Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/2006 - Regular June 27, 2006 511 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 June 27, 2006 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June, 2006. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wray called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael A. Wray, Vice-Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Richard C. Flora MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend Diane Scribner-Clevenger, Unity Church of the Valley. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. June 27, 2006 512 IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Supervisor Wray requested the addition of the following items: (1) Item B.1, Briefing from the Fire and Rescue Department regarding weather conditions; and (2) Item B.2, Introduction of Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning. There was a consensus of the Board to add these items. Mr. Mahoney requested the addition of a closed meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1) discussion regarding the performance or retirement of specific public officers; and Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the award of a public contract where discussion of the terms or scope of the contract in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position of the County. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing regarding weather conditions. (Joey Stump, Division Chief – Administration, Fire and Rescue Department) Division Chief Joey Stump reported that staff has been monitoring the weather for the past few days and staying in contact with the National Weather Service (NWS). He advised that a conference call was held at 1:30 p.m. today with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management and the NWS. He stated that no significant damage has been reported in Roanoke County despite the fact that numerous roads have been closed. He noted that damage from the Roanoke River has not been significant; however, there has been some damage due to runoff from mountains and June 27, 2006 513 small streams. He stated that it is anticipated that this last band of weather passing through the County will be the end of the bad weather for our area. He indicated that once all roads are accessible, staff will conduct an assessment to determine the level of damage that might have been sustained. Supervisor Church advised that the Roanoke River is over the banks on Riverside Drive in West Roanoke County. He indicated that he recently heard a broadcast from Blacksburg that one to three more inches of rain is expected. He questioned if this information was included in the last report Roanoke County received from the NWS. Division Chief Stump responded in the affirmative and stated that the band of weather moving through the area now projects one to three inches of rain and it is expected to move through Roanoke County by 5:00 p.m. Supervisor Church noted that conditions are difficult in West County due to construction on Mill Lane Bridge, which was already closed, and he advised that the construction crews were washed out. He stated that this area had to be evacuated due to water covering the bridge which in turn forced residents in these areas to locate detour routes. Division Chief Stump noted that there were also problems along West Main Street in Salem and that Roanoke County Fire and Rescue staff has been prepared to run backup fire and rescue calls for the Wildwood area to assist the City of Salem during this period. He stated that as of this time, this assistance has not been required. He further advised that debris clogging runoff pipes and ditches is adding to the problems. June 27, 2006 514 Supervisor Church stated that he has heard that Exit 137 off I-81 is also closed. Division Chief Stump stated that the State Police blocked this exit to keep additional traffic from accessing Main Street and because there was water approaching the entrance and exit ramps in this area as a result of small stream flooding. Supervisor Wray stated that these are trying times and it is the Board’s duty to serve and protect citizens in these circumstances. He noted that long-range plans have been implemented for storm water management to address these types of situations. Supervisor Wray stated that the Board received an email from a constituent recently praising Butch Workman, Storm Water Operations Manger, and Jeff Altice, Storm Water Operations Supervisor, for their response to a clogged pipe that caused overflow. He advised that the constituent was very thankful for the prompt service provided by County staff. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Introduction of Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) Mr. Covey introduced Philip Thompson who was recently hired as the Deputy Director of Planning. June 27, 2006 515 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed amendment to the fiscal year 2005-2006 budget in accordance with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia. (Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance) Ms. Owens reported that this is a public hearing to secure citizen’s comments concerning amendments to the fiscal year 2005-2006 budget. She stated that Section 15.2-2507 of the Code of Virginia provides that whenever such amendments exceed 1% of the total expenditures in the adopted budget or $500,000, whichever is lesser, the County must publish notice of a meeting and public hearing. This notice was published on June 20, 2006 and the proposed amendments are as follows: (1) Request to appropriate $20,000 to the Town of Vinton for its Downtown Improvement District Grant Program for fiscal years 2005-2007; (2) Request to appropriate $800,023 to public assistance programs in the Department of Social Services; and (3) Request from the schools to accept and appropriate reimbursements, fees and scholarship funds totaling $3,813. Ms. Owens advised that it is recommended that the Board hold the required public hearing; while there is no fiscal impact as a result of the public hearing, Board action appropriating funds will occur later on this agenda. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. June 27, 2006 516 IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing regarding the Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program. (Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development) Mr. Chittum advised that in December 2005, staff requested that adjustments be made to the Commercial Corridor Matching Grant Program. At that time, the Board requested that staff develop initiatives to spread the word to businesses, review the program policies and procedures, and provide an update in six months of the outcome of these actions. He provided a brief overview of the origin of the program and stated that it was implemented in the Williamson Road/Hollins corridor in 1994 subsequent to a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) road widening project. The intent was to improve this gateway into the County and the $5,000 matching grant program was established. The grants are administered by the Economic Development Authority (EDA), formerly the Industrial Development Authority, and are designed to improve the aesthetic appearance of older, commercial properties in designated corridors. There were approximately 20 grants administered over a period of eight years, and the program was then expanded into the West Salem area as a result of the Route 11/460 road project. In 2004, it was expanded to the Town of Vinton to assist with their downtown renovation project and the grant amount was increased to $10,000. He advised that the program has worked well in Vinton. Mr. Chittum reported that following the Board’s request, staff prepared a brochure that was mailed to all property and business owners in the targeted districts. June 27, 2006 517 He noted that staff also contacted realtors, developers, and civic leaders in the targeted corridors. Ten inquiries were received and to date, one additional grant has been made in the Williamson Road/Hollins corridor and two have been made in Vinton. In summary, he advised that the program is a good tool to use in targeted corridors to assist older, commercial properties when the real estate values are struggling to keep pace with other areas where values are growing more rapidly. Mr. Chittum stated that no action is required by the Board and staff feels that they can continue to operate the program as it currently exists. Supervisor McNamara stated that the brochure provides an illustration of lighting, and he noted that the business used as an example is not in one of the targeted corridors mentioned. He questioned if the program has been expanded to Route 419. Mr. Chittum responded in the negative and stated that the brochure was designed to highlight eligible features; however no applications have been submitted to date for a grant in this category. He advised that staff felt that this was a good example of how lighting could be used, even though the business is not in one of the target corridors. Supervisor Wray inquired if there are any guidelines concerning the color of signs. Mr. Chittum responded in the affirmative and stated that color is addressed in the category of improving the overall aesthetics. He noted that the guidelines state that County staff reviews the improvements as part of the application process. This ensures that what is being proposed will improve and “fit in” with the neighborhood. He further June 27, 2006 518 noted that this is a reimbursement program and staff inspects the quality of the improvements before the grant is administered. Supervisor McNamara questioned if there has there been any discussion regarding why other areas of the County are not eligible, and he cited Brambleton Avenue as an example. Mr. Chittum stated that the corridors initially chosen were ones where real estate values were struggling to keep up with overall increases in the County. He indicated that Brambleton Avenue has older commercial buildings that might benefit from this program if the Board chooses to expand the program to other areas. He stated that the County inherently tries to provide assistance to those businesses most in need. Supervisor Altizer advised that this program was initiated in the Town of Vinton two years ago and five projects have been funded to date. He indicated that this has been a beneficial program for many of the older buildings that need to be renovated. He stated that anywhere there are businesses with older buildings it makes sense to make this program available to them. Supervisor Flora advised that he does not see a problem with expanding the program; however, the County should target areas in transition that are not maintaining their property values. He indicated that the amount of available funding is small and if this program is offered in areas where the property values are high, it is not worth the amount of time and red tape necessary to obtain the grant. He noted that property values on Brambleton Avenue are so high that he is not sure if property owners June 27, 2006 519 would take advantage of the grant program. He also stated that Oak Grove is an older commercial area that could use revitalization. He further noted that the Town of Vinton might be eligible for a community development block grant for a downtown revitalization project and receive federal funds for this project. He stated that downtown areas in particular benefit the most because they have the largest impact. He stated that the program will be more successful in areas where businesses are concentrated. Supervisor Wray noted that both Colonial Avenue and Brambleton Avenue have older businesses operating that could take advantage of this program. Supervisor McNamara stated that his concern with the program is that taxpayer funds are going to select businesses. He requested that objective criterion be established County-wide for this program. He stated that this could include requirements such as the building is over 50 years old or the property has received a lower than average appraisal increase over the last three years relative to commercial increases throughout the County. He stated that this would remove some of the subjective nature out of the process. Mr. Chittum advised that cities that have been utilizing this program for many years have criteria for application. He stated that possible criteria options include the following: that the building is over a specific number of years old; the building has been vacant for at least one year; or the assessment of the building is lower than 70% of the average assessment of commercial property in the locality. He indicated that the County can implement criteria with the goal being to keep the application process as simple as possible. Supervisor McNamara stated that this June 27, 2006 520 would be a good way to keep the program objective and yet still target the most disadvantaged areas of the County. Chairman Wray stated that he feels it is the consensus of the Board that this program should be established County-wide with criterion for applying. He requested that Mr. Chittum develop this criterion and report back to the Board. Mr. Chittum advised that staff will report back in three months with criterion and revised target areas. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to appropriate $20,000 to the Town of Vinton for its Downtown Improvement District Grant Program for fiscal years 2005- 2007. (Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development) A-062706-1 Mr. Chittum stated that in 2004, the County provided a matching grant to the Town of Vinton to assist with their downtown renovation project. To date, four projects have been completed. He advised that in 2004, the Board appropriated $10,000 in matching funds. No funds have been allocated for fiscal years 2005-2006 or 2006-2007. Mr. Chittum advised that the program has been successful in the Town of Vinton, and there is currently a balance remaining of $3,000 to $4,000. He stated that staff is working with additional grants at this time and noted that when the EDA administered the last grant, they recommended that the program be continued due to its success. He indicated that staff is requesting that the grant program be continued with June 27, 2006 521 the Town of Vinton and advised that no new funding is needed. There is a balance in the Community Development Department account for the overall program and staff is requesting that $20,000 be reallocated from the Community Development Department account to the Town of Vinton program. Supervisor Flora inquired if the $20,000 is all County funds or if it includes the $10,000 match from the Town of Vinton. Mr. Chittum advised that this is all County funds. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the staff recommendation (transfer $20,000 in existing funds from the Community Development account for the matching mini-grant program to the established account for the Vinton matching mini-grant program). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 2. Request to appropriate $800,023 to public assistance programs in the Department of Social Services. (Cathy G. Tomlin, Budget Manager) A-062706-2 Ms. Tomlin reported that this is a request to recognize and appropriate supplemental grants made available by the state in the amount of $800,023 for programs provided by the Department of Social Services during fiscal year 2005-2006. These funds will be used to reimburse the department for expenditures related to public June 27, 2006 522 assistance. At the beginning of the budget process, the State Department of Social Services identifies a base amount for each of the mandated programs administered by our local agency. Throughout the year, the federal or state amounts may be amended as funding becomes available or as the needs or requirements of the program change. Ms. Tomlin advised that frequently the program may be amended several times and rather than requesting numerous small changes throughout the budget year, staff has accumulated the requests at the end of the fiscal year. She stated that during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, additional approved expenditures included the following: (1) foster care programs - $300,000; (2) various daycare programs - $268,498; (3) special needs adoption program - $76,650; (4) auxiliary grants - $66,000; (5) other programs such as independent living, head start, and family preservation - $88,875. Ms. Tomlin indicated that this request to appropriate funds from the state to reimburse the Department of Social Services is consistent with prior year’s practices. She stated that during the last fiscal year, the Board recognized the receipt of $729,849 for the same purpose. Staff is recommending the appropriation of $800,023 to the 2005-2006 Social Services budget and the appropriation of the related revenues from the state. Supervisor Wray stated that we can all relate to a lot of these categories and he indicated that this is an area that requires attention to address these needs. June 27, 2006 523 Supervisor Wray moved to approve staff recommendation (appropriation of $800,023 to the 2005-2006 Social Services budget and appropriation of the same revenues from the state, to be distributed as outlined). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 3. Adoption of a resolution in support of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Primary Road Project, West Main Street (Route 11/460), Catawba Magisterial District. (Anthony Ford, Transportation Engineering Manager) R-062706-3 Mr. Ford advised that the West Main Street, Route 11/460 road project was placed in the VDOT Six-Year Improvement Plan in July 1997. He stated that the increase in traffic and the potential for additional growth along this corridor have necessitated the need for improving this road. He advised that the current daily traffic in 2006 is approximately 20,700 vehicles per day and the traffic count is expected to increase to 34,800 vehicles per day by the year 2031. He advised that the purpose of this project is to improve a 2.13 mile section of Route 11/460 from the Salem City/Roanoke County line to just past Technology Drive. Mr. Ford stated that as proposed, West Main Street will be built as a four-lane divided roadway with continuous 12 foot paved shoulders, curb and gutter, and a raised median. Consequently, the June 27, 2006 524 design will allow for better drainage control, dedicated right and left turns, easier access to adjoining properties, and emergency vehicle access. Additionally, the existing traffic signals at Alleghany Drive and Daugherty Drive will be replaced with new traffic signals. Mr. Ford reported that VDOT held a design public hearing on this project on May 10, 2006, at Glenvar High School. Over 90 people were in attendance and some of those in attendance provided comments to VDOT staff. Mr. Ford stated that some of the comments in opposition to the project were attributable to the raised median limiting left turn access into or out of particular sites. He indicated that VDOT has responded that raised medians provide benefits and advantages which far outweigh the perceived negative aspects of raised medians. Some of those benefits include the following: (1) a reduction in crash rates of up to 50% over similar roads with a continuous center turn lane; (2) enhancement of traffic flow and roadway capacity by removing turning movements from the main line and directing turning traffic to median crossings with dedicated turn lanes; (3) elimination of a considerable number of conflict points; (4) provides a pedestrian refuge area which reduces pedestrian involved crashes by 45% and pedestrian related fatalities by 78%, as compared to two-way left turn alternatives; (5) presents an opportunity for landscaping or streetscaping, thereby improving the aesthetics of the corridor; and (6) improves the efficiency of the roadway by reducing delays, decreasing stop and go traffic, improving fuel efficiency, and reducing emissions from vehicles. Mr. Ford indicated that VDOT stated that they have reviewed the concerns expressed at the public hearing, they feel that they have June 27, 2006 525 adequately addressed those concerns, and that the project, as submitted to the County, is the best possible design. The anticipated schedule for the project is to obtain approval from the VDOT Chief Engineer; begin right-of-way acquisition in late 2006; advertise to accept bids from contractors for construction in late 2010; and begin construction in spring 2011. Mr. Ford noted that Jeff Echols, VDOT Resident Engineer, was present at the meeting. Supervisor Church questioned if the approval of this agenda item would mean that this project will proceed with the raised median design, or will approval of this item just be an action to keep the project on track. Mr. Ford advised that the action being requested today will approve the project as presented at the design public hearing in May 2006, which includes the raised median. He stated that the resolution of support will be for the project with those design features. Supervisor Church stated that this project has been ongoing for over 20 years and he is aware of the citizen concerns about the raised median. He inquired if Mr. Ford had any data available regarding crash statistics for the east bound five lane roadway in Salem. He stated that he would like to see information that would show why this design would be safer. Mr. Ford stated that he does not have existing accident data for that section of the road; however, he did conduct literature reviews, evaluated surveys, VDOT data, and safety data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA). He stated that this data is all in agreement that raised medians with designated locations for left turns decrease accident rates by up to 50% over the alternative, which would be a center turn lane. Supervisor Church stated June 27, 2006 526 that he would like to see data for this particular section of roadway and noted that Mr. Echols may have this information. Supervisor Church stated that his business is within a half-mile of this location and he indicated that he does not recall many accidents. He stated that he wants to weigh the concerns voiced by the businesses due to the fact that customers may not frequent a location if there is no easy access. Supervisor Church inquired if the Board approves this action, will the project be a “done deal” as presented. Mr. Ford requested that Mr. Echols respond to the inquiry. Mr. Echols stated that as Mr. Ford had indicated, a public hearing was held and comments were received. He stated that the Board’s resolution would address comments from the Board regarding the plans, as presented. Eventually, the resolution would be part of the public information package to be reviewed by VDOT in determining the major design features which would include the median. He noted that details regarding access and drainage would be worked out over time; however, the major design features such as the median would be determined at the outset. He stated that he does not have traffic accident data available for the section of road in Salem. He reiterated that the action of the Board would be to include comments addressing the information that was presented at the design public hearing or any other comments that they wish to be considered. Supervisor Church questioned if this matter is approved today, is there still a possibility that the median design could be changed. Mr. Echols responded in the affirmative and stated that the best option is for the Board to address their comments June 27, 2006 527 through the resolution. Supervisor Church stated that he does not remember a single head-on collision in this area in all the years that he has operated a business in the area. He stated that he does not want us to create a negative situation for the residents in the area; however, he noted that the project is needed and requested that accident data be provided if it is available. Supervisor Wray advised that the Board has to consider the safety issues and if the statistics reflect that there is a safety hazard, this should be considered. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Echols for his efforts in addressing traffic safety concerns in the Cave Spring District. Supervisor Church stated that he needs to support this item and requested that Mr. Ford and Mr. Echols work to alleviate the citizens’ concerns without sacrificing safety. He requested that VDOT and County staff work with him and the citizens to design the corridor. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None RESOLUTION 062706-3 REQUESTING APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S PROJECT (0011-080-108, PE-101, RW-201, C-501) WEST MAIN STREET (ROUTE 11/460) WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a design public hearing on May 10, 2006 for the purpose of soliciting public comments on the proposed improvements to West Main Street (Route 11/460). June 27, 2006 528 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 West Main Street (Route 11/460) as outlined in the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Six-Year Improvement Plan. 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. Moved by: Supervisor Church Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray Nays: None IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first readings and set the second readings and public hearings for July 25, 2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 1. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for the construction of an accessory apartment on .387 acres located at 2923 Embassy Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Amina Al-Hindi, a/k/a Amina Al-Habashy. 2. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 17.24 acres from I1-C, Industrial District with conditions, to C2, General Commercial District, in order to construct a retail sales facility located at the 3900 block Challenger Avenue near the intersection of Valley Gateway June 27, 2006 529 Boulevard, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Kahn Development Company, Inc. 3. First reading of an ordinance to rezone .69 acres and .48 acres from R1, Low Density Residential, to C2, General Commercial District, in order to construct a retail sales facility located at 4065 Challenger Avenue and 4053 Challenger Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Valley Gateway, LLC. 4. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit with amended conditions for the operation of a used automobile dealership on .467 acres located at 6717 Williamson Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Daniel W. Doss. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance to repeal the existing Chapter 17 Procurement Code and enact a new Chapter 17 of the Roanoke County Code to incorporate the provisions and authority of the Virginia Public Procurement Act and establish the position and authority of the purchasing agent for Roanoke County. (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) Ms. Owens stated that at the work session on June 13, 2006, staff presented recommendations for changes to the County’s Procurement Code. Those recommendations consisted of repealing the existing Chapter 17 of the Roanoke June 27, 2006 530 County Code and enacting a new Chapter 17 to incorporate the provisions and authority of the Virginia Public Procurement Act. Staff also brought forward revisions to the procurement levels, as well as a recommendation to maintain the current State Code differences and exceptions. She stated that those items will be incorporated in a Procurement Policy Manual that will be presented at the July 11 meeting for approval by the Board. She advised that the Board had been provided with attachments regarding these three items which included: (1) Attachment 1 – new Chapter 17 of the County Code; (2) Attachment 2 – Recommended procurement levels; and (3) Attachment 3 – Differences/Exceptions. She indicated that these items were reviewed at the work session held on June 13 and there have been no changes since that time. Ms. Owens stated that staff recommends approval of the first reading of this ordinance to repeal the existing Chapter 17 Procurement Code and enact a new Chapter 17, as shown on Attachment 1, which defines the purpose, application, procurement authority, and provides that the Virginia Public Procurement Act Section 2.2-4300 Code of Virginia will serve as Code for the County of Roanoke except in those instances where alternative policies have been adopted by the Board. She advised that the second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for July 11, 2006, and at that time staff will also present for Board approval the Procurement Policy Manual to include VPPA Code of Virginia, procurement levels, and any exceptions. She indicated that Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney, and Don Karnes, Purchasing Manager, were present to assist in answering any questions. June 27, 2006 531 Supervisor Church questioned what this means in layman’s terms for the general public. Mr. Obenshain stated that this provides an opportunity to reduce some of the sections of the Code and noted that much of the Procurement Code was adopted in the 1980s. Since that time, the Code has been made available online and this action will bring the Code of Virginia into alignment with the Roanoke County Code to ensure that there are no discrepancies between them. Much of the repetitive language has been eliminated and references are now made to the Code of Virginia within the Roanoke County Code. He stated that the advantage of this approach is that when changes are made by the General Assembly to the State Code, the Roanoke County Code does not have to be amended in order to remain consistent with state law. Mr. Obenshain assured the Board and general public that staff in the Procurement Department is very competent and relies heavily on the Code. Supervisor Flora advised that he concurs with bringing the County’s Code into compliance with the state procurement regulations; however when you give people more authority and you are buying commodities with higher value and less competition, it requires more auditing and oversight to ensure that procedures are being followed. He stated that the County is increasing the limits for purchases so we need to ensure that purchases are monitored more frequently than in the past. Ms. Owens stated that in addition to the annual external audit, procedures are being developed to ensure that County staff is good stewards of the taxpayer funds. June 27, 2006 532 Supervisor Wray stated that people receive and process information so much more quickly now, and he stated that he shares Supervisor Flora’s concerns regarding the need to ensure that appropriate audits are conducted. Mr. Obenshain stated that the objective is to allow staff to focus on the important items and spend their time in the most efficient manner possible. Supervisor Wray concurred that we want to ensure that the process is operating efficiently and effectively. Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for July 11, 2006. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance approving a lease agreement for the Tinker Mountain tower site. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) O-062706-4 Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney, advised that this is the second reading of an ordinance to approve a lease agreement for the Tinker Mountain tower site, which is an important part of the County’s public safety radio system. He noted that there is a 5% increase in the rental for the lease over a period of the next four years. June 27, 2006 533 Supervisor Wray noted that this item was reviewed extensively at the first reading and he indicated that the increase in the rental fee is moderate. Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 062706-4 APPROVING A LEASE FOR THE TINKER MOUNTAIN TOWER SITE WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke rents a site located on Tinker Mountain in the County of Botetourt, Virginia, on property owned by Lee C. Hartman, Jr., for the purpose of maintaining towers, antennae, and equipment buildings for the operation of its public safety radio communications systems, said property being designated upon the Botetourt County Land Records as Tax Map No. 106-45; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke has leased this site for over a decade to provide E911 coverage to critical areas and to provide back-up capabilities for the public safety system; and WHEREAS, the most recent lease term has expired and staff has negotiated with the property owner for a new lease of this site; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County require that the acquisition of any interest in real estate, including the lease of real property, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 13, 2006 and the second reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the lease of a parcel of land from Lee C. Harman, Jr., consisting of 0.0363 acre, more or less, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, together with the non-exclusive right of ingress, egress and regress from Tinker Top Road (Frontage Road) over the existing gravel access and private driveway to the site, for an initial term effective as of July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2010, at an annual rental of Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500.00), with an increase of five (5%) each year in the annual rental rate, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the rent payment shall be paid from the E911 Maintenance Account. 3. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is authorized to execute this lease on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke June 27, 2006 534 County and to execute such other documents and take such further actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an ordinance amending Section 21-156. Tips and Service Charges of Chapter 21. Taxation. of the Roanoke County Code excluding gratuities or service charges on meals from the assessment of the meals tax. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) O-062706-5 Mr. Mahoney stated that this is the second reading of the ordinance and there has been no change to the ordinance; however, he indicated that he needed to clarify his explanation of the intent of the ordinance due to some confusion that arose at the first reading. He stated that this is a positive amendment and it clarifies that the meals tax and the sales tax are not assessed on a mandatory service charge or a discretionary tip unless the mandatory service charge exceeds 20% of the sales price. He stated that this amendment will not change the law with respect to any discretionary tip that would be paid by a customer. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: June 27, 2006 535 AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 072706-5 AMENDING SECTION 21-156. TIPS AND SERVICE CHARGES OF CHAPTER 21. TAXATION. OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE EXCLUDING GRATUITIES OR SERVICE CHARGES ON MEALS FROM THE ASSESSMENT OF THE MEALS TAX WHEREAS, the 2006 session of the Virginia General Assembly adopted Senate Bill 85 which excluded from the sales price of meals all gratuities or service charges for purposes of calculating the sales and use tax and the local tax on meals; and WHEREAS, this legislation provided that mandatory service charges or gratuities in excess of 20% would still be subject to the sales and use tax and the local meals tax; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the applicable provision of the County Code in order to conform it to this State enabling legislation; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 13, 2006; and the second reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 2006. BE IT ORDINANED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-156. Tips and service charges of Chapter 21. Taxation of the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and provide as follows: Sec. 21-156. Tips and service charges. Where a purchaser provides a tip or gratuity for an employee of a seller, and the amount of the tip/gratuity is wholly in the discretion of the purchaser, the tip/gratuity is not subject to the tax imposed by this article, whether paid in cash to the employee or added to the bill and charged to the purchaser’s account, provided in the latter case, the full amount of the tip/gratuity is turned over to the employee by the seller. An amount or percent, whether designated as a tip, gratuity or service charge, that is added to the price of the food and beverages by the seller, and required to be paid by the purchaser that exceeds twenty percent (20%) of the sales price, is a part of the selling price of the food and beverages and is subject to the tax imposed by this article. 2. That this ordinance shall be in effect from and after July 1, 2006. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None June 27, 2006 536 IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District) Supervisor Church advised that he anticipates that he will have a nominee for the vacancy in the Catawba District by the next meeting. Supervisor Flora advised that he anticipates that he will have a nominee for the vacancy in the Hollins District by the next meeting. 2. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) The Clerk was directed to contact Larry W. Degen to determine if he is willing to serve an additional four-year term. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-062706-6 Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None RESOLUTION 062706-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 27, 2006, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and June 27, 2006 537 concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – June 13, 2006 2. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate reimbursements, fees and scholarship funds totaling $3,813 3. Request to adopt the Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP) Master Plan, brochure, and point sheet for volunteer firefighters and EMS providers 4. Request to accept the donation of certain real estate from affected property owners for roadway improvements to Broyles Lane, Route 1054, Hollins Magisterial District 5. Ratification of the appointment of Jessica McClung, Roanoke County Schools, to the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request to schedule a work session on July 11, 2006, to discuss the Slate Hill development. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) Mr. Hodge reported that it has been approximately two years since the development of the Slate Hill project began, and staff has received requests for an update regarding the status of this project. He stated that staff has worked closely with the developer regarding plans and development of the site and will continue to do so. He advised that he would like to schedule the work session to obtain an update on the status of the project and to resolve any matters necessary to assist the project in moving forward and being successful. June 27, 2006 538 Mr. Mahoney advised that he has spoken with Mr. William Terry, general counsel for Integra Development, who is present at the meeting today. He reported that Mr. Terry has recommended that the work session be scheduled for August 8 in order to accommodate his client’s schedule. Mr. Mahoney advised that in the interim, County staff and representatives for the developer will meet to prepare the materials necessary for the work session. Following an inquiry by Chairman Wray, Mr. Terry advised that he had no additional information to provide. Supervisor Wray encouraged County staff and representatives for Integra Development to work together to resolve some of the existing issues prior to the work session. Supervisor Church advised that he has received a phone call from Mr. Jim Smith, developer for the Slate Hill project. He inquired if this is in reference to the upcoming work session, and he indicated that he did not want to circumvent the processes already occurring. He advised that he has tried unsuccessfully to return the call to Mr. Smith. Supervisor Wray advised that he has met with Mr. Smith, and he stated that Mr. Smith was attempting to contact each Board member individually. He asked Mr. Mahoney if there is any problem if this occurs in light of the upcoming work session. Mr. Mahoney advised that any citizen would have the right to speak to an elected representative with respect to a matter of concern. From the staff perspective, Mr. Mahoney indicated that there have been other citizen inquiries regarding the status of the project. He indicated that both he and the County Administrator support a public June 27, 2006 539 presentation that would allow various documents, regulations, and processes to be explained. Supervisor Church stated that this is consistent with his reason for bringing up the matter of the phone call, which was for the purpose of making certain that all actions were out in the open for public review. Supervisor McNamara stated that he had a meeting scheduled today with Jim Smith and Hunter Smith that was postponed. He advised that the Smith’s wish to provide information to the Board in light of the upcoming work session. Mr. Hodge stated that at this time, the presentation for the work session has not been prepared. The purpose of the work session is to receive an update on the status of the project, as well as to ensure that facilities and processes are in place for the project to proceed. There was a consensus of the Board to schedule the work session on August 8, 2006. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Capital Projects June 27, 2006 540 5. Accounts Paid – May 2006 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended May 31, 2006 7. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report 8. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report IN RE: SENIOR CITIZENS HALL OF FAME AWARDS AND RECEPTION The following individuals were recognized for their contributions: Dorothy Burton, Phyllis Coffee, and Carol Sandidge. A special award was presented to the Kiwanis Club of the Roanoke Valley. The award was accepted by Debbie Conner on behalf of the Kiwanis Club. A reception was held on the fourth floor of the Roanoke County Administration Center following the recognitions. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:40 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (5) discussion concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has been made; and Section 2.2-3711 A (1) discussion or consideration of the salaries of specific public officers, namely the County Administrator and County Attorney; Section 2.2-3711 A (1) discussion regarding the performance or retirement of specific public officers; and Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the award of a public contract where discussion of the terms or scope of the contract in open session would adversely affect June 27, 2006 541 the bargaining position of the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss the citizen survey results for the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Master Plan. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; Leon Younger, PROS Consulting, LLC) The work session was held from 5:13 p.m. until 6:08 p.m. Mr. Haislip advised that the Parks, Recreation and Tourism (PR&T) Department is in the process of evaluating their existing programs and facilities and planning for the future. This is a community driven evaluation, and he noted that community meetings have been held throughout the County, as well as discussions with focus groups and stakeholder evaluations. He indicated that one of the most important components of the development of the Master Plan is the citizen survey, which was designed around the findings that emerged from the community meetings. Mr. Haislip reported that surveys were mailed to 5,000 citizens throughout the County and 1,021 responses were received. It was noted that this was an outstanding response both in terms of the number of responses received, as well as the timeliness in which they were returned. This indicates a strong interest on the part of June 27, 2006 542 the citizens. He advised that the survey has a 95% level of confidence with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%. Mr. Haislip stated that the top three areas of interest identified by the survey, not listed in order of importance, are as follows: (1) development of indoor recreation facilities/aquatics center; (2) acquisition of land for passive recreation use; and (3) trails and greenways. Mr. Younger reported that in Roanoke County, the larger, regional parks receive the greatest amount of use and levels of participation from the public. The survey findings indicate that 62% of respondents view the condition of County parks as good; 22% view them as excellent. He advised that 81% of respondents indicated that they had visited a County park during the past 12 months, thereby showing strong participation for County parks. Mr. Younger stated that the responses indicate that greenways are a feature that citizens’ desire and he noted that the Garst Mill Greenway gets the most use. He stated that the responses indicate a desire for more greenways and this follows a national trend. With respect to the frequency of use of programs, Mr. Younger reported that youth recreational league sports have the highest percentage of usage at 27%. He stated that more facilities dedicated for programs would make these numbers stronger. 59% of respondents rated the overall quality of recreation programs as good; 28% rated them as excellent. He advised that people appreciate the programs offered and feel that the quality is good; he noted that retention rates are high. June 27, 2006 543 With respect to special events, Mr. Younger advised that three (3) to eight (8) percent of respondents indicate they have attended a Roanoke County special event in the past 12 months. The quality of special events was rated as follows: excellent (26%); good (63%). Mr. Haislip advised that up to this point, the data presented is a “report card” of how well the department is providing its services. The next phase of the presentation will address future needs. Mr. Younger reviewed a series of charts which illustrated how well respondents feel the County is meeting their needs. He highlighted the areas in which responses indicate amenities that people desire. He noted that respondents indicate a desire for the following facilities: greenways for walking and biking; small neighborhood parks; large group picnic areas and shelters; nature trails and nature center; and playground equipment. He stated that these are self-directed amenities that are at the top of the list of what respondents feel are important. Mr. Younger indicated that there is a second tier of amenities which includes indoor swimming pools and leisure pools; large regional parks; indoor fitness and exercise facilities; outdoor swimming pools; access to the Roanoke River; and outdoor tennis courts. Mr. Haislip stated that responses to youth sports reflect that the County is already meeting many of these needs. Mr. Younger advised that responses indicate that the County has been doing very well in the areas of youth baseball, softball, soccer, football, lacrosse, softball June 27, 2006 544 fields, large picnic areas, and outdoor tennis courts. He stated that the areas where attention should be focused are those where respondents indicate that their needs are not being met. These help establish the areas to focus on in the future and include the following: indoor swimming pools/leisure pools; greenways for walking and biking; nature trails and nature center; indoor fitness and exercise facilities; outdoor swimming pools; small neighborhood parks; and outdoor amphitheatre. Mr. Younger noted that during the focus group discussions, it was indicated that people would like to have more teen centers positioned throughout the community rather than the single facility on Brambleton Avenue. Mr. Younger advised that respondents were asked to rank their top four priorities and the results were as follows: (1) greenways for walking and biking; (2) small neighborhood parks; (3) playground equipment; and (4) nature trails and nature center. He stated that the community is indicating that they want more balance between active and passive spaces, as well as indoor spaces that are positioned correctly throughout the community. With respect to recreation programs, responses indicate that adult wellness and fitness is the top priority, followed by youth sports programs, County-wide special events, nature programs, water fitness programs, and local history programs. He noted that the responses indicate that the County is doing a good job of meeting the needs with respect to youth sports programs and now needs to focus the priority on programs such as water fitness programs, programs for the June 27, 2006 545 disabled, gymnastics, tennis, adult dance, local historic programs, and youth learn to swim programs. With respect to indoor programming spaces, Mr. Younger reported that the top priorities indicated by respondents include walking and jogging track, weight room/cardiovascular equipment area; aerobics/fitness/dance class space; leisure pool (water slides, sprays, etc.); space for meetings, birthday parties, etc.; warm water area for therapeutic purposes; arts and crafts room; and lanes for lap swimming. He noted that these are the types of spaces offered in a multi-generational facility. Mr. Younger advised that the level of support to improve and expand parks and recreation facilities received strong support. He noted that 76% of respondents indicated they would either vote in favor of (53%) or might vote in favor of (23%) a bond referendum to fund parks, greenways, open space, and recreational facilities. The survey results indicate that people are strongly willing to invest in recreational facilities in the County, and only 5% of respondents indicated that they would vote against a bond referendum. He provided statistical data regarding the survey respondents and displayed examples of regional recreational centers. Mr. Younger advised that the next steps in this process are to frame out the plan which includes the following aspects: community values; vision and mission statements; strategic objectives; strategies and actions; recommended facilities development plan; and feasibility study (sports complex; indoor multi-generational center). June 27, 2006 546 Mr. Hodge advised that community meetings will be held on June 28 and June 29 to present the survey results to the citizens. There was a consensus of the Board to schedule a work session on July 11 to further discuss and prioritize these needs and evaluate funding. 2. Work session to discussion the 2007 legislative agenda for the County of Roanoke. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Eldon James, Legislative Liaison) The work session was held from 6:09 p.m. until 6:22 p.m. Mr. Mahoney advised that senior staff has met and developed the following draft list of priorities for possible inclusion into the County’s 2007 legislative agenda: (1) law enforcement training academy (remove the moratorium on the creation of new, independent academies; amend Section 9.1-106 to allow assessment of court fees to support a training academy; and training needs of the regional jail authority - up to 200 deputies); (2) bio-shell wet lab; (3) funding for Explore Park ($200,000 operating expenses - 2nd year of biennium); (4) tobacco tax; (5) request the Governor to include start-up costs for regional jail in the budget for the 2008 session; and (6) authority to impose road impact fees on new development. Supervisor Church questioned whether staff anticipated the need for training of jail authority employees back when the decision was made to proceed with the regional jail. Mr. Hodge advised that the Human Resources Committee of the authority is addressing this concern and has visited many academies in surrounding June 27, 2006 547 areas due to the fact that the Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy does not have the ability to meet their needs. Mr. Hodge further advised that the authority realizes that the overriding need at this time is to get the individuals on board and have them trained. There was a consensus of the Board to delete Item #6, authority to impose road impact fees on new development, from the legislative agenda. With respect to the tobacco tax, Mr. James advised that it will take the support of every member of the County’s House and Senate legislators for this legislation to have any chance of succeeding. The Board indicated support for meeting individually with legislators to discuss the County’s initiatives. Mr. James stated that with respect to Item #5, this is looking forward to the future and staff will be working to try to have this item included in the Governor’s 2008 budget. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 6:35 p.m. until 7:04 p.m. IN RE: NOTATION FROM THE CLERK Due to technical difficulties, the evening session of the Board of Supervisors meeting did not begin until 7:43 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-062706-7 At 7:43 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray June 27, 2006 548 NAYS: None RESOLUTION 062706-7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution establishing salaries for the County Administrator and County Attorney. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) R-062706-8 Ms. Hyatt advised that this is a resolution establishing the salaries for the County Administrator and County Attorney for fiscal year 2006-2007. She stated that the County Administrator’s salary shall be $145,628 and the County Attorney’s salary shall be $130,322. She indicated that these salaries shall be effective July 1, 2006. There was no discussion on this item. June 27, 2006 549 Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None RESOLUTION 062706-8 ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the annual salary for the County Administrator shall be increased from $140,026.22 to $145,628.00, which includes the County longevity supplement. 2. That the annual salary for the County Attorney shall be increased from $119,341.66 to $130,322.00, which includes the County longevity supplement. 3. That the effective date for the establishment of these salaries shall be July 1, 2006. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 4.75 acres from R-3C, Medium Density Multi- Family Residential District with conditions, to R3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, for the construction of a townhouse-condominium residential development located on Route 419 near its intersection with Stoneybrook Drive and Bridle Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of June 27, 2006 550 Cherney Development Company, Inc. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Chairman Wray advised that this item has been withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. 2. Withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 4.8 acres from C-2C, General Commercial District with conditions, to C2, General Commercial District, and to obtain a special use permit for the operation of a religious assembly located at 7342 Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of Beacon Baptist Church. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Chairman Wray advised that this item has been withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. He noted that the withdrawal letter referenced the cost of proceeding with the petition, and he asked that staff ensure that applicants are notified of potential costs at the outset of the process. 3. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the vacation of a slope easement located on Lot 21 shown on the plat of Lost Mountain Subdivision, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) O-062706-9 June 27, 2006 551 Supervisor Wray noted that this agenda item indicates that the easement is in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; however this is incorrect. Mr. Covey concurred. (Notation from the Clerk: it was subsequently determined that this easement is located in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District.) Mr. Covey reported that this is the petition of Charles S. Palmer, CFG Corporation, requesting the vacation of a slope easement. He advised that the first reading of the ordinance was held on June 13 and there have been no changes since that time. Staff is recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 062706-9 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A SLOPE EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 21 (TAX MAP NO. 84.04-2-21) AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF LOST MOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 55, LOCATED IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the plat of Lost Mountain Subdivision prepared by Jack G. Bess, dated November 21, 1985, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 10, page 55, (“the Lost Mountain Plat”) established a slope easement of variable width along the front and side lot line of Lot 21; and, WHEREAS, Charles S. Palmer of C.F.G. Corporation has requested the vacation of this slope easement since it prohibits the placement of a proposed conventional drainage field suitable for a three bedroom house on the subject lot; and WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of this slope easement and the Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed and approved this slope easement vacation; and June 27, 2006 552 WHEREAS, the developer, as the Petitioner, has requested that, pursuant to §15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate this slope easement located on Lot 21 and designated on the plat of Lost Mountain Subdivision, Plat Book 10, Page 55; and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have raised no objection; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by §15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). 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 June 13, 2006, and a second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on June 27, 2006. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the subject real estate (slope easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public use. 3. That this slope easement of variable width being designated and shown as “SLOPE EASEMENT TO BE VACATED” on Exhibit “A” attached hereto prepared by the Roanoke County Department of Community Development dated May 30, 2006, said slope easement being located along the front and side lot lines of Lot 21 (Tax Map No. 84.04-2-21) located at the intersection of Split Rail Lane and Lost Drive and having been dedicated on the subdivision plat of Lost Mountain Subdivision recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 10, page 55, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to §15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia,1950, as amended. 4. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners. 5. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with §15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None June 27, 2006 553 4. Second reading of an ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the Code of Virginia. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) O-062706-10 Mr. Mahoney stated that this is the second reading and public hearing on this proposed ordinance. He advised that notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper, as required by the statute, and he stated that the ordinance would increase the salaries of the members of the Board of Supervisors in accordance with the provisions of the State Code. The ordinance reflects a 4% increase which is the same percentage increase granted to County employees. Mr. Mahoney indicated that this will result in an increase of $592.64 for each Board member annually. He noted that there is an additional supplement for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Supervisor Church requested that Mr. Mahoney elaborate on the $592.64 increase. Mr. Mahoney stated that this is the amount of increase for each Board member for the entire year. The following citizen spoke regarding this matter: Mr. Francis H. Wilson, Sr., 2049 Surrey Lane, noted that staff should test the sound system prior to the meetings. With respect to the Board members’ salaries, Mr. Wilson stated that he is not against anyone getting a pay raise. He indicated that June 27, 2006 554 the Board members work hard; however, they know what the pay will be when they take the job. He stated that Board members should not run for office if they think that they need a pay increase. He indicated that nothing is mentioned in the ordinance about increases in fringe benefits such as medical coverage or retirement. In response to his inquiry, Mr. Hodge advised that the Board members do not receive retirement benefits. Mr. Wilson further stated that he would like to see the motion for pay raises be tabled until 2007, and he noted that some of the Board members are up for election next year. He stated that it is his impression that this increase is a “done deal”. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 062706-10 TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for the compensation of members of the Board of Supervisors and the procedure for increasing their salaries; and WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain population brackets; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members at $14,816 by Ordinance 062805-11 and further has established the additional annual compensation for the chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the vice-chairman of the Board to be $1,200; and June 27, 2006 555 WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five (5%) percent; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on June 13, 2006; the second reading and public hearing was held on June 27, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of 4% pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new annual salaries shall be $15,408.64 for members of the Board. In addition, the chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the vice-chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200. This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2006. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor McNamara: He stated that he had been prepared to ask Mr. Hodge to provide an update on the gypsy moths; however due to the fact that there is no coverage of the evening session of this meeting on RVTV Channel 3 due to technical difficulties, that does not seem appropriate. He noted that the consultant who will be contracted to establish the level of infestation needs to be hired in the near future. He stated that since the County is at the end of our fiscal year, the Board Contingency Fund seems to be the logical place to obtain funding for this item. He requested that a briefing be scheduled regarding this matter on July 11. Mr. Hodge stated that at the July 11 meeting, he will present the request for authorization to contract with a consultant to conduct the assessment. Mr. Hodge advised that there are two June 27, 2006 556 consultants in the State of Virginia who perform this service and staff has spoken with both of them. We are close to an agreement with a consultant and it is anticipated that the cost will be approximately $5,000 to $10,000. He indicated that the County needs to determine the size of the infested area since this can have a bearing on the cost. He indicated that there has been discussion regarding conducting the study in conjunction with Craig County, and discussions have also been held with Congressman Boucher and Congressman Goodlatte regarding funding, which is reportedly available in the House but not the Senate. Mr. Hodge indicated that staff will be writing requests for funding to the Senate as a budget request. He further reported that the consultant will conduct the assessment in October, which is in accordance with the time frame necessary for conducting the studies. He indicated that the community meeting that was held in Bent Mountain was helpful and the feedback has been positive. Supervisor Wray requested that staff provide information regarding the infested area at the July 11 briefing which should include a description of how the infestation is spread to other areas. Mr. Hodge stated that the consultant will be available at the meeting on July 11. Supervisor Church: He referenced an article that appeared in the New York Times which disclosed the methods used by the U. S. government to track down terrorists by monitoring financial transactions. He stated that publication of this type of information borders on a criminal activity and that he hopes that the U. S. Attorney General will take action against the media. He stated that First Amendment rights are June 27, 2006 557 important but if you jeopardize the safety, freedom, and security of the United States, it affects everyone in the country. He stated that we cannot allow the media to continually stab America in the face without taking action: the military men and women deserve better. Supervisor Altizer: (1) He advised that the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) will be changing to a bi-monthly meter reading process with the intention of moving toward monthly meter readings in the future. Currently, meters are read once every three months and estimated the other two months in the quarter. He requested that citizens bear with the WVWA during this transition period and noted that there will be some billing changes. (2) He noted that a community meeting was recently held regarding a rezoning petition at Valley Gateway. He requested that Arnold Covey begin a study to determine how to assemble property for a regional, slow-release detention pond that will help to alleviate flooding in the Carson Road area. Mr. Hodge stated that staff will begin this process and further indicated that we will do what we can to get this project on the VDOT Six-Year Road Plan. Supervisor Flora: (1) He stated that the Virginia Tech Department of Entomology recently conducted a study on the gypsy moth and he advised that they may have information of value to the County. (2) He concurred with Supervisor Church’s comments and stated that rights are not absolute and just because it is in the Constitution, it does not give you an absolute right to do what you wish. He noted that 558 June 27, 2006 First Amendment rights are important but along with that right comes responsibility. He stated that fortunately the press in our area is very responsible. Supervisor Wrav: (1) He stated that at the beginning of the 3:00 p.m. session, there was a briefing regarding the current weather situation. He noted that most of the bad weather has subsided at this time. (2) He advised that the Board received an email from a citizen thanking Butch Workman, Storm Water Operations Manager, and Jeff Altice, Storm Water Operations Supervisor, for their efforts recently regarding a clogged pipe. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Wray adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Submitted by: Dlnlo ! ~g. (JjiJuv Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board Approved by: ~~ Q.LJ~_/ Michael A. Wray - '( Chairman