owners, and the property owners have decided that they do not want to participate in the project. Therefore, the County has moved forward to remove the road from the rural addition program. As a part of this process, the right-of-way is required to be donated and this has been done by the owners. Since the right-of-way is no longer needed, the County needs to convey the property back to its rightful owners. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for March 22, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of approximately 9 acres of real estate located on Cove Road from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors for use as the site for the new public safety building. (Dan R. February 22, 2005 189 O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) O-022205-3 Mr. O’Donnell distributed a revised plat of the site and advised that since the last meeting, the plat has been approved by the Community Development Department and the School Board voted on February 9, 2005, to approve the transfer of the property. Supervisor Church commended Mr. O’Donnell for his handling of the project and stated that this is an example of how to handle projects. 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, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 022205-3 TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON COVE ROAD FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR USE AS THE SITE FOR THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County School Board entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in July of 2004 providing for the conveyance of up to ten acres of real estate from the School Board to the Board of Supervisors providing for a site for the new Roanoke County Public Safety Building; and WHEREAS, a plat has been prepared by Hurt & Proffitt creating “Parcel 1” containing 9.756 acres, which parcel is composed of an approximate 9 acre parcel of real estate (portion of Tax Map No. 36.16-1-11) owned by the County School Board and February 22, 2005 190 an approximate .8 acre parcel of real estate owned by the Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 36.16-1-11.1); and WHEREAS, at their meeting on February 9, 2005, the County School Board declared the above-mentioned 9 acre parcel of real estate to be surplus property, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon approval of this ordinance and recordation of a deed; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004, the Board adopted Ordinance No, 060804-4 which authorized entering into a lease of certain real estate on Peters Creek Road with the Virginia Resources Authority for the purpose of securing financing for the construction of a new Public Safety Center, and to subsequently transfer this lease to the real estate located on Cove Road; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance will be held on February 8, 2005, and the second reading will be held on February 22, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition from the County School Board of Roanoke County of an approximate 9 acre parcel of real estate to be added and combined with an approximate.8 acre parcel of real estate to form “Parcel 1” as shown on a preliminary plat entitled “Plat Showing Division of the Property of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, and the County School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia, Catawba Magisterial District” prepared by Hurt & Proffitt and dated January 19, 2005, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate and to amend the financing documents with the Virginia Resources Authority, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an 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 February 22, 2005 191 Solicitations, of the Roanoke County Code to authorize a procedure for permits for street solicitation by qualified charitable organizations. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) 022205-4 Mr. Obenshain reported that the first reading of this ordinance was held in December and since that time, work sessions have been held to further discuss the issue. He stated that the changes in the ordinance include the following: (1) the requirement for a safety plan as part of the application process; (2) the applicant would have to provide the County with a copy of any permit required by VDOT for use of the public right-of-way; (3) a one-year sunset clause. Supervisor Wray asked how many 501C (3) organizations there are in Virginia. Mr. Obenshain advised that he does not know and any answer would be speculation. Supervisor Wray further inquired if any 501C (3) organizations in Virginia can participate. Mr. Obenshain responded in the affirmative and stated that any organization that can provide the required documentation would be qualified to submit an application. They would then also have to meet the requirements of the ordinance. Supervisor Church questioned if a professional firefighter is conducting solicitations while on duty and they are injured, would this be a workmen’s compensation claim. Mr. Obenshain advised that if the firefighter is on duty, they would have a strong argument in that regard. If the injury occurs during duty hours, there may February 22, 2005 192 be defenses regarding whether the injury was arising out of or in the course of their employment. He stated that this is a significant issue the County would have to address. Supervisor Church voiced objections to the amendments for safety reasons and noted that the Board made these changes several years ago to prevent activities that created safety hazards. He stated that no safety enhancements have occurred which reduce traffic congestion and recommended that these types of solicitations be conducted on private property such as shopping center lots. He noted the potential for accidents and stated there is no liability policy that can cover and hold harmless the County if an accident occurs. Supervisor McNamara stated that the proposed amendment has been discussed for the last 6-8 months. He indicated that the amendment that is pending is a reasonable compromise. He indicated that having firefighters solicit on their off-duty hours for a good cause contributes to the County’s sense of community. He noted that if the situation gets out of hand, the sunset provision will give the Board an opportunity to review the amendments in one year and then determine if problems exist. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. Supervisor Wray noted that when Supervisor Church recommended soliciting in parking lots during a work session, it was stated that it is financially more beneficial to solicit in the road ways ($6,000 raised in parking lots vs. $40,000 in the roadway). He further noted that in the County, speed limits along business corridors where this type of activity would be lucrative are 35-45 mph. He indicated that these February 22, 2005 193 speed limits are too high to allow individuals to enter the roadways. The County needs to monitor and control this process and he stated that it would be unsafe to encourage individuals to enter the roadways for solicitation purposes. This will create a burden on the citizens of the County if an accident occurs as a result of being distracted by the solicitors. Supervisor Church requested that Robin Grayson, representative with the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA), advise whether the firefighters will never be on the payroll while soliciting. Ms. Grayson responded that she can not say they will never solicit while on duty. She noted that the most successful programs are those where the firefighters collect while on duty and she stated that this activity does not interfere with their ability to perform their jobs. She advised that allowing solicitations while on duty is the most profitable method for the firefighters to be successful in their collections. Supervisor Church requested clarification regarding whether on duty collections would create a worker’s compensation potential. Mr. Mahoney advised that it would create a potential liability for the County. Supervisor Church stated that with respect to community service, the Board is all about helping the community; however this would be a disservice to put citizens in jeopardy if this amendment is allowed. He noted that if a rear end collision occurs, it will be the citizen who is subject to the liability and he noted that the solicitations will result in driver inattention. He noted that there will be other organizations that will want to take advantage of these amendments and that the risk is the element that the Board cannot control. Ms. Grayson advised that February 22, 2005 194 firefighters have been conducting this campaign for 50 years without any major accidents or fatalities. She noted that it has been a successful program and advised that every avenue has been taken to ensure that citizens are protected by these amendments. Supervisor Church stated that he feels strongly that this would be a mistake. Supervisor Wray also noted that the Board must consider other organizations in addition to MDA who may not have such organized procedures and who might apply for a permit. He questioned if the ordinance can be restricted solely to the MDA. Mr. Obenshain responded in the negative and stated that this would constitute private legislation and reasonable standards must be established. He noted that there are substantial requirements and not all 501C (3) organizations will come forward to request a permit. He noted that the manpower required to conduct this type of solicitation is also fairly substantial. Supervisor Altizer questioned who would give permission for the firefighters to solicit on County time. Mr. Hodge advised that this would come through his office and he stated that he would want to review what other offices might be conducting volunteer activities on County time. He stated that he would prefer that no offices be allowed to solicit for any organization on anything other than a volunteer basis. He noted that the Sheriff’s Office conducts a torch run and he is not certain if this is done while on or off duty; however, he indicated that the procedures should remain consistent for all employees. February 22, 2005 195 Supervisor Altizer questioned if it is possible that we are already allowing individuals to participate in fundraising activities while on duty and the County may already have exposure to worker’s compensation claims. Mr. Mahoney responded that anything is possible; however he is not aware of any such situations and he has not seen any claims through Risk Management. Supervisor Altizer further inquired if there was someone from the Sheriff’s Department participating in a torch run while on duty and they had an accident, would the County be liable. Mr. Mahoney advised that the legal standard for worker’s compensation is whether it is arising out of and in the course of your employment. He indicated there is a body of legislation for determining this issue. From an employer’s point of view when an employee is on duty and is injured, the employer already has two strikes against them with respect to determining liability in a worker’s compensation claim. Mr. Obenshain noted that Virginia courts are fairly conservative and hazards incurred in the daily course of life will not qualify a person for worker’s compensation benefits (i.e., falling while going down the stairs). Mr. Mahoney stated that last year, there was a County initiative to assist with building a Habitat for Humanity home; however, the employees who volunteered for this did so on their own time. Supervisor Altizer questioned if part of Supervisor McNamara’s motion intended to disallow soliciting while on duty. Supervisor McNamara advised that he did not make this part of the motion because he had always had the understanding that this February 22, 2005 196 would be done on a volunteer basis. He stated it is not a volunteer activity if you do so while on duty. He advised that he would be willing to amend the motion. Supervisor Church stated that to the contrary, it was his understanding that the solicitation would be conducted while on duty. He stated that while on duty, the burden of proof will be on the employer. He again stated that his primary concern is for the safety of County citizens. Supervisor Altizer advised that he would support the motion if it is amended to state that solicitations will not be conducted by County employees while on duty. He noted that there were not a significant number of accidents that occurred when these solicitations were allowed in the past and many of the problems were due to the fact that the process was unrestricted. He stated that the Board sometimes has to revisit issues when new circumstances exist and he noted the inclusion of the VDOT permit requirement and stated that the issuance of this permit must occur before an application is submitted to Roanoke County. He stated that VDOT will examine the safety considerations and if they do not issue a permit, then there is no need for the organization to apply to Roanoke County for a permit. Supervisor McNamara noted that the ordinance is not specific to one organization and advised that the Board should direct County administration that no County employees are to be allowed to conduct solicitations while on duty. Mr. Mahoney indicated that he did not want to submit to the Board private legislation that applied to one specific organization. Any qualifying organization that can meet the February 22, 2005 197 criteria can secure a permit. County administration has heard the Board’s direction that staff not be allowed to conduct solicitations while on duty. Supervisor Altizer advised that the Board is on the record as stating that they do not want individuals conducting solicitations while on duty. Supervisor Church stated that if this is not put in writing, the County will be opening itself up to dispute. He questioned if an ordinance is law. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Church stated that this cannot be done with a handshake and needs to be part of the legislation. He further stated that this request should never be placed in the hands of VDOT. He indicated that the Board is empowered to make decisions regarding whether to stop or allow an activity and he is not comfortable with allowing VDOT to have authority regarding this decision. Supervisor Altizer advised that he was not abdicating the County’s responsibility to VDOT; he was merely noting that VDOT would have to also review the safety concerns. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Flora, Altizer NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray ORDINANCE 022205-4 AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SEC. 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 February 22, 2005 198 WHEREAS, Section 19-4(b) of the Roanoke County Code currently makes it unlawful for any individual or representative of a charitable organization to engage in solicitation, as defined by the County Code, from any occupant of a motor vehicle on a public road; and WHEREAS certain reputable charitable organizations have requested an amendment to the Roanoke County Code to permit solicitation at intersections and other locations on public roads for limited periods of time after filing an application, paying a fee and providing the County with evidence of adequate insurance coverage and legal proof of their charitable status; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 7, 2004, and the second reading was held on February 22, 2004. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows: 1. That Section 19-4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours and at certain locations, of Article I., IN GENERAL, of Chapter 19, SOLICITORS AND SOLICITATIONS, of the Roanoke County Code be amended and re-enacted as follows: Sec. 19-4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours and at certain locations. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in solicitation in the County at any time prior to 9:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in solicitation from any operator or passenger of a motor vehicle that is in traffic on a public road without a permit for charitable solicitation from the County as outlined in Article II, Sec. 19-21 to 19- 28, Roanoke County Code. A public road shall include the areas of the median and the public right-of-way along the curbside. 3. That Section 19-28. Permit for Street Solicitation, of Article II, Permit for Charitable Solicitations, of Chapter 19, SOLICITORS AND SOLICITATIONS, of the Roanoke County Code be enacted as follows: Sec. 19-28. Permit for Street Solicitation. The prohibition on soliciting from a vehicle on a public road set forth in Section 19-4(b), above, does not apply to a charitable organization, and its authorized solicitors, which has applied for and been issued a permit under this section and which is in compliance with all other provisions of this Chapter. In order to solicit contributions while standing in a public road, a charitable organization must comply with the following requirements: 1. Not less that thirty (30) days prior to the date desired for beginning solicitation, the charitable organization shall submit a complete application to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for a charitable solicitation permit. In addition to the information required by Sec. 19-22, the form shall require the charitable organization to provide its full name, the name, address and phone number of a local point of contact for the organization, the desired date(s), time(s) and specific location(s) for soliciting February 22, 2005 199 which shall be limited to not more than six (6) intersections with a traffic control signal light, the name, mailing address and phone number of each individual who will be engaged in solicitation activities on behalf of such charitable organization. Further the charitable organization shall provide an agreement or document whereby such organization shall indemnify the County, its officers, employees and agents, and hold the County, its officers, employees and agents, harmless from any and all claims, suits, demands, damages and attorney fees arising out of or related to the acts or omissions of individuals or entities soliciting for such organization. The charitable organization shall have an ongoing obligation to update or correct any information submitted in its application for a solicitation permit so as to maintain all information in the County’s possession as accurate. The County may require such additional or supplemental information as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate the direct enforcement of this section and the purposes of this Chapter. 2. When submitting a completed application to the County, the charitable organization shall also submit the following: (a) Written proof of general commercial liability and property damage insurance coverage issued by a company authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence that insures the organization and all individuals and entities who may be soliciting on its behalf. The proof of insurance shall include the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as an additional insured and must specify that the insurance is primary over any insurance which the County may carry or any provisions for self insurance by the County. (b) An application permit fee in the amount of $10.00 shall be payable at the time the application is submitted. This fee shall be used to defray the County’s cost of processing the application and for insuring compliance with the conditions of any permit issued through monitoring of the public roads. An applicant will be notified in writing of the approval or denial of their request within fifteen (15) days after the County’s receipt of a completed application. Within the County’s discretion, a portion of this fee may be refunded in the event a permit is denied. (c) Written proof that the applicant organization is a charitable organization which has obtained qualification from the Internal Revenue Service as a Section 501c(3) entity under the Internal Revenue Code. (d) A safety plan which shall describe the measures which the organization will implement during any solicitation period to insure the safety of those participating in its solicitation activities and of drivers and occupants of motor vehicles at intersections where solicitations are permitted. (e) A copy of a permit issued by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for use or occupancy of the public right-of- February 22, 2005 200 way at intersections at which solicitations will be conducted during the term of the County’s permit. 3. Additional solicitation activity restrictions shall include the following: (a) No more than one permit may be issued to an organization during each calendar year. Permits shall be valid for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of their issuance; (b) Solicitation upon a public road in the County pursuant to a permit shall be authorized for no more than four (4) consecutive calendar days, and shall be limited to the period from 9:00 a.m. until one half hour prior to sunset, at the approved location(s) specified in the application and permit;. (c) Each individual solicitor shall have in his or her possession some form of official identification with a photograph, such as a driver’s license and shall wear a high-visibility, reflective safety vest over their clothing at all times; (d) A copy of the organization’s solicitation permit shall be maintained at each approved solicitation location; (e) All solicitors must be at least eighteen (18) years of age or older; and, (f) No solicitor may impede traffic at any time; touching a vehicle or reaching inside a vehicle without the consent of the occupants of the vehicle shall be considered as impeding traffic; 4. Additional conditions for consideration of and issuance of permits: (a) In additional to the provisions of Sec. 19-24, an application for a solicitation permit under this section may be denied or revoked, in whole or in part, for the following reasons: (i) A solicitation permit has been issued to a charitable organization, and is currently in force, for one or more of the intersections at which the applicant seeks permission to solicit; (ii) In the opinion of the Chief of Police or his designee, approval of the solicitation permit at one or more of the requested intersections is determined to create a reasonable potential for injury to solicitors, other pedestrians or vehicle occupants or an unreasonable potential for disruption to normal traffic flow; (iii) The applicant has made a false or materially misleading statement on the application form or in any response to information requested on behalf of the County; and (iv) A material violation of the solicitation permit granted under this Section or any action by the organization or any individual solicitor acting in its behalf which creates a clear and immediate danger to public safety. (b) Issuance of any permit under this section shall not represent an endorsement by the County of any charitable organization that the February 22, 2005 201 permittee may represent nor any indication of supervision of or control over the proceeds raised by the organization’s charitable solicitations. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after March 1, 2005. from and after its adoption. This ordinance shall be effective until February 28, 2006. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Flora, Altizer NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-022205-5; R-022205-5.b Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 022205-5 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 February 22, 2005, 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 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – January 25, 2005 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the League of Older Americans Advisory Council 3. Request to accept Integrity Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 4. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on the property of Knights of Columbus, Windsor Hills Magisterial District 5. Request to accept donation of a deed of easement on property owned by Larry W. McCarty and Patricia L. McCarty, Vinton Magisterial District February 22, 2005 202 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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 022205-5.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF INTEGRITY DRIVE 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, is 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 street meets 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 street 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 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 Flora Seconded by None Required Yeas: Supervisors, McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer Nays: None IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. Supervisor McNamara requested that the General Fund Unappropriated Balance report February 22, 2005 203 be revised to reflect the new graduated scale for the targeted fund balance. Supervisor Flora’s motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Accounts Paid –January 2005 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended January 31, 2005 7. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report 8. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report 9. Statement of the Treasurer’s accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of January 31, 2005 IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 5:05 p.m., Chairman Altizer moved to go into closed session following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (5) discussion concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has been made. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: February 22, 2005 204 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss proposed revisions to the Roanoke County Community (Comprehensive) Plan. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) The work session was held from 5:22 p.m. until 5:53 p.m. Staff present included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; George Simpson, Assistant Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; David Holladay, Zoning Administrator; and Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer. Staff presented an overview of amendments that have been made to the community plan based on input received from the Board at prior work sessions. There was a consensus of the Board to accept and incorporate the proposed revisions. There was general discussion regarding standards for steep slopes, and it was decided that this issue will be addressed in the development of the ordinances which will follow adoption of the community plan. Supervisor Wray stated that stormwater management is a regional issue; and as such, it is an issue that could potentially be handled by the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). Mr. Hodge advised that there is a joint meeting with Roanoke City Council scheduled for March 7 and this could be added to the agenda for February 22, 2005 205 discussion. There was a consensus of the Board to add discussion of regional stormwater management to the March 7 agenda. Supervisor McNamara requested that staff brief the Board in an upcoming work session regarding the status of the County’s compliance with EPA stormwater management regulations. Staff was directed to provide the Board with a schedule for development of ordinances based on which ordinances could achieve the most measurable gains initially with a minimum amount of controversy. There was a consensus of the Board to schedule a joint work session with the Planning Commission on March 1. 2. Work session to discuss fire and rescue staffing needs. (Richard Burch, Chief, Fire & Rescue) The work session was held from 5:53 p.m. until 6:28 p.m. Chief Burch advised that a mutual aid agreement with the City of Roanoke will provide additional coverage for the Hollins and Mount Pleasant areas of the County. As part of the agreement, 8 additional County personnel will be added, 4 each at the Hollins and Mount Pleasant stations. In North County, Roanoke County agrees to provide fire backup to Roanoke City in the upper end of the Williamson Road & Peters Creek Road areas; Roanoke City agrees to provide first responder and initial fire response to Roanoke County in the North Lakes and Montclair areas. In Mount Pleasant, Roanoke County agrees to provide advanced life support (ALS) ambulance February 22, 2005 206 response to Roanoke City in the Garden City area; Roanoke City agrees to provide fire backup to Roanoke County in the Mount Pleasant coverage area. Chief Burch also presented data on current and proposed levels of staffing and career coverage. Supervisor McNamara noted that surplus revenues existed in the fee for transport fund last year, and he requested that consideration be given to increasing coverage in the Back Creek area. There was a consensus of the Board to schedule a work session to discuss Medicare rate adjustments. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 6:35 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-022205-6 At 7:07 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 022205-6 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. February 22, 2005 207 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 Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 1. First reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of an existing stormwater management easement, The Cottages at Wexford, and vacation of a stormwater management easement, Wexford Place Townhomes, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey advised that the request is from DAV, LLC, in conjunction with the Wexford Homeowners Association, to vacate two stormwater easements. One of the easements is around an existing facility that is adjacent to Starkey Road; the other is an easement to be vacated on Capulet Circle. Staff has reviewed both requests and determined there is no impact to the stormwater management facility and is requesting approval of both vacations. Supervisor Wray noted that the location is on Starkey Road. Mr. Covey confirmed that it is at the intersection of Starkey Road and South Mountain Drive. February 22, 2005 208 Supervisor Wray further inquired if this flows into the stormwater drain that comes from Kings Chase and flows to Buck Mountain Road. Mr. Covey responded that it does. Supervisor Wray questioned if there is any timeline to upgrade this for the Buck Mountain area. Mr. Covey advised that there is no planned improvement at this time. Supervisor Wray stated that there have been some problems with runoff further down the channel. Mr. Covey noted that there had been some requests for improvements as a result of the recent flooding; however, the home in question is in the floodway. Supervisor Wray requested confirmation there is no further impact to citizens. Mr. Covey responded in the affirmative. Charles Osterhoudt, advised that he is a resident of Wexford Place and has been speaking with residents regarding this matter. He stated that the maintenance of the stormwater area has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. He requested that the second reading be deferred until all paperwork can be signed by the respective parties and noted that this could take several months. Supervisor Wray inquired whether the matter can be continued until April 26. There was a consensus of the Board to continue the matter until April 26. Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for April 26, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None February 22, 2005 209 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C1 Office District to C2 General Commercial District, and to obtain a special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and Merriman Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Seaside Heights, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until March 22, 2005 at the request of the petitioner. 2. Continued until March 22, 2005 at the request of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20 foot waterline easement dedicated by subdivision plat of Stonegate, Phase 2-B, Lots 47-48, and creating a new waterline easement situated on Lots 47 and 48, Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until March 22, 2005 at the request of the petitioner. 3. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 24,400 square foot, multi-purpose family life facility for Ebenezer Baptist Church located at 7049 Thirlane Road, February 22, 2005 210 Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) O-022205-7 Ms. Scheid reported that the request is being submitted by Mr. Henschel on behalf of Ebenezer Baptist Church. The current church was built in 1998 and has a growing membership; at this time, the church needs a family life center including a basketball court, locker and weight rooms, bowling alley lanes, classroom spaces, kitchen, and other accessory space. The proposed family life center would be located behind the existing church off Thirlane Road. A 24,400 square foot multi-purpose family life facility is being proposed. Because it will be behind the existing church, some of the existing parking would need to be removed and relocated. The proposed facility will have an exterior constructed of a metal roof and combination of brick, metal and exterior insulation finish system raw materials. She stated that it will resemble the current church with respect to materials and color. There is a condition with the special use permit which states that the building and roof colors be consistent with the existing color scheme. Ms. Scheid indicated that Ebenezer Baptist Church is a growing church and has been a member of the Kingstown neighborhood for over a century. The family life center concept supports a creative ministry mission in a recreational setting, and the religious assembly use is consistent with the community plan designation of this area which is neighborhood conservation. February 22, 2005 211 Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission heard this petition on February 1 and one citizen spoke in favor of the petition. There were some questions regarding parking and these were answered by the petitioner who has stated that there will be adequate parking for the larger facility. The citizen who spoke also mentioned that the church owns property across Thirlane Road which could be used for overflow parking if necessary. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval he site shall be developed in of the petition with the following two conditions: (1) T substantial conformity with the master site development plan prepared by Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture, dated December 6, 2004. (2) The exterior building and roof colors of the proposed multi-purpose family life facility shall match the existing muted color scheme of the existing church facility (brown, tan, white and brick colors). Jerome Henschel, 2839 Embassy Circle, advised that he is the architect for the project and would address any questions by the Board. Supervisor Church inquired if the minister was present at the meeting. Reverend Herman Word, minister at Ebenezer Baptist Church, was present and advised that he understands and is in agreement with the proposed conditions. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: February 22, 2005 212 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 022205-7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO EBENEZER BAPTIST CHURCH UPON APPLICATION OF JEROME DONALD HENSCHEL, PC ARCHITECTURE TO CONSTRUCT A 24,400 SQUARE FOOT MULTI-PURPOSE FAMILY LIFE FACILITY TO BE LOCATED AT 7049 THIRLANE ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 37.06-1-13) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct a 24,400 square foot multi-purpose family life facility for the Ebenezer Baptist Church to be located at 7049 Thirlane Road (Tax Map No. 37.06- 1-13) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on February 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on January 25, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on February 22, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Ebenezer Baptist Church upon application by Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture to construct a 24,400 square foot multi-purpose family life facility for the Ebenezer Baptist Church to be located at 7049 Thirlane Road in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) The site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the master site development plan prepared by Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture, dated December 6, 2004. (2) The exterior building and roof colors of the proposed multi-purpose family life facility shall match the existing muted color scheme of the existing church facility. (Brown, tan, white and brick colors.) 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: February 22, 2005 213 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 4. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 0.68 acres from I-1 Industrial District with conditions to C-2 General Commercial District with conditions in order to construct a retail building located at the northwest corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Mid- Atlantic Realty, Inc. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) O-022205-8 Ms. Scheid reported that the request is from Mid-Atlantic Realty on behalf of Thomas and Evonne Hubbard to remove the existing proffered conditions on a 0.68 acre parcel currently zoned industrial to rezone it to C-2 commercial with conditions. A map was displayed showing the proposed changes. Ms. Scheid advised that there are two adjoining parcels, one of which is also owned by the Hubbard’s, which are currently zoned C-2. She reported that Mid-Atlantic Realty is attempting to rezone the 0.68 acre parcel to make it consistent with the other two parcels. Mid-Atlantic is a developer for CVS pharmacy and is planning to build a pharmacy on this site. Since the due diligence for this project has not yet been completed, Mid-Atlantic is not proffering a CVS pharmacy; they are, however, proffering a C-2 use. Ms. Scheid advised that the petitioner has worked with County staff to provide proffered conditions aimed at developing a functional site while significantly improving the architecture and landscape conditions that exist on the property. The 0.68 acre site was developed commercially in February 22, 2005 214 the 1970s and later purchased by the Hubbard’s, who had the property rezoned to light industrial and operated Hubbard Heating and Air Conditioning from that site. They also purchased the adjacent 0.37 acre parcel on the corner and a service station was previously operated on this site. The petitioner has stated that they are the primary developer for CVS and the intended use is a CVS pharmacy with approximately 12,000 square feet and a maximum building/roof height of 30 feet. Ms. Scheid indicated that the petitioner has proffered that the Peters Creek Road access would be right in and right out only, and there would also be access on Cove Road which would be for left and right turn. The parking lot would provide 75 spaces with a dual drive-thru for the pharmacy. Ms. Scheid reported that the year 2003 VDOT traffic counts show slightly over 2,000 vehicles per day on Cove Road and approximately 18,000 vehicles per day on Peters Creek Road. The proposed project would redevelop the corner location which is in need of redevelopment. Other quadrants of this intersection are Roanoke City locations and are developed with high intensity commercial retail and service/commercial uses. The Planning Commission heard this petition on February 1 and there were questions regarding the three contiguous tracts of property. The proffers before the Board are only on the land which is being rezoned; the other two parcels that would form the tract of land for the CVS are currently zoned C-2. The conditions reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission include the following: The property shall be developed as a C-2 use. (2) Entrances onto Peters Creek (1) February 22, 2005 215 Road shall be reduced to one (1) right-in and right out; entrances onto Cove Road shall be reduced to one (I) full movement entrance. (3) All buildings constructed on the property shall have exposed exterior walls (above finished grade) of face brick, natural stone, dryvit, stucco, decorative split face block and/or glass or of an equivalent, permanent architecturally finished material. No building shall be covered with or have exposed to view any painted or unfinished concrete block, sheet or corrugated aluminum, asbestos, iron or steel. Roofing materials shall either be asphalt shingle or standing metal seam if a raised roof; if a flat roof system is used, a perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam and decorative split face block or brick shall be used. The proffered conditions set forth in Ordinance 82592-8 dated August 25, 1992 and Ordinance 102291-10 dated October 22, 1991 are hereby removed. Susan Whaley, representative with Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc., advised that they are the contract purchaser for the three parcels. She stated that they are working on the development of a CVS pharmacy. Supervisor McNamara noted that the application references a 30’ height. He questioned if this is typical for a CVS store. Ms. Whaley advised that it is 30’ to the top of the parapet on the roof which screens the HVAC units. Kirk Cooper, engineer with Kenley-Horn, advised that the entry feature can sometimes be above 35 feet. Ms. February 22, 2005 216 Whaley further advised that there is a new prototype and this would be the first in this area. Supervisor Wray inquired if there is sufficient parking. Mr. Cooper advised that there is sufficient parking to meet the Code, as well as the needs of CVS. He advised that there are 75 spaces for an 11,000 square foot building and noted that generally CVS prefers a few more parking spaces than required by Code. In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor Wray, he confirmed that ingress and egress is not an issue. Ms. Whaley noted that there are several entrances on Peters Creek Road and two on Cove Road; she advised that some of these entrances will be closed. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Church stated that this action will be positive and he has not received any negative feedback regarding the project. Supervisor Flora advised that this is a busy intersection and the proposed design will improve the traffic situation. He voiced support for the project. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 022205-8 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A 0.68-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PETERS CREEK ROAD AND COVE ROAD (TAX MAP NO.37.17-01-05) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-1, INDUSTRIAL WITH CONDITIONS, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2, February 22, 2005 217 GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF MID-ATLANTIC REALTY, INC. WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 25, 2005, and the second reading and public hearing were held February 22, 2005; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on February 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 0.68 acres, as described herein, and located at the northwest corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road (Tax Map Number 37.17-01-05) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of I-1, Industrial District with conditions, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District with conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) The property shall be developed as a C-2 use. (2) Entrances onto Peters Creek Road shall be reduced to one (1) right-in and right-out; entrances onto Cove Road shall be reduced to one (1) full movement entrance. (3) All buildings constructed on the property shall have exposed exterior walls (above finished grade) of face brick, natural stone, dryvit, stucco, decorative split face block and/or glass or be of an equivalent, permanent architecturally finished material. No building shall be covered with or have exposed to view any painted or unfinished concrete block, sheet or corrugated aluminum, asbestos, iron or steel. Roofing materials shall either be asphalt shingle or standing metal seam if a raised roof; if a flat roof system is used, a perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam and decorative split face block or brick shall be used. (4) The proffered conditions set forth in Ordinance 82592-8 dated August 25, 1992 and Ordinance 102291-10 dated October 22, 1991, are hereby removed. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Beginning at an iron stake on the northwesterly right-of-way line of Peters Creek Road (VA Rte. 117) 146.29 feet northeasterly from an angle point at the northwesterly corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, said beginning point being the northeasterly corner of the property of Humble Oil Co.; thence leaving February 22, 2005 218 Peters Creek Road and with two lines of the Humble Oil Co. property N. 74° 21’ W. 100.0 feet to an iron stake; thence S. 34° 28’ 30” W. 165.00 feet to an iron stake on the northerly right-of-way line of Cove Road (VA Rte. 116); thence with same, leaving the Humble Oil Co. property N. 74° 21’ W. 113.00 feet to an iron stake, a corner to the property of Mrs. Dorothy H. Whitesell, Mrs. Geraldine H. Waring and Frances H. Easley; thence with same and leaving Cove Road, N. 35° 12’ 10” E. 250.0 feet to a point, a new corner; thence with a new division line through the property of William Kenney S. 62° 16’ 50” E. 201.59 feet to a point on the northwesterly right-of-way line of Peters Creek Road; thence with said right- of-way line with a curved line to the left, having a radius of 2334.83 feet, a chord bearing and distance of S. 36° 59’ 35” W.40.0 feet and an arc distance of 40.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.685 acres, as shown on plat made by David Dick & Associates, dated February 26, 1973, which plat is recorded in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 968 at page 99. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 5. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) O-022205-9 Ms. Scheid reported that Verizon Wireless proposes to construct a 199' broadcast tower at the Moose Lodge property on Catawba Valley Road. The height of the proposed tower would be the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance. The February 22, 2005 219 proposed broadcast tower would be centrally located in the valley in order to serve customers in Masons Cove, Bennett Springs, and those traveling on U.S. Route 311. The tower would not be lighted and would be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. The Moose Lodge on Catawba Valley Drive was constructed in 1983. The property is 25 acres and is currently zoned Agricultural Residential with conditions. In 1985 a "Use Not Provided For'' permit was issued to allow a campground for Moose members which resulted in the conditional zoning. Verizon Wireless is making improvements to their coverage in the Masons Cove area of Roanoke County. The company currently has a site at Pinkerton Chevrolet on Electric Road, but the coverage toward Masons Cove ends at the ridge tops of Fort Lewis Mountain and Brushy Mountain. The proposed broadcast tower would be centrally located in the valley in order to serve customers in Masons Cove, Bennett Springs, and those traveling on U.S. Route 311. Ms. Scheid advised that the proposed tower site is on a small knoll in the Masons Cove valley. The Moose Lodge property rises up to the east from Catawba Valley Road. The tower location would be in the rear of the Moose Lodge at the edge of an existing parking area. The Moose Lodge property consists of open grass fields, parking areas, the lodge building and recreational facilities. Verizon proposes to lease an 80' X 100' area adjacent to the existing parking lot in the southeast corner of the Moose Lodge property. Ms. Scheid stated that a 199' monopole tower is being proposed with an accessory equipment shelter and perimeter fencing. A row of evergreen trees is February 22, 2005 220 proposed around the outside of the perimeter fence. The site is open and relatively flat, and should require very little land disturbance. Many of the adjoining neighbors are separated from the proposed site either by the rest of the 25-acre Moose Lodge property, or the County-owned Whispering Pines Park which lies to the north and east. Adjoining neighbors to the south of the site would be the closest homes to the new structure. The Planning Commission heard the petition on February 1 and had questions regarding whether the tower would be lighted, which it will not. At the community meeting that was held for this petition, questions were raised by the Appalachian Trail Commission regarding the potential impact on the Appalachian Trail view sheds. Since that time, Appalachian Trail representatives have visited the site and determined that this is not an issue. They have since sent a letter in support of the petition. Ms. Scheid reported that the Planning Commission favorably recommends approval of the petition with the following conditions: (1) The broadcast tower shall be a monopole design with a maximum height of 199'. (2) The broadcast tower shall not be lighted unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (3) The broadcast tower shall be constructed of non-reflective materials to reduce visibility and reduce light reflection. (4) The broadcast tower shall be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. (5) The broadcast tower shall be located in the lease area shown on the concept plan entitled "Verizon Site Name: Bradshaw Road", prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc, with engineers stamp seal date of 12/10/04. February 22, 2005 221 Gregory Tulley, land use planner representing Verizon Wireless, was present at the meeting. He introduced Keith Simmons, Verizon System Performance Engineer, who was also in attendance and prepared to address the E-911 impact to the site and system design issues. Mr. Tulley advised that he will be available to address any concerns or questions. Supervisor Wray questioned if the monopole will support more than three carriers. Mr. Tulley stated that the monopole will support three in addition to the anchor tenant, which is Verizon; therefore, there will be a total of four. Supervisor Wray also requested confirmation that the structure would be no taller than 199’. Mr. Tulley responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Wray questioned if this would allow Roanoke County to use the tower for E-911 purposes. Mr. Tulley responded that this is available if desired. Supervisor Wray questioned whether there have been any citizen inquiries since the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Scheid stated that she is not aware of any. She advised that the only concern expressed at the community meeting was the issue regarding Appalachian Trail view sheds, which has been resolved. Mr. Tulley further stated that it is Verizon’s philosophy to work closely with the surrounding community and any relevant associations. He noted Verizon’s participation at the community meeting, as well as several meetings which were held with Appalachian Trail representatives. February 22, 2005 222 Supervisor Wray questioned if there is a requirement that the tower be removed should it become obsolete in the future. Ms. Scheid advised that the County ordinance requires that it be removed within a specific time frame. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Church stated that when the County goes to Phase 2 on the E- 911 system, it will benefit the residents in the Bradshaw Road area. Mr. Simmons advised that Roanoke County is currently in Phase 1 and during this phase, you can obtain the location of the tower from which a 911 call on a cell phone is made, as well as the callback number of the phone and the antenna direction. Phase 2 will provide this same level of information for 911 calls, but will also locate the phone to within 100 yards by use of a GPS triangulation system. Supervisor Church welcomed Bill Wasky to the meeting. He noted that there is currently no cell coverage in the Bradshaw Road area and this will provide an important safety feature for the residents of this area. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance with the following recommendation: (1) The broadcast tower is located in the valley floor, rather than on a mountain side or ridge line. (2) The broadcast tower is a monopole design and can structurally support three other vendors. (3) The broadcast tower would not be lighted and therefore would have less visual impact on the surrounding community. (4) The proposed site is already developed and would be served by an existing driveway and electric service. (5) The proposed site is at least 1.5 to 2 miles from the Appalachian February 22, 2005 223 Trail and significantly lower in elevation than the trail. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 022205-9 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A/ VERIZON WIRELESS TO CONSTRUCT A 199 FT. BROADCAST TOWER AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED AT 3233 CATAWBA VALLEY DRIVE (TAX MAP NO.16.03-1-46) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Cellco Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless has filed a petition for a special use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities to be located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive (Tax Map No. 16.03-1-46) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on February 1, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on January 25, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on February 22, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities to be located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: (1) The broadcast tower shall be a monopole design, with a maximum height of 199 ft. (2) The broadcast tower shall not be lighted. (3) The broadcast tower shall be constructed of non-reflective materials to reduce visibility and reduce light reflection. (4) The broadcast tower shall be structurally capable of carrying at least three other vendors. (5) The broadcast tower shall be located in the lease area shown on the concept plan entitled “Verizon Site Name: Bradshaw Road,” prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc., with engineers stamp seal date of 12/10/04. February 22, 2005 224 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 6. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the vacation, quitclaim and release of portions of various easements in Valley Gateway Business Park to the Commonwealth of Virginia in connection with providing clear title and an unrestricted right-of- way for Integrity Drive, Vinton Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) O-022205-10 Mr. Covey reported that this ordinance was first presented to the Board on February 8, 2005 and he indicated that no changes have been made since that time. The County is quitclaiming the underlying easements on Integrity Drive in order to have it accepted into the State Secondary Road System. There were no citizens present to speak on this item and there was no discussion. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer February 22, 2005 225 NAYS: None ORDINANCE 022205-10 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION, QUITCLAIM AND RELEASE OF PORTIONS OF VARIOUS EASEMENTS IN VALLEY GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING CLEAR TITLE AND AN UNRESTRICTED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR INTEGRITY DRIVE IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the development of Valley Gateway Business Park has necessitated the creation of several easements for public utilities and drainage; and, WHEREAS, the said easements were created prior to the establishment of the full right-of-way boundary for Integrity Drive and portions of the said easements are within the currently established right-of-way boundary of Integrity Drive; and, WHEREAS, the various easements to be vacated were dedicated to Roanoke County as a 20’ storm drainage easement recorded in instrument # 200313258 and a 20’ storm drainage easement recorded in instrument # 200313725, a 20’ public utility easement recorded in Plat Book 19, page 166, and a 20’ public utility easement recorded in Plat Book 27, page 23, a 30’ sewer and waterline easement recorded in Deed Book 1273, page 605, and a 20’ waterline easement, recorded in Plat Book 19, page 166 and Deed Book 1620, page 587, respectively, all of record in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires that the right-of-way for streets to be added to the state system of highways be unrestricted and cleared of all encumbrances; and, WHEREAS, Roanoke County desires to request the Virginia Department of Transportation to add Integrity Drive to the state system of highways and the affected County departments have raised no objection to the vacation, quit-claim and release of the above described easements; and, WHEREAS, published notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended and pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on February 8, 2005; and a public hearing and second reading was held on February 22, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That portions of existing easement designated and shown as “EASEMENTS TO BE VACATED” on a plat entitled “PLAT SHOWING THE VACTION OF EASEMENTS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTEGRITY DRIVE, VALLEY GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK” prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. dated January 21, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference, February 22, 2005 226 be, and hereby are, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, subject to the conditions set forth herein; and, 2. That the vacation, quitclaim and release of the storm drainage easements, the waterline easement and the sewer and waterline easement is subject to, upon the acceptance of Integrity Drive into the state system of highways, the issuance of a land use permit by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) such that the existing waterlines, sewer lines, storm drains and their appurtenances may continue to occupy, in their current configuration, the area within the right-o-way boundary for Integrity Drive. 3. That conveyance of the property identified as “INTEGRITY DRIVE” on the above reference plat to the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That in the event said existing facilities are subsequently not within the right-of-way boundary due to street abandonment or realignment, the County will exert its prior rights and the subject easements shall revert to the possession of the County of Roanoke. 5. That the County Administrator or any assistant county administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this quitclaim and release of easement interests and conveyance of property, 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 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for regional jail reimbursement funding to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Corrections. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator) R-022205-11 February 22, 2005 227 Supervisor Altizer referenced a recent article in the Roanoke Times and stated that after reading the article, he contacted Mayor Nelson Harris, Roanoke City, and requested that he poll City Council members to determine if there was interest in becoming a partner in the regional jail project. Supervisor Altizer advised that Mayor Harris responded yesterday and advised that there is sufficient interest in possibly participating in the project. Today, the Board received a second letter clarifying certain points and also indicating that the City did not want to deter the County proceeding with its application for funding. Supervisor Altizer stated that some of the emails received by the Board indicate that the article was confusing and appeared to indicate that a site in Roanoke City had been selected or that the County could move into the existing Roanoke City jail. He advised that he wants to make it clear that a second letter was received clarifying that a selected site does not exist in Roanoke City. Mayor Harris further advised that Roanoke City does not know if a site is available close to the existing jail in downtown Roanoke. Supervisor Altizer advised that both he and Mayor Harris have concerns regarding whether Roanoke City can obtain a waiver from the state to join the regional project. The following citizens spoke regarding this item: Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, stated that Roanoke County should submit the jail application to meet the March 1 deadline. He further advised that the County should keep their options open and explore other possibilities. He stated that February 22, 2005 228 the Higginbotham site has high development costs and he estimated that water, sewer, gas, grading, driveways and roadways, site access, and stormwater costs will total $4.5 million. If this is added to the $1.6 million purchase price, the site totals $6 million. He stated that the site could only be used for the jail and questioned if this is cost effective. He indicated that citizens have not been receiving sufficient data on projected costs, and the public may become more supportive if sufficient information is provided. Craig Sharp, 4560 Cowman Road, advised that he has been impressed with the Board’s stewardship of the citizen’s tax dollars. He stated that he is speaking at the meeting due to new reports he has read and past meetings regarding the jail. He stated that whether $6 million to develop a site is appropriate or not falls in the realm of political economics. The Department of Corrections (DOC) has advised that final plans can be developed over time, and Mr. Sharp urged the Board to vote to submit the application. He stated that Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern (HSM&M) has extensive experience in these types of projects and he encouraged the Board to ask them questions regarding the best choice for the site. He stated that he has become aware through the news media that there has been innuendo against certain staff members. He stated that the commentary that has existed has not served to clarify the issues. He stated that if the Board is interested in finding out the reasons why information is not presented, they should sit down with the experts and listen to them. He stated that the costs in this project will rise and noted the rising market costs. He voiced support for continuing to move forward with the project in a fair manner to avoid further rising costs. February 22, 2005 229 He stated that he hopes his words have been clear in case his body language has not been. Mark A. Layman, 6302 Dry Hollow Road, advised that he served on the citizens’ committee and could not obtain information. He referenced a quote by Mr. Hodge in the Roanoke Times article which stated “if the city wishes to do that with the land we have available at the Higginbotham site, they can come in any time they want”. Mr. Layman indicated that Mr. Hodge should have noted the possibility of an alternative site with an open mind and that once again, unaccountability and an arrogant attitude does not do anything for the County. He stated that it is the job of the County Administrator to follow up on all possible site leads and staff’s job is to work for the citizens and not to further their own agendas or visions of a master plan. He referenced the letter from Mayor Harris indicating that the City does not have a site or know if they will be able to meet the requirements. He questioned if the results would have been different if this information had not been withheld from the citizens’ committee and the Board. He asked that the Board not purchase the Higginbotham property until the possibility of partnering with Roanoke City is fully explored. Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive, advised that she is speaking as the political chair of the Sierra Club. She indicated that the group has previously commented in opposition to the Higginbotham site and advised that their opposition is not to the regional jail. She stated that public facilities should be located on unused or under-used land within the areas already served with streets, water and sewer, etc. February 22, 2005 230 The location should not contribute to the environmental degradation of riparian habitat, agricultural areas and natural woodlands. She noted that the citizens’ committee was not made aware of possible interest on the part of Roanoke City and that the existing Salem site was not fully explored. She questioned what special appeal the Higginbotham site holds for the County. She further voiced concerns regarding Native American sites along the banks of the Roanoke River, as well as an existing cemetery on the site. She stated that the project reflects rising costs which now total $88 million and that citizens deserve a full disclosure and exploration of all possible sites. She requested that the citizens’ committee be given the opportunity to explore other options before the site selection is finalized. Bob Seymour, 7552 Boxwood Drive, stated that the most significant concern is the capacity projections. He stated that the demographics are flat and there is no population growth in the County; therefore, how is there such an enormous need to accommodate a rising need for prison space. He stated that the scope of the project should be examined and noted a projected cost of $53 million. He noted that bed space is projected to increase from 280 to 452 and then to 1,006 in order to accommodate other municipalities. He questioned why the County needs to take on so much. He stated that the argument to rush due to rising costs could be used to justify any potential capital outlay because costs will always rise. He questioned what is the return on investment for a prison, why Roanoke City was not involved from the beginning, and February 22, 2005 231 why the need to rush. He stated that the biggest concern is a problem with the process and there is no constituent buy-in. J.C. Whitlock, Jr., 5839 West River Road, noted that hundreds of citizens attended the meeting at the Salem Civic Center in opposition to the jail. He stated that now the majority is saying the Board will do what they want to do regardless of what the citizens have to say. He stated that the Board works for the citizens. He further advised that he has attended every meeting and the County administration is a one-way street which shoves things down the citizens’ throat. He stated that Mr. Wray and Mr. Church have been the only two on the Board who have been open-minded throughout the process. He indicated that the Higginbotham site is not the appropriate location for the jail and noted concerns about the 100 year floodplain. He stated that the Horn site would be a better choice because it is not located in the floodplain. He stated that the citizens of West County will not forget what is done and he questioned what Mr. Hodge’s master plan is for the area. He stated that attempting to make the March 1 deadline is a mistake. Jean Taylor, 5390 West River Road, stated that there are very few who believe the jail is a good idea other than those who stand to gain financially. The cost of the project is no object. She stated that she cannot believe that the Chair and County Administrator met with the Mayor and City Manager regarding this matter and remained silent. She stated that there is a plaintive cry for new and responsive leadership. February 22, 2005 232 IN RE: RECESS Chairman Altizer declared the meeting in recess from 8:30 p.m. until 8:47 p.m. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED) Mr. Hodge introduced the following individuals who were present from the partner localities: (1) Franklin County: Lieutenant Ewell Hunt, Vickie Meador, and Chris Whitlow, Assistant County Administrator. Mr. Hodge noted that the Franklin County Board of Supervisors met this evening and adopted a resolution unanimously supporting the regional jail project application. (2) Montgomery County: Sheriff Witt, Captain Hall, and Clay Goodman, County Administrator. (3) City of Salem: Mayor Sonny Tarpley and Sheriff Roger Surber. Mr. Hodge also advised that the following individuals from HSM&M were present: Scott Hodge, Bill Porter, Bill King (Thompson Litton), Dan Bolt, and Ed Powell (Powell Consulting). Mr. Hodge advised that this is a request to submit an application to the Virginia Department of Corrections for permission to construct a 592 cell regional jail on behalf of Roanoke County, Salem, Montgomery County and Franklin County. This must be done by March 1, 2005 to meet the state imposed deadline. He stated that during the meeting, he will provide an overview of the staff presentation; Mr. Chambliss will review the material that will be included in the application package. He noted that representatives from the partner localities were present and expressed appreciation for their support and participation. He further advised that Sheriff Holt is also present, in February 22, 2005 233 addition to representatives from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern (HSMM) who can address engineering questions related to the project. Mr. Hodge stated that the County has come a long way since discussions began about expanding or building a new jail more than twelve months ago. He noted that localities in Virginia must get permission from the State to build or add on to a jail, and that Roanoke County obtained that permission during the 2004 General Assembly. A copy of the waiver was included in the Board’s agenda package and states that the County’s application must be submitted by March 1, 2005. The General Assembly has not granted an extension beyond this date. Mr. Hodge reported that Montgomery and Franklin counties, two of our partners, have applied to the General Assembly for a waiver this year. He advised that if the Board grants approval tonight, the County will be able to open the new facility in 2008. At the January 11th meeting, the Board voted to authorize staff to obtain an option on the Higginbotham Farms property on which to build the jail and this has been done. HSM&M has also completed geotechnical work and prepared a preliminary design that fits well on the site. Staff is also pleased that the projected cost for the County’s share of the new facility remains in the range of the $20 million that was presented to the Board several months ago. He noted that a reference has been made to the $15 million that was in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in April 2004. At that time, there were only two localities involved in the project. The CIP indicates that the plan at that time was to expand the existing jail which would have provided 80 beds. The County realized, as did the CIP committee, that more than this February 22, 2005 234 approach was needed. Following this, a full analysis of the long-range needs was conducted. The current engineering work indicates that Roanoke County’s share of the new facility would be 224 beds. Mr. Hodge reported that last year, staff advised that the DOC had indicated that a rule of thumb when planning for jail construction was to set aside $100,000 per cell. Anticipating a need for 600 new cells for all four localities, estimates have been in the $60 million range to be shared by the state and all four participating localities. The projected budget that has been presented is based on approximately $120,000 per cell or roughly $88.7 million. Mr. Hodge noted that construction costs (especially concrete and steel) are rising sharply and the DOC has suggested that a projected annual inflation cost of 8% for 30 months (or the midpoint of construction) be included. This has been done and a suitable contingency amount has been provided. He stated that Roanoke County’s projected share of the construction cost remains within the range of the original $20 million budget, and the annual debt payments are included in the projected debt service fund for the school and county capital, which is funded with the new $600,000 incremental increase that will be included in the 2005-06 budget. Upon the Board’s approval of this request, staff will submit the application to the DOC in order to meet the March 1 deadline. Mr. Hodge outlined the following steps that must be taken by the County and/or the authority to meet the opening date of 2008: (1) Negotiate and form a regional authority – Spring, 2005; (2) Receive Board of Corrections approval of the plan February 22, 2005 235 – Summer, 2005; (3) Funding request in the Governor’s 2006 Capital Budget – December, 2005; (4) Design and engineer building – Summer, 2005; (5) Request construction bids – Summer 2006; (6) Close on the property by either County or authority – Spring, 2006; (7) Seek County rezoning of the property – Winter, 2005; (8) Conduct a 2232 Comprehensive Plan update – Winter, 2005; (9) Consider a Special Use Permit – Winter, 2005. Mr. Hodge advised that the request pending is not for any type of funding and no money will be needed to close on land or for construction for almost a year. He stated that it may be possible to have the Authority finance the project for all participating localities. He stated that he understands the concerns and anxiety of the citizens in that area and he indicated that he wished the County did not have to do this, but the jail must be constructed. He apologized to the residents for the concerns that this issue has caused. Mr. Chambliss noted that Attachment C in the agenda packet is a cost profile. He advised that the facility will be 592 beds based upon the median jail construction cost for this region which is $205 per square foot and a local factor of 0.9 for an estimated cost of $184.50 per square foot for basic construction costs. He indicated that the state requires information dealing with project construction costs, offsite facility and future expansion of core facility costs, and associated fees for architects, engineers, and geotechnical studies and permits. The total projected cost is $88,742,017. This includes several factors which are outlined below: February 22, 2005 236 (1) The basic cost of the facility (to include cost of the land, development of the land, and the building) is approximately $60 million. To this cost, an 8% inflation factor must be added which totals $10,105,000. The 8% is based upon the state recommendation. Mr. Chambliss noted that many projects with longer lead times are estimating inflation rates of up to 10%. In the County’s situation, an 8% inflation factor was used for a 30 month period of time. When these two costs are factored together, and he noted that the inflation cost is an eligible cost that will be shared by the state, this brings the total to $70,993,000 or $119,900 per bed for construction costs. Of that $70 million, the state will be sharing approved capital costs at a 50/50 ratio (approximately $35,500,000 for the state’s share). (2) Non-eligible costs are not shared by state but must be borne by the localities. This includes items such as capitalized interest costs. If the debt is issued by an authority, it will be a revenue bond issue and there will be a need to establish a debt reserve fund of one year’s principal and interest. The capital equipment not built into the facility (computer equipment, tables, and food carts) totals $2.25 million. Startup expenses (training of new staff, transition of inmates into the facility) are projected at approximately $17 million. Mr. Chambliss advised that this is in line with the items normally recognized on the application forms to the state, and he noted that debt service costs are not shared by the state. The County will need to borrow the full amount of the debt and after construction is completed, costs are reimbursed up to 50% of the allowable costs once reviewed and audited by the state. The County would February 22, 2005 237 structure borrowing so that there is no long-term interest paid on the debt. Mr. Chambliss indicated that the local share is approximately $53 million and advised that beds have been allocated on a percentage basis: City of Salem-10%; Roanoke County- 38%; Franklin County-32%; and Montgomery County-20%. Roanoke County’s share will total approximately $20,233,180 based on the pro forma model presented. Mr. Chambliss stated that two studies are required for filing the application. He indicated that the four jurisdictions hired Powell Consulting Services to conduct the community based corrections plan study. In the study, the corrections opportunities available within the community are examined, as well as the inmate population, projections for the growth in the general population, and other factors which may have an impact on the amount of inmate space required. He noted that the state requires a projection of 10 years beyond the occupancy date of the facility. The report indicated that 1,006 beds would be needed for the four jurisdictions. From this, the current 217 rated bed space that is available in the existing three jails must be subtracted (49-Franklin County; 60-Montgomery; and 108-Roanoke County/Salem). The new beds will be allocated based on the previously mentioned percentage allocations. Mr. Chambliss advised that the footprint of the building will provide 592 rated beds and will be equipped so that 200 of these beds can be double bunked, generating 792 new beds. Mr. Chambliss stated that as discussed earlier, the City of Roanoke’s needs can be considered in the future. There is a March 1 filing deadline February 22, 2005 238 and if the site needs to be changed or the type of facility must be amended, these can be forwarded to the Board of Corrections (BOC) for approval. In addition, an authority or cooperative agreement will need to be established to address the sharing of costs for the facility. With respect to the requests made by the City of Roanoke, at the present time they do not have a waiver from the state allowing them to participate in the application; however, this does not prohibit the County from including the City in discussions and them possibly joining in the authority at a future time. The application being requested is based on the development costs for the Higginbotham site and will also be for the four partners mentioned and for a 592 bed facility. Mr. Chambliss requested approval of the resolution for submittal to Richmond by March 1. Supervisor Church inquired about the cost for the Higginbotham site. Mr. Chambliss advised that the first phase option was $10,000. Supervisor Church further questioned if the site has been purchased yet. Mr. Chambliss responded in the negative. Supervisor Church stated that we have known about the overcrowding situation for a number of years. He questioned why the County did not begin the search for the site 8-10 months ago and he questioned if Mr. Hodge could provide any reason why the discussion with Roanoke City in December was not brought to everyone’s attention. Mr. Hodge advised that Mr. Chambliss would have to provide information regarding the site selection because he dealt with the committee. With respect to Roanoke City, Mr. Hodge stated that contrary to what was in the Roanoke Times, there February 22, 2005 239 was never any indication from Roanoke City that there was a site available. The first he heard of this was late Friday night or Saturday. Mr. Hodge stated that when he attended that meeting in December with then Chairman Flora, he recalled there was a short conversation toward the end of the meeting regarding the jail. He advised that the key point was that the City Manager was going to speak with the City’s Sheriff regarding the issue and this was the last that County staff heard of it. Mr. Hodge indicated that there was nothing to report to the Board and that no one said that they might have a site that they could share with us. Supervisor Church questioned, in light of all the controversy and uneasy feelings of the citizens, if it wouldn’t have been proper to pursue this. Mr. Hodge stated that if the Board recalls the history of the Roanoke City jail, it was expanded in 1997 and the facts that County staff knew were these: (1) When staff met with representatives in the General Assembly in January and February 2004, we knew that you could get a higher reimbursement if the project was regional in nature. When staff returned from the meeting, Mr. Hodge advised that he called other surrounding localities to see if Roanoke County could be included in their construction plans. One locality already had received bids and the project was too far along to include Roanoke County. When Franklin and Montgomery Counties were contacted, we were told that they had a need and they were interested in working with us. Mr. Hodge stated that staff knew that Roanoke City had just completed an expansion and they had excess capacity that they were allowing others to use on an interim basis. No one from the City approached the County about being a part of this project until the February 22, 2005 240 breakfast meeting in December and at that time, it was a brief inquiry as to whether or not the Sheriff had had any conversation with us. Mr. Hodge advised that it was his understanding that the City was going to discuss this issue and get back with the County, and they did not. Supervisor Church noted that Mr. Hodge had stated “contrary to what I may have heard”, and he advised that this is not relevant. He stated that he works in sales and he has two words that he lives by: just ask. All that they can say is no. Supervisor Church noted comments made by Buck Simmons that the County was going to wear down the citizens by holding too many meetings. Supervisor Church advised that the citizens should have been included in the process over a year ago, and he provided a recap of the process that has been followed to date. He indicated that the need for the jail has never been a question; however, he questioned why Roanoke City was never a consideration. He further questioned how many possible sites could have been considered in the two months (since the December meeting) and how much taxpayer money could be saved. He stated that we will not know if we don’t check into it. He stated that we have been so focused on the Higginbotham site that we are forgetting the obvious questions that should have been asked. He noted that the citizens’ committee members expressed frustration with the process, and he indicated that there is the matter of the certain yet uncertain deadline of March 1. Supervisor Church stated that both he and Supervisor Wray had requested an independent and separate evaluation of the current site in downtown Salem, but this was denied by the February 22, 2005 241 Board. He stated that he still does not know the results of the Salem site evaluation. He noted his past record of voicing concerns relating to procedural matters such as the Mount Pleasant golf course and issues relating to the development of water and sewer, Slate Hill, and Keagy Village. He stated that all he did was support the people’s concerns and he advised that the County has unnecessarily disrupted people’s lives. He stated that he has a hard time with all the coincidences and things that do not add up, and he indicated that there is nothing wrong with the citizens’ cries for assistance. Supervisor Flora advised that Mr. Hodge was correct regarding how the meeting with Roanoke City took place, and he stated that at the end of the meeting the discussion regarding the jail was brought up. He indicated that the statement was made that one Council member had asked whether the City had been contacted about participating in the project. Supervisor Flora advised that neither he nor Mr. Hodge could answer that question because they had not been involved in the discussions. The County then posed the question “are you interested” and the City replied that they did not know. The discussion then turned to how Sheriff McMillan felt regarding the prospect, and City staff did not have the answer to this question either. Supervisor Flora stated that the last thing that was said was that the City would go back, speak with the Sheriff to determine his level of interest, and they would respond back to the County. He advised that this was in December and that from that point until the time he completed his term as Chairman in January, no response was received from Roanoke City. Supervisor Flora stated that there was never any intention to hide anything and February 22, 2005 242 there was nothing to report. At no time was there discussion regarding a site; in fact, he assumed that if the City were to participate at all it would be on the County’s site. Supervisor Flora stated that regarding another issue, he would like to clear up a comment that was made earlier in the meeting which was that the project is $88 million; however after the state’s share, $53 million remains as the local share. He advised that he wants to make it clear that Roanoke County’s share is $20,233,000 of the $53 million. He stated that another comment was made about not worrying about the increasing costs; however, he referenced an article in the Washington Post during the past week which addressed escalating construction costs. He indicated that he is currently working to update estimates for school construction due to rising costs. He advised that Hidden Valley High School was built for $100 per square foot; however some new school construction costs are running $175 per square foot. He noted that costs have increased at least 30% in the last year and this is a significant factor. If you need to build a jail somewhere, a delay for two years could result in a cost increase of as much as $15 to $20 million over current estimates. He urged the Board to not delay the decision, and noted that we still have the opportunity to change sites and add partners. Supervisor Wray requested clarification that the 50% reimbursement ratio mentioned is up to 50% and figures presented to the Board are based on 50% reimbursement. Mr. Chambliss responded that the figures presented are 50% of what staff anticipates as eligible project costs. In response to a further inquiry from February 22, 2005 243 Supervisor Wray, Mr. Chambliss advised that the average reimbursement is 35%-50% depending on the size of the facility and the type of construction costs encountered. In Roanoke County’s case, the model reflects about 40% state reimbursement. Supervisor Wray questioned if 10%-15% should be added to the projected cost. Mr. Chambliss responded that the model used is based on realistic eligible costs and it is within the range that staff anticipates the state will reimburse at the 50% rate. The additional costs of $17 million are for non-eligible costs as explained earlier. Supervisor Wray noted that in the minutes of the October 12 meeting, Mr. Chambliss had advised that there are two specialized studies regarding the needs assessment. He questioned if Roanoke City is brought in as a partner, does the needs assessment say that you have to have a number. Mr. Chambliss advised that the community based corrections plan determines the number of beds needed for the facility and is specific to the localities in the project. The data was collected and projected for the four partner localities. Powell Consulting Services projected 1,006 beds for the four jurisdictions for the year 2018. It is anticipated that the facility will be occupied initially with 492 inmates, in addition to the 217 beds already available in the three existing jails. The remainder of the growth would occur over a 10 year period and the committee has attempted to allocate the relative share of beds that would be needed for each locality. The 592 bed facility is approximately 200 beds short of meeting the full 1,006 needed, and a waiver has been requested in order to double bunk the facility in order to meet the projected 10 year need. Mr. Chambliss further February 22, 2005 244 advised that any double bunk beds that are available can be rented out in order to reduce initial operating costs or debt service so that the facility could be paid for earlier. Supervisor Wray requested that Sheriff Holt address the possibility of partnering with Roanoke City based on his knowledge of inmate populations. Sheriff Holt referenced Supervisor Flora’s earlier comments regarding the December meeting. He stated that when he read the article in the Roanoke Times, that was the first time that he had any knowledge that there was interest in partnering by Roanoke City. He advised that he spoke with Sheriff McMillan on Saturday and discussed the article with him. Sheriff McMillan advised that he was approached by the City Manager in early January and he had advised her that Roanoke City’s jail had adequate bed space and additional space was not needed. Sheriff Holt reported that the Roanoke City jail was expanded and the new annex opened in 1997. He indicated that the jail was built based upon the City’s needs assessment at that time and is in the vicinity of 400 beds. He noted that the City immediately double bunked the beds and brought the total capacity up to approximately 800 beds. Since that time, they have had a contract to hold up to 100 federal prisoners and they also hold some Roanoke County and Franklin County prisoners. Sheriff Holt stated that based on their utilization, it would appear that they have sufficient bed space to meet their needs. He indicated that all of his instructions on the standards of operations imposed by the state require a demonstration of true need for additional space specific to each locality. Because of the general knowledge that existed, Sheriff February 22, 2005 245 Holt advised that staff knew that in all probability Roanoke City did not have a demonstrated need. He stated that at some point in the future, a regional project would be able to open the door to nearby localities to join the authority. Supervisor Wray stated that he did not get a good feeling that Roanoke City would be joining in the project or that they would qualify based on a needs assessment. Sheriff Holt advised that this would be his opinion at this time; however, only the DOC can answer that question. He advised that based on the standards manual, localities must meet certain tests to qualify for construction of jail space. Supervisor McNamara questioned if the Roanoke City Sheriff has contacted Sheriff Holt in the past year and expressed an interest in participating in the jail project. Sheriff Holt responded in the negative. Supervisor McNamara asked Mr. Chambliss if at any point during the jail study committee he had heard any expression of interest from Roanoke City prior to the newspaper article on Saturday. Mr. Chambliss responded in the negative. Supervisor McNamara asked Mr. Hodge if he had heard any expression of interest from Roanoke City other than the passing comment. Mr. Hodge responded that that was the only comment that had been made. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor McNamara, Sheriff Holt advised that the capacity of the Roanoke City jail is in excess of 800 prisoners. In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor McNamara, Sheriff Holt reported that the capacity of the February 22, 2005 246 existing Roanoke County/Salem jail is 108 prisoners but the County holds between 280- 300 prisoners. Supervisor McNamara questioned whether it is unusual in the State of Virginia to have jails holding double the number of prisoners for which the facility is rated. Sheriff Holt advised that it is not unusual and that the older the facility, the more overcrowding that will exist. Sheriff Holt stated that there are slightly over 17,000 jail beds in Virginia and an inmate population of over 23,000, leaving a 7,000 bed deficit state-wide at this time. Supervisor McNamara questioned if it would be reasonable to say if Roanoke City has a capacity of 800, it would not be out of the norm to have a capacity of 1,500 prisoners in a facility rated for 800. Sheriff Holt responded in the affirmative. Supervisor McNamara requested confirmation that Roanoke City currently houses prisoners for both Franklin and Roanoke County and they receive funds for this. Sheriff Holt responded in the affirmative and noted that the localities pay a minimum per diem cost to Roanoke City. Supervisor McNamara stated that he assumes that the County would not have a need to house prisoners in the Roanoke City jail once the regional facility is built. Sheriff Holt responded in the affirmative. Supervisor McNamara noted that one of the speakers spoke of fiduciary trust in controlling costs and the statement was made that “money is no object”. He stated that money is an object with the Board and they try to operate with a keen eye February 22, 2005 247 toward providing cost effective services. He questioned what percentage of the total life cycle cost of a jail over a 30 year period is initial construction. Mr. Bolt advised that it is 10%. Supervisor McNamara noted that 90% of the total cost of a jail is operational costs. Supervisor McNamara stated that the proposed layout of the facility is a flat design as opposed to a high rise. He questioned if this is more cost effective in the long run. Mr. Porter responded in the affirmative and advised that it is typically safer and more cost effective to have a design with two levels of housing opening into a single level day room. Supervisor McNamara questioned what type of efficiencies exist in a flat level over a multi-story facility. Mr. Porter advised that he does not have cost estimates for this type of information. Supervisor McNamara questioned if it is accurate that a “sprawl” concept is more cost effective than a high rise. Mr. Porter responded in the affirmative and stated that generally, localities try to locate a jail facility in a rural area that is open, allows for future expansion, and can be built on one level. He stated that typically prisons and regional jails are more spread out because it is more cost effective and cheaper to build. Supervisor McNamara stated that there are efficiencies in having a jail spread out rather than a high rise. The Board did, however, vote to hire HSM&M to examine the feasibility of expanding the current jail facility. He indicated that the existing jail was examined and it cannot be expanded. He advised that the 488 bed February 22, 2005 248 projection was before there was a change in the City of Salem building code which rendered that discussion as not a possible alternative. He stated that the Board needs to submit the application and if something develops between now and when construction begins, the Board can look at it. Supervisor McNamara indicated that to not proceed is a breach to the individuals who work in the existing jail. He advised that the Commonwealth’s Attorney has concerns about the overcrowding. He further noted the support and equipment that has been provided to the Police and Fire and Rescue Departments, and stated that we should not place the Sheriff’s Office in harm’s way for an additional two years to continue with evaluations. He noted there are not major problems with the Higginbotham site and that moving forward is the right thing to do; he stated that it is worse on the citizens to keep bringing up options that are not feasible. Supervisor Church asked Gerald Holt if he has personally asked Sheriff McMillan about joining Roanoke County in the regional jail. Sheriff Holt responded in the negative. Supervisor Church asked Mr. Chambliss if he has personally contacted the City of Roanoke and asked them to join in the process. Mr. Chambliss responded that he has not spoken with Roanoke City about this matter prior to today. Supervisor Church asked Mr. Hodge if he has spoken with Roanoke City about the jail. Mr. Hodge responded in the negative. Supervisor Church stated that we can agree to disagree. He noted that Craig Sharp had made a comment and it tells him a lot about what goes on in Roanoke February 22, 2005 249 County. He stated that there are only 8 or 10 people in the room who know what this means because it relates to a personnel situation. He stated that it is amazing how information can get all around this area and yet we cannot tell our citizens what is going on. He stated that a jail is a tough choice, but you have to bring the tough object out in front and say “let’s work it out”. He stated that he is not trying to put Sheriff’s Office employees in jeopardy, and he noted that there is plenty of room in the Roanoke City jail. He recommended that instead of making an $80 million possibility of a mistake, why not allow Roanoke City to handle the overflow capacity for Roanoke County. He stated that there has not been full disclosure and at best, he would vote to stop the process. At worst, he would strongly encourage the Board to appoint a citizen committee to do a true evaluation of all possible sites, including Roanoke City. Supervisor Altizer stated that when we talk about an inflationary factor, if we use conservative estimates and assume the projected cost is $80 million; if the County submitted their application not figuring the state’s inflation rate of 8% and if we chose to go with $80 million and it came out above that estimate, could we potentially lose some of the state contribution. Mr. Chambliss advised that once the state BOC has approved the project and the budget, that would be the maximum amount eligible for reimbursement. If the costs came in higher than that amount, you could petition the state for reconsideration or additional funding; however, it must go through a funding cycle to be included in the state budget process. This could be as much as two years later to receive funds, if any are received at all. Mr. Chambliss stated that typically there February 22, 2005 250 has been a 10% cap on funding increases. At this time, it is difficult to project inflation rates due to the increasing rate of steel and other construction costs. There was general discussion regarding the water filtration plant in Salem which had previously been presented as a potential site for the regional jail. Supervisor Altizer stated that while it has not been a perfect process, when you are dealing with controversial projects there will be some bumps. He stated that he does believe that the Board tried to not make a quick decision and made a good faith effort in appointing a citizens’ committee. He noted that individual members of the committee made decisions but from the standpoint of the Board, all members tried to strengthen the process and give it time to develop. He stated that there has been discussion about extending two years; however in reality to extend two years is to extend four. He stated that the reapplication process may begin in two years, but construction will be a four- year process. He advised that it is incumbent upon the Board to do the best thing for the taxpayers’ dollars. He stated that he has a fear that if the County does not move forward, an $80 million project will become a $120 million project. With respect to safety, all Board members are concerned for the safety of the Sheriff’s Department. He stated that he has personally seen the overcrowding when he toured the facility and the need has never been a question. Supervisor Altizer indicated that the Board has tried to be visionary in this process, and citizens expect the Board to be visionaries and to make the hard decisions. He noted that this was demonstrated recently when the Board met with the School Board to establish a funding stream for school and County February 22, 2005 251 projects. He stated that this weekend, he spoke with Mayor Harris because he wanted to gauge the interest of Roanoke City. He advised Mayor Harris of his willingness to continue to look at what the City could provide and asked him to formally poll his council members, which was done. Supervisor Altizer stated that both he and Mayor Harris knew there were many variables to be addressed, such as whether a waiver could be granted. He stated that he personally realizes there are some obstacles and that he also spoke with Mayor Harris today to clarify whether there is a site from the City to determine how viable this option is for the County. Supervisor Altizer advised that the County can move this project forward while at the same time evaluating Roanoke City. He has promised Mayor Harris that he will remain in contact to determine how they wish to participate, and there is sufficient time to study the City’s participation while continuing to move forward with the application. If Roanoke City were able to obtain a waiver, he does not foresee the DOC not allowing the site to be amended to include this additional partner. Supervisor Altizer stated that the County must be visionary and move forward with the information that is known today. He voiced support for moving forward with a parallel process. Supervisor Church stated that he does not feel he can support the decision to move forward and he does not feel good about the process. He cited numerous examples of regional cooperation and questioned why Roanoke City was not considered as a potential partner. February 22, 2005 252 Supervisor McNamara indicated that Roanoke County’s share of the jail is just over $20 million and this is the amount that has been in the CIP for at least four or five months. Further, he stated that the citizens’ committee did a lot of work and would have liked more time; however, they came up with two recommendations: Higginbotham Farms and CRT. The Board removed CRT from the list for consideration. He stated that while the citizens’ committee was not in unanimous agreement, the Board is not always in unanimous agreement. He thanked the members of the citizens’ committee and administration. Supervisor Church noted that several members of the citizens’ committee gave the CRT site a ranking of zero and that this impacted the outcome of the committee results and skewed the averages. He expressed appreciation to the citizens’ committee members. Supervisor Wray stated that he is struggling with the issue and wants to find a way to move forward to meet the deadline while also looking at other localities. He stated that it is cheaper to do this once; however he questioned if more localities participate, would this not also be cheaper. Mr. Chambliss advised that it would be cheaper overall because the fixed costs are distributed over more beds, as well as any ineligible costs. Supervisor Wray requested additional information regarding the March 1 deadline and the possibility of adding Roanoke City at a later date. Mr. Chambliss reported that the March 1 deadline is for submitting the application and amendments February 22, 2005 253 can be made after that date. At this time, Roanoke City does not have a waiver from the General Assembly and without this, they cannot submit a plan. Roanoke City could make this request in the next session, be granted a waiver, and then have a community based corrections plan to determine their future need for beds. He advised that Roanoke City can not piggy back on the County’s needs assessment and will need to conduct their own. Once this is determined, it could be examined for incorporation into a regional facility. Mr. Chambliss indicated that one of the advantages for the proposed footprint is that a pod contains 112 beds and the modular design allows for expansion in the future. He advised that no time has been lost in discussions for any localities that may want to join. He stated that there are two critical points that must be addressed: (1) Roanoke City must have a waiver; (2) Roanoke City must have their own determination of the number of beds required. Supervisor Flora moved to approve staff recommendation, adoption of the resolution authorizing the County Administrator to sign the transmittal letter for the application and submittal of the package to the DOC prior to March 1, 2005, with the understanding that in the event another jurisdiction wishes to join we will consider accommodating that in the process through either future amendments to the resolution or whatever steps are required. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Flora, Altizer NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray February 22, 2005 254 Supervisor Wray advised that his biggest disappointment was with the process. He stated that the need has been demonstrated, and advised Sheriff Holt that he will get his jail. He indicated that that the problem was that he felt like if it could have been brought forward, we would not be where we are now. RESOLUTION 022205-11 AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR REGIONAL JAIL REIMBURSEMENT FUNDING TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, BOARD OF CORRECTIONS WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Franklin County, Montgomery County, and the City of Salem have determined that a need exists to construct additional jail space to supplement their current jail facilities, and WHEREAS, these localities have contracted with Powell Consulting Services to prepare a Community Based Corrections Plan and with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern to develop a Planning Study as required by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Corrections, Standards for Planning, Design, Construction and Reimbursement of Local Correctional Facilities , and WHEREAS, these four localities have requested a waiver from the moratorium so that the regional jail plan may be submitted to the Department of Corrections prior to March 1, 2005 in accordance with §53.1-82.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, and be considered by the Board of Corrections for recommendation to the Governor to be included in the 2006 budget for appropriation by the General Assembly, and WHEREAS, these four localities intend to negotiate a cooperative agreement and to form an authority pursuant to §53.1-95.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, to construct and operate said regional jail on behalf of the four localities, and WHEREAS, the proposed authority (or the localities) shall be eligible for reimbursement of up to fifty percent (50%) of eligible project costs of the regional facility pursuant to §53.1-81 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, 1. That it hereby supports the submittal of an application by Roanoke County, Franklin County, Montgomery County, and the City of Salem for the construction, operation, and reimbursement of a regional jail to serve the correctional needs of these localities, and requests favorable consideration of this application by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Corrections. 2. That it requests reimbursement from the Board of Corrections and the Commonwealth of Virginia of 50% of the eligible project costs for the proposed regional jail as provided in the Planning Study, pursuant to §53.1-81 of the Code of Virginia. February 22, 2005 255 3. That it hereby authorizes the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute such documents and to take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Flora, Altizer NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Wray: (1) He advised that there will be a citizens’ information meeting regarding Buck Mountain Road - Route 679 on Monday, February 28, from 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. at Clearbrook Elementary School. He requested that staff confirm whether this is currently on the County’s website. (2) He stated that he had received a letter from the WVWA concerning inquiries on the golf course (George Golf Designs) and the extension of water and sewer lines. He inquired about the status of the project. Mr. Hodge advised that the option on the property was extended and the developer is working on the project. Mr. Hodge stated that he has not spoken with the developer for approximately 30 days. Supervisor Church indicated that he had previously been advised that work was going on; but in fact, this was incorrect information. He stated that the letter was sent by Gary Robertson, Director of Water Operations for the WVWA, to clarify this fact. Mr. Hodge advised that for any extension of water and sewer lines to occur, the County would be involved in the process and will have control over development within our locality. Supervisor Altizer: (1) He advised that a press conference was held at the Mount Pleasant Fire Station this morning to announce a mutual aid agreement between 256 February 22,2005 the County and the City of Roanoke to reduce fire and rescue response times. He expressed appreciation to everyone involved in this project and the citizens for their support. (2) He requested information regarding the installation of a traffic signal at Valley Gateway. Mr. Hodge advised that the state (VDOT) is going to assist in funding for this improvement. He noted that VDOT had previously been reluctant to provide funding for the Valley Gateway signal light until funding for other signal light requests in the nearby vicinity had been addressed. Mr. Hodge reported that funding for all three signal lights is now in place and ready to move forward, one of which will be on West Ruritan Road. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. until Tuesday, March 1, 2005, for the purpose of a budget work session, Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, 4th Floor Training Room. Submitted by: Approved by: f1~lo.. ~. dJJMALV Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board kJdu. dttt Michael W. Altizer ~ Chairman