Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/6/2005 - Regular Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda December 6,2005 NOTE: An audit committee meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m., Board of Supervisors Conference Room, 4th Floor, Roanoke County Administration Center. Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for December 6, 2005. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday at 4:00 p.m. The meetings are now closed-captioned. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p.m.) 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation: Associate Pastor Bob Lanier Salem Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of the Fire and Rescue Department for receiving the 2005 Governor's Award for Outstanding Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Call of the Year 2. Recognition of the Finance Department for receiving the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for fiscal year 2003-2004 1 D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing regarding Fralin and Waldron, Inc. conservation easement to preserve 153 acres on Read Mountain. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) 2. Briefing regarding the Real Estate Valuation Department assessment process. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; William E. Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation) E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Adoption of a resolution in support of the Virginia Department of Transportation secondary road project, Boones Chapel Road (Route 614), located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Anthony Ford, Transportation Engineering Manager) 2. Request to increase the allowable County match for the mini-grant program. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development) F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by adding a new Section 21-22 to provide for the implementation of the 2004-2005 changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) of 1998. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) 2. First reading of an ordinance to exempt the property owned by Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. from property tax, said real property assessed at $712,100 being 2.60 acres at 3640 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) 3. First reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of an easement to Verizon Virginia, Inc. on property owned by the Board of Supervisors to provide telephone service to the new Public Safety Center, Catawba Magisterial District. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) 4. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the acceptance of a donation of an easement from Occidental Development, LLC, for construction of a drainage easement at Sunscape Apartments, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 2 H. APPOINTMENTS 1. Disability Services Board 2. Grievance Panel 3. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) 4. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 5. Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority I. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Approval of minutes - November 13 and November 15, 2005 2. Request from the schools to appropriate mentor teacher program allocation in the amount of $11,460.72 3. Acceptance and appropriation of a grant in the amount of $130,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to prepare Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) 4. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $233,199 from two Department of Criminal Justice Services grants 5. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority J. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request to schedule a work session on December 20, 2005, to discuss the County of Roanoke secondary roads system six-year improvement plan for fiscal years 2006-2012 and review of the revenue sharing program for fiscal year 2006-2007 K. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS M. REPORTS 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Jail Study Costs Report 6. Roanoke County Erosion and Sediment Control Program review N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. Joseph B. "Butch" Church 2. Michael A. Wray 3. Richard C. Flora 4. Joseph P. McNamara 5. Michael W. Altizer O. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss the Real Estate Valuation Department assessment process. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; William E. Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation) 2. Work session to discuss technology features of the public safety building project. (Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) (a) Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) (b) Emergency radio transition plan 3. Work session to discuss the fiscal year 2006-2007 budget process. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) 4 P. CLOSED MEETING pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, for an economic development performance agreement with Mennel Milling Company, where discussion in open session would adversely effect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County; Section 2.2-3711 A (1) discussion, consideration and evaluation of the performance of a specific County official, Director of Real Estate Valuation, and the performance of this department. Q. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R. ADJOURNMENT 5 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C -\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of the Fire and Rescue Department for receiving the 2005 Governor's Award for Outstanding Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Call of the Year Elmer C. Hodge ~ /J~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department has received the 2005 Governor's Award for the Outstanding EMS Call of the Year. Winners of the Governor's EMS awards were presented a certificate signed by the Governor and a trophy at the 26th Annual Virginia EMS Symposium banquet on Saturday, November 12, 2005, at the Norfolk Waterside Marriott. Chief of Fire and Rescue Richard E. Burch, Jr., and EMS Battalion Chief Dustin Campbell, who was the incident commander, accepted the award. The criteria for the Outstanding EMS Call of the Year award includes the following: (1) the call had to be made between June 1, 2004 and May 30, 2005; (2) the call demonstrates mutual aid, integration of multiple system components, interagency interfacing and cooperation, or complex assessment or rescue; and (3) the call conforms to standard EMS protocols of pre-hospital care including scene safety. The Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department received the award for leading an interagency effort on January 1, 2005, that saved a Catawba man's life after his leg was so badly entangled in a tractor auger that it had to be amputated. Once the amputation was done, the patient was flown by State Police helicopter to Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital for additional surgery. The patient is doing well and still recovering from his injuries. Attachment I is a list of the personnel who are planning to attend the meeting and Attachment II is the documentation supporting the nomination. atountP of 3ßoano~ CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION AWARDED TO Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department for receiving the 2005 Governor's Award for Outstanding EMS (Emergency Medical Services) Call · The Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department has received the 2005 Governor's award for EMS Outstanding Call of the Year. · The incident for which the award was presented took place on January 1, 2005, and involved an interagency effort that saved a man's life after his leg was so badly entangled in a tractor auger that it had to be amputated at the site of the accident. · The patient was flown to Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital where he underwent surgery for the formal amputation of his leg and as of today, he is doing well. · This incident involved coordination of the following agencies: Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department; Roanoke County Dispatchers; Catawba/Masons Cove Volunteer Rescue Squad; Masons Cove Volunteer Fire Company; Catawba Volunteer Fire Company; Cave Spring Volunteer Rescue Squad; Med-Flight III (Virginia State Police Helicopter crew); Sydney Vail, MD-Carilion trauma surgeon; Ted Georges, MD; and Julie Georges, RN. · The Board of Supervisors wishes to congratulate the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department for receiving this award and commends all of the agencies and people involved for their dedication to preserving life. Presented this 61h day of December, 2005 Ih. ~ 'l'l1uJd ?". ~ Michael W. Altizer, Chairm \Yl'~C\. W Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairm~ ß. 1'~1d.. .~~ B. "Butch" Church ~~~.S> c. ~~.... Richard C. Flora J£~'- oseph P. McNamara EMS Personnel involved in the Outstanding EMS Call Award *Denotes those attending the meeting Attachment I c-\ Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department · Battalion Chief Dustin Campbell - Incident Commander * · Lieutenant Jeff Lawson - EMS Supervisor * · EMT/Firefighter Scott Morgan · Paramedic/Firefighter John Ferron * · EMT/Firefighter Todd Hanson · Paramedic/Firefighter Charlie Ferguson * · Chaplain Brian Clingenpeel * Roanoke County Dispatchers · Alice Flora · Donna Rigney - Shift Supervisor New River Valley E.R Physicians · Ted Georges, M.D. - on-scene * · Julie Georges, RN. - on scene * Carilion E. R Physicians · Sidney Vail, M.D. - Trauma Surgeon · Paul Offermann, M. D. - Attending E.R Physician, Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital · Billy Thompson - Med-Com Radio communications Catawba/Masons Cove Volunteer Rescue Squad · Susan Bandy - EMT * · Gerald Blaney - EMT * · Danny Sprouse - EMT Masons Cove Volunteer Fire Company · Barry Yates, Deputy Fire Chief * · Willie Bryant * · Steve Bandy * · Mike Conner · Joe Gibson Catawba Volunteer Fire Company · Wayne Perkins * Cave Spring Volunteer Rescue Squad · On-duty team left their portables for Dr. Vail and the Med-Flight III crew to use as direct communications Med-Flight 111- Virginia State Police Helicopter Crew · Sg1. Don Childs - Pilot · Jimmy Bogle, RN. · Stewart Barney, Paramedic Attachment II e - f ~, ~ Documentation supporting nomination for Outstanding EMS Call of the Year award LeQ Amputation in a Catawba pasture This EMS call demonstrated mutual aid, integration of multiple system components, interagency interfacing and cooperation, as well as complex assessment and the rescue of a very important person- a citizen. Given the amount of on-scene time, the patient would never have survived a ground transport once extricated and the amputation was performed. The incident began at 10:35 am on January 1, 2005, in the pastures of a Catawba farm. A 38-year-old man got his leg so terribly entangled in a power take off unit (PTO) drive shaft powering an auger on a tractor that the only way to save his life was to remove his leg. The seamless interagency effort on this day would allow this man to live to tell about his "amputation in a Catawba pasture." The call was received and dispatched as "subject with a broken leg". While en-route to the scene, the paramedic/firefighters from the Masons Cove medic unit were told that the man's leg was caught in an auger device and still entangled. Once receiving this transmission the paramedic/firefighters immediately checked on the status of Carillon Health System's Roanoke based helicopter, Life-Guard 10. Dispatch advised that Life- Guard 10 was out of service for maintenance. With a 25-minute response time by ground, the paramedic/firefighters inquired about the availability of the State Police Med-Flight III helicopter in Lynchburg and were advised that it was available and on standby. After hearing the radio traffic and additional information, the on-duty EMS supervisor and on-duty Battalion Chief en-route to the call asked for assistance from the volunteers of the Roanoke County Catawba Fire Company and an additional Medic unit from the Roanoke County Hollins Station. Upon arrival of the first medic unit, the two paramedic/firefighters found the patient to be approximately 100 yards off the roadway in a pasture with his leg literally wrapped around the PTO shaft. After an initial assessment, it could not be determined whether one or both of his legs were involved. A more thorough assessment determined that the patient had one leg entangled in the shaft; it was partially amputated; and the limb was not salvageable. The focus of the first arriving paramedic/firefighters was to stabilize the patient until additional help arrived. Catawba/Masons Cove Volunteer Rescue Squad members arrived to assist. Upon the arrival of the EMS supervisor, medical control was contacted to establish a direct means of communications (med-com). The second medic unit from the Hollins station arrived with two additional paramedic/firefighters who were assigned to patient care. The Battalion Chief assumed incident command (IC) when he arrived and immediately implemented the IC system to establish roles and tasks for all on- scene personnel. The EMS supervisor, paramedic/firefighters and volunteer EMT's were assigned to patient care and treatment. 1 Attachment II ()-, I \.... . While discussing options with med-com, a jogger, who is a physician in the emergency room of a local hospital, offered his assistance. Meanwhile, med-com had given the authorization to proceed with the amputation of the man's leg. The three people on the scene who could possibly perform the amputation included: the ER physician, the EMS supervisor, or the Battalion Chief. The ER physician wanted to further evaluate the entangled leg before making a decision as to whether or not he would perform the amputation. He asked his wife, a neo-natal nurse, who was horseback riding in the area for her assistance. During this time, the Masons Cove Volunteer Fire Company arrived with a fire engine and a squad truck. Their assignment was to establish a landing zone for Med-Flight III and stand by with potential needed extrication tools. The IC had also arranged for Med- Flight III to stop by Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital (CRMH) to pick up the on-duty ER trauma surgeon and transport him to the scene. At this time, the paramedic/firefighters and volunteer EMT's were maintaining vital life support function; the fire company volunteers were handling the landing zone; and the EMS supervisor was maintaining communication with med-com for medication orders and patient status updates. Med Flight III was in the air. The on-scene ER physician decided to amputate the leg with the aid of the paramedic/firefighters and his wife. The trauma surgeon from CRMH was in flight with blood and a bone saw if needed. The ER physician used the scalpels from the obstetrics kits on the ambulance. The IC worked with the ER physician to coordinate the actual final cut of the leg to be completed simultaneously with the landing of the helicopter. The timing of this surgery had to be executed with precision in order to save this man's life. This was a "MASH" unit at its best. The ER physician made the surgical cuts as paramedic/firefighters assisted with clamping arteries and blood vessels. Volunteer EMT's and paramedic/firefighters maintained stable vital signs and pain control for the patient. As the ER physician advised the IC that he was ready to make his final incision, the helicopter landed and the CRMH trauma surgeon assessed the patient. The bone-saw was not needed. The patient was flown to Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital where he underwent surgery on his amputated leg. The next day the patient underwent another surgery to repair his shoulder and to set his broken arm. At this time, the patient is doing very well while still recovering from his injuries. Some additional notes: · The Cave Spring Volunteer Rescue Squad was at Roanoke Memorial Hospital delivering a patient and was asked to leave Dr. Vail a Roanoke County portable radio for radio communication with Med-Flight III. · The Roanoke County Fire Marshal responded to the scene for use of his sirs' radio if needed in his vehicle to communicate with Med-Flight III. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C-Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of the Finance Department for receiving the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for fiscal year 2003-2004 SUBMITTED BY: Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge ~ 1/øØ2~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The County of Roanoke has received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30,2004. This is the 21st consecutive year in which the award has been received. The award is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association to governments that achieve the highest standards in governmental accounting and financial reporting. Accepting the recognition on behalf of the Finance Department will be Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance; and the accounting staff of the Finance Department. " ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Briefing regarding Fralin and Waldron, Inc. conservation easement to preserve 153 acres on Read Mountain SUBMITTED BY: Janet Scheid Chief Planner Elmer C. Hodge ~ II~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In 2003, Scenic America designated the 28-mile section of the Blue Ridge Parkway in Roanoke County as a "Last Chance Landscape". This action focused attention on the need to preserve the Parkway viewsheds and has successfully encouraged people to take action. In 2004, Frank Radford donated a 60-acre parcel of land along the Blue Ridge Parkway to the Western Virginia Land Trust as part of their master plan development of Mason's Crest subdivision. The example that Mr. Radford set with that donation is felt today with this announcement by Fralin and Waldron. Fralin and Waldron, Inc. has donated a 153-acre conservation easement on Read Mountain. Last month, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation agreed to hold this easement which will preserve, in perpetuity, a large portion of the eastern slope of Read Mountain. This property is highly visible from locations around Roanoke County and from the Read Mountain Overlook on the Blue Ridge Parkway. The property also falls within a 600-acre viewshed targeted for protection by the Read Mountain Alliance and the Western Virginia Land Trust. In addition, this property is contiguous to the Durham property, gO-acres preserved by conservation easement donated to the Western Virginia Land Trust in 2003. Del The Fralin and Waldron conservation easement preserves the natural resource value of this property including the scenic viewsheds, open and recreational space, and forest lands. The easement terms do not allow any subdivision of the property, no dwellings, no commercial timbering and limits the size of structures on the property to a total of 1,000 square feet. The easement allows use of the property as a public park for passive recreational activities such as hiking, biking and horseback trail riding. Fralin and Waldron has raised the bar with this conservation easement donation, and they have once again demonstrated that development and conservation can work hand in hand. The company is to be commended for their dedication to the preservation of Read Mountain and their acknowledgement of the importance of environmental stewardship. In 2006, they intend to donate this153-acres to Roanoke County for use as a public park. This is land that will be protected forever and will soon become public land for use by all citizens. Future plans include trails and greenway connections and trail head parking. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ,O-Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6,2005 Briefing regarding the Real Estate Valuation Department assessment process AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: William E. Driver Director of Real Estate Valuation Elmer C. Hodge ~ /I~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: The Real Estate Valuation office is a well run department that has consistently ranked among the best in the state in terms of assessment ratios and uniformity in Roanoke County. In preparation for today's board meeting, staff arranged for an independent review of the office to provide an additional analysis of the department's operations. This review was performed by attorney and CPA Mike Quinn, who is also a Roanoke County resident and expert in real estate valuation. This is Mr. Quinn's second review of our department. His initial review in 1996 was very favorable, as was this most recent review. As noted in Mr. Quinn's attached document, Billy Driver and his staff are to be commended for their overall performance. According to Mr. Quinn, our department has achieved "outstanding equity and very good assessment levels". The Board of Supervisors should be proud. Our department is comprised of hard-working professionals with a solid reputation in the community. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: At the October 25, 2005 board meeting, Supervisor Church reported that he'd received information from a citizen outlining concerns regarding assessment practices in the Real Estate Valuation Department. Staff responded to some of the concerns and the board ultimately requested that a work session be held to provide additional information. A work session has been scheduled, but a briefing is also being provided so that the public can hear the responses, as well. There were several issues/questions that were raised during the meeting. In order to effectively answer these questions, staff contacted the Virginia Department of Taxation to request that a representative attend this briefing and work session to provide information and answer any questions that may arise. The Department of Taxation is familiar with 1 · ~ r'\ .. \ \.,-''',. "...,., <;;;,/ procedures and laws governing assessment practices in the state of Virginia. Each year the Virginia Department of Taxation conducts a statistical analysis of assessments in every jurisdiction. Roanoke County received high marks in its most recent review which looked at assessment data for 2003. In preparing for this meeting, staff also sought an independent review performed by Roanoke County resident Mike Quinn. Mr. Quinn is an attorney and CPA with Norfolk Southern's tax department and is one of their experts in the area of real estate valuation. In conducting his analysis, he reviewed statistical data provided by the state from 1998 through 2003. Data for 2004 assessments was supplied by the assessor's office. One of the questions raised centered on overall assessment practices and the fairness of these appraisals. In terms of equity, Mr. Quinn's review concluded "the studies and data... clearly show that the Assessor's Office has consistently achieved a very high degree of equity in the assessment of taxable real property". In relation to assessment levels, Mr. Quinn concluded: liThe studies by the Department of Taxation and the data supplied by the Assessor's Office indicate that the level of assessment is well within an acceptable range". Another issue is whether the department has been over-assessing to generate revenue. Mr. Quinn's analysis indicated that the department does not "lead" the market. According to Mr. Quinn, lithe Assessor could have been just slightly more aggressive in raising values", but he also noted that this is difficult to do within the climate of today's rising real estate market. The Real Estate department is responsible for the assessment of more than 43,000 real property parcels. The values of these parcels are not established until January 1 of each calendar year. Due to the large number of parcels within Roanoke County, it is impossible to wait for the end of the year to assess all parcels. A review process is needed to ensure those neighborhoods that are worked at the beginning of the year are accurately valued to ensure uniformity and fairness as of January 1. Another question raised during the meeting concerned the qualifications of the appraisal staff. The Code of Virginia Real Estate Appraisers Statute does not require staff in any assessor's office in the state to be licensed. However, Roanoke County's Real Estate Valuation Department has, for years, taken the initiative to make certain employees are licensed. All but one staff member in the department is licensed, but is taking classes in order to become licensed. Although this review was not planned, the results have reinforced the fact Roanoke County's Real Estate Valuation office is a well-run and professional department. 2 0-2 ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA REVIEW . OF ASSESSMENT AND RATIO STUDY DATA Presented to Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Prepared by Michael K. Quinn November 9,2005 Table of Contents Summary... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ...... ... ... ... .... Introduction........................................................... . Constitutional Framework.......................................... Assessor's Duties...................................................... Measurement of Peñormance...................................... The S tu dy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Median. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ., .. . .. . . . . .. ... Coefficient of Dispersion... ...... ..................... ..... ... Regression Index.................. ....................................... Standards. . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... Roanoke County Median, Coefficient and Regression Index.. Conclusion...... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....... Appendix: Example Ratio Study Seven-Year Ratio Study History Pie Charts (2003 and 2004 Sales) Graphs Showing 2003 and 2004 Assessment/Sales Ratios 0-2 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 7 7 8 9 10 0-2 SUMMARY Data Sources Every year, the Virginia Department of Taxation conducts a statistical analysis of the real property assessments in every city and county in Virginia. The purpose of the analysis, called "The Virginia Assessment/Sales Ratio Study" is to test the level of assessment and assessment equity in each jurisdiction. The most recently published study involved the assessments for the year 2003. I reviewed that study and each of the studies for the preceding five years, back through 1998. I also reviewed data supplied to me by the Roanoke County Assessor's Office on assessments and sales for 2004. Equity As explained in more detail below, the studies and data mentioned above show clearly that the Assessor's Office has consistently achieved a very high degree of equity in the assessment of taxable real property. This is particularly true with respect to single family residential property. Assessment Level The studies by the Department of Taxation and the data supplied by the Assessor's Office indicate that the level of assessment is well within an acceptable range. Overall Perlormance The overall perlormance of the Roanoke County Assessor's Office, as demonstrated by the State's ratio study analysis, is commendable. 1 0-2 INTRODUCTION In May of 1996, I undertook a review of the level of assessment and the equity in assessments achieved by the Roanoke County Assessor's Office. I relied then on the statistical data presented in the annual ratio study peñormed by the Virginia Department of Taxation. The Board of Supervisors has requested that a similar review of more recently available data be peñormed. I report here on my analysis of the Department's ratio studies for the seven years from 1998 through 2003 and on data supplied by the Assessor's Office for the year 2004. The review, the explanation of the statistical measures and the structure of this report are similar to the 1996 report. I was asked to peñorm this review primarily because I have no personal or professional stake in the outcome and because I am familiar with the basic concepts involved in ratio study analysis and assessment practices. I believe I am entirely independent in this matter. I am not an appraiser or statistician. I am a lawyer, a member of the Virginia State Bar and a Certified Public Accountant. I am responsible for property assessments and taxes for Norfolk Southern Corporation. Most of Norfolk Southern's property is spread out over 21,300 route miles of railroad in 22 states and more than 700 counties and cities. Here in Virginia, as in most states, our operating property is assessed by the state rather than by the local assessor. However, in many jurisdictions we also own non-operating property which is subject to local assessment. We own very little non-operating property here in Roanoke County. Because of my work in this area, I have had experience in local assessment practices in several states. 2 0-2 CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Article X of the Virginia Constitution segregates property for local taxation and requires that property assessments be at "fair market value." Fair market value is defined generally by the appraisal profession as the most likely value at which the property would sell in an arms-length transaction. The Virginia Supreme Court has, in general terms, adopted this definition in assessment and condemnation cases. Fair market value is THE legal standard for assessments in Virginia. The Constitution also requires that taxes "shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax". In other words, apart from certain exceptions specified in the Constitution, the same level of assessment is required for all real property. ASSESSOR'S DUTIES In Virginia, the local Assessor is responsible for the valuation of the taxable real property in the assessment jurisdiction, for assuring equity among assessments on similar properties, and for providing information to be used for budget and planning purposes. In Roanoke County, the Assessor is responsible for the assessment of over 43,000 taxable real property parcels. The Assessor has established a very sophisticated system for tracking sales, identifying comparables and collecting information to be used by the Assessor in internal preliminary ratio study analysis. Over 500 neighborhoods have been established to facilitate the identification of comparables. All of this information is regularly updated and the resulting database is used to prepare the annual assessment. 3 0-2 On average, individual properties are visited every three years. The staff attempts to visit approximately one-third of the parcels every year. This allows the Assessor an opportunity to update information on the extent and quality of improvements to be shown in the database. The data collected from these inspections, cost indices on new construction and the evidence of market trends as demonstrated by the sales data provide the bases for the annual reassessments. The system allows for the constant recordation and indexing of the most current data. It also provides a record of the parcel size and shape, neighborhood, improvements, special characteristics and comparables and adjustments used by the Assessor to establish his estimate of fair market value for each parcel. This information is invaluable during informal appeals and Board of Equalization hearings. A citizen with questions about an assessment can visit the Assessor's Office and pull up on a computer screen the entire record card on the parcel and examine the same information used by the Assessor in establishing the value of the parcel, including sales data for all comparables. The system even accommodates inquiries concerning sales in surrounding neighborhoods. Much of this information is now also available on line. MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE To evaluate the performance of the Roanoke County Assessor's Office, we need to compare that performance against objective measurements. Section 58.1-207 of the Code of Virginia requires the Department of Taxation to conduct an annual test of the assessment results in each of the 95 counties and 39 cities in the Commonwealth. The test consists of a 4 0-2 comparison of the prices of properties which sold during the year to the assessed values of those properties. The assessment date is January 1. If a sufficient number of sales occur during the year, they will constitute a statistically valid sample with which to estimate the level and uniformity of the assessments of all properties in the jurisdiction. The accompanying pie charts represents the total number of taxable parcels in the County and the number of parcels which sold in arms-length transactions during 2003 and 2004. The parcels which sold are used as a sample from which to derive an estimate of the assessment level of all the parcels in the County. The test is referred to as the" Assessment/Sales Ratio Study" because the test is based on the ratio of the assessed values of the parcels in the jurisdiction which sold during the year to the selling prices for those parcels. A ratio is merely the expression of a relationship between two numbers usually expressed as a percentage. THE STUDY Median The study is conducted this way: First, all properties which sold during the year are identified. The sales are then "edited." This means that sales between related parties, deeds of gift, intra-corporate transfers and other non-arms-Iength transfers are thrown out. Only arms- length sales are used in the study because only these sales provide valid indications of fair market values. Next, the assessed value of each sold parcel is compared to the selling price of that parcel. The comparison between the 5 0-2 assessed value and the selling price is expressed as a ratio. For example, if the assessed value of a particular parcel is $200 and the parcel sold for $250, the relationship between these two numbers would be 200/250 or 80°/Ó. Once all the ratios of the sold parcels are calculated, an "average" of those ratios is determined. To accomplish the calculation of such an "average," most people would probably add up all the ratios and divide that sum by the total number of ratios. This would produce the "mean." Statisticians tell us, however, that when interpreting ratio study data, the mean is not the proper "measure of central tendency." They recommend use of the median, i.e., the ratio in the middle. In the Appendix to the annual ratio study, the Department of Taxation notes that "The National Association of Tax Administrators, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and a special committee of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) recognizes the accuracy of the median ratio." This ratio is determined by simply arranging the ratios in ascending or descending order and picking the one that falls in the middle of this "array" of numbers. In the accompanying Example Ratio Study, Chart A shows 17 fictitious homeowners who sold their homes. The "assessment" column shows the assessed value of their homes and the "sale" column shows the sale price. The "fraction" shows the relationship between these two numbers and the "ratio" appears in the last column. Chart B shows the ratios as arrayed in descending order. The median is 100°/Ó. 6 0-2 Coefficient of Dis-persion The median is the most widely accepted indicator of the level of assessment. But, it reveals nothing with respect to unüormity or equity. This is because it only tells us about the ratio which happens to fall in the middle. We must also ask how closely the other ratios in the sample cluster around the median. To get an answer to this question, the "coefficient of dispersion" is calculated. The coefficient of dispersion is the average percentage each of the ratios is different from the median. The smaller the average difference is, the closer the ratios in the sample cluster around the median. Here, the word "average" is the mean. And, because we are interested in the difference between the mean and the other ratios, all differences are treated as positive numbers. That is to say, we are interested in their absolute values. The absolute value of the difference between the median and the ratios appears in the last column of Chart B. The calculation of the coefficient of dispersion appears at the bottom. Regression Index The regression index is the mean ratio (not the median) divided by the sales-weighted ratio. The sales weighted ratio is the total of the assessed value divided by the total of the selling prices of all sales in the property class. This index allows sales of property with higher selling prices to have a greater impact on the ratio than sales with lower selling prices. An index above 1.00 indicates that less expensive property has a higher assessment to sales ratio than more expensive property. In other words, if this index is at or near 1.00, neither the less expensive properties nor the more expensive properties in the jurisdiction are being discriminated against in the assessment process. 7 0-2 STANDARDS The International Association of Assessing Officers is a professional organization of state and local assessing officials in the United States and Canada. This organization has adopted standards for the median and coefficient of dispersion. These standards have become widely accepted as indicators by which to judge an assessor's performance. They are cited by the Department in the annual ratio study report. The standards provide that the overall level of appraisal for all parcels in a jurisdiction should be within 10 percent of the legal level, that is, between 0.90 and 1.10. In other words, the median should be within this range. The standards also provide that the coefficient of dispersion for single family residences should generally be 15.0 or less. In the appendix to the annual ratio study the Department of Taxation makes this observation: "The IAAO notes that a low coefficient (15 percent or less) tends to be associated with good appraisal uniformity. A coefficient of 15 percent indicates a good distribution of assessments for single-family residential properties. Similarly, a coefficient of 20 percent or less indicates a good distribution for more diverse classes of property. A less uniform assessment translates into inequality in actual tax burdens." To properly interpret the state's ratio study, we need to keep in mind that it is a comparison of the assessed values as of January 1, with sales that occur after that date. Some of those sales could have occurred almost a full year after the assessment date. The assessments are computed using comparable sales that occurred before the assessment date. When real estate values are rising, this will make the assessment level, as revealed by the median in the ratio study, appear to be somewhat lower than it actually was on the assessment date. 8 0-2 ROANOKE COUNTY MEDIAN AND COEFFICIENT I reviewed the State's ratio studies for the years 1998 through 2003. The 2003 study is the most recent study published by the Department of Taxation. I also looked at data provided by the Assessor's office comparing 2004 assessments and 2004 sales. The median, coefficient of dispersion and regression index calculated in each of the ratio studies from 1998 through 2003 and from the preliminary data supplied by the Assessors office for 2004 are presented in the accompanying table. The table shows this information for the years 1998 through 2003 by class of property. For 2004, the table shows the all-property median and coefficient of dispersion. Because the data is preliminary, I did not calculate the statistics by class of property for the year 2004. For all years, the coefficient of dispersion indicates a remarkable degree of uniformity in assessments. In fact, for the year 2003, the most recent study year, only three cities and three counties out of a total of 134 jurisdictions achieved a better coefficient. For all years, the median is at or only slightly below the standard established by the International Association of Assessing Officers. For the years 2003 and 2004, the Inedian drops below 90%. This would indicate, at first glance, that in recent years the Assessor's office might have been somewhat less aggressive in raising assessments than it perhaps should have been. As explained above, in a time of rapidly rising real property values, achieving an assessment level above the 90% range is difficult. This is because all the sales used in the study occur after the assessment date. This point is demonstrated by 9 0-2 the fact that in 2003, the most recent study year, only 12 cities and 16 counties out of a total of 134 jurisdictions achieved a median higher than the 88.77% in Roanoke County. For each of the six years 1998 through 2003, the regression index for the residential property classes is at or very near 1.00. This shows that no discrimination exists in the assessment process either in favor of or against the more expensive or less expensive properties. Please refer to the accompanying bar graphs. These graphs show the ratio of the assessed value to the selling price for sold parcels in 2003 and 2004. The graphs show very clearly why it would be impossible to achieve a median ratio of 100°/Ó. In order to reach that level of assessment, over half of the parcels in Roanoke County would have to be assessed at 100% of their fair market value or higher. The graphs also provide a visual representation of the County's very low coefficient of dispersion. The steep slopes and high peak demonstrate the tendency of the ratios to cluster around the median. This gives a clear indication of the high degree of equity in the assessments. 10 0-2 CONCLUSION The Assessor and the staff have done a commendable job. The above data provide a seven-year history of first rate assessment results. The Roanoke County Assessor's office has achieved outstanding equity and very good assessment levels throughout this period. These results provide no basis for criticism. The Assessor could have been just slightly more aggressive in raising values. While this might have moved the median into the 90% range, it might also have caused some deterioration in the equity and moved more assessments above 100%. As mentioned above, it is difficult to achieve a median ratio in the 90% range during times of steeply rising values. 11 EXAMPLE RATIO STUDY 0-2 Brown 20 25 20/25 80% Jones 30 30 30130 100% Johnson 40 42 40/42 95% White 60 65 60/65 92% Smith 20 15 20/15 133% Harris 90 85 90/85 106% Mead 100 110 100/110 91% Washington 200 200 200/200 100% Jackson 50 45 50/45 111% Jefferson 75 70 75no 107% Madison 90 95 90/95 95% Lee 30 20 30/2 0 150% Wright 30 15 30/15 200% Gn.y 70 60 70/60 117% Lester 80 90 80/90 89% Moore 20 25 20/25 80% Allison 60 75 60n5 80% Wright 200 100 Lee 150 50 Smith 133 33 Gray 117 17 Jackson 111 10 Jefferson 107 7 Harris 106 6 Jones 100 0 \Vashington MEDIAN 100 0 Madison 95 5 .J ohnson 95 5 White 92 8 Mead 91 9 Leste.· 89 11 MODI" 80 20 B...,wn 80 20 Allison 80 20 TOTAL 321 AVERAGE 321 + 17 18.9 COEF. OF DISPERSION AVG. M = 18.9 + 100% 18.9 N I o w :::.::: 0 o CD ~¡¡>- o~" IXC.a~ u..CD(I).., OEo.!! ~¡¡~J: z ~ :;::)ct o U "ffi ~ ::s .... :; o .¡:: en « ro 'ë CD Eoð E o u :¡:¡ '5 E :2 ro u.. c: CD >- ro -:=.0 g>E~ .- ro .0 Cf. u..::s Cf. ..- CDZ"c:O"- t»·Ë ro N ..- .s ro € .,.: 0> Cf. u..:J N~g8 ..- C') . , 00 N ..- N ~~~NC')~O>IDO>"-C')NC')~O..-O>~OO ..-~N ~M~N~N~~~"-~~~C')~~~N~~~~~Ó~ ø 00..- 00..- 0> 00..- 00 00..- ::s "0 c: » ~~~g~~~~re~~~~~~~~~~~N~~8 W ~ ~ooci ~IDO O>ID..- o~..-V~ci~ 00 00 00 ro 0> 00..- ~re <C~ Z"- i ...I W IX a.. ~ CX) en 0 .... N C") :! CD m c: m c: 8 c: ~ c: 8 c: 8 c: c:s c: > .... ox.... ~XN ~x oxN oxN ~x N ~x ~CD ~CD ~CD ~CD ~CD ~CD ~CD ~-g ~-g ~-g ~-g ~-g ~-g~ ~-g ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~<C ~~ Co Co Co Co Co Co~ Co 'to- .- Ii+- .- 'to- .- 'to- .- 'to- .- 'to- .- :Ii 'to- .- c:o~ c:o~ c:o~ c:o~ c:o~ c:o$_ c:o~ .^t'O .CD.^«J ,CDøro CDø,«J_ .CDøro .CDQ)ro .CD...Iøro.CD ---~~--~CD---CD --CD---CD---WCD--- ~~CDen_~CDen_~CDen_~CDen_~CDen_"OCDen__"OCDen ... ..., 0 CD ... ..., 0 CD ... ..., 0 CD ... ..., 0 CD «J ..., 0 CD «J CD 0 CD 10&. «J CD 0 CD ø~o~ø~o~ø~U~ø~U~Cf. ~O~Cf. ~o~a..Cf. ~O~ » t <~ e Q. IDIDVO>C')O>~O>~ID"-°VO>~"-ID~.~.o>O>.V"-~O ~N~~~~OO>o"-~O~~~OC') ..-"-vo vo>oooC')moociC')~~..-C')~~~~~~o~m~~ ~g~~~~00~~g8~~gg~~~~~reg W~OO>ID"-~~~"-Ooow~..-o> ..-..-~~~ ..- .,.:00.,.:00.,.:00 ~C')..- V~~ ~m~ ..-~~ U;ci~ .,.:0> N~~ ~~LÒ ~C')N ..-~~ VO>~ ..-"00 C')NV oo~~ ~o~ - 0> ..- ~r::r::: ~oo~ -00 ..- - ..- ..- OO~ ..-ID 0000 00 N I o ( ) I,{'¡ 0 I,(') 0 If) 0 0 C) 0 0 - ~ N N 0 0 nJ 0 \0 0 LO 0 10 0 ..- ..- ..- ...... ..- N '-. ... 10 f"- OCI OCI CD œ ..- 6 , , , c , , , , I , U") 0 10 0 LO 0, ( ) 10 0 LO 0 It) 0 If) 0 0 ..- ..- N N 0 U (\ 10 r-- co co (I) (J) ..- .- ..- ..... ..- (\ II- ·0 0 0 0 0 () [J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( ) a.. 0) c C) 0 CO +::õ ...., m c: U") ~ 0 Q) Q) 0 ~ .Y. m u !?2 0 > s- O) ~ c Q) UJ c m a.. 0 +-' Q) jJ) 0 ro - ~ « E r::r: +-' ca 0 £1 en 0 4- W en 0 t/) ~ .... 0 « C\J >.m M >. +-' Q) 0 0 :2 §r::r: 0 >. ...., .D N CO "0 0 4- ~~ OJ U 0 ._ r- a:: èii 'Or- a Q) (I) . t/) OJ () :¡:~ fi ~ Q) 0 CO (J) o o LO o LO -.::t a a -.::t a LO C') a o C') a LO N o o N a LO "I"'"" o o "I"'"" o LO a sales JO JaqwnN N I o - ----- --- tn 0 10 a 10 0 01 0 ..-- ..-- N N 0 ~I ..-- ..-- ..-- ...... ...... N I \ 1 , I , 0 10 0 10 0 10 01 0 0 ...... ...... N N 01 ..-- ..... ...... ...... ...... N, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G> C) C'CI 0 ... 10 W 0 10 0 10 0 C 101'- 0:> 0:> cr> 0"> ...... G> I , .;, , , I .;, () 10 0 0 10 0 ... N 10 I'- 00 00 C11 0"> (oj o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q. c 0 ~ a> m t1J \i) :J 0 Q) .s 0 m N ~ !i? 0 > C ~ c CD ~ Q) c m 0 0 ..... (J¡ .... I If¡ 0 m CV (þ E 0::: ..... ~ (/) - Il.. -.- W (Ø ~ 0 rn ~ ct c ro »m ~ 0 >. 0 ~ :ž. ..... Q) 0 .... §o:: >- 0 n -0 0 -.- N 0 ~ U 0 .- r\) - c. a.> ca w (.) ct. I 0:: ~ ;~ ._ co 0 0, 'C....- Q . (þ :!Egg - ca en o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO LO ~ ~ ('t') ('t') N N ~ ~ sales jO JaqwnN --' --~ N I o o 100 CO C'i ~ ..8 \ÌI o L. I\'! a. o ~- ---~ C'? C () 1"-_ .... ø (b ëã U) o 0 ~ 0 c: .- OQ .., ~ 0 C'G ..,; ;; " ø ctIi ~ ::; ...., ~ - (I : 0 Q) 0 ~ ~ f.h N 0 > U 0 ~ C ... .- CD .- C!; : C'G <= - 0 0 «S c.. CI) ex: - E UJ ~ -W 0 ~ 0_ .., rn >.CU tn >. ....... CD ~ C~ Q) >- ::::J - .0 C'G "0 0..... ~ 0 U) ro (.) ø Il £l) .... () M D- E 0 o· 0 N ~- - ------ -- .- -. N I o 'T'" r.ø co o~ N M ~ "=t' !!!. - III ( ,) ( ,) ~ 'ii ft tI) a- D 0 '----- ~ Ii") g 0 0 - 0 ~ ~ ,- ~ ~ ... ,.... :I: (U ø ,.... <:: 0 a: j! 0 .- oJ) ..... ca E CO - (/J Jg cu..2 G) 0 ~ .,:;,( ~ ~ ~ 0> >- Ct$ :2: C <b >- m D.. -0 ... U 0 ('a ~ Ct:1i) 0 III I:L ......W +-' Q) c: 0_ UI >-.cv Q) ...... Q,1 I:c:: - Ct$ ~'+-o I UJ o 0 U <Þ I -.;:t' u 0 .- :t: 0 "0 N ACTION NO. ITEM NO, ¡;: -I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Adoption of a resolution in support of the Virginia Department of Transportation secondary road project, Boones Chapel Road (Route 614), located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Anthony Ford, P.E. Transportation Engineering Manager Elmer C. Hodge ~ J7'.1r County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Boones Chapel Road, Route 614, bridge project (0614-080-306, C-501, B-683) was placed in the secondary roads system six-year improvement plan in 2000 and was priority #8 in the fiscal years 2006-2011 plan. The purpose of this project is to replace the bridge and approaches on Boones Chapel Road over a branch of Back Creek located 0.25 mile north of the intersection of Route 614 and Willow Branch Road, Route 677. The proposed improvements include replacing the bridge structure at its current location with a pre-stressed, pre-cast slab span structure 30 feet in length. The new concrete bridge will be designed to provide a 24-foot opening to facilitate any future maintenance operations. Improvements to the approaches will consist of widening the existing pavement to 9 foot lanes and providing a 2 foot shoulder (4 foot with guardrail). The design speed for this project is 30 miles per hour. To facilitate replacing the bridge in its existing location, the road will be closed to traffic during construction. VDOT held a design public hearing for this project on October 20, 2005. Three (3) people attended the hearing, with only one of those submitting comments. The lone comment received included the property owner's opinion that "the proposed land need is excessive" and that "the present bridge alignment helps slow traffic down". He also felt that the "safe E- 0<" speed needs to be posted". VDOT feels they have already addressed these concerns and that the project as submitted to the County is the best possible design for the situation. The anticipated schedule for the project, assuming that the County approves the resolution in support of the project, is to begin right-of-way acquisition in late 2006 and to advertise to accept bids from contractors for construction in late 2007, with construction planned to begin sometime soon after. FISCAL IMPACT: The total project cost is estimated to be $947,200. This allocation is funded in the County's secondary roads six-year improvement program with state funds. There is no County allocation to this project. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve a resolution supporting the Virginia Department of Transportation project 0614-080-306, C-501, B-683 (Boones Chapel Road, Rte. 614) and future temporary road closure as necessary for the project, thereby allowing the project to go to the next phase and come to completion. 2. Do not approve a resolution in support of the Virginia Department of Transportation project 0614-080-306, C-501, B-683 (Boones Chapel Road, Rte. 614), thereby prohibiting the project from proceeding to the next phase. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. · . ~ . r-- I ~. -- ¡ . i./" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINSITRATION CENTER ON DECEMBER 6, 2005 RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (0614-080-306,C-501, B-683) BOONES CHAPELROAD(ROUTE61~ WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a design public hearing on October 20, 2005 for the purpose of soliciting public comments on the proposed improvements to Boones Chapel Road (Route 614). WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation feels they have adequately addressed the public comments as submitted to them for this project. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve and support the improvements as proposed to Boones Chapel Road (Route 614) (including the future temporary road closure as necessary for the project) as outlined in Roanoke County's Six-Year Secondary System Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2006 - 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution duly attested be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation, Salem Residency Office, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Recorded Vote Moved By: Seconded By: Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board ACTION NO. ITEM NO. [-Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request to increase the allowable County match for the mini- grant program APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge £/1 County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: This is an excellent program that has been successful in assisting small businesses with improvements to their building facades, landscaping, and other exterior features. The balance in the fund has grown significantly, and I believe this can be attributed to two factors: (1) a lack of public awareness of the availability of the program; and (2) the amount of the maximum allowable grant is too low. Since this is a beneficial program that we would like to continue, I am requesting that staff in the Economic Development and Community Development Departments work together to increase public awareness of this program. This could be done in a number of ways such as scheduling a workshop with small businesses in each district, or conveying information to the area civic leagues. Further, I would ask that the Board consider increasing the maximum grant award to an amount in the $10,000 - $20,000 range. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The matching mini-grant program was developed in 1994 as a means of joining with existing businesses to improve areas that serve as gateways to Roanoke County. The program provides funding to assist businesses with improvements to building facades, landscaping, signage, parking lot, and other exterior features. This grant program matches the investment made by small businesses on a 50/50 basis and the current maximum grant amount is $5,000. The first of these projects was completed in the Williamson Road corridor in 1994 and following this initial success, the program was expanded to encompass other areas of the County. Since that time, the program has supported similar initiatives in the Town of Vinton and Route 11/460 corridor in West County. To qualify for the program, businesses submit a concept plan to the Community Development Department which ensures compliance with the grant design guidelines. Once approved, the grants are administered through the Economic Development Authority. To date, 22 businesses have participated in this program with an investment of $1 02,682. ,..-. -"-' \--- c.l , - .'. --. Public funding for these projects has been provided in the amount of $72,430, bringing the total investment in improvements to $175,112. This program has proven beneficial in encouraging facade improvements; however, the $5,000 maximum grant amount may no longer be sufficient due to the rising costs of construction. In order to continue providing the level of assistance that may be needed by potential users of this program, it is suggested that the Board may wish to consider increasing the maximum grant to an amount in the $10,000 to $20,000 range. FISCAL IMPACT: This fund has a current balance of $210,142.15. Each year, an additional $35,000 is appropriated for this program; therefore no new funding is required to promote and maintain this program during this fiscal year. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Make no change to the financial limit of the corridor improvement matching mini-grant fund. 2. Increase the maximum amount of the County match for the corridor improvement matching mini-grant fund from $5,000 to an amount to be determined by the Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 2, increasing the limit of the corridor improvement matching mini-grant program from $5,000 to an amount to be determined by the Board. Business applications will be reviewed on a first come, first served basis county-wide. Only applications meeting the design guidelines of the project will be awarded a matching mini- grant. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~ - I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by adding a new Section 21-22 to provide for the implementation of the 2004-2005 changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) of 1998 SUBMITTED BY: Diane D. Hyatt Chief Financial Officer Elmer C. Hodge ~.If~ County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998 (PPTRA) established a statewide program to provide relief to owners of personal use motor vehicles. The 1998 Act envisioned a five year phase-in of relief expressed as a percentage of the bill related to the first $20,000 of personal use vehicle value. Costs soared and the percentage was frozen at 70% since 2001. The 2004 General Assembly standoff resulted in the compromise of capping the PPTRA relief at $950 million and shifting the reimbursement to the state fiscal year, effectively gaining a $229 million windfall for the state at the expense of delaying reimbursement to about three dozen localities (spring billers). In its original form, PPTRA was a vehicle-based entitlement program. The state was obligated to provide annual tax relief to owners of all personal use vehicles, with the relief computed on the first $20,000 of assessed vehicle value. The changes to PPTRA made by SB 5005 mark an end to this vehicle-based entitlement program, and establish what amounts to a fixed, annual block grant to localities. The state's obligation is capped and made certain, while localities are provided greater flexibility (and assume greater risk) in determining how relief is to be distributed. f- ) In order to put these changes into effect, the County must adopt an ordinance that sets the framework for the implementation and administration of the state tax relief program. It is recommended that this ordinance be in place by January 1, 2006. The Board will also need to pass an annual resolution with the first one being before the 2006 tax bills are mailed. This resolution will set the percentage reduction in personal property for that year. This percentage will be computed based upon historical trends and the current tax assessment book. In addition, there is a transition issue for tax bills from 2005 and prior that remain delinquent at December 31, 2005. The state will continue to pay the state share of reimbursement until September 1,2006, or until the state funding is depleted. The local governments can chose to take a loss on the collection, or "balance bill" the taxpayer for 100% of the original assessment. At the work session that was held on November 15, 2005, the Board reviewed and approved the following to be incorporated into the attached PPTRA implementation ordinance: 1. The County chooses the "specific relief' method (percentages reduction) of computing tax relief. 2. The County will allocate the relief at a single percentage across the board to the first $20,000 of personal vehicle value. 3. The County will continue to exempt vehicles valued at $1 ,000 and below from taxation. 4. The Treasurer is authorized to "balance bill" any taxes from 2005 and prior that are still delinquent at September 1 2006, or when the state funding for tax relief is depleted. Attachment A shows examples of how a 2005 personal property tax bill looked under the old method, and how a 2006 personal property bill will look under the new method. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the first reading of the attached ordinance, and holding a public hearing along with the second reading of the ordinance on December 20, 2005. F .~ Attachment A Examples of Personal Property Tax Bills Under the Old and New Methods of Relief 2005 Personal Property Bill (Prior Method) Practical Sedan $ 15,000 $ 525.00 (367.50) $ 157.50 Roanoke County tax ($3.50 per $100) less Car Tax Relief Balance owed by taxpayer Note: The State is providing tax relief at 70% of the tax on the first $20,000 of personal use vehicle value 2006 Personal Property Bill (New Method) Practical Sedan $ 15,000 $ 525.00 (349.13) $ 175.88 Roanoke County tax ($3.50 per $100) less Car tax Relief Balance owed by taxpayer Note: The State is providing tax relief at 66.5% of the tax on the first $20,000 of personal use vehicle value *** *** 66.5% is used as an example only. The exact percentage will be computed based upon the actual personal property tax book in the Spring of 2006. f / \ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6,2005 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 21-22 TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2004-2005 CHANGES TO THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ACT OF 1998 WHEREAS, the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998, Va. Code §§ 58.1- 3523 et seq. ("PPTRA") has been substantially modified by the enactment of Chapter 1 of the Acts of Assembly, 2004 Special Session I (Senate Bill 5005), and the provisions of Item 503 of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly (the 2005 revisions to the 2004-06 Appropriations Act, hereinafter citied as the "2005 Appropriations Act"); and WHEREAS, these legislative enactments require the County of Roanoke to take affirmative steps to implement these changes, and to provide for the computation and allocation of relief provided pursuant to the PPTRA as revised; and WHEREAS, these legislative enactments provide for the appropriation to the County, commencing 2006, of a fixed sum to be used exclusively for the provisions of tax relief to owners of qualifying personal use vehicles that are subject to the personal property tax ("PPT") on such vehicles, and provide the opportunity for the County to fashion a program of tax relief that serves the best interests of its citizenry; and WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2005, and the second reading and public hearing were held on December 20, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 21, Article II of the Roanoke County Code be, and hereby is, amended to add Section 21-22, which shall read and provide as follows: 1 ,..---- - , f'- Section 21-22. (a) Purpose; Definitions; Relation to other Ordinances. (1) The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the implementation of the changes to PPTRA affected by legislation adopted during the 2004 Special Session I and the 2005 Regular Session of the General Assembly of Virginia. (2) Terms used in this ordinance that have defined meanings set forth in PPTRA shall have the same meanings as set forth in Va. Code § 58.1-3523, as amended. (3) To the extent that the provisions of this ordinance conflict with any prior ordinance or provision of the County Code, this ordinance shall control. (b) Method of Computing and Reflecting Tax Relief. (1) For tax years commencing in 2006, the County adopts the provisions of Item 503.E of the 2005 Appropriations Act, providing for the computation of tax relief as a specific dollar amount to be offset against the total taxes that would otherwise be due but for PPTRA and the reporting of such specific dollar relief on the tax bill. (2) The Board shall, by resolution or by order, set the percentage of tax relief at such a level that it is anticipated fully to exhaust PPTRA relief funds provided to the County by the Commonwealth. (3) Personal property tax bills shall set forth on their face the specific dollar amount of relief credited with respect to each qualifying vehicle, together with an explanation of the general manner in which relief is allocated. (c) Allocation of relief among taxpayers. 2 · . (1) Allocation of PPTRA relief shall be provided in accordance with the general provisions of this section, as implemented by the specific provisions of the County's annual resolution relating to PPTRA relief. (2) Relief shall be allocated in such a manner as to eliminate personal property taxation of each qualifying vehicle with an assessed value of $1,000 or less. (3) Relief with respect to qualifying vehicles with assessed values of more than $1,000 shall be provided at a percentage, annually fixed by County resolution and applied to the first $20,000 in value of each such qualifying vehicle that is estimated fully to use all available state PPTRA relief. The rate shall be established annually by County resolution. (d) Transitional provisions. (1) Pursuant to authority conferred in Item 503.D of the 2005 Appropriations Act, the County Treasurer is authorized to issue a supplemental personal property tax bill, in the amount of 100 percent of tax due without regard to any former entitlement to state PPTRA relief, plus applicable penalties and interest, to any taxpayer whose taxes with respect to a qualifying vehicle for tax year 2005 or any prior tax year remain unpaid on September 1, 2006, or such date as state funds for reimbursement of the state share of such bill have become unavailable, whichever earlier occurs. (2) Penalty and interest with respect to bills issued pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be computed on the entire amount of tax owed. Interest shall be computed at the rate provided in § 21-18 of the County Code from the original due date of the tax. 3 r- r -- ( 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after January 1, 2006, and it shall become effective for the 2006 personal property tax year and all subsequent tax years. 4 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ç: - Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON DECEMBER 6, 2005 MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance to exempt the property owned by Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc., from property tax, said real property assessed at $712,100 being 2.60 acres at 3640 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: §58.1-3651 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, grants county governments the authority to exempt property owned by nonprofit organizations when such property is used for charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes. The Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. is requesting that it be exempt from property tax. The organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to §501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code and has provided all information required by state law to the Commissioner of the Revenue. The Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. will agree to execute an agreement with the County for payment of a 20% service fee in lieu of taxation. FISCAL IMPACT: Tax exempt status will result in loss of taxable revenue of the value of the land and any structures in the amount of $3,130.40. This will be offset in part by the 20% service fee. ALTERNATIVES: After the public hearing, the Board may decide to grant this exemption by approval of the attached ordinance; or the Board may decide to refuse to grant the exemption. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of ordinance. F-~ 2 \~~- "') ,. <".....," AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6,2005 ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ROANOKE COUNCIL OF GARDEN CLUBS, INC., FROM PROPERTY TAX, SAID REAL PROPERTY, ASSESSED AT $712,100.00, BEING 2.60 ACRES AT 3640 COLONIAL AVENUE IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, The Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc., ("Petitioner") has petitioned this Board for tax exemption for certain of its property from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code §58.1-3651 (A) sets forth the process and procedure by which a locality may designate property as tax exempt; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code §58.1-3651(B) establishes certain requirements for notifying the public of a hearing regarding the proposed adoption of an ordinance exempting property and sets forth questions to be considered by the local governing body before adopting such an ordinance.; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2005, and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on December 20, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, after due notice and public hearing has considered the questions set forth in Virginia Code §58.1-3651 (B) and, upon consideration of those questions, has determined that the application for the proposed exemption from taxation should be granted; now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: F-\ -c::Ji... 1. That, in accordance with Section 58.1-3651 (A) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board grants an exemption from taxation under Article X, Section 6 (a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia of property owned and used by the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. for charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes. This ordinance is adopted by the Board after holding a public hearing with respect hereto as to which public notice was given and at which citizens had an opportunity to be heard. In adopting this ordinance, the Board has examined and considered the provisions of §58.1-3651(B) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The total assessed value of the real property owned by the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. is $712,100.00 and the property tax is $3,130.40 per year. The Tax Parcel No. of the property is 77.18-3-15 and said parcel is located at 3640 Colonial Avenue, Roanoke County, Virginia, 24018. 2. That pursuant to §58.1-3605, the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. shall file triennially an application with the County's assessing officer as a requirement for retention of the exempt status of the property. Such application shall show the ownership and usage of such property and shall be filed within the next sixty days preceding the tax year for which such exemption, or the retention thereof, is sought. 3. That the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. has agreed to enter into a Service Agreement with Roanoke County providing for the payment of an annual service fee in the amount of 20% of the County's real estate levies, were the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. not exempt from local taxation, for so long as Petitioner is exempted from state and local taxation. This service fee shall commence July 1, 2005, 2 f'- ¡- ".- and shall continue for succeeding years so long as Petitioner is exempted from state and local taxation. 4. That the property owned by the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. be, and is hereby designated as exempt from property taxes of the County based upon the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc.'s exclusive use of said property for charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes. 5. That the clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer for Roanoke County, and to Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. 6. That the continuance of this exemption shall be conditioned upon the continuous use of this property in accordance with the purpose for which this organization has been designated; and, 7. That the effective date of this Ordinance is July 1, 2005. 3 ACTION NO. I= -3 ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: First reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of an easement to Verizon Virginia, Inc. on property owned by the Board of Supervisors to provide telephone service to the new Public Safety Center, Catawba Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Joseph B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Verizon Virginia, Inc., acting through its subcontractor, T.E.C., Inc., has requested a 15 foot wide utility easement for the placement of utility poles on the property of Roanoke County at the site of the County's new Public Safety Center. These poles are necessary to bring telephone service to the Public Safety Center for the operation of the County's E911 dispatch center; therefore, the easement is a necessary component of the construction and equipping of this facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the first reading of this ordinance to convey an interest in Roanoke County property to Verizon Virginia, Inc. in accordance with the provisions of the Roanoke County Charter. r-·/ t-- - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO VERIZON VIRGINA, INC. ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP #036.16-01-11.1) TO PROVIDE TELEPHONE SERVICE TO THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Roanoke County is constructing a new Public Safety Center on Cove Road and requires telephone service to this building; and, WHEREAS, Verizon Virginia Inc. (Verizon) requires a 15' right of way and easement for placement of utility poles along Cove Road through the Roanoke County property, designated on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map #036.16-01-11.1 and located at 5925 Cove Road in the Catawba Magisterial District; and, WHEREAS, the proposed right of way will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens of the County of Roanoke. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1_ That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2005, and a second reading was held on December 20, 2005. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus, and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Verizon F-] Virginia, Inc. for the provision of telephone service, also designated as a communication system, in connection with Roanoke County's construction of the new Public Safety Center at 5925 Cove Road in the Catawba Magisterial District. 3. That donation to Verizon Virginia Inc. of an easement and right-of-way for placement of utility poles and related equipment, within the "15' VERIZON EASEMENT" on the County's property (Tax Map #036.16-01-11.1) extending along Cove Road in the Catawba Magisterial District as shown on Verizon Drawing No. PAOHBCC-88573-R, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the County Administrator, or Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 2 '" - .... - ,/ J -~< Exhibit" A" L..D VI: IZD, 2/ ~\II?J -Orlll(; ~\Ii pl ;~ Pl( ~ - - -- 0 - - - - - - «- - 0 --0 - - -= 0 .:::: - - - - - - - - - - : = Ù.E.A)OTES iSí vEê.1z.ÐN E:A5f'KAëlif ~ f'flJI ~ ~ Çj ~ I ~ ~ AJe; TO scAl..& SITE PLAN REFERENCE: VERIZON VIRGINIA INC. RIGHT-OF-WAY EXHIBIT "A" OWNER: Roanoke County P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Va. 24018 COUNTY Roanoke TAX MAP NO. -..-P.--.- DENOTES P AND/OR PROW - - - - LIMITS OF EASEMENT MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT CONTACT TEL. NO,: (540) 772-2004 Hollins EA: D, Michael Davis GRANTOR: SH E-W N-S PHONE NO.: (540) 5624600 Joseph B. Obenshain Senior Asst. Co. Atty. NVSM PG.-L OF ..L CENTRAL OFFICE: 4A14108 Cove Road GRANTOR: FILE NO. P AOH BCC-88573-R .5H€Cí 4- of 4- ACTION NO. ITEM NUMBER F - L\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 First reading of an ordinance authorizing the acceptance of a donation of an easement from Occidental Development, LLC, for construction of a drainage easement at Sunscape Apartments, Cave Spring Magisterial District AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Joseph B. Obenshain Senior Assistant County Attorney COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Department of Community Development has undertaken a project to improve the storm water drainage situation in the area of the Georgetown Park subdivision off Colonial Avenue in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. In the development of the engineering plans for the storm water drainage improvement in the Georgetown Park subdivision, County engineers determined that provisions were required for collecting such drainage from a portion of the property of Sunscape Apartments. After lengthy negotiations with County staff, Occidental Development, LLC, the owner of Sunscape Apartments adjacent to homes in the Georgetown Park subdivision, has agreed to donate a small triangle of land for this easement. This variable width drainage easement of slightly less than 3,000 square feet will permit the construction of a concrete channel in the location of an existing natural drainage channel. Staff has been involved with the design of this easement and recommends acceptance of the donation as outlined in the attached ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: None F--L{ ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the attached ordinance authorizing the acquisition and acceptance of a donation of a storm water drainage easement from Occidental Development LLC. 2. Do not approve the acceptance of this easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the first reading of this ordinance and schedule the second reading of the ordinance for December 20, 2005. .' ;-. I t---'{-4 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6,2005 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION OF AN EASEMENT FROM OCCIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT SUNSCAPE APARTMENTS, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Department of Community Development has plans for the improvement of the storm water drainage situation in the area of Georgetown Park subdivision in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of the County; and, WHEREAS, successful completion of this project requires the acquisition of a variable width drainage easement and construction of a concrete channel on a small area of approximately 3,000 square feet on the property currently occupied by the premises of Sunscape Apartments; and, WHEREAS, Occidental Development, LLC, owner of Sunscape Apartments, has offered to donate the area required for this variable width drainage easement to the County and the Department of Community Development has recommended acceptance of the property; and, WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2005, and the second reading was held on December 20, 2005. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to accept the donation of an easement for drainage of approximately 3,000 square feet, designated and shown as "PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT" upon the "PLAT SHOWING .. F .t .-.- ~-i DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEIGN CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY OCCIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC," and being a part of that parcel of real estate, located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, Roanoke County, previously conveyed by deed (Roanoke County Tax Map Parcel # 77.11-091-55.00) recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County in Deed Book 1296, page 37, a copy of which plat is attached hereto as Exhibit A, from Occidental Development, LLC. 2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition and acceptance of this property, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. 2 , ~ EXHIBIT A NOTE: METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION SHOWN ON lHlS PLAT REPRESENT A COMPOSITE OF' DEEDS. PLATS. AND CALCULATED INF'ORMA TlON AND DO NOT REfLECT AN ACCURATE BOUNDARY SURVEY. , . t' ¡Q 0... ~(:) la..o... Q ~~ :::!; ~a:i 9::Q P:: ~~ / / / / / ~' / ~y" / /Ç:J~/ / ~/ ø / ~/ TAX # 77.11-01-55.00 PROPERTY OF OCCIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT LLC TRACT 1A D.e.1296 PG.37 24.35 Ac. / / / PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT PROPOSED CONCRETE CHANNEL (IN SAME LOCATION AS EXISTING NATURAL CHANNEL). TAX I 7Z10-0J-1Z00 PROPERTY OF LOT 12 BLK. 7 SEC. 2 D.B. 878 PG. 494 0.259 Ac. [J .... " . h....~.. ./ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TAX I 77.10-0J-18.00 PROPERTY OF EUGENE W. ct BARBARA D. CATON LOT 12 BLK. 8 SEC. 2 D.B.1147 PG.624 0.244 Ac. PROPOSED VARIABLE WIDTH DRAlNAGE EASEMENT (AREA= 295D.18 S.F. 0.0677 Ac.) '.. !:y q- ~ ..".~ '...... .. " DRAINAGE EASEMENT , "", ....,..{ PT. BEARING 1- 2 574'34'30"( 2-3 501'53'37"E 3-1 553'34'OO"E DI5TANC 116.29' 53.15' 141.52' PLAT SHOWING DRAINAGE EASEMENT BEING CONVEYED TO ROANOKE COUNTY BY OCCIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT LLC AREA= 2950.18 S.F. 0.0677 Ac. EXHIBIT A PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION NO. I::l.J-5 ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge ~ff County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Disability Services Board The three-year term of Debbie Pitts, County appointee, will expire on December 31, 2005. 2. Grievance Panel The three-year term of King Harvey, alternate member, is vacant due to Mr. Harvey's recent appointment as a full member of the Grievance Panel. This term will expire on October 28, 2006. Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources, advises that Mr. Jim Garlow has been contacted and has agreed to fill the unexpired portion of Mr. Harvey's term. 3. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) The four-year term of Martha Hooker, Catawba District, will expire on December 31, 2005. Ms. Hooker has advised that she is willing to serve an additional term, and Supervisor Church has requested that confirmation of this appointment be placed on the consent agenda for confirmation. 1 \-\ \ ,.. I --'::J , 4. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority The four-year terms of Suzie Snyder and Keith Tensen will expire on December 31, 2005. Both representatives have indicated that they are willing to serve an additional term, and confirmation of these appointments has been placed on the consent agenda. 5. Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority The four-year terms of Michael A. Wray, elected representative; Joseph P. McNamara, alternate elected representative; John M. Chambliss, administrative official; and Diane D. Hyatt, alternate administrative official, will expire on December 31,2005. 2 II-5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005 RESOLUTION 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 December 6, 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 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - November 13 and November 15, 2005 2. Request from the schools to appropriate mentor teacher program allocation in the amount of $11,460.72 3. Acceptance and appropriation of a grant in the amount of $130,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to prepare Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) 4. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $233,199 from two Department of Criminal Justice Services grants 5. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 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. 1 ACTION NO. I-~ ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 Request from the schools to appropriate mentor teacher program allocations in the amount of $11 ,460.72 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Dr. Carol Whitaker Associate Director of Personnel Elmer C. Hodge ell County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Division of Teacher Education and Licensure, Department of Education, has officially forwarded a request for mentor teacher program allocations to Roanoke County Schools. These funds are used to support teacher induction programs for new teachers to Roanoke County Schools. The allocation is in the amount of $11 ,460.72 FISCAL IMPACT: The allocation requires a 50% local match in the amount of $5,730.36. Funds are available in the instructional budget for this purpose. ALTERNATIVES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appropriation of the mentor teacher program allocations in the amount of $11,460.72 to the personnel budget. ACTION NO. T-3 ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance and appropriation of a grant in the amount of $130,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to prepare Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) SUBMITTED BY: George W. Simpson, III, P.E. Assistant Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ëll County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County has become one of four localities in the State of Virginia to become a Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) with FEMA in an attempt to improve floodplain management and flood hazard mitigation. Objectives of the CTP Program are to: 1. Give recognition to communities that are actively working to identify and map their flood risks. 2. Maximize limited funding by combining resources and aligning local, state, and regional goals with FEMA's national objectives. 3. Maintain national standards consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. We have offered to utilize our base mapping and to administer the contract to utilize FEMA funds to obtain Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) for Roanoke County which will also include Roanoke City, Salem, and the Town of Vinton. The DFIRMS will replace the current paper copies of the official flood plain maps making determinations easier and more accurate and will allow the flood plain data to be utilized in the GIS for better planning and floodplain management. 1 - , ......,:...- ¡ ,.. ~) ::> FISCAL IMPACT: No appropriation of funds is required. The $130,000 grant will be in addition to $80,000 received and approved by the Board at their March 22, 2005 meeting, bringing the total grant amount to $210,000. Our contribution to the project will be the utilization of our base mapping and staff time to administer the contract to prepare the digital floodplain maps. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and appropriation of a $130,000 grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to complete the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Roanoke County. 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. T-L\ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6,2005 AGENDA ITEM: Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $233,199 from two Department of Criminal Justice Services grants SUBMITTED BY: James R. Lavinder Chief of Police APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following two grants from the Department of Criminal Justice Services have been awarded to the Roanoke County Police Department: . Grant in the amount of $201 ,543 that will allow the Police Department to participate in the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. This program assists law enforcement agencies in developing capabilities for detecting, deterring, disrupting and preventing acts of terrorism. There is no fiscal impact and no matching funds are required for this grant. The grant expires December 31, 2006. . Grant in the amount of $31,656 to be used for the continuation of the Hidden Valley High School Resource Officer program. This is a continuation grant from the previous year. This grant requires matching funds in the amount of $1 0,552, which are available in the Police Department budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance and appropriation of two Department of Criminal Justice Services grants totaling $233,199 to the Police Department budget, as detailed above. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. T-5 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6,2005 Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board Elmer C. Hodge ê /1 County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) The four-year term of Martha Hooker, Catawba District, will expire on December 31, 2005. Ms. Hooker has advised that she is willing to serve an additional term, and Supervisor Church has requested that confirmation of this appointment be placed on the consent agenda for confirmation. 2. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority The four-year terms of Suzie Snyder and Keith Tensen will expire on December 31, 2005. Both representatives have indicated that they are willing to serve an additional term, and confirmation of these appointments has been placed on the consent agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the above confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority be confirmed. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. T- \ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 Request to schedule a work session on December 20,2005, to discuss the County of Roanoke secondary roads system six- year improvement plan for fiscal years 2006-2012 and review of the revenue sharing program for fiscal year 2006-2007 AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Anthony Ford, P.E. Transportation Engineering Manager Elmer C. Hodge t fr County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The work session will be an opportunity for County and VDOT staff to review the changes, additions, and deletions made to this year's secondary roads system six-year improvement plan, revenue sharing program, and rural addition priority list. Staff will present the anticipated funding allocations for the next six years for specific projects in the plan and introduce projects added to the revenue sharing program, for which the County will be responsible for 50% of the funding. A draft of the secondary roads system six-year improvement plan for fiscal years 2006- 2012 and revenue sharing program for fiscal year 2006-2007 will available for your review. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts to County funds are involved at this time. - '"\ --- .J STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors schedule a work session to be held on December 20,2005, to discuss the secondary roads system six-year improvement plan for fiscal years 2006-2012 and the revenue sharing program for fiscal year 2006-2007. 2 N-I GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA % of General Amount Fund Revenues Prior Report Balance $11,808,285 7.57% Addition from 2004-05 Operations 1,103,457 Audited Balance at June 30, 2005 12,911,742 Unallocated revenue 2005-2006 350,000 Balance~December6 2005 13,261,742 8.50% Note: On December 21, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to maintain the General Fund Unappropriated Balance for 2005-06 at a range of 7.5%-8.5% of General Fund Revenues 2005 - 2006 General Fund Revenues $156,020,489 7.5% of General Fund Revenues $11,701,537 8.5% of General Fund Revenues $13,261,742 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Elmer C. Hodge ó/I County Administrator Approved By M-Q COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL RESERVES Minor County Capital Reserve (Projects not in the CIP, architectural/engineering services, and other one-time expenditures.) Amount Audited Balance at June 30, 2005 $5,318,848.06 Remaining funds from completed projects at June 30, 2005 346,794.94 Transfer from Department Savings 2004-2005 784,359.00 7/26/2005 Appropriation for construction of new school warehouse (117,000.00) 8/23/2005 Appropriation for vehicle and equipment for Animal Control (85,540.00) Officers approved in the Police Department 9/27/2005 Appropriation for renovations to Roanoke County Courthou~ (123,000.00) Balance at December 6, 2005 $6,124,462.00 $5,000,000 of this reserve is planned for radio purchases in the CIP Major County Capital Reserve (Projects in the CIP, debt payments to expedite projects identified in CIP, and land purchase opportunities.) Unaudited Balance at June 30, 2005 $1,416,838.00 7/1/2005 Capital Improvement Program funding for 2005-06 (Library) (1,416,838.00) Appropriation from 2004-05 Operations 679,628.00 Balance at December 6, 2005 $679,628.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge G/f County Administrator M-3 RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Amount From 2005-2006 Original Budget $100,000.00 August 9, 2005 Appropriation for Legislative Liaison ($15,000.00) September 13, 2005 Appropriation for donation to American Red Cross ($10,000.00) for assistance with Hurricane Katrina October 25, 2005 Appropriation for the purchase and installation of a ($1,800.00) neighborhood sign in the Delaney Court Community Balance at December 6, 2005 $73,200.00 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge ClI County Administrator M-Y FUTURE CAPITAL PROJECTS COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Unaudited Balance at June 30,2005 FY 2005-2006 Original budget appropriation Less increase in debt service Add Economic Development Dropoff FY 2005-2006 Annual Capital Contribution Cou nty Schools Balance at December 6, 2005 2,000,000 (3,424,615) 524,000 300,000 300,000 $ 6,242,387 (900,615) 600,000 $ 5,941,772 Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Approved By Elmer C. Hodge en County Administrator ACTION NO. M-~ ITEM NO. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Jail study costs report SUBMITTED BY: John M. Chambliss, Jr. Assistant County Administrator Elmer C. Hodge sf! County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The attached report marks the end of the costs for the present time that will be charged directly to Roanoke County for the jail project. As an overview, the cost of the two required studies which had to submitted to the Department of Corrections were shared by the four participating localities based on population. The appropriation of $85,922 on October 12, 2004 covered Roanoke County's share of these two studies and also the cost of the study of our existing jail to determine the upcoming improvements required to allow it to continue to serve the basic jail function for Roanoke County and Salem. Montgomery County and Franklin County will have to conduct similar studies for their facilities which will then be considered for each locality's respective capital budget. On January 11,2005, the Board appropriated $250,000 to be used to obtain an option to purchase the proposed jail site and the required studies related to the acquisition of the land and the suitability of the property. These costs were to be shared by the participants based on the projected share of the new facility or to be reimbursed by the Authority when interim financing was obtained. The $10 million interim financing has been obtained and the reimbursements to Roanoke County have been completed. There was also a feasibility study for Roanoke County paid from this appropriation to consider placing the new jail at the existing jail site. The cost of this study was not to be shared by the other jurisdictions. (, ,if r- . >J 1-. E..") , ...._~, The project remains on schedule. The architectural and engineering (AlE) contract has been awarded to Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern (HSMM), and we are including numerous "green" elements in the design of the facility to make the project energy efficient and environmentally friendly. The state share of the capital cost has been referred to the state for inclusion in the upcoming budget, and we anticipate bringing the zoning and special use items to be heard by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in February, 2006. Value engineering is scheduled for December, 2005. Once we have completed the value engineering review, we can report a better schedule for the remainder of the design, bidding, and projected construction activity. We still anticipate opening the facility in approximately September, 2008. Staff will provide periodic updates for this project to keep you apprised of our progress. o z E :ê ~ ~ o 0 c.N Q) CD a: (¡¡ I/) .c _ EN I/) OJ Õ o 0 (,) ~ c¡¡ OJ >- OJ '" 'C ..... Q. :J ('( _ 0 en ~ i5 CIS OJ ""'):::2: >'0 "tJ ~ ~þ~ ëõ ~"g :s a.. 0 ..c: .c C¡¡-'"5E ID ~ <I: ëi) (3.õ c:: ~ ~ c¡¡1 o ~ --,'" Q5c55 J:: Õ :-, ë ::;¡ o ü ~I c¡¡ '" .>:J:: 000 e: '" o c:: ro 001 ~8 1:5) ~ c¡¡ ë-g 81D I , e: '" ö: en e: o ~ ~m 8~ cna¡~ ~~æ UID:-, >,þ.o "Ce:"O ::J ::;¡ c¡¡ - E ~ IJ E~ =0C¡¡ ~üo: ~I v o o N Ñ ~ Q¡ .0 o 1:5 o CD Õ z 0> '" o ;;; <Ô N It) ~ a; It) v· ~ v '" C;; o. ::;: o o o o ~ Ñ v c¡¡ õ z 2 o Z CD 2 o z o o N v ,.: .... o o có co It) Ñ v o It) o It) o a; o '" v It) cô l[) N co o o o o o ci N o v o '" g C;; v v cõ 0; N co o o o o o ci N ~ o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 v It) co ci N 0> ~ .& o Z ::;: e::::!; .!1!oo Q.J: E :-, ",.0 ~"O OJc¡¡ e ~ Q. '" a. :: c¡¡ '" ~ -,Q. en e: ~ 'ë e: o u :!2. ]j g'þ ~ § .~ 8 ~ õ~~ >-g>, -g ro ..0 OO&-ð- w ~ ::;¡ ~.2ëi5 0> '" N N 0> M o ~J , _/ o :;cñ oo!!! 0"0 N::;¡ Ñ1i.i ~ c¡¡ ~ en c¡¡ c¡¡ ,OJ:: 0- 1:50 o~ "0'" C¡¡J:: 16(/) "cþ o.e: e ::;¡ 0.0 o.ü '" c¡¡ N.>: NO O>e: lÒ~ ~c:: c¡¡ = õ en 00 o u c¡¡ = õ ~~ '" :-, J::"O en ::;¡ .: C/) c¡¡w =~ O~ - e: en '" .!!! ö: g E E ~ ¡:: OJ ~ e OQ. ~ - ëi) ëij J:: -, :;;c¡¡ c¡¡= 16"0 .~ c: a.'" e e: a.'" ¡ij-Ö: c¡¡ en > g ~~ en ~ c¡¡ ~ ~8 U"O o c¡¡ -;:en ::;¡ '" olD ~~ J::e: - ::;¡ õE J::E u 0 ¡j3Ü c¡¡ Õ z (; "0 ~>-Q) ~~~ 0.<::.0 ..J :; E l <("ã) Õ 0:: ~ TI Q) o ~ --' ro ~.<:: Q)OO .<:: Õ Þ c: :J <3 ~ Q) ro .><.<:: 000 c: ro o 0:: ro ûí - 0 ~ü ÜI ro Q) ~"O c: :J <3 CD I ~ N Õ N Q) 0> ro c.. II) c: .2 ë. o 'tI C ." oJ "0 C ." II) CI> :c :I iñ .! iñ '¡;¡ .... L{') o o N ~ ~ ~ ro :J c: ro ...., ..,. ..,. .æ Q) o Õ zz 00 00 00 00 00 óó ~N 00 00 00 00 00 óó ~N 00 00 00 00 00 óó ~N ~U') 000 E~ ro . .<:: Q) - c: o :J ~~ 0> ,- 0>"0 Ï'¡¡; c: c. o c: c .Q o II) :;: 55 c.x ~LU .~ 5 e>:.¡:; '¡:: a. 00 ..,. .æ o z <0 ~ -i o ex> ó ~ <0 ~ -i o ex> ó ~ o o (") N N C'Î ~ 2 iJ.j E ro .<:: Ë c: ï5, 0> Ï Õ >- "0 :J U5 ro "E Q) E c: e .:;: c: LU ..,. .æ o z o o Lei N (J) Ñ o o Lei N (J) Ñ o o Lei N (J) Ñ II) Q) u '1: Q) 00 ro 0> Q) --' co .æ o z "''''''' .æ Q) Q) o Õ Õ zzz o o o o o aj ..,. o o o o o aj ..,. o o o o o aj ..,. Q) (/ :J ~ :J :2 o~ - >- Q)C: "" 0 00- ;: ~ ro u ....Þ g'c: .- :J ûí 0 'xü LU Q) -.>< o 0 >-c: "0 ro :J 0 -0:: oo~ (/ f¡ (/ '1: Q) ~.~ "* ~ Q) 0 ,~~~ ~~g <C § ro ]!<3~ u _ ffi-g:õ .5 0 Q) LL.CDCI <0 ~ 0; N "" C'Î ..,. Q) = O~~_-E û)c,o.....o::) 8 "ê .E ~8 ~æ~~~ -::o2êg Q) ..... (J) 0 C'O > C(ij Q.o 8:8.~~0:: .88"É~.8 g'Q)~=-g := £; "6 .~ ~ <1J ..... Q) >. :J ~.8C9-g~ II) ~ ~ èñ "ã) 88ro~~ N ã);:0 ... ~ L....Q (J) ~-"'O(ñ Q) ~L...cro= ~~roQ)~ ~8:ê~0 c: (/) .s=. - ~.9Q)=~ ~~=2:æ _mo(/)Q. ro "0 ==- 8 :¡;¡ ~æ~~~ o=rol-c. .~ ~ ~ . Q5 ~E~~= c.Q)"EQ)0 :J(ija>gQ) ~~~a.;' .gÞ~ goO L...C:(J):;:"'O ~ð~~~ CDüro'ã.~ þQ)- c.(/ c~55roQ) ÕgEQ).o üroc:=~ Q)&.goE ~ C)i:~$ æ:§l.Uo~ o (/) Q) 0 u Q: .~ = ~ ~ ~Q)oê6ro -;::~~~ .c00>'I- 2~~æ~ ro(/ -"OO '§'~iæ~ e;:::ü5<ñI-'þ §: 0 E:ß . '¡: ro-ð'rou%'1? (J):J£e:J- ~U5 0 c.o~ :> .oc:ü g ~ '§,:8 Q) 'æ o :ë .2> ~ ~ ~ óïiiJ:o.: c:.<:: U')l'tIiQ)a.ro- ~~£ g-&~ o o o o o aj ..,. <0 ~ 0; N "". 0; o o cO ..,. ~ ..: (J) ûí o Ü c: ,2 ~ Ci c. <C "0 c: ro (/ Q) 'ë :J U5 Õ ûí o ü N Q) õ z II> o U 0> c: ï:: .¡¡; E ~ Õ "E Q) E Q) ~ :J .0 E 'ã) 0:: 2' ïii :ª- 0> ,5 ûí 'x Q) Q) = õ >- "0 :J ûí Q) = ~ .8 ã. f¡ >< ~ ;¡¿ a) ex> u (")ro .~ 0.. C'\I .5 Q) (/ 0>'- ro 0> c.. .5 c: u o æ "oc: Q)<O= Æ1E $ .~ 8~ "0'<:: Q)- ~ c: ro Q) -t¡~ Q)>- £:~ õ~ 5'5 t~ 8.= ÞE § e 0- ü 0 Q) (/ g~ ~ ~ 0::.2 c.; 2 o z Þ 'g .<:: :; <C Q) = >- .0 >- "E :J o Ü Q) = .Q "0 .¡¡; C. ~ c: Q) Q) .0 Q) > ro .<:: (/ ûí o Ü 't 2 o z Þ 'g .<:: :; <C Q) = >- .0 >- 13 ~ 'ë "0 .¡¡; C. 0> c: 'ã) .0 Q) æ (/ ûí o ü ,¡; Q) õ z i. /1" r~~ .~ :>. "E :J o Ü Q) .>< o c: ro o 0:: 'õ ~ :ë ïii c: o c. (/ ~ .!!! ûí o u ro Õ I- .9 ~ ûí '2 'E "0 <C >- "E :J o ü "E ro ûí ïii ~ N <JÎ ,!!! :is E ro .<:: Ü c: .<:: o ...., u; 8 -g æ .<:: (/ ro Õ Z ~ "0 ~ ï~ .0 :J 00 '" o co o N <Ö Q) õ z !!J II) o Ü >- '0 .a en ï. ..... ë. a:: '0 ED ACTION NO. N-=-l p ITEM NO, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Roanoke County Erosion and Sediment Control Program review SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey Director of Community Development Elmer C. Hodge ~ (I cr.Pr County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: February 8, 2005, a memo was submitted to the Board of Supervisors advising of the October 2004 review of Roanoke County's Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S) Program by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). That review consisted of a personal interview between the Department and the local program administrator, a review of the local ordinance, inspection of regulated activities, and a review of enforcement activities. Programs receiving a score of 70 points or greater, in each of the four areas of review, meet the minimum standards of effectiveness in controlling erosion and sediment and are consistent with the law and regulations. Since the DCR started program reviews, Roanoke County's program has been reviewed four times. The last review was in November 1997 and at that time, the DCR commented that Roanoke County's E&S program was being implemented in a very effective manner. All components of our program were rated at or above the "consistent" level. If you will recall, our October 2004 review was the toughest review process we have gone through. DCR has made significant changes to its review process. Today the system is much more thorough and detailed in the grading process. Of the four components reviewed, Review of Plans and Inspections received a score of less than 70. 1 f!.'!: ð " It --- / r I ,I ~ ;, On January 26, 2005, the Department of Community Development submitted to DCR Roanoke County's Corrective Action Agreement which addressed the corrective action taken by Roanoke County in both Plan Review and Inspections to achieve a score of 70 or higher. After another review by DCR on the implementation of Roanoke County Corrective Action Agreement on June 8, 2005, the staff of DCR recommended to the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board that the status of Roanoke County's Erosion and Sediment Control program be changed from provisionally consistent to consistent. On November 17, 2005, Joseph H. Maroon, Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation, notified Roanoke County that "The Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board commends Roanoke County for successfully improving the County's Erosion and Sediment Control Program to become fully consistent with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations, thereby providing better protection for Virginia's soil and water resources." Attached is a letter from Mr. Joseph H. Maroon, Director of Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2 I- W Tayloe Murphy, Jr Secrcl"ry of N"IUr.l1 Resou rees ~~~~~~~. ,!fi;r(;;.1 ''')h 'l" "~..'" !:', ~"i :, ii}¡~·:; ';i.t LtA;;7' ~ ¿;: \~\i.~~~P· Joseph H Maroon DircclOr COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 203 Gowrnor Slrccl. Suile 206 Richmond. Vir1,!inia 23219 Phone: (80-1.1786·206-1 Fax: (804) 786-1798 November 17,2005 Mr Arnold Covey Director of Engineering Department Roanoke County P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Re: Roanoke County's Erosion and Sediment Control Program Dear Mr Covey: In response to infonnation presented to the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board by the Department of Conservation and Recreation staff~ the Board approved the following motion: "The Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board commends Roanoke County for successfully improving the County's Erosion and Sediment Control Program to become fully consistent with the requirements of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law and Regulations, thereby providing better protection for Virginia's soil and water resources. " We congratulate Roanoke County on this substantial accomplishment and recognize the County's efforts to proactively protect Virginia's soil and water resources through implementation of effective erosion and sediment control. cc: Eric Capps Tim Ott State Parks · Soil aud Water COlISen'atio1/ · Natl/ral Heritage. Olltdoor Recreatioll Plallning Chesapeake Bay Local Assistallce · Dam Safety alld Floodplaill Management· Lalld COIneT'l'alioll ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 0- \ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to discuss the Real Estate Valuation Department assessment process SUBMITTED BY: William E. Driver Director of Real Estate Valuation Elmer C. Hodge tff County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Information regarding the Real Estate Valuation assessment process was provided during a briefing at this afternoon's Board meeting. This time has been set aside in the event the Board has additional questions regarding the Real Estate Valuation department's policies and procedures. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. o-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 Work session to discuss technology features of the public safety building project AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Dan O'Donnell Assistant County Administrator Elmer C. Hodge êlf County Administrator APPROVED BY: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff is pleased to report that progress on the construction of the public safety building continues to be on schedule and within budget. In the past, we have concentrated our reports to the Board on the physical construction of the building. Now we would like to take this opportunity to present information to the Board on two important technology pieces of the project. They are as follows: 1. Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD): The new CAD system has been successfully installed in the dispatch center in the current Public Safety Building on Peter's Creek Road. The "go live" date of November 1st was successfully achieved. We have invited Billy Fadorick and Maria Ward of our Information Technology department, who coordinated this implementation, to attend the Board meeting to explain the process they led in order to complete this phase of the project. The new CAD System will be relocated to the new Public Safety Building when the dispatch center moves in November I December of 2006. -\ -..\ . ) c.',J 2. Emergency Radio Transition Plan: Over the past several months, we have worked with Northrop-Grumman, Motorola, the City of Roanoke, and our public safety agencies to devise a radio relocation plan that is far better than the original concept. Originally the plan called for only one tower site to be used during the two week relocation timeframe in November 2006. This would have resulted in some radio coverage problems during the move. A revised plan has been devised that will expand the plan to use two of the tower sites, thus greatly improving the radio coverage during this transition period. Although there will be an increase in cost for the improved plan of approximately $83,000, the additional funds are available in the project budget due to the fact that we have used a Homeland Security grant approved by the Board last year to offset some of the cost of the CAD system. Furthermore, the added equipment will provide added redundancy in the system should components of the radio system fail after the relocation. Bill Hunter and Rodney Thompson of the Information Technology Department have been invited to attend the work session to describe how this plan has been improved and how the risk of communication problems during the radio move will be diminished. ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 0-1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: December 6, 2005 Work session to discuss fiscal year 2006-2007 budget development AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: Brent Robertson Director of Management and Budget APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge [If County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside to discuss items related to FY2005-2006 budget development. The following items will be reviewed in the work session: · Proposed budget development calendar · Contributions to community agencies · Update on CIP Review Committee County Of Roanoke FY 2006-2007 Budget Calendar 0-3 December, 2005 · Prepare/update preliminary revenue estimates for FY05-06 and FY06-07 · CIP Review Committee - Complete Projects Review · December 15 - Governor's budget released January, 2006 · Revenue team meets to discuss preliminary projections · Departments prepare FY06-07 budget requests · January 11 - General Assembly Session Begins February, 2006 · Departmental budget presentations to the County Administrator · February 14 - CIP Review Committee recommendations to Board of Supervisors March, 2006 · March 6 - Joint Meeting with School Board (School Board Meeting) · March 7 - Special Board Meeting: Budget work session · March 10 - General Assembly Session ends · March 14 - Public Hearings: Tax Rates and Assessments; General Comment on FY06-07 Budget · March 21 - Special Board Meeting: Contribution requests from community agencies · March 28 - Adoption of Tax Rates · March 28 - School Board submits budget to Board of Supervisors · March 28 - Contribution requests from community agencies April, 2006 · April 1 - State code: School Board submits budget to Board of Supervisors · April 11 - County Administrator presents proposed budget to Board of Supervisors · April 25 - Board of Supervisors adopts School budget · April 25 - Public Hearing: Proposed FY2006-2007 budget May, 2006 · May 1 - State code: Board of Supervisors adoption of School budget · May 9 - First reading of appropriation ordinance · May 23 - Board adopts FY2006-07 Budget and FY2007-2011 CIP · May 23 - Second reading of appropriation ordinance County of Roanoke Contributions to Local Agencies The County of Roanoke considers funding requests from local non-profit organizations that offer services to the citizens of the Roanoke Valley. Each December, the Budget Office notifies local agencies previously requesting County funds on the application process and deadline for the upcoming budget year. The following information is required at the time of application: · Agency Name · Agency Contact (Executive Director, President, or Financial Officer) · Contact Information (Address, phone/fax number, and email address) · Agency Mission · Program Description · Copy of the most recent agency financial audit · Specific Request Amount Agencies seeking contributions from the County also have the opportunity to make presentations to the Board of Supervisors at a spring budget work session. Several organizations in the Roanoke Valley have developed and adopted additional application requirements for community agencies making funding requests. In October, a memo was forwarded to the Board outlining these requirements as follows: 1. Organizations must develop a business plan that includes evidence of community involvement and an outline of long term plans for financial sustainability. 2. Boards of organizations must demonstrate engagement with their organization by certifying both financial commitment (100%) and annual average attendance (75%). 3. Organizations must agree to an annual site visit and semi-annual reporting of results achieved through funds received. 4. An annual audit of the organization's finances must be provided by any organization which has been in operation for two years or longer with an annual budget of $50,000 or more. During the work session, the requirements for agencies to request County funds during the upcoming budget process will be discussed and finalized. Q AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6,2005 RESOLUTION 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.