Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/9/2005 - Regular August 9, 2005 909 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 August 9, 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 August, 2005. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Richard C. Flora, Joseph McNamara MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Joseph B. “Butch” Church STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan R. O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Pastor Myron Atkinson, Penn Forest Wesleyan Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS August 9, 2005 910 Mr. Hodge requested a briefing, Item D-1, regarding the Villages at Garst Creek. IN RE: BRIEFING The briefing was presented by Mr. Hodge; Charlie Nimmo, F&W Management Corporation; Ed Natt, Counsel for F&W Management Corporation; and Jim Chandler, Virginia Housing Development Authority. Mr. Hodge advised that at the request of Supervisor McNamara, representatives of the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) and F&W Management had been invited to the meeting to brief the Board regarding the housing complexes formerly known as The Mews and Sans Souci. These units are currently undergoing extensive renovation and now have a new name which is the Villages at Garst Creek. Mr. Hodge advised that Supervisor McNamara had requested that staff provide information on the nature of the project, what can be done to assist the occupants who will have to relocate, and what can be done to address the concerns of residents who live nearby. Mr. Hodge introduced the following individuals who were present at the meeting: Charlie Nimmo, F&W Management, which is the property management firm for the Villages; Ed Natt, counsel for F&W Management; and Jim Chandler and Brian Matt, representatives from VHDA. Mr. Hodge stated that there are many questions and concerns from individuals who live both in and around the apartments. He advised that previously, sufficient information had not been provided to the neighbors or the residents, and this August 9, 2005 911 is something that has changed in the last several days. He stated that it is important to remember that this is a federal program administered through VHDA; it is not Section 8 or subsidized housing. He indicated that it is a financing program whereby investors can put money back into the project to improve the facility. He noted that the owner is investing approximately $9 million in the 30-year old complex and this is the first major remodeling of the facility, which is in need of improvement. He stated that most of the people who live in the facility are good people and they deserve to be helped. Mr. Hodge indicated that one way to do this is to develop a civic league in order to facilitate providing information to the residents. He also noted that the County has a responsibility to the citizens who live nearby to protect their investment. He indicated that there have been increases in drug-related activities and this issue will be addressed. He further reported that in recent days, staff has spoken with representatives from the VHDA and F&W Management, as well as citizens who have called or emailed. He stated that in some cases, staff was not able to respond to all inquiries but they are working to gather the requested information. He stated that staff is encouraged that F&W Management will be the new property management firm. He noted that they were hired in June 2005 and are currently making changes to the application process and daily operations, which they will oversee. He stated that this is a local firm that the County can communicate with on an ongoing basis. Ed Natt, counsel for F&W Management, stated that he would like to respond to recent accounts of misinformation or inaccurate information. He advised August 9, 2005 912 that notices were sent to 17 households that their leases would terminate at a specific time; however, these were not sent in accordance with federal and state regulations. He advised that F&W Management apologizes for this situation and regrets that this occurred. He indicated that the notices stated that residents had 30 or 60 days to relocate when, in fact, it should have stated 120 days. Mr. Natt stated that he is not aware of anyone who suffered irreparable harm as a result of this error. He also addressed the issue regarding the termination of the leases and advised that no leases will be cut off short. When a resident’s lease expires, they may have to vacate if they do not qualify for the new income thresholds. He stated that these are the two areas of concern regarding misinformation that have been conveyed to F&W Management. Mr. Natt noted that F&W Management was not the managing firm for the former owners and he outlined the following selection criteria for each applicant which will include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) income (minimum and maximum); (2) financial history (credit reports); (3) criminal history (registered sexual offenders); and (4) rental history. He advised that the criteria for selection are posted at F&W Management for public inspection. Charlie Nimmo advised that F&W Management began managing the property on June 8, 2005. He stated that they are a local firm that has been in business for over 30 years, and he noted that many of the supervisory staff has worked for the firm for 15-25 years. He further noted that the selection criterion is also posted on the site at the apartment complex. He stated that the relocation assistance is a package August 9, 2005 913 which is regulated by VHDA and it will be followed precisely. He indicated that the rehabilitation of the facility will total $9 million and will take two years to complete for the 38 buildings on the site. He stated that at the informational meeting which will be held next week, before and after renderings will be available for review, as well as plans for the finished project. He advised that the investment will total approximately $17,000 per unit and will include repairs to the roofs, walls, and interiors. He stated that this is not a quick fix and will take up to two years to complete. Mr. Nimmo advised that F&W Management will work with the residents, Roanoke County, and the VHDA and expressed the hope that residents will have the patience to work with them. He apologized for any misunderstandings that occurred in the past 10 days. Mr. Hodge requested that Mr. Nimmo provide a clarification regarding individuals who are in units that will be renovated later and whether they will be allowed to rent for additional time periods on a month-to-month basis. He noted the concerns expressed by a family with a student in school and the student is two years away from graduating. He inquired what will happen in such a circumstance and asked that Mr. Nimmo advise if these residents will have to move or can they be allowed to stay in another unit. Mr. Nimmo advised that there are 14 residents that they are currently aware of who must move out by December 2005. He stated that a schedule is not yet available for all buildings that will be affected and indicated that because this is a two- year program, this will take time to develop. He stated that if there is any way that F&W August 9, 2005 914 Management can assist individuals facing these types of situations, they will evaluate each on a case by case basis. Jim Chandler stated that the tax credit program administered by VHDA is based on Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code and encourages affordable housing. Investors are encouraged to purchase the tax credit and become an owner in the development; it is typically done by a limited partnership in which there is a general th partner with a very minor interest, typically 1/100 of 1%, and a tax credit investor, typically a 99.9% owner of the property. He stated that the ownership is structured in this manner in order to allow the owner to obtain the maximum number of credits available. He advised that there are many ways to obtain and use the credits; in this instance, it is through the issuance of tax exempt bonds which are the financing package for this development. With tax exempt bonds, tax credits are also available and the developer must submit two applications: one for the financing and one for the tax credits. Mr. Chandler stated that he deals with the actual tax credits, although he is familiar with the financing aspects which are part of the VHDA. He noted that David Donohoe is the development officer with VHDA who was in charge of the financing and underwriting for this loan. He further advised that in order to qualify for tax credits, there is a qualified allocation plan for which developments must meet the criteria. With tax exempt bonds, there are minimum requirements such as meeting a threshold score, and there are many criteria that make up the scoring components. With respect to relocation requirements, Mr. Chandler indicated that each development must follow the August 9, 2005 915 guidelines. He stated that the guidelines were established in anticipation of when a development qualifies for tax credits and their existing tenants may be displaced. He indicated that VHDA cannot dictate to the developer how this is handled; all they can do is to provide the guidelines that must be followed by the developer. He indicated that Mr. Nimmo had previously indicated that F&W Management will make every effort to deal with the displacement of tenants to minimize any disruption. Supervisor Flora advised that he is pleased that F&W Management is handling the project and noted that there are two facilities in his district that are either owned or managed by F&W and there have been no problems with them. He inquired if there is any statistical data available to estimate the number of school age children who will be in this unit. Mr. Natt advised that the composition of the complex will not likely change, and statistically he does not anticipate a significant change. He noted that the number of bedrooms within the complex will remain the same. Supervisor Flora inquired if this will be for low to moderate income. Mr. Chandler responded in the affirmative and noted that the income levels are based on family size. Supervisor Flora inquired what would be the allowable income level for a single parent with three children. Mr. Chandler advised that it would be $34,800. Supervisor Flora further inquired if this is Section 8 housing. Mr. Chandler advised that it is not Section 8 housing. Supervisor Flora inquired if an individual holds a Section 8 voucher, can they rent a unit at the complex if they qualify. Mr. Chandler responded that this would be at the discretion of the management firm but yes, if an individual has a voucher and August 9, 2005 916 qualifies, he does not see any reason why they could not have a unit leased to them. Supervisor Flora inquired if he had that same Section 8 voucher, could he rent from any apartment complex in the Roanoke Valley. Mr. Chandler responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Wray inquired if this program is part of Section 42. Mr. Chandler responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Wray requested clarification regarding the main differences between Section 42 and Section 8. Mr. Chandler advised that under Section 8, federal tax dollars are used to subsidize rents for property. Section 42 is a program whereby the developer, who is investing funds, purchases tax credits and then receives a credit on their taxes at the end of the year. He noted that Section 42 does not represent federal tax dollars being used, but rather it is a tax credit. Supervisor Wray inquired if individuals with Section 8 vouchers typically occupy these types of facilities. Mr. Chandler reported that he does not have statistical data available to know how many individuals with Section 8 vouchers occupy these types of facilities; however, they are available to any tenant with a voucher who had a preference to live there. Supervisor Wray requested that Mr. Chandler provide an overview of the timeline for this development and when Roanoke County became involved. Mr. Chandler stated that one of the requirements of the program is that each locality be notified of a tax credit application and he advised that this notice was sent to Roanoke County. He indicated that the locality is then allowed a certain period of time to comment on the proposed tax credit application. He stated that he thinks the August 9, 2005 917 notification was sent to Roanoke County in January or February 2005. Supervisor Wray questioned what are the typical comments normally received from a locality. Mr. Chandler reported that in most cases, there is support for the development. He advised that the program was developed for workforce housing for individuals with limited incomes. Supervisor Wray inquired if the VHDA received letters which are not in support of the applications. Mr. Chandler responded that this occurs on occasion. Supervisor Wray inquired if the term of the contract for F&W Management is long-term. Mr. Nimmo advised that it is the intent of F&W Management for this to be long-term. Supervisor Wray inquired if F&W Management has a signed contract. Mr. Nimmo advised that he thinks the contract is for a one-year period with an automatic renewal, and he noted that this contract is a standard VHDA agreement. Supervisor McNamara thanked Mr. Chandler and the staff from F&W Management for the time they have spent recently addressing these concerns. He inquired if the contract in the application submission includes language regarding monitoring of the rehabilitation process, how frequently it will be monitored, and whether VHDA will allow Roanoke County to be part of that process through quarterly briefings. Mr. Chandler advised that with respect to the tax credit portion of the application, there is no quarterly monitoring. He stated that VHDA would examine this aspect when the project is completed to ensure that all requirements are met before issuing the final 8609 form for tax purposes. He indicated that prior to issuance of the 8609 form, the VHDA will obtain certifications from the owner and accountants to attest that the August 9, 2005 918 improvements submitted on the application have been completed. With respect to the loan, Mr. Chandler advised that the staff in Mr. Donohoe’s office will be monitoring the loan on a monthly basis. Supervisor McNamara noted that the application references an investment of $9 million and inquired if there is a list available that outlines what improvements are being made in order to arrive at this $9 million investment projection. He further inquired how this list is monitored to verify that the $9 million is actually being spent on this development. Mr. Chandler advised that an accounting certification will be submitted at the end of the construction with the tax credit program and it will be separated into the various components of the project and identify areas where funds have been spent. Supervisor McNamara further inquired if the accounting certification is done by an external firm. Mr. Chandler advised that it must be a certified audit from an outside agency. Supervisor McNamara advised that he had a conversation with a school board representative and indicated that they were exploring the idea of doing an after school program on site, which would lend itself well to a community center. Mr. Nimmo stated that this is an option that will be given strong consideration and F&W Management will evaluate whether a new facility needs to be built. Supervisor McNamara voiced support for working toward this option. Supervisor Flora stated that he does not want to leave anyone with the idea that anyone with a Section 8 voucher can demand and get an apartment. Mr. August 9, 2005 919 Nimmo advised that an individual must meet all the selection criteria before they will be granted an apartment, regardless of whether they hold a Section 8 voucher. Supervisor Flora inquired if the selection criterion includes a criminal background check. Mr. Nimmo responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Flora noted that there is a public perception that the Board of Supervisors initiated this project and he asked Mr. Nimmo to outline how this project got started. Mr. Nimmo advised that F&W Management was contacted in early 2005 to see if they were interested in managing the property. He noted that they have worked with this type of rehabilitation project in the past and have a good working relationship with VHDA. Supervisor Flora further inquired if this was an owner initiated project. Mr. Nimmo responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Flora questioned if the project was initiated in 2004 since the notices went out in January. Mr. Nimmo responded that he was not certain when the process was initiated. Supervisor McNamara inquired if there are situations in which a locality does not support a project where the project still goes forward. Mr. Chandler stated that as mentioned earlier, the support of a locality is one of the scoring criteria that would determine if a development qualifies for credits. With tax exempt bonds, the developer only needs to meet a minimum threshold score which is 270 points. He stated that when VHDA notifies a locality, the locality has an opportunity to comment and either support the development or not. If there is non-support, there are less points; however, this point category is one of many and may or may not have an effect on the August 9, 2005 920 development’s ability to move forward. He stated that in most cases, it does not have the potential to stop the project from moving forward. He advised that the intent of this point category is to encourage developers to contact a locality and let them know what is planned with rehabilitation or new construction. Supervisor McNamara noted that one of the television reports stated that Roanoke County found out about this development by viewing their newscast. He stated that on January 29, the County had a support document. He stated that he recalled a conversation that there might be a purchaser for the complexes and there was a substantial possible investment to rehabilitate the complexes. He indicated that the County viewed this as an opportunity for a rebirth of those complexes; and without this investment, the complex was likely to continue declining. He stated that the County may not, however, have been fully cognizant of the fact that it would involve displacement of tenants. Mr. Hodge stated that the County receives several of these notifications per year and the primary information requested is whether the application complies with zoning and existing land use. He stated that in this case, the facility has been in place 30 years and is in compliance with both the zoning and land use. He advised that when these notifications are received, there is not a commitment that the project will go forward. He indicated that a suggested letter is provided stating a desired response; if the County does not respond, the application receives 25 of 50 possible points. Mr. Hodge stated that the County has been advised that there must be some reason for August 9, 2005 921 opposing the project and noted that most of the prior applications have been in the form of new construction. These matters are brought to the Board as part of a rezoning process, thereby allowing an opportunity for citizen input. In this situation which involved the rehabilitation of an existing development, the zoning was already in place and there was no way for this to come to the County for approval other than verification of the zoning. Mr. Hodge stated that the County has been successful in getting the owners to do some things above and beyond what is required that will be helpful to the residents and the community such as installation of playground equipment and additional grassy areas for dogs and play areas. He reiterated that the County received notification in January and sent a letter in February. He advised that the County did not receive any additional information until last week and he suggested to VHDA that in the future, it would be helpful to localities to have a mid-step where notification of the project’s progress is made. He noted that this would avoid a lot of the questions being raised today. Supervisor McNamara read the following statement: “The project will receive no points in this category, which is the government support category, if you send an opposition letter stating that the project is inconsistent with either current zoning or land use regulations.” He stated that the zoning was multi-family before and it remains multi-family now. Supervisor Altizer inquired how the selection criterion for F&W Management compares with the criteria of the previous owner. Mr. Nimmo responded August 9, 2005 922 that the F&W Management criterion is more stringent and noted that the previous owner did not conduct a criminal background check. He also noted that F&W Management will have minimum income requirements, which were not one of the criterions under the previous management. Supervisor Altizer requested information regarding the current vacancy rate. Mr. Nimmo advised that as of November 2004, approximately 80 of the 504 units were vacant; at present, there are 138 vacancies. Supervisor Altizer remarked that this is a 25% vacancy rate. Mr. Nimmo stated that this is one of the problems with the property; it is not being maintained and it was developing a bad reputation. Supervisor Altizer asked if it is safe to assume that if you are an investor and you do not have sufficient funds for upkeep of the property, the selection criterion for residents may be set aside if you need to secure a tenant to help pay rent. Mr. Nimmo stated that this will vary and sometimes there is a domino effect; vacancy rates go up, the selection criterion goes down, and you pay the price for this over time. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the notification requirement to tenants who have to relocate means 120 days prior to the end of a tenant’s current lease. Mr. Nimmo stated that you cannot send a notice to anyone who has more than 120 days left on their lease and he stated that residents cannot be forced to leave the property before the end of their lease. Supervisor Altizer further inquired if the lease is scheduled to end in 120 days, would the resident be notified today. Mr. Natt reported that the notice is timed so that the resident receives notice to vacate at the end of their term; therefore August 9, 2005 923 if the notice is 120 days, you have to go back four months in advance to determine the date to send out the notice. Supervisor Altizer inquired if you are evaluating a resident whose lease expires in two months, would that resident have two months past the expiration of the lease before they are required to relocate. Mr. Natt stated that this would be dependent upon the renewal conditions in the lease and whether or not it allows for a renewal on a month-to-month basis. Supervisor Altizer questioned if everyone receives 120 day notice whether they have four months remaining on their lease or only two months. Mr. Nimmo advised that state law requires that residents be given 120 day notice. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the evaluation process has begun for some of the residents to determine if they are qualified to remain. Mr. Nimmo responded in the affirmative and advised that this will be an ongoing process for several months. Supervisor Altizer stated that citizens who are concerned that they might be displaced would like to know as soon as possible whether they qualify to extend their lease. Mr. Nimmo indicated that the process of notifying residents has begun. Supervisor McNamara stated that there has been a lot of interest in this matter and people want to understand the program and how it will impact them. He thanked the representatives from VHDA and F&W Management for agreeing to have an informational meeting. He advised that this will occur on Tuesday, August 16 at 7:00 p.m. at Cave Spring Middle School. He indicated that representatives from the Villages at Garst Creek, VHDA, F&W Management, and County staff will be present at the August 9, 2005 924 meeting. He expressed appreciation to County staff for their work in preparing notices to send to citizens inviting them to attend the meeting. Supervisor McNamara requested that staff evaluate an after school program on the premises and determine if this will assist the school system and the neighborhood. He further recommended the formation of a civic league, as well as evaluating similar types of projects which have been successful in other localities and attempting to mirror their activities. He advised that the process is going to move forward and the County wants to be diligent in making sure it proceeds well. Supervisor Altizer advised that at the conclusion of the regular meeting, representatives from F&W Management and VHDA will be available to meet with citizens to address questions and concerns regarding this matter. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for approval of agreements between the County of Roanoke and the City of Salem, and the County of Roanoke and Franklin County, for use of space on tower sites for public safety radio equipment. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) A-080905-1 Ms. Green reported that this is a request from the City of Salem and Franklin County to obtain space on two of the County’s tower sites. The City of Salem would like to locate an antenna on the 12 O’clock Knob tower and Franklin County August 9, 2005 925 would like to locate an antenna on the Windy Gap tower. Both of these agreements contemplate reimbursement of County expenses at a rate of $200 per month. She advised that this will cover what Roanoke County is spending on utilities, upkeep of the sites, and other related issues. She stated that this matter has been reviewed by the County’s Public Safety Team and all issues relating to interference will be addressed. She indicated that Roanoke County’s antenna will take priority and it is not anticipated that there will any problem at either location. Ms. Green advised that the Public Safety Team recommends approval of the two agreements. Supervisor Wray inquired if both of these towers are the property of Roanoke County. Ms. Green responded that on the Windy Gap site, the County owns the property and the tower. On the 12 O’clock Knob site, the County rents the property and owns the tower. Supervisor Wray inquired if there are any issues relating to road maintenance. Ms. Green stated that she does not anticipate that costs for road maintenance will increase due to the location of the antennas on the site. Supervisor Wray questioned if there will be any effect on Roanoke County’s transmissions. Ms. Green reported that this is not anticipated and if so, the two localities will not be allowed to remain on the tower. She stated that the County’s Communications Division has worked with both the City of Salem and Franklin County staff and no interference issues are anticipated. Supervisor Wray inquired if the agreements can be renewed. Ms. Green responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Wray inquired if the hold harmless agreement August 9, 2005 926 means that if anyone is injured, Roanoke County will not be held responsible. Ms. Green responded in the affirmative and stated that both of these agreements have been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney’s Office. Mr. Obenshain stated that language was included in the agreement to address issues relating to interference to ensure that the County has control of this situation. He indicated that there would be a very short period of time in which action must be taken if interference results. Supervisor McNamara referenced language in the agreement with the City of Salem, Item 3, which states that the “Grantee shall have the right to extend the initial term for two (2) successive five (5) year periods on the terms and conditions set forth herein.” He then noted that Item 7 in the agreement states that “this agreement must automatically terminate coincident with Roanoke County, Virginia's lease of said property.” He indicated that these two statements appear to be contradictory to one another. Ms. Green advised that this language is present in the agreement with the City of Salem because Roanoke County does not own the tower site. She advised that this language is not present in the agreement with Franklin County. She stated that it is the intent that if the County loses the lease on the site, we will have to remove our tower and Salem could no longer have an antenna on the tower. Mr. Obenshain advised that the City of Salem’s rights can not exceed the County’s rights on the property. Supervisor McNamara questioned if the County had attempted to arrive at a pro rata share rather than incremental costs for the agreement. Ms. Green reported August 9, 2005 927 that the Public Safety Team, in the interest of cooperating with other area governments, determined that it would be best to handle this on a reimbursement cost basis. Supervisor Altizer noted that there are two agreements and inquired if two votes were needed to approve this item. Mr. Obenshain advised that this could be covered in a single motion and adoption of the resolution. Supervisor Wray moved to approve staff recommendation (approve the agreements with the City of Salem and Franklin County and authorize the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents, on forms approved by the County Attorney). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church 2. Request to appoint a legislative liaison, authorize the execution of an agreement, and appropriation of funds therefore. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) A-080905-2 Mr. Obenshain reported that this matter arises out of the retirement of Pete Giesen, who has served as the Board’s legislative liaison for the past several years. He stated that following investigation, Mr. Mahoney, County Attorney, is recommending entering into an agreement with Eldon James & Associates, which will August 9, 2005 928 also include the services of Susan Rowland. Mr. Obenshain advised that the fee for services will be the same amount expended in the past for Mr. Giesen. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (appoint Eldon James & Associates, Inc. as legislative liaison; authorize the County Administrator to execute an agreement for these legislative duties, upon form approved by the County Attorney; and appropriate $15,000 from the Board’s contingency account for these purposes.). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance amending Section 2-2 “Industrial Development Authority” of the Roanoke County Code to change the name of said Authority to the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia O-080905-3 Mr. Chittum advised that this matter was previously discussed in a work session, and he noted that there have been no changes since the first reading. There was no discussion on this item. August 9, 2005 929 Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church N RE: APPOINTMENTS I 1. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board Supervisor Altzier advised that the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board has recommended that Linda Manns be appointed to fill the unexpired portion of the term of Roger Laplace, who has resigned. He noted that this three-year term will expire on December 31, 2007, and that confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the consent agenda. 2. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Advisory Committee Supervisor Wray nominated Pam Berberich to serve an additional one- year term that will expire on August 31, 2006. The Clerk was directed to place confirmation of this appointment on the August 23 consent agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-080905-4; R-080905-4.a; R-080905-4.b Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: August 9, 2005 930 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church RESOLUTION 080905-4 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 August 9, 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 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – July 26, 2005 2. Resolution requesting acceptance of Pine Spur Road and the remaining portion of Toddsbury Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 3. Resolution requesting acceptance of Lanasey Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 4. Confirmation of appointment to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board 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 Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church RESOLUTION 080905-4.a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF PINE SPUR ROAD AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF TODDSBURY DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form LA-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and August 9, 2005 931 WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements, and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer, whichever occurs last in time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Supervisor Altizer Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer Nays: None Absent: Supervisor Church RESOLUTION 080905-4.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF LANASEY DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form LA-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements, and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer, whichever occurs last in time. August 9, 2005 932 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Supervisor Altizer Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer Nays: None Absent: Supervisor Church IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request from the Department of Community Development to schedule a work session on September 13, 2005, to discuss the County’s rural addition and private roads. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the work session on September 13, 2005. IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIO NS The following citizens spoke: Evelyn Slone, 3805 Pinevale Road, stated that she lives across the street from Sans Souci apartments and is an adjacent property owner. She noted that she has been a resident of the neighborhood for almost 50 years and that the neighborhood is civically active. She further noted that they have an active crime prevention organization. She stated that she is a professional planner and has dealt with affordable housing. She voiced concerns about the proposed conversion of the apartments to solely low income apartments and stated that Roanoke County continues August 9, 2005 933 to endorse the project without fully evaluating the significant impacts on homeowners and renters. She stated that she is emphatically supportive of affordable housing and all neighborhoods should include a diverse range of housing opportunities. She noted the proposed income restrictions from $24,000 - $34,000 per year and stated that this is low income, not moderate income. She voiced opposition to 504 rental units being restricted to low income residents and stated that 150 families over this income level will have to be displaced, which represents about 30% of the residents already in affordable housing. She indicated that a healthy neighborhood requires a reasonable balance and that concentrating 500 low income families in this area is not beneficial to the families or the County as a whole. She stated that VHDA notified Roanoke County of the proposed project and they had three options: endorse the project, take no position, or oppose the project. She noted that this area is listed as neighborhood conservation in the County’s comprehensive plan which encourages community development that is designed to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. She stated that the comprehensive plan also indicates that the County has sufficient affordable housing, and that she does not feel that what is being proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Slone stated that there have been dramatic changes in crime in the last several years and indicated that as of July 2005, there were 406 calls to the immediate neighborhood for investigations of noise, theft, suspicious person, drugs, accidents, etc. She stated that this is approximately 50 incidences per month. She advised that this project will be the August 9, 2005 934 largest low income housing unit in the Roanoke Valley and will exceed the current maximum by at least 200 units. Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive, advised that she was present on behalf of the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club. She stated that the Sierra Club expresses support for affordable housing, but they are also concerned that disability rights and safety concerns not be overlooked or ignored. She noted that residents of the apartments have complained about safety hazards and difficulty accessing information regarding relocation assistance. She further voiced concerns that proper soil and erosion control measures need to be taken to protect Garst Creek, and noted that Garst Mill Creek is currently below acceptable levels. She stated that toxic chemicals can enter the creek through construction runoff, and she requested close oversight of the impacts on the creek and also the protection of the rights of the residents who are in transition. Javier Hickman, 3750 Tomley Drive, voiced concerns regarding how the project will impact the quality of the neighborhood. He stated that he does not want to revert to the standards he experienced while living in Miami. He questioned if there will be a comprehensive study of the potential impact the new residents will have on crime, drugs, traffic, the bus stop situation, and real estate values. He stated that many residents wonder why Supervisor McNamara was aware of this since January, yet residents are just now finding out about it. He stated that residents became aware of August 9, 2005 935 the situation through the media, and now find that they may be living a block away from a neighborhood that could be riddled with problems. Joseph Seminerio, 3243 Bromley Road, stated that he was informed about this issue at the last minute and he indicated that the biggest problem is the surprise since this matter began in January. He stated that 500 units is a lot and this will have an astronomical impact to the neighborhood. He indicated that Mr. Nimmo had advised that this is a “done deal” and nothing can be done to stop it; therefore, the County must police the area. He further stated that F&W needs to have a minimum 20- year contract. He advised that Mr. Chandler says the apartments will be Section 8 housing, but indicated that the County’s letter to the citizens says it is not. He inquired how much money will be available to tenants, and why there is so much pressure to push this through with so little time. He stated that there must be a channel to stop this or slow it down, and that putting on a new roof and vinyl siding is not the answer to the problem. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church August 9, 2005 936 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Jail Study Costs Report 6. Statement of the Treasurer’s accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of July 31, 2005 N RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS I Supervisor Wray: (1) He requested an update on the Sims Automotive project. Mr. Hodge advised that the 60 day period to complete the screening will expire on August 14. He advised that staff contacted the company last week and they advised that they are still waiting to receive the materials; however, they expect to complete the screening by the end of the 60 days. (2) He inquired if the Buck Mountain issue has been resolved. Mr. Covey advised that no additional information has been received and he indicated that he will check on the status of this issue. Supervisor Flora: (1) He noted that with respect to Sims Automotive, he had advised that when the 60 day period for completion of the screening was established, he predicted that they would not be able to get the steel within 60 days. (2) He advised that there is a house on Ardmore that burned, and he noted problems with high grass. He stated that the property remains in a deteriorated state and Bill Richardson is working on the issue. He requested that Joe Obenshain, Senior August 9, 2005 937 Assistant County Attorney, examine this property to determine if it is a candidate for spot blight abatement. Supervisor McNamara: (1) With respect to the earlier citizen comments, he inquired whether the Villages at Garst Creek will be Section 8 housing. Mr. Hodge requested that Jim Chandler address this issue. Mr. Chandler advised that this property is not Section 8 property. He noted that persons may have a Section 8 voucher that provides rental subsidy and this can be used at any apartment unit in the metro area. He further stated that this change could possibly decrease the poverty level based on F&W management’s more stringent requirements. Supervisor Flora: He recalled that with respect to Section 8 housing, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) changed their philosophy and is opposed to having Section 8 housing grouped collectively in one complex. He stated that HUD decided to issue vouchers that would allow individuals to go anywhere to secure housing, with the purpose being to disperse low income housing. He noted that Section 42 applies to the project as opposed to the individual. Jim Chandler advised that Section 42 tax credits are an incentive to the investor for rehabilitation of low- income housing. Supervisor Altizer: (1) He expressed condolences to Charlie Poff, Sheriff’s Office, upon the recent death of his mother. (2) He noted that there are still misconceptions regarding the Villages at Garst Creek and stated that he hopes these can be clarified in the informational meeting on August 16; in particular, he referenced a August 9, 2005 938 citizen comment pertaining to a 20-year contract with F&W Management and he advised that F&W Management is not the owner of the property. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:53 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the terms or scope of a contract where discussion in an open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, namely contract regarding Fire and Rescue Station #10. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church th IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (4 Floor Conference Room) 1. Joint work session with the Library Board to tour and discuss potential sites for a new library in South County. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Diana Rosapepe, Director of Libraries) (a) Board of Supervisors and Library Board tour of prospective sites. (Depart Roanoke County Administration Center at 3:30 p.m.) At 5:00 p.m., the Supervisors and staff left the Administration Building for a tour of the prospective sites. August 9, 2005 939 (b) Discussion of potential sites and rankings for South County library. (4th Floor Conference Room) The work session was held from 6:40 p.m. until 7:03 p.m. Staff present at the meeting included the following: Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; and Diana Rosapepe, Director of Libraries. Members of the Library Board present were: Sheryl Ricci, Tobie McPhail, and Lisa Boggess. Ms. Hyatt and Ms. Rosapepe reviewed the site data and scoring criteria. Ms. Hyatt reported that the Parker site was ranked #1 and noted that although some sites are ranked higher, they may be less feasible due to certain factors such as cost. She noted that the Finney site is available for sale and the Vandelinde site is anticipated to be available in the future and is therefore a workable option. She further noted that the Merriman site is currently owned by the School Board. Ms. Hyatt stated that these sites represent the tracts of land in Southwest Roanoke County which are five acres or larger. She advised that staff and the Library Board would be willing to look at any additional sites recommended by the Board. With respect to financing, Ms. Hyatt reported that $1.4 million is currently available and an additional $600,000 will be available next year through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This $2 million will be used for purchasing land and conducting architectural and engineering (A&E) work. The borrowing for the construction of the facility will occur in year six (6) at which time $10 million has been budgeted. August 9, 2005 940 There was a consensus of the Board to proceed with further study on the following sites: Parker, Vandelinde, Merriman, and Finney. Further, Supervisor McNamara requested that Ms. Hyatt investigate the feasibility of using the Brambleton Center site if additional properties can be purchased to increase the acreage. 2. Work session to discuss possible funding for the Art Museum of Western Virginia. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) The work session was held from 7:04 p.m. until 7:58 p.m. The following representatives from the Art Museum were present at the meeting: Deanna Gordon; Georgeanne Bingham, Executive Director; Chris Nail, Director of Programs for Young Adults; and Susannah Koerber, Chief Curator. Ms. Bingham advised that the Art Museum, in conjunction with Roanoke County Schools, is working to develop a strong educational program. The three key areas to be targeted include the following: (1) Creation of a specialty high school for the visual arts; (2) Development of an art and literacy program for kindergarten and first grade students; and (3) Development of teacher training programs. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to proceed with funding in the amount of $200,000 per year for 10 years and that the funding will be restricted to programming needs. It was decided that Dr. Weber, Superintendent, and Dr. Lange, Assistant Superintendent, would work with the Art Museum to develop an agreement and this matter would be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for approval on August 23. August 9, 2005 941 IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 8:00 p.m. until 8:04 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-080905-5 At 8:04 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church RESOLUTION 080905-5 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 McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church 942 August 9, 2005 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~JmQ2J fj£f/J1) Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board -A~J{~L zJ . (j~ Michael W. Altizer Chairman