Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/12/2005 - Regular April 12, 2005 431 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 April 12, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of April, 2005. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph McNamara, Richard C. Flora MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend Jim Herron, Penn Forest Christian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring May 7 through 15, 2005, as National Tourism Week in the County of Roanoke April 12, 2005 432 Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to David Kjolhede, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2. Proclamation declaring April 10 through 16, 2005, as National Public Safety Telecommunications Week in the County of Roanoke Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to Assistant Chief Donna Furrow, Lt. Scott Smith, and the following representatives from the communications division: Communications Officer Sue Smith, Communications Officer III Sharon Brown, Lead Communications Officer Donna Rigby, Communications Officer Wayne King, and Communications Officer David Craighead. 3. Introduction of visitors from the Ukraine television station Vezha who are participating in the Ukraine Media Partnership Program with WDBJ Television Chairman Altizer presented Certificates of Honorary Citizenship to Mr. Oleksander Makushak, Head of the Production Department; Ms. Olga Melnyk, Manager of Commercial TV Projects; and Ms. Yaroslava Ugrynyuk, Editor in Chief of TV News. Accompanying the group were two interpreters and Joe Dashiell, Senior Reporter at WDBJ. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern regarding the feasibility study conducted on the downtown Salem site for the April 12, 2005 433 regional jail facility. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator; Bill Porter, Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern) Mr. Chambliss recognized the following individuals who were present at the meeting: Bill Porter, Dan Bolt, and Scott Hodge, representatives from Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern (HSM&M); and Gerald Holt, Roanoke County Sheriff. Mr. Chambliss reported that in January, the Board requested that an independent study be prepared for the existing jail site in downtown Salem to: (1) determine bed capacity and feasibility; (2) examine sites adjacent to the existing jail for development potential; and (3) compare the cost of developing the downtown Salem site to the cost of developing the Higginbotham site or a remote site for a regional jail that would serve the needs of the City of Salem and the counties of Roanoke, Franklin, and Montgomery. He advised that this process was conducted by HSM&M and the report will be presented today. Mr. Porter stated that he was present to report on the feasibility study to evaluate the expansion of the existing Roanoke County-Salem jail and courts in downtown Salem, and to also provide an evaluation with respect to parking. He indicated that three areas were addressed in the downtown Salem site evaluation: (1) the area immediately adjacent to the jail and courts; (2) the existing Getty Mart across Thompson Memorial Drive; and (3) the area adjacent to the Court Services and Sheriff’s building, which is owned by multiple property owners and is referred to as “Area 3”. Mr. April 12, 2005 434 Porter stated that these sites were examined to try to optimize potential future expansion for the jail, courts, and parking. Mr. Scott Hodge provided an overview of the existing conditions of each of the three areas examined: Area 1: It is bounded by Clay Street, Thompson Memorial Drive, and East Main Street to the south and is directly to the east of the existing courts building. He stated that denoted in green on the drawing is an existing pipe structure which is made of two types of materials: an existing steel pipe arch as well as a 7 x 5 box culvert that goes from underneath Clay Street through the site under the parking area and under Main Street to the existing channel. He stated that this is Snyder Branch that flows from north to south through that particular site and there is a restriction on the site of a 100 year flood plain, as well as a floodway that travels through Area 1. He stated that in an attempt to reduce the impact of the site, they tried to parallel or upsize the structure. He noted that construction will be very difficult based on the narrow channel to the north, as well as the fact that the 100 year flood plain or floodway can not be totally contained within the structure due to the location. Area 2: This is the area shown with the Getty Mart which has a minimal amount of relief. Mr. Hodge stated that where Area 1, from Clay Street down to East Main Street, is approximately 12’ of difference in topography, there is little or no restriction to this particular site. He illustrated the location of the 100 year flood plain and stated that there is an existing building facility with a parking area. Area 3: This area is bounded by Thompson Memorial Drive, East Main Street, and Strawberry Alley along the existing April 12, 2005 435 building structure, with the existing Snyder Branch running through an open channel underneath the existing building facility. He advised that there is a relief of topography that goes from Main Street to Calhoun Street of approximately 5’. The same type of restriction exists as in Area 1 which is a 100 year flood plain and floodway. Mr. Hodge stated that the 100 year flood elevation can not be increased by filling in the floodway. A detailed hydraulic analysis would also have to be performed prior to preparing a final design. Mr. Porter outlined the following alternatives which were examined: Alternative 1 - Revisiting the 1993 and 2003 studies which were previously conducted: This alternative involves adding a new jail addition to the existing facility on the downtown Salem site, which hangs over slightly into the flood plain area. The building would be on piles so that the water would pass underneath that portion of the building in the event of a flood. Mr. Porter stated that this is achievable but not desirable, and has a staffing ratio which is also achievable. Also shown is an option for a new car parking structure will be included on all alternatives (this is listed as Alternative 4). The existing facility has 108 beds and this alternative would allow for expansion to 266 beds. It would provide for the needs of Roanoke County and Salem until the year 2012; at which time, another expansion would be needed beyond this immediate site. The project was reduced by one level compared to the previous study conducted by HSM&M due to a City of Salem height restriction. The expansion would now match the existing jail floor structure with a height limitation of 80’. April 12, 2005 436 Alternative 2 – Expansion of the work to include Franklin and Montgomery Counties: This alternative will re-do Annex #1 and adds an additional annex which will cover most of the site. The two annexes would be connected by a secure walkway to allow inmate transfer between facilities. Mr. Porter advised that this would reduce the staffing requirements that would be necessary if the two facilities were entirely separate, and therefore allows some economies of scale. This will allow for expansion into the year 2012 for the four jurisdictions and includes 610 beds. He stated that this is comparable to the 592 beds being considered for the Higginbotham site. In addition, this alternative shows the optional parking structure and contains some parking under the existing jail structure. Alternative 3 – Court Facility: This alternative stays out of the flood plain altogether. Due to increased security concerns which have arisen since September 11, Mr. Porter advised that it is deemed unwise to allow free access to areas underneath the court facilities. He stated that various methods for providing security were examined but none could reliably provide proper security. This alternative allows for an expansion of the courts and a jail addition, which is a replacement of the existing intake facility in the current jail. This would create a new sally port and intake facility and allows considerable expansion of the courts in the future, as compared with Alternative 2 which places constraints on future expansion for court facilities. In addition, there is no expansion for the jail on this immediate site. Mr. Porter reported that this alternative April 12, 2005 437 provides for the needs through the year 2012; however Alternative 3, in conjunction with a rural jail project, will allow for expansion that will cover 30–40 years. Alternative 4 - Option for parking: Mr. Porter stated that it was not appropriate to put a jail or court facility on this parcel due to the flood plain restrictions through the vast majority of the site; however, a parking structure is an appropriate use and water can flow under the facility. He noted that this is a slightly more expensive place to build a parking structure and would require additional study and investigation to obtain approval by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Mr. Porter provided the following cost analysis dated April 1, 2005. The alternatives were to be compared to the Higginbotham site which contains 592 new beds and takes approximately 2½ years to the mid-point of construction. The total eligible project cost per bed for the Higginbotham site is $119,922 and this is the same amount the state will reimburse for the project, which is up to 50% of eligible costs up to $120,000. Roanoke County’s share for this site is $20,233,180; the total project cost is $88.7 million Alternative 1 – Roanoke County and Salem on the existing jail site: This alternative would contain 266 new beds and would require approximately the same amount of time to build; however, it exceeds the $120,000 of eligible costs. As a result, Roanoke County’s share increases to $24 million. The total project cost is down to $47 million due to fewer beds; however, it is significant to note that Roanoke County’s share increases in this alternative. April 12, 2005 438 Alternative 2 (Column 1) – If approval process from Department of Corrections (DOC) is implemented quickly: This alternative provices 610 beds and optimizes the jail potential on the existing downtown site; however, it exceeds the eligible costs for the DOC. Roanoke County’s share increases to $31 million and the total project cost is $120 million. Alternative 2 (Column 2): Mr. Porter stated that this scenario is the same as Alternative 2 above; however, it includes an inflation factor to allow for delays in processing with the DOC and the costs increase. With respect to staffing, Mr. Porter stated that over the 30-year life of a facility, the construction costs are less than 10%; the real expense associated with jail and correctional facilities is staffing and operational costs. He outlined the following staffing alternatives: Alternative 1 – Roanoke County and Salem only: This provides staffing of 145 for a total of 374 beds, resulting in a staff ratio of 2.58 inmates per deputy. Mr. Porter noted that this is a key factor because the DOC will reimburse two-thirds (2/3) of the cost of staff at a 3 to 1 ratio or better; they do not reimburse at lower ratios because they are not as efficient. Due to some of the site constraints, this alternative is not as efficient as the standard preferred by the DOC. Alternative 2 – Regional Facility: This alternative is slightly better due to the ability to expand across Thompson Memorial Drive which achieves a ratio of 2.60 inmates per deputy for total of 718 beds (existing beds plus new beds). April 12, 2005 439 Alternative 3 – Court facility: Mr. Porter stated that this reflects a new court expansion which is not included in the staffing analysis but it is assumed that this will be used in conjunction with a rural jail site. A ratio of 3.65 inmates per deputy is achieved due to the ability to spread out the facility. He advised that there is 162 staff for 592 new beds and noted that the current jail has a ratio of 2.63 inmates per deputy for a high rise facility, which is typically more staff intensive. Mr. Porter stated that the Higginbotham site or another rural site provides a staff savings of 50 positions per year at an average salary of $44,000 including benefits, which totals approximately $2 million per year cost savings. He advised that depending on the reimbursement ratio, the state will reimburse two-thirds (2/3) of this amount annually. Mr. Porter advised that the recommendation of HSM&M is that a rural site would be more cost effective and resolve several problems with the existing downtown jail site. He stated that the downtown Salem site is a very good site for a potential court expansion in the future. He further indicated that using a rural site keeps the project totally out of the flood plain and avoids the associated problems; it does not involve the parking issues associated with the downtown site; it is the most cost effective for construction and staffing; and it is a safer facility for both staff and inmates than a high rise facility. Supervisor McNamara complimented HSM&M on a thorough evaluation of the potential sites. April 12, 2005 440 Supervisor Wray noted that the executive summary and recommendation did not highlight any problems with the Higginbotham site. He questioned if this indicates that there were no FEMA, road, or access concerns. Mr. Porter responded in the negative and stated that from an engineering perspective, the site is straight forward. He noted that a utility expansion would be required through the Route 460 corridor, but this was addressed as part of the costs of the project. He noted that they have heard a lot of citizen concerns, but from an architecture and engineering perspective it is a straight forward situation. In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor Wray regarding access to the site, Mr. Porter noted that the facility will be built outside of the flood plain on the Higginbotham site. Supervisor Wray noted that Mr. Porter has stated that 50% reimbursement would be available and he questioned if he was correct in assuming it is up to 50%. Mr. Porter advised that it is up to 50% of the eligible costs and this is capped at $120,000 per bed; once this is exceeded, the DOC will not pay for any costs in excess of this amount. Supervisor Wray noted that Mr. Porter mentioned that he had conducted other jail studies. Mr. Porter stated that he has handled corrections projects in 30 states. Supervisor Wray further noted that Mr. Porter had advised that the state did not like to fund staffing. Mr. Porter indicated that the state, under political pressure, has reimbursed beyond what they initially pushed for; if the project is approved initially, there is occasion where additional financing has been provided for in unforeseen April 12, 2005 441 circumstances. With respect to the staffing ratio, the state will pay two-thirds (2/3) of staffing costs if the ratio is better than 3 to 1 and 50% of construction costs up to $120,000. Supervisor Wray referenced Alternative 1 and the statement that parking under a public safety type building is not recommended. He questioned who did not recommend parking under a public safety building. Mr. Porter stated that HSM&M does not recommend it for a court facility because there has been an increased incidence of threats against the judiciary and he noted the Terri Schiavo case. Also since September 11, 2001, there has been increasing concern about public agency security from terrorist attacks and he indicated that free and open parking under a public structure is not a recommended practice. Supervisor Wray inquired if there was any flood plain cost to the Higginbotham site. Mr. Porter stated that the access road will have to be built up slightly; however, the remainder of the site is not in the flood plain. Mr. Scott Hodge stated that a small section of the road off West River Road would need to be built up, but the remainder of the construction would be outside of the 100 year flood plain. Supervisor Wray further inquired if there were any problems with acquisition of right-of- ways. Mr. Scott Hodge stated that there is a 60 foot access easement and the work can be done within this access easement. He noted that it may require a small section of retaining wall, but no additional right-of-way needs to be acquired. Supervisor Wray inquired if the existing bridge and right-of-way are adequate to handle everything. Mr. April 12, 2005 442 Scott Hodge stated that as you come off Route 11/Route 460, the road is adequate. Some build up will be required between the existing bridge and the railroad tracks to provide adequate site distance; in addition, build up will be required on the opposite side of the tracks due to a slight dip in that area for purposes of site distance. He noted that these costs are included in the study. Supervisor Church thanked HSM&M for their report. He asked Mr. Hodge if he was aware of a real estate transfer across from the Higginbotham site that occurred over the weekend and inquired if this transfer was in any way related to the jail project. Mr. Hodge advised that he knows nothing of this transaction and stated that any transaction relating to the jail project would have to come to the Board for approval. In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor Church, he confirmed that the County has no knowledge of and did not have anything to do with this transaction. Supervisor Church stated that he has information from reliable sources that there were several structures in or close to the Cooper property that were left out of the site survey which could raise issues relating to title insurance. He questioned if there was a possible error with respect to the 60 foot easement that could relate to at least one or a part of a building being excluded erroneously. Mr. Scott Hodge responded that this did not occur to his knowledge and he advised that there is a building that sits within the existing 60 foot easement and staff met with Ms. Cooper and verified it was not within two to three feet of the easement. April 12, 2005 443 Supervisor Church noted that the Board appropriated $250,000 and he inquired if $48,000 was used for this study. Mr. Hodge responded in the affirmative and indicated that the appropriation by the Board for $250,000 was to cover the cost of the option on the property, the studies for the Higginbotham site, and funds for the downtown Salem study were taken from this fund. He also advised that the cost of the study being presented today is not being shared by the other localities and is being funded by Roanoke County. Supervisor Church questioned how much money is remaining from the $250,000 appropriation. Mr. Chambliss stated that at the time of the appropriation, the amount of the option had not been finalized. The option was subsequently obtained at a cost of $10,000 for 41 acres and is good through June 30, 2005. There are provisions for a second option that would run from July 1, 2005 through April 30, 2006 at a cost of $20,000. Mr. Chambliss stated that if the property is purchased, these amounts would be applied to the purchase price. He also indicted that two studies are required which include an environmental assessment report, which was completed at a cost of $14,000; a geotechnical study was conducted several years ago by the Economic Development Department and following review, it was determined that this study did not need to be re-conducted. Mr. Chambliss stated that some legal expenses will be incurred with the formation of the authority and there will be costs associated with assembling the financial package for the application. He advised that to date, $72,000 April 12, 2005 444 has been spent and it is anticipated than an additional $5,000 - $6,000 of expenses remains related to the filing of the application and legal expenses. Supervisor Church re-stated that it was his understanding that the $250,000 appropriation was for the study of the downtown Salem site only. He requested that this information be verified. Supervisor Church inquired how long it took HSM&M to prepare the report presented today. Mr. Porter advised that approximately 7 or 8 staff members have been working on the report since March 1, 2005. Supervisor Church requested an estimate of the number of hours required to verify the data. He noted that the jail issue has been discussed for a long time, and that he had received this detailed report on Friday. He indicated that there is no way any Board member can digest this volume of information in such a short period of time. Mr. Hodge requested clarification from Mr. Porter regarding the earlier HSM&M report which addressed the possibility of expanding the existing jail facility in downtown Salem. Mr. Porter stated that in 1993, HSM&M conducted a study to expand the existing jail and at that time, it was acknowledged that it was designed to expand vertically. Subsequently when this issue was revisited in 2003, the state codes had changed and were more stringent regarding seismic constraints. The earthquake loading would require extensive renovations that would essentially require demolishing the existing jail and rebuilding from the ground up. He noted that this may have April 12, 2005 445 contributed to confusion regarding whether expansion of the existing facility was an option. Supervisor Flora commended HSM&M for a thorough and concise report. He stated that he recalls that the $250,000 appropriation was to cover the study of the Higginbotham site as well as the downtown Salem site. He further stated that the numbers outlined in the report indicated that the Higginbotham site is the most economically feasible and that to build on the downtown Salem site is short-sighted. He advised that it is his understanding that the City of Salem does not want Roanoke County to purchase additional properties in downtown Salem and take these properties off the tax rolls. He also noted that a parking deck would be required if any expansion is done in Salem. He stated that it is hard to argue with the data in the report, and he voiced support for moving forward in the direction previously established. Supervisor McNamara acknowledged that a lot of data has been presented, but stated that interpreting the data is not hard. He stated that if it is assumed that the figures are close to accurate, 90% of the cost of running a jail is staffing. The Higginbotham site has a staff ratio of 3.65 inmates per deputy; Alternative 1 has a staff ratio of 2.5 inmates per deputy; Alternative 2 has a staff ratio of 2.6 inmates per deputy. He stated that in all scenarios, the life cycle cost will be 30% higher with either of the downtown Salem options. He stated that when initial costs are considered, Roanoke County’s share for the Higginbotham site is $20 million; Alternative 1 in downtown Salem is $24 million for Roanoke County’s share; Alternative April 12, 2005 446 2 is $31 million. He further noted that downtown Salem does not have the expandability that is necessary and stated that the Board has the information that is needed and they should keep moving forward. He indicated that it would have been nice to be able to fit the jail onto the existing site in Salem and while anything is possible, the financial feasibility does not make sense. Supervisor Altizer stated that to rebuild the jail on the existing site would not be looking toward the future. He indicated that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the court facilities will need to be expanded and this site is the best place left for that. He further noted that the County seat can not be moved without a voter referendum, and this is the ideal spot to preserve for a future court expansion. With respect to staffing costs, Roanoke County’s share would increase $8.2 million over 30 years to build on this site and this amount does not include any consideration for future raises or benefits. He stated that the information in the feasibility study is lengthy, but the lowest common denominator in evaluating the information is what it will cost the citizens of Roanoke County. He further indicated that he does not know how to resolve the problem of parking in Salem but when the cost of the parking garage is broken down and if you include land with no debt service, it is $25,000 per parking space for the citizens of Roanoke County. If some of the spaces were rented for $5 per day, 5 days per week for 20 months, you could accrue $288,000 at the end of the year; however, the debt service on $5.5 million for the parking garage and land would result in a shortage of $262,000 on debt service. Supervisor Altizer stated that when considering April 12, 2005 447 the walkway for the downtown Salem site, it is approximately 200 feet to connect to the existing annex. Building the walkway would cost $17,500 per feet for a walkway to transport prisoners between facilities. He indicated that when the differences in cost are considered, it does not make sense for the citizens of Roanoke County. He stated that if the jail had not been built on this site originally, we would not be having this discussion today. He encouraged the Board to move forward with the current site and keep the project on track. Supervisor Church stated that we would not be here looking at this if the project had been handled properly with full citizen involvement. He indicated that it could have been done better if citizens had been involved from the start, and noted that Supervisor Flora had previously stated that he did not want to look at another site and anger the residents. He stated that everything is relative; behavior is predictable; and this is a very controversial item. He indicated that a public safety building is being built in his district and the citizens are excited about seeing the project begin construction. He stated if we are looking at a cost of $20 million, this is as high as he is willing to go. He questioned if this is Roanoke County’s total share of construction costs not including the purchase of land. Mr. Porter advised that this cost includes land, utilities, improvements, etc. Supervisor Church stated that he does not want to see these costs increase. He questioned if the numbers can change. Mr. Porter responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Church stated that the people have a right to expect total accountability and we do not want to tell them it will cost $20 million only to have costs April 12, 2005 448 increase and partners fall by the wayside. He concurred that if the County had a rear- view mirror, they would not be at the downtown Salem site and he understands that Salem wants to keep their property on the tax rolls; however, Salem is a primary partner in the jail and this option should be open, including the relaxation of the 80 foot building height requirement. He stated if the roles were reversed, Salem would have every right to expect the same of Roanoke County and it would behoove us to consider the matter. He thanked HSM&M and stated that for the record, he does not expect the project costs to increase. He again noted real estate transfers across the street from the property and stated that he wondered about the transfer. Supervisor Flora stated that Supervisor Church was right when he mentioned his earlier opposition to considering a different site, but advised that he was referring to a potential site in Glenvar and not Hollins. He advised that much discussion has occurred with respect to this project, and it cannot all be committed to memory. Supervisor Wray indicated that as Supervisor Church had stated, he wants to clarify that based on the study, HSM&M does not see any other problems with the Higginbotham site. Mr. Porter replied that he does not see any from an architectural and engineering perspective. Supervisor Wray noted that Mr. Porter had advised that the state would likely provide $35,496,807 and Roanoke County’s share would be $20, 233,180. Mr. Porter stated that he would have to look to verify the numbers but if the information was obtained from the material supplied, he is confident these numbers are accurate. April 12, 2005 449 Supervisor Altizer stated that one of the key reasons why this project needs to stay on course is concern over rising costs and anything that would delay this project would impact those numbers in an upward manner. It is incumbent on the Board to continue moving the process forward to hit the necessary target dates and hold the numbers at current estimates. He thanked HSM&M for their detailed study. IN RE: RECESS Chairman Altizer declared the meeting in recess from 4:42 p.m. until 4:53 p.m. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to approve fiscal year 2005-2006 budget for the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Jacqueline Shuck, Executive Director, Roanoke Regional Airport) R-041205-1 Ms. Hyatt reported that the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission is required to submit their budget to the County Board and City Council for approval before it can be officially adopted. On March 15, the Airport Commission adopted their budget with revenues of $7,181,000 and expenditures of $7,003,000. She noted that the airport is self-sufficient and requires no additional appropriation from the County or the City. There is also a capital budget of $3,260,000 which is funded with federal, state, April 12, 2005 450 and commission funds. She advised that Ms. Shuck was present to answer any questions and present highlights from the budget. Supervisor Wray noted that other maintenance projects declined $17,000 and questioned the reason for this decrease. Ms. Shuck responded that this category is for specific projects and this year, funds were used for a project to clean out a detention basin. She noted that this item varies from year to year and is used for larger than routine maintenance items. Supervisor Wray requested an explanation of the decline in airfield revenue. Ms. Shuck stated that this was intentional and noted that at the joint meeting held recently with the Board of Supervisors and City Council, she pointed out that this was an attempt to try to save money for air carriers and make the airport more attractive to air carriers. As a result, the landing fee has been reduced in the coming year by 16¢ per 1,000 pounds landed. It is estimated that this will result in a savings of $30,000 for ComAir. Ms. Shuck advised that other revenues are being used to pay some of the costs the airlines would normally pay so that the rates to the airlines can be reduced. In response to Supervisor Wray’s inquiry, Ms. Shuck advised that the competitive environment varies depending on the type of capital projects that have been undertaken; however, this change makes the Roanoke Airport more competitive. Supervisor McNamara expressed appreciation to Ms. Shuck and moved to adopt the resolution. April 12, 2005 451 Supervisor Church asked Ms. Shuck to provide an update on the attempts to attract a low fare carrier to the airport. Ms. Shuck stated that they keep trying; however, the challenge at this point is to make sure the existing service is maintained. She advised that the airport continues trying to work with low fare carriers, but there are greater opportunities for them in larger cities due to problems being experienced by the large carriers. Supervisor Altizer stated that the Board of Supervisors and City Council passed a resolution regarding opposition to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) proposal to reduce the hours at the Roanoke tower. He inquired if an update was available regarding this issue. Ms. Shuck responded that no update is available at this time, and it is her understanding that the issue will be raised during appropriations hearings, which have not occurred yet. She advised that there is no formal process or procedure to follow; but fortunately, there were state representatives at a recent meeting who were willing to assist Roanoke County. Supervisor McNamara’s motion to adopt the resolution carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 041205-1 APPROVING THE ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006, UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHEREAS, Section 24.B of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission Act and Section 17.(a) of the contract between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, and the April 12, 2005 452 Roanoke Regional Airport Commission provide that the Commission shall prepare and submit its operating budget for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of the County and City Council of the City; and WHEREAS, by report dated March 16, 2005, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board, the Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission has submitted a request that the County approve the FY 2005-2006 budget of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the FY 2005-2006 budget and proposed capital expenditures for the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission as set forth in the March 16, 2005, report of the Commission Executive Director, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Request to approval fiscal year 2005-2006 budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA). (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; John Hubbard, Chief Executive Officer – RVRA) R-041205-2 Ms. Hyatt reported that the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) adopted their budget on March 30, 2005 and as part of the member use agreement, charter member users must present their budget for approval to the governing bodies. She stated that in the budget being presented, the tipping fees for charter members remains at $45 per ton. Roanoke County will also continue to receive a $300,000 annual reimbursement as compensation for siting of the landfill and $45,000 in payment for accounting services which are included in the 2005-2006 budget. Ms. Hyatt advised April 12, 2005 453 that John Hubbard, Executive Director of the RVRA, was present to answer any questions. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution and noted that the RVRA does a good job and provides a needed service that the citizens cannot do without. Supervisor Wray noted a general surplus balance and inquired how future surpluses will be used. Ms. Hyatt advised that at this time, the plan is to continue using the general surplus until such time as it is depleted to supplement the tipping fees for charter members. At present, there is a total of $6.4 million in surplus funds and portions of this are being reserved, including $2.9 million for future equipment purchases and $1 million for site development. This leaves a balance of $1.5 million to be used to reduce tipping fees. Ms. Hyatt stated that in past years when the fiscal year is closed out, additional revenues were left over which allowed the surplus to run for an additional year. Under ideal conditions, the surplus may last longer than the two year period currently anticipated. Supervisor Wray questioned how many years are estimated to remain at the existing landfill site. Mr. Hubbard responded that in the current areas, it is anticipated to last through mid-2008. He indicated that they are currently in the process of designing and making amendments to the existing permit on an additional area of approximately 50 acres and construction is anticipated to begin in late 2005 or early 2006. With subsequent installations of minor capital improvements, this will carry the April 12, 2005 454 landfill through the year 2033. Supervisor Wray advised that the report was thorough and concise, and thanked the staff at the RVRA. Supervisor Altizer concurred with Supervisor Wray’s comments that the report was thorough and concise, and expressed appreciation to Mr. Hubbard and his staff. He further expressed appreciation to Mr. Hubbard for his continued oversight of the closed landfill off Rutrough Road and for his responsiveness to concerns of the citizens in the area. Supervisor Church’s motion to adopt the resolution carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 041205-2 APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2006 WHEREAS, Section 5.9 of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement provides that the Authority shall prepare and submit its operating budget for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of the County, the City Council of the City of Roanoke, and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, by report dated March 30, 2005, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, the Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has submitted a request that the County approve the budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for the year ending June 30, 2006. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the budget for the year ending June 30, 2006 for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the March 30, 2005, report of the Authority Chairman, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval. April 12, 2005 455 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 3. Request to appropriate funds in the amount of $8,150 from the Board contingency fund for construction costs associated with the Habitat for Humanity house. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) A-041205-3 Mr. Hodge advised that this is the first Habitat for Humanity (HFH) home built in Roanoke County. On June 4, 2003, the Board authorized the donation of a well lot on Stearnes Avenue for construction of a home. He advised that the project was a joint effort between Roanoke County employees and HFH. Since that time, approximately 52 County employees have demonstrated support by volunteering their time and services to construct the home. He noted that 380 volunteer hours were donated by County employees for the project, and he recognized Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services, who served as project coordinator and Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, for his coordination of the services which were donated. Mr. Hodge stated that it was the desire of the Board that the home fit well within the existing neighborhood and to accomplish this, one of the conditions included in the ordinance specified that the home must contain a basement. Since HFH does not include basements as part of their home designs, County staff worked to secure donations of many of the materials and labor required to accomplish this task. A new April 12, 2005 456 plot plan and architectural drawings were prepared to reflect the inclusion of a basement, and these services were donated by County staff; Curtis Ratliff, Architect; and Timber Truss. The excavation work for the basement was donated by Thomas Brothers Construction, and electrical and plumbing installations were donated by County staff. Mr. Hodge noted that the inspections for the electrical and plumbing installations were conducted by the City of Salem. The project is nearing completion at this time, and a grand opening ceremony will be held in the next few weeks. Mr. Hodge advised that staff was not able to cover the cost of the concrete for the basement, and staff is requesting that $8,150 be appropriated to reimburse this cost. Supervisor Wray moved to approve staff recommendation, and complimented the staff for their involvement with the project. Supervisor Church suggested that the basement design could be included in future HFH projects in Roanoke County. He stated that this is an important aspect, and $8,000 is a small price to pay. Supervisor Altizer also expressed appreciation to the staff who participated and indicated that the Board wanted the home to have a basement and a value that would be in keeping with the surrounding neighbors. Supervisor Wray’s motion to approve staff recommendation, approval of an appropriation in the amount of $8,150 from the Board contingency fund, carried by the following recorded vote: April 12, 2005 457 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of easements to the Western Virginia Water Authority through property owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to provide for the extension of sewer service for the benefit of GCT Development, LLC, Catawba Magisterial District. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation & Tourism) Mr. Mahoney advised that this would authorize the conveyance of water and sewer easements across property owned by Roanoke County in Green Hill Park. He stated that staff has been approached by a development company which is building in western Roanoke County next to the Woodbridge subdivision. As part of this project, the developer wishes to install public water and sewer lines. County staff has reviewed the project and it is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. Staff has also spoken with representatives of the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) and they are willing to accept the conveyance. Mr. Mahoney stated that one issue to be addressed is the amount of consideration to be paid by the developer to the County for the conveyance of the easement. An estimate of value has been developed based on the same methodology the County uses to purchase easements from citizens and the value is approximately $3,000. Mr. Mahoney stated that the developer would like to April 12, 2005 458 make a donation to the County for the benefit of the development improvement for the greenway in that part of the County. He requested input from the Board regarding this proposal. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading. Supervisor Flora requested confirmation that the developer wishes to make a donation. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Flora questioned what was the value assigned to the donation. Mr. Mahoney advised that it was $3,000. Supervisor McNamara stated that it appears that improvements to the greenway will improve the value of the development, and he indicated that the County is going down a slippery path when we take fair market values for an easement and attach strings to something that must be paid as part of conducting business. He stated that the Board should consider the precedent that this will be setting. Supervisor Church’s motion to approve the first reading and set the second reading for April 26, 2005 carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 2. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the exchange of real estate between the Board of Supervisors and Richard A. Slusher and Carol P. Slusher on Horseshoe Bend Road, Rte. 936, Vinton April 12, 2005 459 Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey reported that this issue was presented to the Board on January 28, 2003 for the acceptance of additional right-of-way from the Slusher’s to construct a T-turnaround at the end of Horsehshoe Bend Road (Route 936). Since that time, a meeting was held with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), County staff, and the Slushers, and it was determined that the road project would be better served by having the leg of the T-turnaround on the south side of Horseshoe Bend Road, rather than the north side. This change will provide substantial financial savings to both the County and VDOT revenue sharing projects and lessen the impact to the surrounding area. There was no discussion regarding this item. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for April 26, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 3. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of approximately 20 acres of real estate in the Center for Research and Technology to Tecton Products, LLC, authorizing the execution of a performance agreement, and appropriating public funds. (Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development) April 12, 2005 460 Mr. Chittum advised that the request is to authorize the sale of 20 acres in the Center for Research and Technology (CRT) to Tecton and to allow the County Administrator to authorize the documents needed to complete the transaction. He stated that the project was announced last week but for the benefit of the citizens who are not familiar with the project, he provided a brief overview of the company. Mr. Chittum advised that staff has been working on the project for three years and it began when they visited Marvin Windows in an effort to attract Integrity Windows to Roanoke County. Their hope was to get the manufacturer to build their first east coast location in Roanoke County and to subsequently attract several major suppliers to Integrity Windows to Roanoke County as well. Those two manufacturers are Cardinal Glass Industries and Tecton Products. This goal was achieved last week with the Tecton announcement. Mr. Chittum reported that Tecton is the world’s largest manufacturer of thin walled, complex shaped fiberglass pultrusions. The high performance pultrusion products are used by major manufacturers, including Marvin Windows, for door and window product lines. Unlike wood, aluminum, or steel, the pultrusions are light- weight, strong, thermally stable, insulating, and resistant to corrosion, chemicals, and moisture, thereby offering a long, low-maintenance life. The Tecton product is one of a kind, patented, and truly a world leader. Mr. Chittum noted that Tecton is the only company of its kind in the world to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has certified Tecton as a Maximum Achievable Control Technology April 12, 2005 461 (MACT) because the company destroys 96.9% of all their volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) before emitting them into the air. This assures the residents in the surrounding area that this is an environmentally clean company. In addition, Tecton is ISO 9001- 2000 certified, they are committed to lean manufacturing and the Six Sigma Program. They also supply products to other leading manufacturers including Ingersoll Rand and Newell Rubbermaid. He noted that Tecton filed five patents last year, and is headquartered in Fargo, North Dakota. They have over 200 employees and have developed a close relationship with the research and development division of North Dakota State University. Mr. Chittum indicated that it is anticipated that a similar relationship will be cultivated with Virginia Tech, and he noted that Dr. Charles Steger was present at the announcement. He expressed appreciation to Dr. Steger and Virginia Tech for their assistance in this recruiting effort. He advised that the location of CRT in proximity to Virginia Tech and their direct involvement in the recruitment of the company was integral to this decision, and it should be noted that Roanoke County did not offer the highest incentives with respect to Tecton’s site selection. Mr. Chittum stated that Tecton’s work force is highly educated and more than 50% of the employees have a technical degree. Exempt employees earn an average of $56,000 per year and non-exempt employees earn an average of $29,500 per year. Mr. Chittum advised that the performance agreement was negotiated by Paul Mahoney, County Attorney, and Ed Natt, Attorney for the Industrial Development Authority (IDA). The performance agreement outlines a commitment from Tecton in April 12, 2005 462 Phase 1 development for a $6.5 million investment ($2.6 million in equipment; $3.9 million in land and buildings) by 2006; Phase 2 development is an additional $5.6 million investment in buildings and equipment. The company commits to 58 jobs within 30 months and 151 jobs in Phase 2. The average annual salary will be $33,590 or $16.15 per hour, and the annual payroll is approximately $2 million. Mr. Chittum reported that the land at CRT is a 20 acre site in front of the Novozymes development, and the performance agreement outlines the sale of the land to Tecton at a price of $30,000 per acre for a total of $600,000. The County commits to making an economic development grant in an equal amount of the building permit fees and the water and sewer connection fees. This will be handled through the IDA and will total approximately $60,000. There will also be an economic development grant reimbursed to the company by the IDA in an amount equal to six years of tax revenue that is produced by the project. No funds are being appropriated up front, and the company controls their own incentive in that all taxes generated by the project are reimbursed in the form of a grant by the IDA for a period of six years. Mr. Chittum noted that the state participated in the incentive package and has awarded the County $100,000; further, the state has committed to $105,000 in direct support to the company for work force training, as well as an additional $190,000 in-kind assistance through the division of business assistance. Mr. Chittum advised that the IDA has approved the agreement and Mr. Mahoney has worked closely with staff to develop the agreement. He noted that one April 12, 2005 463 part of the agreement allows for a contract for sale or a purchase agreement that is currently being negotiated and will be a part of the performance agreement. Supervisor Church thanked Mr. Chittum for the briefing on Tecton. Supervisor Wray noted that if Tecton fails to complete Phase 1 of the construction by December 2006, the IDA would be relieved of their obligation and the County would have the option to reacquire the property for the original purchase price. Supervisor Altizer commended the staff in the Economic Development Department for the recruitment of several major economic development prospects which have been announced in recent years. Chairman Altizer stated that Supervisor Church had moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for April 26, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 4. First reading of an ordinance appointing a separate individual to hold the position of Clerk to the governing body and to perform certain duties as specified. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney advised that Supervisor Church had requested that the County Attorney prepare the proposed ordinance for consideration. He noted that on Friday, a revision was requested and he provided the Board with a paper copy of the proposed change. He further advised that the board report and ordinance from June April 12, 2005 464 1989 was included in order to provide background and history with respect to this issue. Mr. Mahoney indicated that the draft ordinance places the Clerk to the Board under the direction and supervision of the Board of Supervisors and provides that the Board annually evaluate the performance of the Clerk and the Clerk will annually evaluate the performance of her deputies and assistants. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading of the ordinance and set the second reading for April 26, 2005. Supervisor Flora requested clarification regarding the change that was made on Friday. Mr. Mahoney advised that he deleted the phrase “under the direction of the County Administrator” so that the Clerk would serve at the pleasure of the Board and under the direction of the Board. Supervisor Flora commented that he was not aware that a problem existed, and he stated that he has found that the Clerk has been incredibly responsive to every need he has expressed. He noted no complaints about any of the staff in the Clerk’s Office, and stated he was not certain what the problem is. Supervisor McNamara stated that when you examine the current form, the County Administrator serves at the pleasure of the Board and the County Attorney serves at the pleasure of the Board. He stated that this makes their jobs more complicated because they report to five people rather than one, and they also report to five people who might at times be doing things for headlines or political reasons as opposed to moving the County forward. He indicated that when we try to expand the influence of the Board into managerial positions and away from policy setting decisions, April 12, 2005 465 the Board is making a mistake. He stated that this caught him by surprise and he was not aware of the proposed change until he received his agenda. He stated that it puts the Clerk in a more difficult position without any tangible benefit; however if it is important that the Board control the vital function of the Clerk’s office, then the same logic could be used for the Chief of Police or any other position. He stated that the County Administrator must report to the Board and there are good solid reasons to have the County Attorney report to the Board; however, he does not see similar a benefit to having the Clerk report to the Board. He advised that he will not support this matter at first reading because he has no intention of supporting it at second reading unless he sees solid justification for the ordinance. Supervisor Church advised that he takes exception to references of political reasons for this action. He referred to Supervisor Flora’s comments and stated that this is not a reflection on staff in the Clerk’s Office and he indicated that they do a fantastic job. He stated his intention was not a reflection on the Clerk or her staff, and he advised that this request comes from the citizens. He stated that we need to have an open avenue for the citizens to contact the Board and Clerk’s Office. He noted that the issue was discussed last year and stated that there are citizens who are relating to him that they feel they need an avenue to contact the Board, through the Clerk’s Office, without administration fine-tuning or filtering the information. He stated that the Board has had item after item, and noted the regional jail briefing that was discussed earlier in the meeting, where the Board is receiving information third, fourth, or fifth hand. He April 12, 2005 466 referred to accountability and checks and balances, and stated that the Board has no one and a big majority of the citizens feel like the tail is wagging the dog. He stated that politics has nothing to do with this, he is simply bringing forward a request of the citizens who want an avenue to contact the Board. He noted that he has had plenty of times where he has requested information, normally on a controversial item, and he does not receive it forever almost. He stated that this does not happen by pure fluke over and over; and yet when we have a jail study, he has Fire & Rescue personnel delivering reports to his office sometime after 9:00 p.m. on a week night. He stated things do not sit well when there is such a low and high swing of service delivery. He questioned if there was something to be checked at the top end, who would check it. He stated that he thinks it would ease the burden of the Clerk’s Office because it removes them from what the citizens feel like is a tug and pull situation. He stated that he does not have a problem with bringing the Clerk under the direction of the Board so there is not a conflict if, for example, something controversial occurs in a particular district. A Board member could then request that the Clerk provide information to the Board and this could be accomplished. He stated that today, he might get this information in a week and only after it is filtered through the screening process. He stated that the Board works for the people, not administration, and they entrust the Board. He stated that he is surprised by the Board’s objections. Supervisor Altizer stated that regarding the timeliness of delivery, he was in agenda preparation late in the afternoon last week and the jail report had been April 12, 2005 467 finished. He stated that his first response was to get this information delivered to the Board members that afternoon so that it provided an additional night for the Board to review the report. He stated that authorizing the distribution of the jail study was done at his direction and it was determined that the delivery method chosen was the fastest way to distribute the information. He advised that he wanted to get the jail report out in a timely manner because there have been discussions on the Board in the past about information not being distributed in a timely manner. Supervisor Flora stated that for purposes of clarification, his comment came from reading the board report which is very straight forward and submits the changes. It indicated that it does not address where there is a problem or the justification for the change. He advised that it did not provide him with any answers as to why there is a need for a change, and this is why he questioned the proposed action. He stated that he has never had any trouble getting information and if he requests information, it is generally provided to him in a prompt fashion. He stated that he has apparently not shared the same problem as Supervisor Church. Supervisor Wray stated that when he first came on the Board, he noted that the organization chart shows the Clerk reporting to the Board and he assumed that this was the method of operation. He noted that this would provide an additional layer of protection or assurance, that there is a person that you can go to within the organizational structure, and he was surprised that this was not the reality. He indicated that this does not imply there has been a problem in receiving information from the April 12, 2005 468 Clerk’s Office. He advised that he can see the value in providing an additional layer that the Board would have and it would appear that the Board has another avenue that they can go to. He stated that this is not a reflection on the quality of the work being received, it is just the fact that there would be an additional layer and the individual would report directly to the Board and any information requested would be provided through that office. Supervisor Church stated that he was referring to an isolated issue, and noted that he never received his report on the jail that evening and he was at his office until after 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. He reported that when he refers to delivery of service, he is referring to the Board receiving information accurately and getting citizens that can bring forward a request and feel like they are not being road blocked and they have a cushion or buffer. Supervisor Church read quotes from information provided by Mr. Mahoney at a prior Board retreat which outlines the relationship of each Board member versus the County Administrator and County Attorney and how things should be expected to happen. He indicated that perception is a reality and it is tough for him objecting to a meeting with Roanoke City officials on the regional jail issue. He advised that he did not object to the meeting being held, but he objected to the fact that no one knew about the meeting. He stated that as an equal Board member with a one-fifth vote, he thinks that with an independent Clerk’s Office this is just an example of one item that either directly or indirectly affects the Board, and consequently the people they represent, and the Board should be notified on a timely basis. He stated that every Board member, at one April 12, 2005 469 time or another, has complained about finding out about things at the last minute. He stated that this is his point in bringing forward the wants and desires of the people and he would provide names and numbers of individuals throughout the County that feel that they do not have an avenue. He stated that they feel like they are putting items in an x- ray machine when it comes to the Clerk’s Office, and this is not representing the people. They deserve to have an open and discrete line of communication which can come to the Board and the Board is able to have input. He stated that right now and for the last year and a half, the Board has not had the authority exercised that the people of the County have requested in certain cases. Supervisor Altizer noted that he was involved in the meeting with Roanoke City and information was sent to the Board on the same day that a press release was issued. He stated that there were many times since the meeting which occurred in December between staff and the prior Chairman, that it became a he said/she said situation. He advised that we are a product of the environment that we create and that he made a conscious decision when the discussion occurred with Roanoke City, and he requested that the decision be rendered in writing. He stated that he wanted to make sure that all parties had the same understanding regarding the jail and he feels this was a correct decision. Supervisor Church stated that the meeting that occurred was fine; he is not questioning the meeting, he is questioning that the Board members were not aware that a meeting was being held. He reiterated from the earlier quotes that the County April 12, 2005 470 Administrator works for all supervisors and all relations with the Chair are secondary to this premise. He stated it is not a matter of policy but one of coordination. He stated that he has complete faith in the Chairman but he would just like to know there is a meeting occurring. Supervisor McNamara stated that for the individuals who are watching the meeting, the Board directed the Chairman and administration to meet with the City. He stated that if every time a meeting is held staff is required to contact every Board member, we will get nowhere. He further stated that Supervisor Church is not doing what he is suggesting and referenced an article in the newspaper pertaining to the jail sites which indicated that Supervisor Church had met with members of Salem City Council. He stated that we should let this issue start swinging both ways and indicated that he has not had a problem with the administration filtering information that comes from the Clerk and he has been here seven years. He stated that if a problem such as this exists, then the problem is with the administration and not the Clerk because the Clerk is evidently doing what the administration wants, and this is what a good employee does. He stated that he sees a lot of circuitous reasoning related to this issue and he understands the relationship between the Board, County Administrator, and County Attorney. He stated that he does not see anywhere in that information where it references the Clerk. Supervisor Church stated that he would hope that he would meet with anyone on an item that concerns his district and that is what each of us should be April 12, 2005 471 doing. He stated that we are not talking about a written document, an email would be fine. He questioned if simply sending an email regarding a meeting would bother anyone and stated that if the Board is going to be in touch with its citizens regarding an issue that will affect their district, he would hope that the Board member would attend a meeting. He stated that this was not something secretive and he was doing his job. Supervisor Flora called for the question. Supervisor Church’s motion to approve the first reading and set the second reading for April 26, 2005 was defeated by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Church, Wray NAYS: Supervisors McNamara, Flora, Altizer Supervisor Altizer stated that he voted against this measure because he has never had any problem with the Clerk, even prior to his becoming Chairman, in terms of having information directed to other Board members or asking questions. He stated that when the opening statement was made that the citizens feel that they can not come to the Clerk; this makes a disparaging remark to the Clerk in the sense that she would not do something or direct an inquiry to the appropriate Board member. He stated that he has not had a problem with this and if he can not see that the system is broken, there is no reason to alter it. April 12, 2005 472 IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-041205-4 Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 041205-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I - 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 April 12, 2005, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 10, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – March 7, March 15, March 22, and March 29, 2005 2. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission 3. Ratification of appointment to the Western Virginia Water Authority 4. Request from schools to appropriate a refund in the amount of $2,087.39 from Scholastic, Inc. 5. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property owned by Robert Lee Lewis and Winifree Lewis, Hollins Magisterial District 6. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property owned by James K. Morgan and Katharine P. Morgan, Hollins Magisterial District 7. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property owned by Paul W. Sink, Sr. and Willa D. Sink, Cave Spring Magisterial District 8. Request to accept donation of drainage easements on property owned by 6220 Associates, Hollins Magisterial District 9. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on property owned by DDW Associates, a Virginia partnership, Hollins Magisterial District 10. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $40,520 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the funding of the Violent Crimes Against Women Unit April 12, 2005 473 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 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. Building Permit Activity Report for the month ended March 31, 2005 6. Statement of Treasurer’s accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of February 28, 2005 7. Statement of Treasurer’s accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of March 31, 2005 8. Proclamations signed by the Chairman IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS April 12, 2005 474 Supervisor Wray: (1) He advised that he had received an email regarding the latest information on I-73 and noted that revisions to the plan are to be completed by April 13. He remarked that Mr. Hodge had advised that Gary Johnson, National Parks Service, was comfortable with the proposed revisions. Following a brief update on the proposed changes by Mr. Hodge, Supervisor Wray requested that a letter be sent to Mr. Johnson expressing the County’s concerns regarding closing of the Blue Ridge Parkway access on Route 220. He further requested that he continue to be involved in this process. (2) He stated that he received a letter that a County constituent had written to Senator Bell regarding residential traffic on Springlawn Avenue and the techniques for handling this. He requested that Arnold Covey look into this matter and report back to him. (3) He inquired if Arnold Covey had an update on Raintree Road. Mr. Covey advised that per his email on Thursday, the County's policy on speculative interest and that property in particular was provided to Jeff Echols at VDOT. A meeting will be scheduled this week to conclude this matter. (4) He requested that Arnold Covey provide an update on the status of Mr. Lumpkin’s concerns regarding property on Canter Drive in the Steeplechase development. Mr. Covey reported that the engineers are addressing the concerns. Supervisor McNamara: (1) He noted that citizens have experienced some minor problems through the transition process with the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). He requested that Mr. Hodge draft a memo to the Board regarding the new billing process for the WVWA. If it is accurate that they are moving to a 28 day billing April 12, 2005 475 cycle, he questioned if this is something that the Board would like to make a recommendation regarding. He noted that there may be operational efficiencies to this method, but noted that most utilities and mortgage companies do not use this method. Supervisor Church: (1) He inquired if Mr. Hodge had heard anything regarding the sewer line for King Harvey. Mr. Hodge advised that he reported the issue immediately to Gary Robertson, Director of Water Operations for the WVWA, and Mr. Robertson has since communicated with Mr. Harvey. (2) He questioned if Mr. Hodge has heard back from Granger Macfarlane. Mr. Hodge stated that the reply is being placed in the Board's mail this afternoon, and he is requesting their input on how to proceed. (3) He requested that staff contact Ed Bindas and provide him with information regarding the nearest neighborhood association or civic league. (4) He stated that last night there was a great event honoring Jim Carroll, sports announcer for 41 years in the Roanoke Valley. He advised that a proclamation was presented from the Board, and commended Brenda Holton, Deputy Clerk, for her work in preparing the proclamation. He advised that Mr. Carroll called this morning to thank the Board for the recognition. (5) He stated that he has brought forward the request of the people who have contacted him. He noted that this is a democracy and the matter was voted down 3-2. He encouraged the citizens to stay involved. (6) He apologized to the Clerk's Office if any information was misconstrued to indicate that the Clerk's Office did not perform their duties. April 12, 2005 476 Supervisor Altizer: (1) He stated that he appreciated clarification regarding the performance of the Clerk's Office. (2) He advised that an informational meeting concerning Routes 1662 and 1663, McVitty Road and Old Cave Spring Road, will be held on Thursday, April 21, from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. in the Board meeting room at the Roanoke County Administration Center. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 6:15 p.m., Chairman Altizer moved to go into closed session following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) review of the proposed terms and agreement for the establishment of a new regional jail authority. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2005-2006 budget development. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) The work session was held from 6:53 p.m. until 7:54 p.m. Staff present at the meeting included the following: Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; and Cathy Tomlin, Budget Analyst. Mr. Robertson reviewed the funding requests from human and social service, cultural, tourism and other agencies for fiscal year 2005-2006. Following April 12, 2005 477 discussion, there was a consensus of the Board to approve the following contributions to Human and Social Service agencies: FY2006 Proposed Agency Name Funding 1 $0 YWCA of the Roanoke Valley 2 $1,500 YMCA Partners of Youth $4,800 TRUST $29,700 TAP $20,000 TAP - Transitional Living Center 5 $1,000 TAP - Dumas Center $4,500 Southwestern Virginia Second Harvest Food Bank Southwestern Virginia Second Harvest Food Bank 2 (Capital) $0 $2,500 Salvation Army 2 $5,000 Salem/Roanoke County Community Food Pantry $2,500 Saint Francis of Assisi Service Dog Foundation $1,200 Roanoke Valley Speech & Hearing Center $0 Roanoke Valley Interfaith Hospitality Network $1,200 Roanoke Area Ministries $200 Presbyterian Community Center $200 National Multiple Sclerosis Society 1 $0 National Conference for Community & Justice $700 Mental Health Association $15,000 LOA Area Agency on Aging $1,000 Literacy Volunteers of America-Roanoke Valley $1,900 Habitat for Humanity $1,900 Goodwill Industries of the Valleys 1 $0 Good Samaritan Hospice, Inc. $4,300 Family Service of the Roanoke Valley $2,900 Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) April 12, 2005 478 $0 Council of Community Svcs - Nonprofit Resource Center $3,000 Council of Community Svcs - Info and Referral Center $1,400 Conflict Resolution Center, Inc. $3,500 Children's Advocacy Center of the Roanoke Valley, Inc $18,700 Child Health Investment Partnership (CHIP) $1,500 Brain Injury Services of SWVA $5,200 Bradley Free Clinic $0 Blue Ridge Legal Services, Inc. $0 Blue Ridge Independent Living Center $119,600 Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care $4,000 Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Roanoke Valley $1,000 Bethany Hall $1,300 American Red Cross $10,400 Adult Care Center of the Roanoke Valley Total FY2005- 2006 Requests Total FY2005-2006 Requests $271,600 1 Funded in FY04-05; No Request for FY05-06 Received request after scoring summaries were 2 distributed 5 Propose $1,000/year for 3 years beginning in FY05-06 Following discussion, there was a consensus of the Board to approve the following funding allocations to cultural, tourism and other agencies: April 12, 2005 479 FY2006 Proposed Agency Name Funding $900 Young Audiences of Virginia, Inc. $1,000 Williamson Road Area Business Association $0 Western Virginia Land Trust / Read Mtn Alliance $1,200 Western Virginia Land Trust $5,700 Virginia Museum of Transportation $0 Virginia Institute of Government Membership $42,400 Virginia Amateur Sports 1/6 $2,000 Vinton Dogwood Festival 2 $500 Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project, Inc. 3 $10,000 Smith Mountain Lake Debris Cleanup - Franklin County $3,500 Small Business Development Center $16,400 Science Museum of Western Virginia $2,800 Salem-Roanoke Baseball Hall of Fame $2,700 Roanoke Valley Sister Cities $6,400 Roanoke Symphony 1 $0 Roanoke Higher Education Center $600 Opera Roanoke $900 New Century Venture Center $700 Mill Mountain Zoo - Capital Request $6,700 Mill Mountain Zoo $5,500 Mill Mountain Theatre $11,700 Julian Stanley Wise Museum $1,100 Jefferson Center Foundation $2,000 History Museum - O. Winston Link Museum April 12, 2005 480 $7,700 History Museum & Historical Society of Western Va. $2,000 Harrison Museum of African American Culture $0 Friends of the Lake (SML Water Quality) $9,200 Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway $900 Downtown Music Lab $800 Clean Valley Council, Inc $37,700 Center in the Square Operating $400 Blue Ridge Vision Film Festival $1,500 Blue Ridge Soil and Water Conservation District $2,500 Arts Council of the Blue Ridge $1,400 Art Museum of Western Virginia Total FY2005-2006 Requests $188,800 1 Funded in FY04-05; No Request for FY05-06 Received request after scoring summaries were 2 distributed 3 Based on prior board meeting, agreed to fund requested $10,000 4 Not part of original FY2005 budget, approved by board action mid-year 6 Propose $2,000 for FY05-06, return to $1,000 contribution in FY06-07 Dues & Per Capita Agencies: $140,054 Economic Development Partnership $47,791 Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission $130,700 Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau $5,700 Salem/Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce $500 Vinton Chamber of Commerce - Dues Vinton Chamber of Commerce - Business $3,000 Recruitment April 12, 2005 481 $2,620 Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce - Dues $1,696 National Association of Counties $17,640 Virginia Association of Counties $8,277 VML - Va Municipal League $10,510 VA Western Community College - Scholarship Total FY2005-2006 Dues & Per Capita $368,488 There was a consensus of the Board to place an item on the April 26 consent agenda to appropriate $7,500 from the Board contingency fund for the purchase of five defibrillators at a cost of $1,500 each for use in the middle schools. With respect to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Ms. Hyatt advised that staff has been able to fund the top two projects in each category, as ranked by the CIP Review Committee. She distributed information which outlined a summary of the projects and their associated funding stream. The projects which have been funded are as follows: Category A – Public Safety: regional jail project ($20 million); 800 MHz radio system upgrade ($14 million); Category B – Technology: EMS data reporting system ($145,000); replacement of the HP/3000 ($1 million); Category C – Quality of Life: South County library ($13,078,000); Garst Mill Park improvements ($230,000); Category D – Service Infrastructure: new County garage ($1,180,000); VDOT revenue sharing ($2.5 million). April 12, 2005 482 There was general discussion regarding replacement of the 800 MHz radio system, and there was a consensus of the Board to schedule a work session to discuss the matter further. Mr. Hodge advised that VDOT has increased the limit for revenue sharing projects from $500,000 to $1 million. The process is being held open until July 22 if the County wishes to make any additional requests. 2. Work session to prioritize implementation schedule of pending County projects. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) The work session was held from 7:54 p.m. until 8:15 p.m. Mr. Hodge reviewed the following list of pending projects and the Board determined dates that work sessions will be held on each item: (1) CIP rankings - April 12; (2) Funding requests to agencies - April 12; (3) Revisions to the kennel permit process - April 26; (4) Update on the reciprocal trash collection pilot program with Roanoke City - April 26; (5) Comprehensive (Community) Plan revisions - May 10 at 5:00 p.m. joint meeting with Planning Commission; (6) Update on regional storm water management plan - June 14; (7) Update on Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) – Phase II - June 14; (8) Repealing of provisions in the water and sewer chapters of the Code due to the formation of the WVWA - proceed with revisions without scheduling a work session; (9) Social services mandates - will schedule work session when information is received; (10) Revisions to the procurement chapter of the Code - May 24; (11) Economic April 12, 2005 483 development incentives - June 7; (12) Adult uses ordinance - July 12; (13) Upgrade 800 MHz radio system to digital - July 26 IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 8:20 p.m. until 9:10 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 9:10 p.m., Supervisor Flora 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 041205-5 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 484 April 12, 2005 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~1n1Q, ,~. ~tJ /JOJIdJ Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board Aw-H~ >>. &-~ Michael W. Altizer t1 Chairman