Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2006 - Special November 12, 2006 929 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 November 12,2006 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at The Homestead Resort, Hot Springs, Virginia, this being a special meeting for the purpose of the annual retreat. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wray called the meeting to order at 1: 10 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, Jr., Assistant County Administrator; Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board OTHERS PRESENT: Eldon James, Legislative Liaison (left at 1 :20 p.m.); Jim Johnson, Financial Advisor (left at 2:45 p.m.) IN RE: OPENING REMARKS Chairman Wray expressed appreciation to the Board members for their attendance at the annual retreat and advised that he appreciated the support that they provided him while serving as Chairman for 2006. 930 November 12, 2006 IN RE: REQUESTED TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA ITEMS Supervisor McNamara inquired if any topic could be discussed openly under the agenda item entitled "The Future of Roanoke County". Chairman Wray advised that he requested this item be added to the agenda so that the members could discuss their visions for the future. Supervisor McNamara advised that a retreat was not structured as formally as a Board meeting and he felt that there should be open and forthright discussions. Supervisor Wray advised that he felt the purpose of a retreat was to encourage open discussion. Supervisor McNamara reiterated that it was his understanding that open discussion would be allowed under this item. Supervisor Flora advised that this item would give the Board the opportunity to brainstorm ideas. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS ~ Request to adopt! resolution endorsina the re-election of Wanda C. Winao as the Reaion 11 representative on the Virainia Association of Counties (V ACo) Board of Directors. (Elmer C. Hodae, County Administrator) R-111206-1 Mr. Hodge advised that Wanda C. Wingo, a member of the Botetourt Board of Supervisors, served as the VACo Region 11 representative for 2006, and she has expressed her intention to seek re-election to this position. He reported that the resolution was not prepared in time for the Board to consider adoption at their October November 12, 2006 931 24, 2006, meeting. Mr. Hodge requested that the Board adopt the resolution endorsing Ms. Wingo's re-election and have it delivered to the Region 11 caucus meeting before 4: 15 p.m. today. Supervisor Flora inquired if there was any opposition to Ms. Wingo's re- election, and Mr. Hodge advised that he did not think anyone else was seeking the position but he was not certain of that fact. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None RESOLUTION 111206-1 ENDORSING THE CANDIDACY OF WANDA C. WINGO TO SERVE AS THE REGION 11 REPRESENTATIVE ON THE VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHEREAS, the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) Board of Directors representative from Region 11 is open for nominations at the V ACo annual meeting in November 2006; and WHEREAS, Region 11 includes the counties of Bedford, Botetourt, Craig, Giles, and Roanoke; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wanda C. Wingo has been involved in both the Virginia Association of Counties and the National Association of Counties for many years; has served on numerous committees, commissions, and boards during this time; and also previously served a term as President of the Virginia Association of Counties; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Wanda C. Wingo has served as the Regional 11 representative for the past year and has expressed her intention to seek re-election to this position. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, fully endorses Mrs. Wanda C. Wingo's candidacy in seeking to be re-elected to the position of Region 11 representative on the Board of Directors of the Virginia Association of Counties. 932 November 12,2006 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: BRIEFING ~ Briefina ~ Eldon James. Roanoke County Leaislative Liaison Mr. Hodge advised that Eldon James, Legislative Liaison, was present and asked him to update the Board on the General Assembly. Mr. James advised that the Board should not expect anything stupendous to be accomplished on transportation in the 2007 session since it is an election year. He advised that land use will be discussed in committee meetings and when recommendations are made, he will forward them to the County for review by the planning staff. The Farm Bureau will probably make the sequester bill permissive rather than mandatory. Mr. James advised that it is believed that the legislators will accomplish the majority of the items on the County's legislative resolution, and he has not heard any discussion about problems with the other items on the County's legislative program. He advised that regarding revenue sharing, there may be a $2 million cap per locality instead of the $1 million which he previously discussed with the Board. In response to Supervisor Altizer's inquiry about the status of the Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy, Mr. James referred the question to Mr. Mahoney; however, he advised that there are things being discussed that may be to the County's advantage. Mr. Hodge advised that Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police, has compiled a chronology and other information to support a new law enforcement training academy November 12, 2006 933 which should be sent to the legislators. Mr. Mahoney advised that the County understands that Cardinal Academy has asked the other training academies in the area not to train the County's employees. Mr. Mahoney advised that with the assistance of Mr. Chambliss and Chief Lavender, he has drafted a letter for Sheriff Gerald Holt's signature under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requesting all of Cardinal Academy's correspondence and emails regarding this subject. He advised that Cardinal Academy refused to train a group of correctional employees that Sheriff Holt sent to them at the end of 2005 or beginning of 2006. He advised that if they can secure this information through the FOIA, this could prove embarrassing for Cardinal Academy with the legislators. Mr. Mahoney advised that the County is asking the legislators to remove the moratorium language in the appropriation act that states that no new independent academies can be created. Mr. Mahoney advised that they also want to change the legislation to allow the Board of Supervisors to place a fee to be used for training purposes on each traffic case in General District Court. He advised that this fee will be similar to what is in effect in Roanoke City and other localities, and he indicated that he and Mr. James will continue working to accomplish this legislation. Mr. Mahoney inquired about the status of the proposal to devolve responsibility for secondary roads to the counties. Mr. James advised that House Bill 5093 includes that concept as mandatory; however, it was proposed for an incorrect section of the Virginia Code and this problem will have to be worked through with the patrons and supporters of the bill. He advised that the chairman of the ad hoc group 934 November 12, 2006 informed several people that he does not see mandatory devolution being passed. Mr. James advised that he believes the bill will become permissive with caveats and this concept will have a better chance of being passed and will be more workable because counties have the choice of complying. He advised that even though HB 5093 was written to make it mandatory, there does not seem to be enough support for it to be approved as mandatory. Mr. Hodge invited Mr. James to provide an update at a Board meeting in December 2006 or January 2007. Mr. Hodge advised that the significance of the revenue sharing for this year is that the County will allocate $1 million in December; however, the final amount will not be known until March or April 2007. Mr. Hodge advised that if it is approved, the County will receive the money in this fiscal year; however, if it is approved in the following year, the $1 million would shift to the next fiscal year. He asked Mr. James for any information he could provide concerning monies for revenue sharing. Mr. James advised that in view of the information from Mr. Hodge, he would like to discuss this with Mr. Mahoney to understand the subtleties and suggest appropriate language concerning the fiscal years and whether or not the County wants the monies be carried over to another fiscal year. Mr. James advised that he had another meeting to attend and left the meeting at 1 :20 p.m. November 12, 2006 935 IN RE: CAPITAL PROJECTS Mr. Hodge advised that several capital projects are on the agenda for discussion; however, a closed meeting has also been scheduled because some may require discussion of confidential information. ~ Multi-Generational Recreation Center Mr. Hodge advised that on November 10, 2006, the County received an unsolicited Public Private Recreational Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA) proposal from English Construction Company with a check for $50,000 for development of a multi-generational recreation center. He advised that he had one copy of the proposal and that some of the information contained was confidential. He advised that the Board will consider the proposal at their meeting on November 14, 2006, and decide whether they wish to proceed with Phase II of the process. Mr. Hodge advised that the proposal contains detailed information regarding two concepts for the project and provides diagrams showing their locations. He advised that the County has information concerning a potential partner for the project. INRE: CLOSED MEETING At 1 :30 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to go into closed meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion regarding the terms of scope of a contract involving the expenditure of public funds where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, namely contract with the Western Virginia Water Authority; and Section 2.2-3711 A (5) ~-----~----~-_.---~.__._.-~~---_._~_.~-_._- 936 November 12, 2006 discussion concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has been made. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-111206-2 At 2:40 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 NAYS: None RESOLUTION 111206-2 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 November 12, 2006 937 INRE: CAPITAL PROJECTS (CONTINUED) 1. Multi-Generational Recreation Center Mr. Hodge asked Jim Johnson, Financial Advisor, for his advice on the financing for the PPEA proposal. Mr. Johnson advised that most PPEA projects being done in Virginia have the municipalities taking the lead in the process because they can do the financing cheaper. He advised that he has not seen a PPEA done up to this point that includes a private operating entity. He advised that the majority of the PPEA's are done through lease revenue bonds, and some cities have used general obligation bonds which they can do without going through a referendum. He advised that the biggest issue on recreational facilities is whether it is deemed an essential governmental purpose of the locality that would encourage an annual appropriation. He advised that some localities try to combine different projects such as economic development, with recreational projects or libraries which are essential. This helps ensure that rating agencies will look at the project more strongly. He advised that the market for rates is good, but he believes that within the next six to twelve months the rates will probably be on an upward curve. He does not anticipate an increase in long- term rates. He advised that construction costs are increasing every day, and he is working with Ms. Hyatt to identify revenue sources and fit the debt service payments into multiple projects within the confines of the County's budget. He advised that one idea would be to take cash and put it towards the radio equipment or short-term projects while financing the long-term projects at 100%, amortizing the payment, and reducing 938 November 12, 2006 debt service. Mr. Johnson advised that one of the issues would be the sensitivity of having to adjust the revenue sources to fund the capital projects. It would be the County's decision whether it is an adjustment of revenue source or expense item. He advised that if you increase the debt service by adding the jail, recreational center, library, and other infrastructure, it would all be new debt service and new funding would have to be identified. If there is an economic development in the future, that could also be considered. Mr. Johnson advised that one item that Supervisor Flora mentioned was Tax Increment Financings (TIFs) which are a viable financing option in many cases. He stated that the only concern he would have is that it is a very costly financing because lawyers, bankers, and others have expensive fees. He advised that if you have a small TIF financing, it would be easier to do a lease revenue bond financing because instead of the investor taking the risk of the TIF revenues, the County takes the risk. Portsmouth and Suffolk have both built hotel conference centers where the municipalities own a portion of the center and most of those have been done on lease revenue bond financing because of the incremental tax revenues coming in from a multitude of sources such as sales and real estate taxes. He advised that the Community Development Authority (CDA) will probably be the predominant way that people in Virginia finance infrastructure improvements but it is a non-rated credit and the interest rates are closer to 6% on tax exempt vs. the County rate of 4.75%. He advised that it is a much more costly financing vehicle but it does keep the debt off the November 12, 2006 939 balance sheet, because it is the debt of a CDA; however, it is considered overlapping debt and many localities have passed resolutions that the CDA is limited to a total of 1 % of assessed value. Mr. Hodge advised that Mr. Johnson's explanation was very significant. He advised that there has been a tremendous increase throughout the state to have revenue from an identified area going through an authority that the locality creates which is different and separate from going through the Economic Development Authority (EDA). Mr. Johnson advised that the CDA has a special assessment which in some cases is in addition to the County's real estate assessment. He advised that a CDA is being done in Hanover County now with a special assessment on real estate and a TIF component which takes the incremental tax revenue from that district above what it is now so it is combined; however, this is a non-rated transaction. Mr. Johnson advised that he had to leave to attend another meeting. He left the meeting at 2:45 p.m. IN RE: RECESS Chairman Wray declared a recess at 2:48 p.m. The Board returned to open session at 2:55 p.m. IN RE: CAPITAL PROJECTS (CONTINUED) 2. Library Ms. Hyatt briefed the Board on the status of the South County Library. She reported that the offer made to the owners of the property on Starkey Road has been declined, and staff is moving ahead with the Merriman property as the site for the 940 November 12, 2006 library. Ms. Hyatt advised that the architects have suggested that the library be placed on the high portion of the property, which is the Merriman Road side, with access from Crystal Creek Road. She advised that the wetlands will be maintained as a wetland area with appropriate walking trails that will connect to the other areas in the Merriman Park complex. She reported that the library will be a two-story building with a viewing balcony overlooking the wetlands area. She advised that Crystal Creek Road will need to be widened and revenue sharing monies are a possible source of funds. Supervisor Flora inquired if the library would include public meeting areas similar to those seen on the library tour in Phoenix. Ms. Hyatt advised that there would be public meetings rooms, an auditorium, and a coffee shop included in the plans. Ms. Hyatt advised that the architects are currently updating the wetlands delineation reports, the survey of the property, and conducting additional core drillings. She advised that the architects will attend a meeting in January 2007 to present the project plan to the Board. 3. Western VirQinia ReQional Jail Mr. Chambliss advised that the Jail Authority has had on-going communications and assistance from the State Department of Corrections which resulted in a number of suggestions for improvements to the design of the regional jail. He advised that the footprint of the facility has increased 13,500 square feet and there is a total of 605 cells. They also will be installing 200 bunks for double-bunking which will give an opening capacity of 805. He advised that they met with some of the bond November 12, 2006 941 insurance companies in New York last month, and it appears that four out of five groups will be bidding on the regional jail. He advised that the County's bonds will trade as if they are AAA bonds which will give the County an improved bond interest rate. According to the present schedule, the bonds would be sold the second week of January 2007, with a 30-year bond issue and interest in the range of 4.75%. Mr. Chambliss advised that two years ago they were estimating interest in the 6% range. Mr. Chambliss advised that the Authority adopted the use of the PPEA for the competitive negotiation process, and they will be reviewing with the proposers some of the suggestions made and evaluating some of the cost items. The Authority will report back to the four governing bodies in late November or December concerning the financial implications of the schedules related to the financing for this project. He advised that they will attend the County's Board meeting on December 5, 2006. They hope by early December to be able to acknowledge who will be awarded the construction contract, the guaranteed national price, and the comprehensive agreement for construction of the jail project. He advised that the local government per diem is still in the range of approximately $42 to $45 as was projected a year ago. He advised that because of the projected increase in construction costs, they have looked at moving the debt service from a 20-year to a 30-year program to capitalize on the interest rate for a longer period of time so they will be able to get the operation started. The schedule for the construction would be approximately 700 days which would mean occupying the 942 November 12, 2006 facility in approximately October 2008, depending upon how quickly thereafter they can begin to transfer inmates. Supervisor Church inquired if there were sink holes on the property. Mr. Chambliss advised that there were two minor sink holes and these were taken care of by excavating underneath and pouring in concrete caps. He advised that essentially all of the land that the building pad is going to be on at this point has been bored. He advised that they had a couple of areas that were questionable on the borings and they over-excavated those areas, replaced the dirt, and doubled the size of the footers. He advised that there were some minor areas but all of these were of manageable size and have been taken care of to the geotechnical engineers' satisfaction. Mr. Chambliss advised that there will be some additional cost due to the additional concrete work; however, the extra excavation was built into the contract and where they did excavate deeper than six feet, a change order will be issued. In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiry, Mr. Chambliss advised that the project construction costs increased from $53 million to approximately $80 million, and that the County's share has increased from approximately $20 million to $30 million. He advised that they increased the obligation for debt service from 20-years to 30-years to try to keep the annual costs in line. It is within $100,000 of the previous annual service amount. Mr. Chambliss advised that some of the reasons for the increased cost are that the footprint grew by approximately 13,500 and the construction costs increased. Mr. Chambliss advised that there was an 8% inflation factor included in the original cost November 12,2006 943 projections; however, the cost for concrete, copper, steel, electronics, true-cast concrete cells, (all of which include including transportation and fuel costs) have increased. He advised that another factor contributing to the increased cost is that there is limited competition for sub-contractors who can handle a job of this size or be bonded so the costs are greater. Mr. Chambliss advised that Ms. Brooks Ballard, State Department of Corrections, advised that she was not surprised by the increases in the costs. She suggested that the Authority review the plans for possible cost reductions and go back to the State Board of Corrections to request an adjustment of the State's share. She suggested that they wait until they reach the final determination of the cost figures because they only get one chance to have the numbers adjusted by the State. Mr. Chambliss advised that he anticipates that the State will still pay somewhere between 40% and 50% of the capital costs. Supervisor Altizer advised that he wanted to be sure that they are examining possible cost reductions that may occur at the current jail when the regional jail is in operation. Mr. Chambliss advised that many of the funded positions from the State will be transferred to the regional jail. He advised that there is some indication that the State is looking at the number of deputy sheriffs so many of those may stay within their local sheriff's office. Mr. Chambliss advised that there will be some reduction in staff and savings at the local jails but most of the cost savings will be ancillary. The cost per inmate will adjust slightly but there will not be dramatic savings. 944 November 12, 2006 In response to Supervisor Flora's inquiry about the number of employees that the Compensation Board will require for the local jail, Mr. Chambliss advised that none will be funded beyond what the Compensation Board currently funds. Ms. Hyatt advised that there are currently some over-hire employees at the jail who will transfer to the regional jail. Mr. Chambliss advised that there was a modest increase in the LEED/sustainable design features which are being made upfront; however, these design features should save money in operating costs. He advised that payback in some cases will be within six months and in all cases less than five years, and those operational features are the right things to be done to protect the environment. Supervisor Wray inquired if the other localities have been made aware of the increased costs for the regional jail. Ms. Hyatt advised that there was difficulty getting this information disseminated to the localities at the same time because of the different meeting dates; however, they plan to meet first with Montgomery County on November 27, Roanoke County on December 5, and later with Franklin County and the City of Salem. Mr. Hodge advised that they would like to keep this information confidential until it has been presented to the other localities. 4. GaraQe Mr. Hodge advised that the County is close to an agreement with the Western Virginia Water Authority and their contribution for the garage will be approximately $1.2 million to $1.3 million. They are looking at property in the vicinity of November 12, 2006 945 the new English Construction business park; however, it is probably not going to work at that site. They are also considering the site which the County purchased near the skating rink for either the garage or a fire station. He advised that Ms. Delores Pruett , who lives in the Hershberger House next to this property, has called him and Supervisor Flora and expressed her concerns about the County's proposed use of this property. Mr. Hodge advised that the estimated cost for the new garage is $5 million including the land. 5. Radio System Uparade Mr. O'Donnell presented a time line for the digital 800 MHz project and advised that it needs to be completed by December 2009 because Motorola will not support the analog system after that time. He advised that they are planning to use the PPEA process to determine the scope of the project and that a consultant should be chosen by December 2006. He advised that the system does not have to be all digital at one time; they can leave the non-public safety users on analog if necessary and this can be designed into the cost of the project. Supervisor Flora questioned why the PPEA process was used for the project instead of Request for Proposals (RFP) with competitive bids. Mr. O'Donnell advised that it was a time factor since the PPEA process will design the scope of the project. He advised that the current estimate for the costs of the radio system upgrade is $26 million which will be shared equally between the County and Roanoke City. Ms. Hyatt advised that the County has $5 million in reserve for the radio system upgrade. 946 November 12, 2006 IN RE: FINANCIAL STATUS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: .1:. Preliminary results of operations for June 30, 2006 Ms. Hyatt advised that as a result of year end operations, the County had $1.3 million to put into the capital reserves after adding $1.5 million to the fund balance as required by County policy. She distributed a summary of capital reserve balances which stated that as of September 30, 2006, the County has $5.8 million in minor capital, $179,000 in major capital, $374,185 in other reserves, for a total of $6.3 million. She advised that the schools have $249,000 in minor capital, $3.7 million in major capital, and $435,000 in other reserves, for a total of $4.2 million. She advised that from the 2005-06 year end rollovers, the County is adding $453,000 into the minor capital fund and $859,000 into the major capital fund while the schools are adding $6.2 million. She reported that pursuant to school policy, they put the maximum of $1 million in the minor capital fund and $5.2 million in the major capital fund. She advised that the County will have $7.7 million available for projects and the schools will have $10.6 million. She advised that the County has set aside $5 million from minor capital for the radio system upgrade which leaves a balance of $2.7 million. The schools have set aside but not officially appropriated $893,000 for Northside High School and $493,000 for William Byrd High School, leaving a balance of $9.2 million. She advised that on the County side, they have looked at all of the capital projects and found $1.8 million in funds that could be removed from other capital projects. She advised that they may be able to re-appropriate the second $500,000 for the VDOT match if they do not get the November 12,2006 947 entire $1 million in revenue sharing funds. Mr. Hodge advised that the amount of the VDOT monies will not be known until February or March but he believes that they might need $1.1 million for this purpose. Ms. Hyatt advised that the schools added $1.6 million in funding from the State budget amendment to fix K-12 funding. Ms. Hyatt advised that she was disappointed in the distribution of these funds because the State sent the $1.6 million to the schools instead of the localities that appropriated the funds. She advised that if the County had received the funds, they would have been split equally with the schools. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Church, Ms. Hyatt advised that if they adjusted these funds at this point, it would be through a decrease in the transfer of funds from the County to the schools. Ms. Hyatt advised that the School Board will be considering the use of these funds at one of their meetings with the alternatives being to: (1) split the funds with the County; (2) appropriate the funds for capital projects; or (3) do nothing at this time and the funds will be put in the year end capital funds. Ms. Hyatt advised that the schools received $1.3 million because of the under-estimate of school enrollment by 378 in 2006-2007. Ms. Hyatt advised that by adding these new sources of funds, the schools will have $12.1 million for their reserves for capital projects. She advised that the schools will probably present their capital project list in January at the proposed retreat with the Board. There was general discussion concerning the $1.6 million in new funds for the schools and the total of $12.1 million for school capital projects. 948 November 12, 2006 1. Review of capital reserves and other sources to fund capital proiects Ms. Hyatt distributed the following handout showing capital projects and their funding sources, and she reported on the details of each project. Ms. Hyatt advised that Valleypointe Phase II is the English Construction business park project, and that the $13 million listed for the radios is the County's share of the project. Roanoke County Capital Projects Sources and Uses of Funds DRAFT Uses of Funds County Portion of Jail Financing Valleypointe Multi-Gen Garage Library Phase II Center Radios North County Fire Station Total 30 360 000 5 000 000 1 5 000 000 2 500 000 20 000 000 13 000 000 ~ 86 360 000 Sources of Funds Currently appropriated 2007 -08 appropriation 2008-09 appropriation 2009-10 appropriation 2010-11 appropriation 500,000 2,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 From INWIIA 1,350,000 500,000 1,350,000 500,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 5,621,097 Major Capital Minor Capital From Capital Accounts - close out projects From Capital Fund - Fire accounts 621,097 1,654,718 1,654,718 Public Works Fund 374,185 181,508 181,508 374,185 Public Safety Bldg 1,000,000 1,000,000 30,360,000 39,818,492 Jail Authority Bond Proceeds 30,360,000 Roanoke County Bond Proceeds 13,000,000 20,000,000 6,818,492 30 360 000 5 000 000 15 000 000 2 500 000 20 000 000 13 000 000 ~ 84 360 000 November 12, 2006 949 Annual Debt Services 20 yrs @ 6% 20yrs@6% _OR_ 30 yrs @ 6% 30yrs@4.75% 1,817,000 1 0 yrs @ 6% 1,133,405 1,743,700 1,452,980 925,415 Ms. Hyatt advised that sometime in the near future, she may request that the Board adopt a reimbursement resolution to allow the future possible reimbursement of the $2 million currently budgeted for the library. In response to Supervisor Flora's inquiry, Ms. Hyatt advised that the request to use the bond proceeds must be made upfront in order to have this option. Mr. Hodge advised that the staff had worked very hard to accomplish savings and he thought the schedule for the capital projects was well done but it is very tig ht. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 3:55 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to go into closed meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion regarding the acquisition of real estate for public school purposes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray None 950 November 12, 2006 IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-111206-3 At 4:10 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 NAYS: None RESOLUTION 111206-3 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 INRE: BOARD COMMENTS Supervisor McNamara requested that the Board support funding one-half of the cost for installing Astroturf at Bogle Field. He advised that the majority of the School Board members reported that they heard a majority of the Board members November 12, 2006 951 agree to fund one-half of the costs when the schools turned over the Merriman site. He advised that he thought the opportunity for the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department to use the field was far more important than the $400,000 funding required for the Astroturf. He advised that four teams use Bogle Field as their home field and because the field was un playable on many of their home games, the games had to be rescheduled elsewhere. He advised that peewee football teams play their benefit games there, and it is also used for soccer games. Supervisor Flora advised that when Bogle Field was upgraded some years ago, he thought that the agreement was that after the season started, there would be no parks and recreation games played on the field. Supervisor Altizer advised that he thought the problem arose when it was originally discussed that all of the high school fields would have Astroturf installed but when some of the high schools decided they wanted other things, nothing further was done. Supervisor Church advised that his concern was that the policy should be consistent for all fields. Supervisor Flora advised that Northside High School and Glenvar High School reported earlier that they did not want the Astroturf. Supervisor Wray suggested that Astroturf could be offered to all of the high schools, and it would be their choice whether they accepted. Supervisor Flora advised that Astroturf was included in the budget when Bogle Field was renovated; however, when the company that was going to install it went bankrupt, the price increased and it was cut out by the School Board. Supervisor McNamara advised that the School Board thinks that the Board committed to the -------~----_.__.-~------------ 952 November 12,2006 funding for the Astroturf and that the Board is backing off their commitment. Supervisor Church advised that he did not remember making the commitment. Mr. Hodge requested that staff be allowed to review this subject, look at field usage, and look at sharing the costs with the School Board. Supervisor Church advised that he was not opposed to the request but he would like to look at the background including usage of the fields before making any decision. There was no consensus reached on Supervisor McNamara's request, and Mr. Hodge advised that he would present a report to the Board in January 2007. Mr. Hodge advised that the principal at Arnold R. Burton School has requested a school resource officer, and he would like for the Board to review the school resource officers and public safety at a meeting in January 2007. Supervisor Flora requested that the Board consider increasing the $300,000 each funding by the County and schools for capital projects. Supervisor Flora advised that philosophically he would not encourage the County and schools to budget all revenues and expenditures because there would be no funds remaining for other projects. Supervisor McNamara advised that he is not concerned about the schools under-estimating revenues because it can only happen one year. IN RE: FUTURE OF ROANOKE COUNTY Supervisor McNamara asked for the Board's advice on handling situations where Gene Marrano, editor and writer for the Cave Spring Connection, publishes articles on a regular basis with incorrect facts. Supervisor McNamara advised that he November 12, 2006 953 wrote Mr. Marrano two or three letters concerning these inaccurate facts in his articles. He advised that recently Mr. Marrano wrote an article which quoted him and other supervisors, as well as County staff and ended with the declaration that the above article was a "dream". In response to Supervisor McNamara's inquiry, Mr. Mahoney advised that it was legal under the First Amendment for freedom of speech, and that you would have to prove actual malice for it to be considered libel or slanderous. Supervisor Church suggested that silence could not be quoted. It was the general consensus of the Board that each supervisor should decide whether or not they wished to speak with reporters. IN RE: DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL JOINT MEETING WITH THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD Chairman Wray advised that the School Board has requested that a retreat be held with the School Board on Saturday, January 27, 2007. He advised that the details of the time, place and agenda will be provided later to the Board members. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Wray adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~~.~ Brenda J. olton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board -0)~Q.LJ~ Michael A. Wray Chairman 954 November 12, 2006 This paae intentionallv left blank.