Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/22/2005 - Regular March 22, 2005 351 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 March 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 March, 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; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Pastor Joe Copolo, Glad Tidings Assembly of God. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. March 22, 2005 352 IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Mahoney added an item to the Closed Meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to probable litigation, namely, condemnation of drainage easement from Dr. Robert G. Trout. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Certificate of recognition to Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue, for receiving the Governor’s 2004 Virginia Fire Services Award for Excellence in Virginia Fire Service Management Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to Chief Burch. Staff from the Fire and Rescue Department were present for the recognition. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to adopt a resolution stating Roanoke County’s opposition to a proposal by the Federal Aviation Administration to close the air traffic control tower located at Roanoke Regional Airport between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Mark Williams, General Counsel – Roanoke Regional Airport) R-032205-1 March 22, 2005 353 Mr. Williams advised that Ms. Shuck, Executive Director for the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, was meeting with legislators in Washington today on this subject. This matter was addressed at the joint meeting on March 7, 2005 held with the County Board, Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. He advised that other jurisdictions and the Airport Commission are being requested to adopt resolutions of opposition to the proposed changes recommended by the FAA to limit the hours of operation for the control tower. He advised that the tower hours were limited for a period of approximately 15 years during the 1980’s after the air traffic control strike. A great deal of effort was expended in lobbying and other activities which resulted in the tower retaining full-time status in 1999. This proposal by the FAA affects approximately 50 towers with Roanoke being the only tower in Virginia. Mr. Williams advised that safety is a major concern and there is no substitute for having eyes and ears in the tower to respond to emergency situations in the air and on the field. This proposal will affect commercial passenger traffic and although no scheduled carriers arrive after midnight, some aircraft will need to land due to scheduling or weather problems. It has been the airport’s experience that if a situation develops where landing is deemed necessary, the airlines will not land with the tower closed and if they are aware of this fact, the flight will be cancelled. They are also concerned about economic development because if the tower is closed, the property at the airport located between the tower and the runway will not be available for development. He advised that this March 22, 2005 354 situation is of great importance to everyone in the Roanoke Valley and urged that the Board adopt the resolution. Supervisor Flora inquired how many airports the tower serves besides Roanoke. Mr. Williams advised that the only other airport that the tower serves is Lynchburg and they are also very concerned about this situation. Mr. Williams advised that if the tower is closed per the FAA proposal, all operations will be handled by a tower in Washington which handles numerous airports. Supervisor Wray advised that there is a safety problem because if the tower is closed during these hours, aircraft with an emergency or passing through the air space would not be able to contact the Roanoke tower for advice and would have to contact the Washington tower. Mr. Williams advised that this is correct and that most pilots and airlines feel that an operational tower is a vital consideration for their safety. Supervisor Church advised that the safety of the Virginia Tech athletic teams is very important but not more than the safety of anyone else arriving in Roanoke. He feels that the terrain is a factor since weather can change in a short term of time. He stated that it is very unnerving to be in an aircraft even when you know the tower is operational. He advised that he felt the Board would do whatever they could to keep this tower open during the 24-hour schedule. Supervisor Flora moved approval of the resolution as recommended by staff. He advised that while there is an impact on commercial passenger flights, it would also affect the many private corporate planes based in Roanoke. With the topography March 22, 2005 355 being challenging and the loss of the tower, some of those corporate planes would not feel safe landing here under certain weather conditions. This situation would have a huge impact on economic development for existing and future corporations in the immediate area as well as Southwest Virginia. He feels that the FAA should reconsider its proposal to close the tower during these hours. Mr. Hodge asked Mr. Williams for an update on actions that have been taken and the best way to provide information to the appropriate officials. Mr. Williams advised that the best course of action is to work directly through the senatorial and congressional representatives and this is being done. The FAA was very vocal about their decision when it was announced but they have been less vocal since feedback has been provided. The FAA’s only justification for their decision to reduce the hours is as a cost saving measure. He believes that the next step would be to retain a lobbyist in Washington; however, this would depend on the FAA’s responses to the reactions of the localities. The immediate course of action is for localities to adopt the resolution and work through their representatives. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None March 22, 2005 356 RESOLUTION 032205-1 STATING ROANOKE COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO A PROPOSAL BY THE FAA TO CLOSE THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER LOCATED AT ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT BETWEEN THE HOURS OF MIDNIGHT AND 5:00 A.M. WHEREAS, Roanoke County’s Air Traffic Control Tower (“Roanoke Tower”) was operated at the Roanoke Regional Airport (“Roanoke Airport”) on a 24-hour basis for many years until its hours were limited by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) after the air traffic controllers strike in the early 1980s; and WHEREAS, in order to protect the public and promote economic development in the air service area served by Roanoke Regional Airport, which consists of 19 counties and contains more than three quarters of a million citizens, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, City of Roanoke, County of Roanoke, and federal legislative representatives worked tirelessly for more than 15 years to restore 24-hour tower operations; and WHEREAS, the 24-hour local coverage was finally reestablished at ROA in July of 1999; and WHEREAS, the FAA has recently proposed that the Roanoke Tower again be closed between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. as a way to cut costs; and WHEREAS, the safety and terrain issues present in 1999 remain today; and WHEREAS, closing the Roanoke Tower during late night hours would unnecessarily jeopardize public safety and harm economic development in the Roanoke Valley in the following ways: 1. The Roanoke Regional Airport is the largest airport and the Roanoke Tower is the only 24-hour tower in western and southwestern Virginia; the tower also is responsible for handling late night and early morning air traffic for the Lynchburg Airport. 2. In order to provide for the well-being of pilots, passengers, and the citizens of the Roanoke Regional Airport air service area, it is most desirable and safer to have controllers in the Roanoke Tower at all times who can hear pilots and see the airfield in order to assist aircraft in difficulty and respond to emergency situations. 3. The same level of safety and response to aviation users of Roanoke Regional Airport and Lynchburg Regional Airport cannot be provided by controllers located at the FAA’s Washington Center, which is hundreds of miles from Roanoke, available only by radio and already serving many other air service areas and hundreds of aircraft. 4. The Roanoke Airport has cargo carriers operating large aircraft, general aviation aircraft, and occasional large jet charters, including, without limitation, aircraft carrying Virginia Tech athletic teams, which operate between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. in reliance on the Roanoke Tower being in operation. 5. Although passenger aircraft frequently need to and do land at the Roanoke Airport after midnight due to schedules, or weather and mechanical delays, passenger carriers will refuse to land at such times if the Roanoke Tower is closed. March 22, 2005 357 6. Having the Roanoke Tower open and available to handle passenger and cargo aircraft on a 24-hour basis is vital to economic development and the growth of the Roanoke Valley. 7. Due to visibility problems and the applicable FAA regulations, if the hours of the Roanoke Tower are limited, land between the Roanoke Tower and the intersection of the runways that is critical for future airport growth cannot be developed. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board adopts this resolution as the means of expressing its strongest possible opposition to the FAA’s proposal to close the air traffic control tower located at Roanoke Regional Airport between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m.; and 2. That the Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to The Honorable John Warner, The Honorable George Allen, The Honorable Robert W. Goodlatte, The Honorable Rick Boucher, The Honorable Virgil Goode, FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey, Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council, Mayor and Members of Lynchburg City Council, and the governing bodies of the jurisdictions served by the Roanoke Regional Airport. 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 2. Request to approve fiscal year 2005-2006 Roanoke Valley Television (RVTV) budget. (Elaine Simpson, Cable Access Director) A-032205-2 Ms. Simpson advised that Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke, and the Town of Vinton jointly operate Roanoke Valley Television (RVTV, Channel 3). The initial equipment and facilities for the television studio were funded through a capital grant from Cox Communications in the amount of $480,000. The studio is located at the Jefferson Center, and currently employs five full time staff members. Ms. Simpson advised that the staff members are Lacey Stinnett, Station Manager; and Todd March 22, 2005 358 Richardson, Preston Seaman and George Warner, Producers. The staff produces videos and shows for the local governments and school systems, which are cablecast along with government meetings on Cox Communications Channel 3 and Adelphia Communications Channel 3 in the West County area. Ms. Simpson advised that RVTV is governed by the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, which includes representatives from Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and the Town of Vinton. The operational budget for RVTV is provided by the three governments, based on the proportion of Cox customers located in each jurisdiction. The governing bodies have informally agreed to provide up to 20% of the franchise fee paid by Cox Communications to fund the operations of the facility. Roanoke County’s share of the cable budget is 41%. Cable television staff is carried on the County’s payroll and benefit system and will receive the same salary increase as County employees. Ms. Simpson advised that during 2004-2005, RVTV produced the following for the County: 53 Videos and Television Shows, and RVTV covered 23 live Board meetings. Examples of RVTV productions include: Focus On Crime Prevention, Roanoke County Orientation and Roanoke County Schools Instructional Laptop video. RVTV monthly television shows include: “Roanoke County Today,” which highlights local government issues and events, and “Accent Excellence,” for the Roanoke County School System. During the past year, video production has increased by 19%. The approximate rate for video production in the private sector is $1,000 per finished minute. March 22, 2005 359 Roanoke Valley Television produced a total of 119 Video Productions last year for the three localities and their school systems. Ms. Simpson advised that the total RVTV budget request is $304,713of which Roanoke County’s share is 41%, or $124,932. This is a $7,386 increase or (6%) from last year’s budget. The increase excluding personal services (VRS, health insurance, salaries etc.) is$2,334or 2.8%. The total franchise fee paid by Cox to Roanoke County last year was $811,154. The Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee recommends that the Board approve the fiscal year 2005-2006 RVTV operating budget. Supervisor McNamara advised that RVTV is a nice benefit of cable television and that many citizens watch the Board meeting telecasts and the other programs that are produced. He advised that the quality of the productions is very good, expressed appreciation to Ms. Simpson, and advised her to keep up the good work. Ms. Simpson thanked Supervisor McNamara and advised that this is a team effort. Supervisor Church advised that many citizens approach him to report that they watch the meetings. He advised that he knew the answer but inquired for the viewing audience why the rebroadcast dates after a Board meeting will sometimes vary. Ms. Simpson advised that occasionally the Roanoke City Council and County Board meetings fall on the same week and when this happens, they alternate the playback dates of the meetings. For the first month when this occurs, the County will have the March 22, 2005 360 regular schedule for playback and the next month when the meetings fall on the same week, the County will have the odd playback dates. When these playback dates are changed, they use the message board to inform viewers about the change and the Clerk to the Board arranges for the dates to be announced at the beginning of the meeting. She advised that this occurs typically two months per year. Supervisors Church and Wray expressed appreciation to Ms. Simpson and staff and commended them on the quality of their productions. Supervisor Flora advised that while salaries increased four percent, the total budget increased less than four percent so everything else must have decreased. Ms. Simpson advised that the budget was very tight but in the past, the budgets have been very accurate. Supervisor Flora commended Ms. Simpson for her accuracy in budgeting and advised that this is an example of the great job that she does. Supervisor Altizer advised that he is aware of the intensity with which Ms. Simpson does her job from attending meetings of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee. He advised that the committee increased the budget slightly this year because Ms. Simpson was very conservative with funds for increasing gas prices. Ms. Simpson advised that she now appreciates the increase because of the higher gas prices. Supervisor Altizer advised that Ms. Simpson was wise to purchase new equipment to replace the older equipment and this has contributed to the quality of the videos and production of the shows. He has been advised by citizens that the quality of March 22, 2005 361 the productions and screen images are better than they were five years ago. He expressed appreciation to Ms. Simpson and her staff for the fine job that they do. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve staff recommendation (adopt the FY 2005-2006 RVTV operating budget). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 3. Request to approve health insurance contract and rates for County and school employees for fiscal year 2005-2006. (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) A-032205-3 Ms. Owens advised that the County and schools participate in a self- funded joint health insurance program for eligible employees. Since June 30, 2005 marks the end of a five year contract with Anthem, a request for proposal was prepared for the 2005-2006 renewal. Using predefined criteria for determining the most qualified bidders for medical coverage, an evaluation prepared by the County’s medical consultant, Palmer & Cay, and an independent review of the proposals submitted, the Insurance Committee which was composed of staff from the County, schools, Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) selected three vendors to interview. Based on the bids submitted, interviews conducted, follow up negotiations, references, and evaluations of each finalist, the March 22, 2005 362 committee agreed that Anthem was the most qualified bidder and should be awarded the contract effective July 1, 2005. Ms. Owens advised that Anthem presented a proposal for an 8.4% increase for fiscal year 2005-2006. Subsequently, this increase was negotiated down to an overall increase of 5.5%. This increase compares favorably to national and regional trends of 11% to 12%. Benefit changes focused on controlling the long term costs of the medical program will be implemented as follows: ? Eliminate gastric bypass surgery for the treatment of morbid obesity. This is a standard exclusion of most major insurance companies because of the high mortality and complication rate of this procedure. ? Remove the $300 cap on the wellness benefit to encourage employees to utilize this coverage. ? Change the tier 3 prescription drug benefit from $35 copay for retail (up to a 31 day supply) to the greater of $35 or 20% of the drug cost (not to exceed $100 per prescription). A $3,500 annual out of pocket limit will be added to the plan. ? Vision benefits will be added including a $15 routine annual eye exam and discounted frames, lenses, and contacts through a network vision center. ? Anthem will fund $50,000 in annual wellness initiatives for each of the next three years for school and County employees. An employee committee will work together to design wellness programs with this funding. March 22, 2005 363 Ms. Owens reviewed the chart below outlining the current and proposed rates: Roanoke County and Roanoke County Schools Attachment A Health Insurance Renewal Rates 2005-2006 PPO Plan Design Increase Monthly County Employee Employee for Premium Benefit Rate Pays Employee Current 2004-05 Subscriber Only 367.00 328.00 39.00 10.63% Subscriber + 1 minor 518.10 337.80 180.30 34.80% Family 850.00 517.74 332.26 39.09% Married School & County Couple 850.00 677.02 172.98 20.35% Renewal 2005-06 PPO Plan Design Subscriber Only 387.20 346.04 41.16 10.63% $ 2.16 Subscriber + 1 minor 546.60 356.38 190.22 34.80% $ 9.92 Family 896.76 546.22 350.54 39.09% $ 18.28 Married School & County Couple 896.76 714.28 182.48 20.35% $ 9.50 Current Membership County Schools Subscriber Only 511 1220 Subscriber + minor 54 115 Family 256 519 Medicare Carve Out 78 38 Total Members 899 1892 March 22, 2005 364 Ms. Owens advised that the fiscal impact of the renewal at an overall increase of 5.5% will increase the County budget $389,130 and the school budget $674,800. These increases are included in the draft 2005-06 budgets of the County and schools. Staff recommends that the Board approve a contract with Anthem to provide the medical program and approving the health insurances rates for fiscal year 2005-2006. Supervisor Flora inquired what the “Medicare Carve Out” meant on the current membership information. Ms. Owens advised that retirees continue paying for the coverage they have when they retire and Anthem tracks that information separately for budgeting and billing purposes. Supervisor Wray inquired about the vision benefits and Ms. Owens responded that vision benefits were added at no additional cost to the employees. Vision benefits were already available for the WVWA employees. She advised that additional information will be provided to employees regarding the network of doctors and the substantial savings for contacts and frames. Supervisor Church advised that the Board held a previous work session on this item and that staff is to be commended when an overall increase is kept to a manageable level as in this case. He advised that the County is able to provide a good health insurance package for its employees which is a very important benefit. He stated that he and the other Board members feel that this is a complete package by a health March 22, 2005 365 carrier who is known if not worldwide certainly coast-to-coast. He expressed appreciation to Ms. Owens, staff and negotiators for a job that was well done. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (approve a contract with Anthem to provide medical program and health insurance rates for fiscal year 2005-2006). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 4. Request to approve dental rates for County and school employees for fiscal year 2005-2006. (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) A-032205-4 Ms. Owens advised that the County and schools participate in a fully insured group dental insurance program for their eligible employees and retirees. The provider is Delta Dental and the group includes members from the Roanoke Valley Regional Health Care Consortium. The dental rates have not increased since 2001- 2002 but will need to be increased for 2005-2006. Ms. Owens reviewed the chart below outlining the current and proposed rates: March 22, 2005 366 Roanoke County and Roanoke County Schools Attachment A Dental Insurance Renewal Rates 2005-2006 Dental Plan Increase Monthly County Employee Employee for Premium Benefit Rate Pays Employee Current 2004-05 Subscriber Only 19.44 14.10 5.34 27.47% Subscriber + 1 31.64 16.76 14.88 47.03% Family 54.78 23.46 31.32 57.17% Married School & County Couple 54.78 37.54 17.24 31.47% Renewal 2005-06 Dental Plan Subscriber Only 22.38 16.24 6.14 27.44% $ 0.80 Subscriber + 1 36.42 19.30 17.12 47.01% $ 2.24 Family 63.04 27.00 36.04 57.17% $ 4.72 Married School & County Couple 63.04 43.20 19.84 31.47% $ 2.60 Current Membership County Schools Subscriber Only 351 849 Subscriber + minor 163 346 Family 215 483 Retirees 76 347 Total Members 805 2025 Ms. Owens advised that the fiscal impact of the renewal will increase the County budget $25,000 and the school budget $60,000. These increases are included in the draft of the 2005-2006 budgets of the County and schools that were presented in a work session on March 15. Staff recommends that the Board approve the dental insurance rates for fiscal year 2005-2006. There was no discussion. March 22, 2005 367 Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (approve dental insurance rates for fiscal year 2005-06). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 5. Request to authorize the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department to enter into a contract with Nova Information Systems for the purpose of collecting fees for classes and programs over the internet. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) A-032205-5 Mr. Haislip advised this is a request to authorize the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department to enter into a contract with Nova Information Systems for the purpose of collecting fees for classes and programs over the internet. He advised that they will be the first department in the County to receive payments via the internet. They have been using the CLASS computer-based registration program since 1996 and when the program had to be upgraded, they decided to add internet registration and payment. This will be a tremendous convenience to citizens since many of them have computers in their homes. Effective with the May 2, 2005, registration session, County citizens will be able to access the program brochure on line and register and pay for the programs from their homes. Roanoke County will become the fourth department in March 22, 2005 368 Virginia using this system and Mr. Haislip noted that registration tends to go up approximately 15% to 20% over a short period of time because of the convenience. The public will be informed about this service by using RVTV, program brochures, and news releases. He advised that staff in the Information Technology (IT) Department; Elaine Carver, IT Director; and Gray Craig, Recreation Marketing Specialist, were very excited about this program and provided valuable assistance in making it a reality. He requested that the Board approve the contract. Supervisor Flora advised that he thought this was a great idea and will provide a needed convenience for citizens. He moved approval of the staff recommendation. Supervisor McNamara inquired if the County currently authorizes payment by credit card. Mr. Haislip advised that they do accept payment by credit card but not on line. He further advised that Nova handles the credit card transactions and the fee that they have quoted for on line use will be less than the fee being charged for credit cards. Supervisor McNamara inquired if registrations go up 15%, does the County have sufficient space, fields, programs and personnel to accommodate any increases. Mr. Haislip advised that if the class is full, the citizens will be informed immediately on line and asked if they want to be put on a waiting list. There will be extra capacity in some of the classes but not in all. Mr. Haislip advised that citizens can also go on line to research the parks to determine availability for family reunions and other activities but they will have to call the office to reserve the facilities. March 22, 2005 369 Supervisor Wray inquired if the website is secure. Mr. Haislip advised that the website is secure and that it has been tested internally with no problems. Supervisor Flora’s motion to approve staff recommendation (authorize the County of Roanoke to enter into an agreement with Nova Information systems to establish an on line merchant account for conducting secure credit card transactions over the internet; said agreement to be on a form approved by the County Attorney’s office) 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 Supervisor Church moved to approve the first readings and set the second readings and public hearings for April 26, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1. First reading of an ordinance to rezone .52 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-1C, Office District with conditions, for the operation of a general office located at 3663 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Christopher L. Irvine March 22, 2005 370 2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for the construction of mini-warehouses on 5.602 acres located at 1918 Washington Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of KTP, LLC 3. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 79.09 acres from I-2, Industrial District, to AG-3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve District, in order to construct a single family residence located at 4518 Morgan Conner Lane, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Alan and Gayle Jamison 4. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for the construction of an accessory apartment located at 3216 Lawndale Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of James C. and Laura B. Parrish IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia of a drainage easement along Glenmary Drive across property owned by the Board of Supervisors at the Center for Research and Technology, Catawba Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) O-032205-6 March 22, 2005 371 Mr. Covey advised that the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 8, 2005, and this is the conveyance of easements for work that needed to be completed on Glenmary Drive. There have been no changes and he asked that the Board adopt the ordinance. There was no discussion. 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 032205-6 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALONG GLENMARY DRIVE ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THE CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff is coordinating the development of the Center for Research and Technology; and, WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia requires a drainage easement on the County’s property along Glenmary Drive as shown on a plat prepared by Lumsen Associates, P.C. entitled “Plat Showing New Permanent Drainage Easement (9,917 sq. ft.) to be granted to the Commonwealth of Virginia” dated November 1, 2002; and, WHEREAS, the proposed drainage easement will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the County of Roanoke. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on March 8, 2005, and a second reading was held on March 22, 2005. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance of a drainage easement to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the completion of March 22, 2005 372 reconstruction of Glenmary Drive in connection with Roanoke County's development of the Center for Research and Technology. 3. That donation to the Commonwealth of Virginia of a drainage easement on the County’s property (Tax Map No. 64.01-3-1) along Glenmary Drive as shown on the “Plat Showing New Permanent Drainage Easement (9,917 sq. ft.) to be granted to the Commonwealth of Virginia,” prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., and dated November 1, 2002, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the County Administrator, or any assistant county administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an ordinance approving an agreement for acquisition of a radio tower and related equipment and assignment of lease for the tower on Twelve O’clock Knob from U. S. Cellular. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) O-032205-7 Ms. Green advised that the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 8, 2005. This is a request for approval of the purchase of a radio tower and related equipment located on Twelve O’Clock Knob currently owned by U. S. Cellular and approval of the assignment of the lease with U. S. Cellular and the owner of the property. There have been no changes and staff recommends that the Board approve the purchase and agree to the assignment of the lease. There was no discussion. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 22, 2005 373 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 032205-7 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF A RADIO TOWER AND RELATED EQUIPMENT AND ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE FOR THE TOWER ON 12 O’CLOCK KNOB FROM U.S. CELLULAR WHEREAS, the implementation of a new paging system for Roanoke County government departments will necessitate additional transmitter locations not currently owned or under lease by the County, including 12 O’clock Knob; and WHEREAS, Ohio State Cellular Phone Company, Inc., D/B/A United States Cellular Wireless Communications (“U.S. Cellular”), currently has a ground lease agreement permitting the construction and operation of a communications antenna tower at the top of 12 O’Clock Knob in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, which lease expires on December 31, 2016, and which lease also contains an option for renewal of said lease for an additional ten (10) years; and WHEREAS, U. S. Cellular has offered to sell its antenna tower and related equipment and personal property on 12 O’Clock Knob and assign its leasehold interests to Roanoke County for the sum of $25,000; and WHEREAS, the acquisition of this antenna tower and equipment and the existing leasehold interest for this tower site will provide a necessary antenna site for the County’s new paging system and avoid additional costs and potential delays to be anticipated from the acquisition of another tower site; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 8, 2005, and the second reading was held on March 22, 2005. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board hereby approves the purchase of a communications antenna tower and related equipment located on 12 O’Clock Knob in Roanoke County and the execution of an assignment of lease with Ohio State Cellular Phone Company, doing business as United States Cellular Wireless Communications, in substantially the form as attached to this ordinance, and authorizes the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute this agreement on behalf of Roanoke County, upon a form as approved by the County Attorney. March 22, 2005 374 2. The County is authorized to assume all responsibilities under the existing lease with the property owner, including payments of all rents, as of March 1, 2005. 3. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission Chairman Altizer requested that the Clerk contact Mr. Don Witt to determine if he would be willing to serve another term. Supervisor Wray advised that if Mr. Witt cannot serve another term, he would like to make a nomination for appointment. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-032205-8; R-032205-8.e Supervisor Church moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 032205-8 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 March 22, 2005, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and March 22, 2005 375 concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 10, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – March 1 and March 8, 2005 2. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $21,000 from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management for the continuation of Regional Citizen Corp Council and Community Emergency Response Tam (CERT) training 3. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate a competitive grant in the amount of $87,500 from the Department of Homeland Security for the purchase of a Wildland firefighting vehicle 4. Request to approve amendments to the bylaws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare 5. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a mini-grant in the amount of $2,000 from the Division of Motor Vehicles for DUI check points 6. Request to accept Leffler Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary system 7. Request to approve renegotiated lease agreement for house and one acre of property at Happy Hollow Park 8. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount of $863.38 9. Request to accept grants in the amount of $80,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to prepare Digital Flood Insurance Rate maps (DFIRMS) 10. Request to authorize execution of an updated contract with the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. to provide the CORTRAN services for Roanoke County for the period February 1, 2005 – February 28, 2006 11. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate grand funds in the amount of $12,955 from the Virginia Department of Health for the purchase of cardiac heart monitors 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 Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None March 22, 2005 376 RESOLUTION 032205-8.e REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF LEFFLER LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the street described below was established on November 22, 1978, and is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has deemed this County’s current subdivision control ordinance meets all necessary requirements to qualify this County to recommend additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Code of Virginia, and WHEREAS, after examining the ownership of all property abutting this street, this Board finds that speculative interest does exist, WHEREAS, this Board has determined that the pro rata share of speculative interests is the sum of $14,784, as prescribed by Section 33.1-72.1 (D), Code of Virginia, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the following street be added to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1 (D), Code of Virginia: Name of street: Leffler Lane From: Intersection of Poages Mill Drive, Rte 1780 To: Cul-de-sac Length: 0.12 mi. Guaranteed R-O-W: 50 ft. Plat Recorded: November 22, 1978 Plat Book: 9 Page: 122 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, this Board requests that VDOT improve said street to the prescribed minimum standards as shown in the submitted plans, funding said improvements pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1 (D) Code of Virginia, 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 Church Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors, McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer Nays: None March 22, 2005 377 IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The 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 –February 2005 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended February 28, 2005 7. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report 8. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:15 p.m., Supervisor Flora moved to go into closed session following the work session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the terms or scope of a public contract concerning storm water management with the City of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA), where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County; and Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by March 22, 2005 378 staff members pertaining to probable litigation, namely, condemnation of drainage easement from Dr. Robert G. Trout.. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss budget development for fiscal year 2005- 2006. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) The work session was held from 4:25 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Staff present included: Brent Robertson; Chad Sweeney, Budget Administrator; Cathy Tomlin, Budget Analyst; Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; and Diane Childers, Clerk to the Board. Mr. Hodge advised that this work session was scheduled to review some of the major requests from the departments that the Board has not met with and to discuss the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) rankings. He advised that the Board will receive funding requests from the human and social services agencies at this meeting and from the cultural and tourism agencies at their meeting on March 29 at 5:30 p.m. After all of the requests have been heard, the Board will need to finalize the funding allocations for the agencies. Mr. Robertson advised that a new federal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) is being mandated for the upcoming fiscal year for Social Services, and it is estimated that no district in the state is meeting the standards of the plan at this time. March 22, 2005 379 The cost at the state level to meet the incentives of the plan would be slightly over $25 million but only $4 million was approved in the state’s budget. Dr. Betty McCrary, Director of the Social Services Department, notified Mr. Robertson that they will not receive any more information from the state until May or June. Mr. Robertson advised that staff will need to come back to the Board with an update on the funding methodology and to determine a course of action. Mr. Hodge advised that according to Dr. McCrary, the County’s share for the plan is estimated to be $200,000. Mr. Robertson distributed the fiscal year 2005-2006 additional funding requests which total $2.9 million and advised that if time permits, they could go through the requests in more detail. Mr. Hodge advised that one of the more significant additional funding requests is from the Information Technology (IT) Department for an increase in their budget of $260,000 to add five additional personnel to meet the evolving demands of information technology and data management. Mr. Hodge advised that he will take these additional funding requests into consideration as the budget is finalized. Mr. Hodge advised that at a recent Mayors and Chairs meeting, there was a request from Franklin County for funds from the cities of Roanoke and Salem, County of Roanoke and Town of Vinton to help clean up Smith Mountain Lake since they need to purchase new equipment this year. The County and Roanoke City have been contributing $5,000 for the past two or three years. Supervisor Altizer, who attended the meeting with Mr. Hodge, advised that he thought the right thing to do would be to March 22, 2005 380 increase the County’s contribution to $10,000 but no consensus was reached on the request. Mr. Hodge advised that the other localities will review the request during their budget process. He advised during the meeting it was also suggested that the WVWA be asked for funding but this would leave out possible contributions from Vinton and Salem. Mr. Hodge advised that the request for funds to assist with the clean up of Smith Mountain Lake will be added to those requests to be received at the meeting on March 29. Mr. Hodge advised that hiring an internal auditor has been suggested by the Finance staff and asked Ms. Hyatt for comments. Ms. Hyatt advised that the Sarbane-Oxley Act was originally intended to impact public health companies but it is filtering down to non-profit organizations and governments and will place more liability on all board members, county administrators and finance directors. Although the County has internal controls, there should be some mechanism of checks and balances in place to determine that the internal controls are working properly. In response to Supervisor McNamara’s observation that hiring an internal auditor would require hiring two more staff people to respond to concerns, Ms. Hyatt advised that Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance, and Laurie Gearheart, Assistant Director, are gathering information to address this concern and others about the internal auditor position. There were inquiries from the supervisors about who the internal auditor would report to, should the audit committee be independent, and whether the County has the maximum amount of insurance for directors and officers. It was the consensus March 22, 2005 381 of the Board to schedule another work session to receive this information and to determine how the position is handled by other localities. Supervisor Altizer advised that implementing the employees and programs required by the Sarbane-Oxley Act in his company cost $1.4 million and he sees its influence going from the private sector to governments. Mr. Hodge advised that another position being considered is a records manager because the retention of electronic files and papers is becoming more complex. Mr. Hodge advised that records retention which is being handled by Diane Childers, Clerk to the Board, is being done properly but an adjustment needs to be made to prevent future problems. In response to Supervisor Flora’s inquiry about a County policy for records retention, Mr. Mahoney advised that the County is following the regulations from the State Library. In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry about serving as the County’s records manager, Ms. Childers advised that as Mr. Mahoney stated, the County does not have an official policy but is keeping records in conjunction with the Library of Virginia retention schedules. She reported that during the past year, contacts were established for all of the departments and training was coordinated with the State Library for the County and City of Salem employees. Additional training is planned for June and Roanoke City may participate at that time. Ms. Childers advised that she is continuing to spend more time on her responsibilities as the records manager in addition to her other duties. She suggested that a records manager could continue the March 22, 2005 382 process already begun, establish policies, inventory records and serve as a liaison with Data Safe to ensure that records are stored properly and can be retrieved when requested. Supervisor McNamara suggested that a more standardized policy be established for emails by using a subject line and saving the emails to a drive on the server which could then be used to retrieve information for Freedom of Information requests. In response to supervisor Wray’s inquiry, Ms. Childers advised that each department is responsible for their records retention and when they want to destroy records, they are required to fill out a RM-3 form and send that to her as the records manager. After she is sure that the records have been kept for the required period of time and the destruction is in accordance with the State Library retention schedules, she sends the form back authorizing destruction of the records in whatever form they exist. She advised that every email that is sent that pertains to public business with the exception of invitations constitutes a record. Supervisor Church advised that this issue is important enough that another work session should be held with the Clerk’s Office and others involved. Supervisor Wray suggested that the Information Technology staff be included and Supervisor Altizer asked that the Board members be informed if they are handling the records properly. It was the consensus of the Board to schedule another work session to discuss the position of records manager. March 22, 2005 383 Mr. Hodge asked for direction from the Board on handling the receipt of the report due April 1, 2005, from Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern concerning the potential of the downtown Salem site for the proposed regional jail. It was the consensus of the Board that when the report is received, it will be distributed to the Board members and a briefing on the report will be made at the April 12, 2005, meeting. Mr. Robertson distributed the fiscal year 2005-2006 CIP Review Committee project score results, tanked by the top 5 in each category, and advised that another work session is planned for in-depth discussion of the CIP. It was the consensus of the Board to build upon the CIP Committee rankings and there were suggestions made about different formats for the information. Mr. Robertson was asked to present the CIP in a format listing projects by category (public safety, technology, quality of life, and service infrastructure) and how the top ranked projects in each category may be prioritized for future funding. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 5:30 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. IN RE: DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED APRIL 12 AGENDA FOR JOINT MEETING WITH ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL Mr. Mahoney informed the Deputy Clerk that during the dinner recess, there was discussion concerning the proposed agenda for the April 12, 2005, joint meeting with Roanoke City Council. March 22, 2005 384 IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-032205-9 At 7:05 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 032205-9 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None March 22, 2005 385 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 1. Continued until April 26 at the request of the Planning Commission. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower located at 432 Bandy Drive near Windy Gap Mountain, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Nextel Partners, Inc. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until June 28, 2005, at the request of the Planning Commission. 2. Continued until April 26 at the request of the petitioner. 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 April 26, 2005, at the request of the petitioner. March 22, 2005 386 3. Continued until June 28, 2005 at the request of the Planning Commission. Second 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. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until April 26, 2005, at the request of the Planning Commission. 4. Second 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) O-032205-10 Mr. Covey advised that the first reading of this ordinance was held at the February 22, 2005, meeting. There have been no changes and staff is requesting that the Board adopt the ordinance. There was no discussion and no citizens were present to speak on this item. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 22, 2005 387 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 032205-10 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A 0.0348 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND TO MICHAEL S. HARLESS AND DEBORAH W. HARLESS AS A REVERSION OF PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH AN ABANDONMENT OF THE RURAL ADDITION OF ARTRIP LANE, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the County has responded to a petition for, and made progress towards, the rural addition of Artrip Lane; and WHEREAS, the rural addition of Artrip Lane required the donation of real estate from the adjacent property owners to provide an adequate right-of-way for said rural addition with the donations being made to the County; and WHEREAS, by deed dated April 18, 2003, and recorded in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office as Instrument #200313127, Michael S. Harless and Deborah W. Harless donated a 0.0348 acre parcel of land to Roanoke County for said rural addition; and WHEREAS, the residents of Artrip Lane, including Michael S. Harless and Debroah W. Harless, have elected to abandon said rural addition in consideration of the monetary obligations imposed upon them, without desire to re-petition the County; and WHEREAS, since the County has no other use for the 0.0348 acre parcel, the Harless’ have requested title to the real estate be returned to them. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the subject property is hereby declared surplus. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on February 22, 2005, and the second reading and public hearing were held on March 22, 2005. 3. That the conveyance to Michael S. Harless and Deborah W. Harless of a parcel of land consisting of 0.0348 acres located along Artrip Lane in the Catawba Magisterial District and shown on a plat entitled “Plat showing parcel being conveyed to Michael S. and Deborah W. Harless by Roanoke County” prepared by the Roanoke County Engineering Department, dated 1/13/05, be, and hereby is authorized and approved. 4. 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 conveyance of property, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. March 22, 2005 388 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. 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 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) O-032205-11 Mr. Mahoney advised that there have been no changes since the first reading of this ordinance. There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 032205-11 TO VACATE A 20’ WATERLINE EASEMENT DEDICATED BY SUBDIVISION PLAT OF STONEGATE, PHASE 2-B, LOTS 47-48, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27, PAGE 141, AND CREATING A NEW WATERLINE EASEMENT SITUATED ON LOTS 47 AND 48, (TAX MAP # 028.04-03-02.00) LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT March 22, 2005 389 WHEREAS, by subdivision plat of record in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 27, page 141, for “STONEGATE PROPERTIES, LLC, CREATING HEREON NEW LOTS 30 THROUGH 32 & NEW LOTS 38 THROUGH 49 . . . TO BE KNOWN AS PHASE 2-B, ‘STONEGATE’”, dated November 17, 2003, the developer, Stonegate Properties, LLC, dedicated and created a 20' PUBLIC WATERLINE EASEMENT on Lot 48 of Stonegate, Phase 2-B, as shown on the above described plat; and, WHEREAS, the Petitioner-Developer, Stonegate Properties, LLC, has requested that the subject 20’ waterline easement, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, be vacated pursuant to §15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, upon condition that a new waterline easement situated on Lots 47 and 48, Phase 2-B, Stonegate, be created; and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County, will not interfere with the provision of public services, and has been approved by the affected County departments; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 8, 2005, and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on March 22, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the “EXISTING 20’ WATERLINE TO BE VACATED” shown dotted on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easement having been dedicated and created as “NEW 20' WATERLINE EASEMENT” by subdivision plat of “NEW LOTS 30 THROUGH 32 & NEW LOTS 38 THROUG 49 . . . PHASE 2-B, STONEGATE”, dated November 17, 2003, and recorded as aforesaid in Plat Book 27, page 141, , located in the Hollins Magisterial District, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 2. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner, Stonegate Properties, LLC. 3. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 4. 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 § 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). March 22, 2005 390 On motion of Supervisor Flora 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 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. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) O-032205-12 Ms. Scheid advised that his is a petition for a special use permit from Mr. and Mrs. Pike for a private kennel for their four Yorkshire terriers. Each dog has been spayed or neutered and will stay indoors or in the fenced back yard. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance stipulates that a private kennel involves dogs that are private pets. These dogs are for the personal enjoyment of the homeowners. There is no commercial component to a private kennel, and boarding, breeding or grooming of dogs is not allowed. Mr. and Mrs. Pike recently moved to the County and were in the process of obtaining dog tags for their four dogs when they found out that the maximum number of dogs allowed in the R-1 zoning district is two. They immediately applied for a special use permit for the private kennel. The property is 4.38 acres and zoned R-1 low density residential. They have installed a picket fence around the back yard. Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission heard this request on March 1 and made a favorable recommendation with the following two conditions: (1) The private kennel shall be for a maximum of four dogs. (2) The special use permit March 22, 2005 391 shall be issued to Wayne and Martha Pike only, and shall not be transferable to any other subsequent property owner. Supervisor Wray inquired if they can remove and replace one of the dogs and Ms. Scheid advised that the special use permit is for four dogs and does not specify which four dogs. She advised that it is possible that dogs could come and go as long as there is a maximum of four dogs. Supervisor Wray inquired if the property is located in a subdivision area. Ms. Scheid advised that the property is located in an agricultural area and approximately four acres which abuts the Pike property is zoned agricultural. The property is not located in a typical planned residential subdivision but in an area with larger tracts of land. Supervisor Church inquired if any family living in a planned subdivision with three dogs would have the alternative of applying for a special use permit for a private kennel. Ms. Scheid advised that they could apply for the special use permit if they have more than one acre of land. Mr. Pike advised that they have had these four pets for years and do not plan to obtain any more animals. They are not in the commercial animal business. When they bought the property and went to obtain dog tags, they discovered that they could not have four pets without the special use permit. They have approximately a 6,000 square foot area with a picket fence that blends in with the surroundings. He has March 22, 2005 392 talked to all of the neighbors and there are no complaints. He does not believe this will impact anyone. Supervisor Church inquired of Mr. and Mrs. Pike if they agreed with the two conditions on the property and they affirmed their agreement. Supervisor Altizer advised that he was familiar with the area and no one was present at the Planning Commission meeting to oppose the action. He moved approval of the ordinance. He advised that the County does a good job of informing new residents about water and sewer connections and he hoped that staff could work with the realtors to inform the public about the maximum number of animals permitted. He thanked Mr. and Mrs. Pike for coming forward as soon as they discovered the situation. Supervisor Church advised that if realtors bring this information forward, one or two things might happen. The sale might not be completed because of how much people care about their pets or many more requests will come to the Board requiring a review of the situation. Without full disclosure, citizens are in a precarious situation when they find out after the fact and that situation must be taken into consideration. Supervisor McNamara advised that he would support the private kennel license but continues to have a concern with the ordinance because it seems inconsistent that you can have two dogs and two cats but you cannot have four dogs. He pointed out that what happened to Mr. and Mrs. Pike when they discovered the limit March 22, 2005 393 of dogs while applying for the dog tags will encourage other citizens not to apply for dog tags and this is not the right message to send. He feels that it is over-stepping the way that the County has set it up with two dogs in any residential subdivision irrespective of the acreage. In this scenario, the Board is about to approve four dogs but these four dogs could be pit bulls which would probably have had a different impact on the Board’s decision than the Yorkshire terriers. Supervisor Church advised that he concurred with Supervisor McNamara that acreage should be taken into consideration. He feels that the Board needs to take a common sense approach and review these on a case-by-case basis as a service to the citizens. He does not think that there are thousands of citizens facing this situation but probably a total of five to ten. Supervisor Wray advised that if these dogs had been pit bulls or Dobermans, or if the dogs were kept outside, this might be a more difficult situation. He advised that Mr. and Mrs. Pike are proceeding correctly by keeping the dogs inside and having a fence. He does not think the Board should get involved in making decisions based on the breed of dogs. He advised that he will support the motion and wished Mr. and Mrs. Pike well. Supervisor McNamara advised that typically these special use permits for private kennels are not approved. He could not recall approving a special use permit for a kennel license at any time in the recent past. Unfortunately another byproduct of this ordinance is that when there is a problem in the neighborhood, it gives citizens the March 22, 2005 394 opportunity to report another citizen for having too many dogs and cause them great distress. Supervisor Altizer advised that he concurred with Supervisors Church and McNamara that the Board needs to review the ordinance. He feels that referring to a kennel license or permit infers something other than what it really accomplishes and there are many issues which need to be reviewed such as location and subdivisions. Supervisor Church advised that since there was a consensus of three members, he requested that the ordinance be revisited by the Board as soon as possible. Mr. Mahoney recommended that the Board open and close the public hearing. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Altizer’s motion to adopt the ordinance carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 032205-12 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO WAYNE AND MARTHA PIKE FOR A PRIVATE KENNEL TO BE LOCATED AT 4509 RED BARN LANE (TAX MAP NO. 40.18-1-33.03) VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Wayne & Martha Pike have filed a petition for a special use permit for a private kennel to be located at 4509 Red Barn Lane (Tax Map No. 40.18-1-33.03) in the Vinton Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on March 1, 2005; and March 22, 2005 395 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on February 22, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on March 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 Wayne and Martha Pike for a private kennel to be located at 4509 Red Barn Lane in the Vinton 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 condition: (1) The private kennel shall be for a maximum of four dogs. (2) The Special Use Permit shall be issued to Wayne and Martha Pike only, and shall not be transferable to any other subsequent property owner. 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 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. Request to adopt a resolution approving and adopting amendments to the Community (Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) R-032205-13 Ms. Scheid advised that Chapter 15.2 of the Code of Virginia requires that the local Planning Commission review the Comprehensive (Community) Plan every five years and determine whether it should be amended. In accordance with that requirement, the Planning Commission has recommended and submitted revisions to the 1998 Community Plan. The following sections of the 1998 Plan have been revised March 22, 2005 396 or added: (1) Economic Development, (2) Stormwater Management, (3) Growth Management, (4) Transportation and (5) Public Utilities. The Community Plan establishes policies for the future growth and development of the County and is a living document that can be changed and revised as the Planning Commission and Board determines necessary. It is a written document that includes the goals a community holds for itself and when properly done, the plan will describe how, and at what pace, the community desires to physically develop. Although it is an important instrument of public policy, the Community Plan cannot by itself effectuate change. Other tools such as the zoning ordinances, zoning maps and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are used to implement the plan. The Community Plan provides guidance and in contrast, the zoning ordinance is legally binding. Ms. Scheid advised that the Code of Virginia states that “The local Planning Commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction”. One of the primary job responsibilities of the Planning Commission is to design, develop and recommend a comprehensive plan to the governing body. The process of revising the 1998 Community Plan began two years ago when the Planning Commission identified this project on its work plan for 2003 and determined that five sections needed to be addressed. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 2, 2004, and by resolution recommended the plan to the Board. The Board held its public hearing on January 25, 2005, and after holding three work sessions, made some revisions to the March 22, 2005 397 plan. Staff recommends that the Board approve and adopt the revised Community Plan. Supervisor Wray advised that he was requesting that the land use maps for the Roe property (Tap Map No. 096.03-02-28) be revised and designated development because the property was divided between rural village and development. Mr. David Holladay, Planner, advised that the property that Supervisor Wray is referring to is the Roe property on Dawnwood Drive. When revisions were made to the Poage’s Mill area during the past year by the Planning Commission and staff, the area designated development was reduced and changed to rural village meaning rural residential. At that time it was proposed to change the majority of the Roe property to rural village. Mr. Holladay distributed several maps of the Roe property which included the land use designations, an aerial view, the slope, and zoning district. Mr. Holladay advised that Dawnwood Road splits off of Poage Valley Road and has a long narrow stem running to the north along the road frontage. When they drew the proposed division line between the rural village and development areas, it cut across one edge of the Roe property and went over to the street right-of-way and then split off the narrow stem of the property. To the east, the property splits some other property lines and Mr. Holladay explained that Supervisor Wray is proposing to designate the entire parcel development but have the line to the east follow the two property lines that run in a curve towards the area designated conservation. The Roe tract is very similar to the adjoining property and when Mr. Roe approached the County March 22, 2005 398 requesting changes, he described the property to the north and his property as being part of a family farm. Mr. Holladay advised that according to Mr. Roe, a relative owns the property to the north and because they had plans to eventually unite the properties, he preferred that the land use designation be consistent for both parcels. Mr. Holladay advised that if the Board approves the revisions, they could also approve the maps with the proposed amendment for the Roe property. He advised that all of the property in this area is consistently zoned agricultural/residential so there will be no difference in the zoning district. Supervisor Flora advised that he has no problem with the amendment which will make the land use designation consistent for one person’s property. Mr. Holladay advised that at the last two work sessions, the future land use map was amended as follows: (1) change Newbern-Bach property from principal industrial to core in the Hollins District; and (2) change portion of Crumpacker property from conservation to neighborhood conservation in the Hollins District. These changes have been made to the drawings and the amendments for the property in the Cave Spring District will be added if approved by the Board. Chairman Altizer advised that Mr. Dickie Roe had signed up to speak at this meeting. Mr. Roe advise that he did not wish to speak. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution with revisions to land use maps for Roe property on Dawnwood Drive as suggested by Supervisor Wray (Change March 22, 2005 399 to Land Use Maps: Roe property on Dawnwood Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, to be designated development and division line between development and rural village to follow the northern property line of Tax Parcels 96.03-2-3 and 96.03-2-1). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 032205-13 APPROVING AND ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the plan on November 2, 2004, after advertisement and notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, and adopted a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors review and adopt a revised Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the revised Community Plan on January 25, 2005, after advertisement and notice as required by § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia, has a long and successful history of community planning that has emphasized citizen involvement and participation; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission of every jurisdiction shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive (Community) plan for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, § 15.2-2230 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning Commission shall review the comprehensive (Community) plan once every five years to determine whether it is advisable to amend the plan; and WHEREAS, in 2003 Roanoke County began the process of revising the Community Plan to help guide Roanoke County’s growth and decision-making in the future; and WHEREAS, in 2003, a Citizen’s Planning Academy was conducted, in 2004 a Smart Growth Task Force was convened and during this two year period many work sessions and community input meetings were held; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared a revised Community Plan for Roanoke County entitled “Roanoke County Community Plan,” dated November 2, 2004, and said plan has been prepared in accordance with §§ 15.2-2223 and 2224 of the Code of Virginia; and March 22, 2005 400 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1) That the Revised Community (Comprehensive) Plan, consisting of the following five chapters and maps, is hereby approved and adopted. The Revised Community (Comprehensive) Plan consists of the following component parts: a) Economic Development Plan b) Growth Management & Capital Facilities Planning c) Storm water Management d) Public Utilities e) Transportation f) Land Use maps 2) That the Planning Commission and County staff are directed to commence work on implementation strategies for the Community Plan, including amendments to the County zoning Ordinance and County Code in accordance with the guidelines in the Community Plan for the use and development of land within Roanoke County. 3) That this Resolution is effective from and after March 22, 2005. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution with revisions to land use maps for Roe property on Dawnwood Drive as suggested by Supervisor Wray (Change to Land Use Maps: Roe property on Dawnwood Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, to be designated development and division line between development and rural village to follow the northern property line of Tax Parcels 96.03-2-3 and 96.03-2-1), and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Request to adopt the following tax rates for calendar year 2005: (Brent Robertson, Budget Director) (a) Real estate tax rate of $1.12 per $100 assessed valuation O-032205-14 Chairman Altizer advised that public hearings on the tax rates for real estate, personal property and machinery and tools were conducted at the March 8, 2005, meeting. At tonight’s meeting, the Board will discuss and vote separately on each item. March 22, 2005 401 Mr. Robertson reported that the real estate tax rate for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31, 2005, was advertised on February 22 and March 1, 2005, at $1.12 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. The public hearing for citizen comment on the above advertised tax rate was held on March 8, 2005. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2005-2006 is predicated on the current real estate tax rate; therefore, staff recommends that the real estate tax rate again be established at the rate of $1.12 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation for the 2005 calendar year. Supervisor Flora moved staff recommendation to set the real estate tax rate at $1.12 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation for the 2005 calendar year. Supervisor Church advised that some of the Board members had suggested a reduction in the tax rate and Supervisor McNamara had mentioned a reduction of one cent but no information had been provided to the Board about a reduction. Mr. Robertson advised that reducing the tax rate had been discussed during the work sessions. Supervisor Church advised that as Mr. Robertson stated, the budget was based on a tax rate of $1.12, and he had been informed by Mr. Robertson that a one cent reduction in the real estate tax rate would amount to $612,000 in revenues. Supervisor Church advised that in reviewing the past five years from 2000 to 2004, there were surpluses of $3 million, $3.3 million, $2.9 Million, $2.6 million and $4 million and there was only one year with a deficit of $335,000. He advised that he was recommending a reduction of one cent even though during the budget work sessions, March 22, 2005 402 he had indicated that he would request a reduction of two cents. He asked Mr. Robertson if he had any information to show that revenues will be worse this year than there were from 2000 to 2004. Supervisor Church stated that he believes the County will be in a favorable situation and inquired if Mr. Robertson is forecasting any negative downtrends. Mr. Robertson advised that current economic conditions indicate that the revenues are consistent with last year, and although there are some revenue categories that may have less growth, the economic conditions are still very favorable in general. Supervisor Church advised that every year citizens receive an increase with their tax assessment. He advised that the County has a history of excellent financial management which has resulted in surplus funds. There have been Board members who complained that if they had known about the surplus, they would have funded programs without waiting until the end of the year. He does not want a negative balance at the end of the year but the trend of surpluses from $2.6 million to $4 million indicates to him that it is time to return some funds to the taxpayers. He advised that the Board approved up to $250,000 to conduct a review of an alternate site for the regional jail which would amount to half a penny reduction in the real estate tax rate. Supervisor Church made a substitute motion to reduce the real estate tax rate to $1.11 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. Chairman Altizer clarified to Supervisor Wray that the substitute motion from Supervisor Church would be voted on before the main motion from Supervisor Flora. March 22, 2005 403 Supervisor Wray advised that the Board should provide services to citizens while funding current and future capital projects. He suggested having a long- range plan for tax reduction and that the Board not approve something that will be lost when next year’s tax assessments are made. He feels that the Board should be fiscally responsible to the citizens and have a plan for long-term savings. The proposed tax reduction would equate to approximately $10 to $20 per year depending upon the price of a house. He would like to give the citizens something more substantial while trying to restructure and operate County government more efficiently. Supervisor Wray advised that local governments are recognizing that they should strive to offer the lowest feasible tax rate but a plan is needed to implement it successfully. He suggested an audit committee be appointed which will be composed of Board members and others to conduct a study to determine if the County is using taxpayers’ money as efficiently as possible. Supervisor Flora advised that this Board has been one of the most foresighted Boards in many years by implementing plans for the future. This year, the Board created a plan for the County and School Board to set aside $600,000 a year for future debt service to accomplish some of the capital projects that are needed. It is ironic that $600,000 just about equates to one cent of the tax rate. To reduce the tax rate now could derail that process and delay the capital improvement projects. The proposed tax reduction would give a citizen with a house assessed at $200,000 a tax reduction of $20 per year. The idea of a tax reduction is good but the timing is not right March 22, 2005 404 while the County is in the middle of a capital improvement plan. If a tax reduction is given, it should be meaningful, and even without a tax rate reduction, citizens are benefiting by the increases being made by the County in services, facilities and schools. Supervisor McNamara advised that he believes the tax reduction would be less than a dollar because if you have a $150,000 house, it would be $15 per year or $1.25 a month, and since most citizens itemize their deductions, there would be a further reduction of 30% for federal and state taxes which results in approximately 85 cents. He would support a tax reduction but he would like to have a vibrant valley with an educational infrastructure and economic development so that children can stay in the valley and succeed. Supervisor McNamara advised that the way to accomplish this would be to capitalize on the County’s strengths in health care and education, and he is proud that the Board has committed $600,000 to create a capital improvement plan instead of a one cent tax rate reduction. The Board has implemented a long-term plan of tax investment and the funds will grow to $1.2 million next year and $1.8 million the year after and within eight to ten years, the capital improvement projects can be funded without bonds and interest which will be a real savings to the citizens. The County’s budget currently runs somewhere in the area to 8% to 10% for interest. The Board has made a meaningful change to the citizens of the valley and particularly the County. Education and economic development are the only two ways to create a vibrant economy and he is not willing to delay this progress. March 22, 2005 405 Supervisor Church advised that there must be some miscommunications about his comments because when he suggested reducing the tax rate, he did not say anything about reducing funding for the schools. To the contrary, past history has shown that the County has had surplus funds for several years and with respect to Supervisor McNamara’s comments, he reminded him that he recommended a one cent reduction a few months ago in the work session. Supervisor Church advised that he does not want to reduce the education or public safety projects. When the Board approved $250,000 for a second study for a regional jail site, which he did not approve, he asked where was the outcry about jeopardizing the County’s future. If you take the one percent reduction and couple it with a five to six percent assessment increase, the result to the homeowners is more than $10 in savings and with the reduction of a penny to anywhere from a three to five percent increase, you could see savings of $75 to $100. He advised that he does not want the Board to reduce the funding that was agreed upon with the School Board. He would like to see the County give back some of the funds to the taxpayers and still proceed with the things that need to be done. Supervisor Altizer advised that last Sunday at the dedication of the new addition to the Herman L. Horn Elementary School, he talked with many residents, parents, and grandparents who thanked him and the Board for how they are managing the County and providing services. He stated that if the tax rate reduction is one cent on a house costing $200,000, the savings is $20’ and if the house is $150,000, it would be $15; and for a $100,000 house, it would be $10. He commended the Board for their March 22, 2005 406 vision in finding a source of funds for the County and schools’ capital needs which will put future Boards in a position to get things done quicker and save construction costs which are increasing. He would like to see the County reduce the tax rate but it should be a meaningful amount and done as part of a visionary phase similar to the process used with the budget. This could be done if the Board is willing to commit to a reduction in certain years with the understanding that it would be negative if they could not follow through with the reduction for any reason. He advised that his intent is that the Board would make tax reduction a process that can be incorporated in the budget. A savings of $10 or $20 from a tax reduction may be important to some people but with the equivalent of $600,000, the County could fund debt service with bond rates that are now probably $6 million to $6.5 million and put these funds towards an elementary school or partial down payment of a new middle school. He believes that the Board should plan for the future and not have paper projects because even if they are written down, they need a source of funding. He advised that the County conducted a groundbreaking today for the new public safety building which was needed and will cost less to construct at this time than in five years. He stated that the Board is being proactive in developing a vision for the future and while a penny reduction is not very much to most citizens, those he has talked with agree with him that it would mean more to use the funds to accomplish the County projects that are needed. March 22, 2005 407 Supervisor Church advised that he can count to three which means that the majority is not in favor of a tax reduction. He assured everyone that his recommendation was not made to reduce public safety or school construction projects, and he could withdraw his substitute motion and ask the Board to put aside these funds for school projects which would take care of those concerns. He stated that no one on this Board has been any more in favor of helping education and public safety than him but the Board continues to discuss a tax reduction without taking action while the County has had surplus funds of almost $4 million in four out of the past five years. He asked the Board to set aside these funds and leave the tax rate at $1.12 to accomplish the necessary projects. Supervisor Church advised that he was withdrawing his substitute motion and he would like to have a consensus of the Board to set aside the equivalent of one penny on the tax rate or $600,000 on debt service. There was no further discussion. Chairman Altizer advised that the substitute motion has been withdrawn by Supervisor Church and that the Board would vote on the motion by Supervisor Flora. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the order setting the real estate tax rate at $1.12 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None March 22, 2005 408 ORDER 032205-14 SETTING THE TAX RATE ON REAL ESTATE SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2005 BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December $1.12 31, 2005, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable real estate and mobile homes classified by Sections 58.1-3200, 58.1-3201, 58.1-3506.A.8, and 58.1-3506.B of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, situate in Roanoke County. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the order, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None (b) Personal property tax rate of $3.50 per $100 assessed valuation O-032205-15 Mr. Robertson stated that the personal property tax rate for the 2005 calendar year was advertised on February 22 and March 1, 2005, at $3.50 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. The public hearing for citizen comment on the advertised tax rates was held on March 8, 2005. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2005-2006 is predicated on the current personal property tax rate; therefore, staff recommends that the personal property tax rate again be established at the rate of $3.50 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation for the 2005 calendar year. There was no discussion. March 22, 2005 409 Supervisor McNamara moved approval of the advertised rate (to adopt the order setting the personal property tax rate at $3.50 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDER 032205-15 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON PERSONAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2005 BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and $3.50 ending December 31, 2005, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property, excluding that class of personal property generally designated as machinery and tools as set forth in Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and excluding all those classes of household goods and personal effects as are defined in Sections 58.1-3504 and 58.1-3505 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, but including the property separately classified by Sections 58.1-3500, 58.1-3501, 58.1- 3502, 58.1-3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service corporations based upon the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation Commission and duly certified. 2. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1- 3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and adopted by Ordinance No. 121592-11, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans. 3. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and fifty (50%) percent ending December 31, 2005, be, and hereby is, set at of the tax rate established in paragraph 1 for the taxable, tangible personal property as herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by Section 58.1-3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the order, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None March 22, 2005 410 (c) Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.00 per $100 assessed valuation O-032205-16 There was no staff report presented or discussion of this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the advertised tax rate (adopt the order setting the machinery and tools tax rate of $3.00 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ORDER 032205-16 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON A CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - MACHINERY AND TOOLS - SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2005 BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1- 3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery and tools. 2. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2005, and $3.00 ending December 31, 2005, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property as herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery and tools. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the order, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: RECESS Chairman Altizer recessed the meeting from 8:00 p.m. until 8:10 p.m. March 22, 2005 411 IN RE: FUNDING REQUESTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 BUDGET 1. Human Services and Social Services Agencies Chairman Altizer advised that this time has been set aside for human and social service agencies to submit funding requests to the Board for the 2005-2006 budget. He noted that representatives will be called upon to speak in reverse alphabetical order of the agency and the following representatives spoke: (1) TRUST, Daren Gunter, Executive Director - $7,500; (2) TAP Ellen Brown, Director Families in Transition - $31,500; (3) TAP - Transitional Living Center. Ellen Brown, Director, Families in Transition - $21,000; (4) TAP - Dumas Center. William Penn - $50,000; (5) Southwestern Virginia Second Harvest Food Bank, Charles Hammond - $5,000; (6) Salvation Army, Jonathan Lee, Director Development & Marketing - $3,000; (7) Saint Francis of Assisi Service Dog Foundation, Cabell Youell, Executive Director/Leigh Singh - $10,000; (8) Roanoke Valley Speech & Hearing Center, Wayne Moore, Executive Director - $1,250; (9) Roanoke Valley Interfaith Hospitality Network, Joe Cobb, Executive Director - $8,500; (10) Roanoke Area Ministries, Loni Bier - $3,000; (11) Presbyterian Community Center, Jennifer McCormick, Executive Director - $3,000; (12) Mental Health Association, Diane Kelly, Executive Director - $1,200; (13) LOA Area Agency on Aging, Susan Williams, Executive Director - $30,696; (14) Literacy Volunteers of America-Roanoke Valley, Annette Loschert, Executive Director - $2,000; (15) Habitat for Humanity, Tom Dalzell - $4,500; (16) Family Service of the Roanoke Valley, John Pendarvis, President/CEO - March 22, 2005 412 $5,000; (17) Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), Anne Grove, Executive Director, and Jennifer Willis, Board President - $8,000;(18) Council of Community Services - Nonprofit Resource Center, Lucas Snipes - $5,000; (19) Council of Community Services - Info and Referral Center, Pam Kestner-Chappelear, President - $3,300; (20) Conflict Resolution Center, Inc., Christine Poulson, Executive Director - $5,000; (21) Children's Advocacy Center of the Roanoke Valley, Inc., Jenny Lee - $5,500; (22) Child Health Investment Partnership (CHIP), Christina Hatch - $23,360; (23) Brain Injury Services of SWVA, Helen Butler, Executive Director - $17,000; (24) Bradley Free Clinic, R. Douglass Ross, DDS - $7,000; (25) Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care, Marlene Bryant, Director Financial Services - $125,332; (26) Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Roanoke Valley, William Bestpitch, President/CEO - $7,500; (27) Bethany Hall, Maryanne Chamberlain, Executive Director - $12,240; (28) American Red Cross, Steve Smith - $4,000; and (29) Adult Care Center of the Roanoke Valley, Sue Nutter, Program Director - $12,000. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Church: (1) He commented that the groundbreaking held today for the Public Safety Center was a very positive event. It involved for the first time to his knowledge a citizen as a speaking participant and Mrs. Marshall, who lives nearby, delivered some very positive comments from the community. The Public Safety Center when completed will be a gem for the entire state. (2) He advised that concerning the projects that citizens have requested; they know who they are; he has March 22, 2005 413 spoken to them recently to report that things are moving along; and everything is in the works. (3) He advised that Chief of Police Lavinder was unable to be at the groundbreaking today. He wanted him and his wife to know they were missed and sent his best wishes for Chief Lavinder’s mother. Supervisor Wray: (1) He asked Mr. Hodge for an update on the Mennel Mill project. Mr. Hodge advised that they are continuing to work through the issue of whether the soil in that area is sufficient to handle the height and weight of the building and the land swap with VDOT which was approved by the General Assembly. All of this information will be part of the final plans which should be received in April or May. (2) He advised that he attended the VDOT meeting with the residents of Clearbrook this past week when information about the extension to Buck Mountain Road was presented. (3) He state that he is still trying working with VDOT to retain some of the cross-overs on Route 220 for the citizens’ safety and convenience. Supervisor Altizer: (1) He advised that there is a community meeting tomorrow night at Explore Park at 7:00 p.m. This is an opportunity for citizens to ask questions to gain information about the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) and the agreement with a private developer which the VRFA will vote on Thursday. (2) He stated that he was unable to attend the first school dedication but attended the events for Mountain View and Herman L. Horn Elementary Schools. The Board and School Board can be proud of the three completed additions which were started about two to two and one-half years ago. It is always said that bricks and mortar do not 414 March 22, 2005 educate children but the atmosphere and environment in which children are taught are important. As he stated at the groundbreaking today, the three things most incumbent upon local government is to provide the best police protection, the best fire and rescue and the best education and the Board can be very proud of their successes. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. until Tuesday, March 29, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of a budget work session to receive funding requests from Cultural and Tourism agencies, Roanoke County Administration Center, Board Meeting Room, 5204 Bernard Drive. Submitted by: Approved by: &A ~ IM:IV\- Brenda J. alton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board ~Jdzt.~ Michael W. Altizer Chairman