Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2006 - Regular December 19, 2006 1033 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 December 19, 2006 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the third Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of December, 2006. INRE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wray called the meeting to order at 3:00 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; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer INRE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend David Walton, Belmont Christian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. 1 034 December 19, 2006 IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Supervisor Church requested that Item H-1 be moved to the evening session because there may be citizens who want to comment on this item. There was a consensus of the Board to move Item H-1 to the evening session as Item S-6. INRE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Presentation from the U. S. Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps Leaaue and appropriation of J8,OOO proceeds from the 11th annual Marine Mud Run. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) A-121906-1 Mr. Haislip advised that for the past eleven years the Marine Corps League and the Marine Corps Reserve Unit, Company B, 4th Combat Engineer Battalion, have sponsored the mud run which is the largest run in Western Virginia attracting approximately 2,000 participants and more than 4,500 spectators. The run, which was started to generate funds for the Toys for Tots program and Camp Roanoke, has become an annual signature event in the Roanoke Valley. Mr. Haislip advised that the Marines raised $8,000 this year bringing their total contributions to the County to $57,200. Mr. Haislip expressed appreciation to the Marines and advised that their donations have assisted Camp Roanoke with moving its program forward. December 19, 2006 1035 Mr. Haislip introduced Tom Bedwell, Junior Vice Commandant, Marine Corps League, Roanoke Detachment, who was accompanied by a contingent of Marines from the Marine Corps Reserve Unit, Company B, 4th Combat Engineer Battalion. Mr. Bedwell advised that the success of this year's event was due to the excellent teamwork among the Marines, the many volunteers, and the County. He presented a check in the amount of $8,000 to Chairman Wray for Camp Roanoke. Chairman Wray expressed appreciation for the contribution and presented certificates of recognition to the Marines present from the Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps League. Each of the supervisors expressed their appreciation to the Marines for their efforts at raising funds for the Toys for Tots program and Camp Roanoke and praised their dedication to protecting the citizens of the United States. Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation (acceptance and appropriation of the $8,000 contribution to the Camp Roanoke Fee Class Account). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None Chairman Wray advised that Moses Stevens from the Marine Corps League had arrived at the meeting and asked if he would like to speak. Mr. Stevens expressed his appreciation to the Marines who helped accomplish the mission of bringing toys to children who would not receive anything for Christmas and thanked the 1036 December 19, 2006 County for the use of their park facilities. Mr. Moses signed the check for $8,000 that had been presented to Chairman Wray. 2. ReQuest to authorize and execute ! performance aareement between the County of Roanoke. the Roanoke County Economic Development Authority (EDA). and Oppidan. Incorporated. and to reallocate $1.000.000 from the Public Private Partnership account to ! ~ account for Oppidan. (Doua Chittum. Director of Economic Development) A-121906-2 Mr. Hodge advised that due to Mr. Chittum's absence, he would present the staff report. Mr. Hodge advised that he wanted to comment on the previous item. He advised that in addition to the mud run event, the Marines have assisted the County with many of the improvements at Green Hill Park, Camp Roanoke and other County facilities. He advised that the late Fred Doyle was instrumental in helping secure the Marines' assistance, and he asked that Mr. Doyle be remembered at this time. Mr. Hodge advised that this item is a request to authorize and execute a performance agreement between Roanoke County, the Roanoke County Economic Development Authority (EDA) and Oppidan, Inc. He reported that Oppidan plans to bring two new companies to the area as part of a business park in a highly visible location near Plantation Road and Interstate 81. He advised that the County has wanted to see the property developed for many years to attract other businesses to the December 19,2006 1037 area. He advised that 15 acres of the total 40 acres will be used for the retail stores for Gander Mountain and Camping World, and there will be 25 acres remaining for future development. He advised that inadequate access to the property has hampered the marketability of the property, and that a grant of $1 million from the public-private partnership will be used towards obtaining road access. Mr. Hodge advised that the agreement states that Oppidan shall construct retails stores containing 58,000 square feet for Gander Mountain and 19,000 square feet for Camping World. These two stores are often built together and the closest Gander Mountain stores to Roanoke are located in Greensboro and Winchester. He reported that the property is zoned appropriately; however, it does not have adequate road frontage and improvements are necessary to make the access safer and available for the entire business park. He advised that the estimated cost of the public infrastructure project for road access is $3 million, and the cost of providing access from Plantation Road to the boundary of the new commercial development is $1 million. Mr. Hodge advised that Gander Mountain will be located on the knoll overlooking Interstate 81 which will make it highly visible to attract visitors from other places. He advised that these two stores will be a tremendous draw for sports marketing and provide visitors who attend local events such as the Stagg Bowl with more places to shop. He advised that a Gander Mountain store will function in harmony with the businesses that are already located in the Roanoke Valley. 1 038 December 19, 2006 Mr. Hodge advised that the terms of the agreement are as follows: (1) Upon completion of the construction of the road improvements, the EDA shall make a grant to Oppidan in the amount of $500,000. (2) Upon issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for Gander Mountain, the EDA shall make an additional grant to Oppidan in the amount of $500,000. Mr. Hodge advised that the developer's costs are as follows: (1) $14 million for the Gander Mountain and Camping World facilities; (2) $4 million for land; and (3) $3 million for road and infrastructure improvements. He advised that he feels that the County's grant of $1 million will bring a good return on the investment; that the anticipated revenues to the County will be approximately $300,000 annually; and that revenues will increase as the remainder of the business park is developed. He advised that by terms of the agreement, Oppidan shall construct the retail stores by December 31,2007 and construct a new commercial access to VDOT's standards from Plantation Road to the project, including storm water management facilities and water and sewer exceptions to be accepted by the Western Virginia Water Authority. Mr. Hodge advised that Supervisor McNamara had previously suggested using revenue sharing funds instead of a grant. He advised that this is an outstanding idea; however, they were unable to commit to revenue sharing due to the tight schedule for construction and that revenue sharing monies have been allocated to projects already approved by the Board. He stated that it may be possible for the County to use the revenue sharing allocation in July 2007, and staff will continue to review this. Mr. December 19, 2006 1039 Hodge advised that the County's investment will have a three-year payback and will provide additional jobs and revenues. Chairman Wray advised that this was not a public hearing; however, one citizen had requested to speak. Steve Noble. 5276 Canter Drive, advised that he questioned why the County would not utilize revenue sharing funds for this project instead of a grant. He advised that he thought grants and to some extent revenue sharing funds were not warranted for retail establishments, and that the Board discussed these issues when they denied incentives for Keagy Village. He advised that Keagy Village is under construction without County funds; that the project under consideration will be a successful project without County funds; and that the $1 million grant could be used for other County purposes. He advised that the property was zoned C-2C conditional and that the property was owned by a church in 1990 which granted proffers by Ordinance 32790-9. He stated that the church sold the property in 1994 with the proffers having been in place for fifteen years. He advised that the first rezoning of the property was from R-1 to B-2, General Commercial District, for industrial development, and another proffer stated that the church was granted access to Carvins Creek which is a residential street and that access for other commercial uses would be from Plantation Road. He advised that this proffer must have been granted for a special reason because the property has never had road frontage on Plantation Road. He advised that everyone has known that the condition exists and that the land and development costs 1040 December 19,2006 were priced accordingly. He advised that the property will be developed because it makes economic sense. He reported that one of the uses of the property requires a special use permit which has not been submitted to the Planning Department; therefore, the citizens have had no input into advancing the $1 million. He advised that he fears that approval of this grant will lead to Holrob requesting $2 million from the County for Buck Mountain Road improvements. He advised that he feels there is no justification to advance this outright gift of $1 million. He provided Mr. Mahoney with a copy of the ordinance that he referenced in his comments. Mr. Hodge advised that he would like to respond to Mr. Noble's comments. He advised that revenue sharing funding is approved each year by the Board for specific projects, and if they were to utilize revenue sharing for fiscal year 2006-2007, they would have to remove projects already approved. He advised that staff will review revenue sharing for fiscal year 2007-2008. Mr. Hodge advised that it was not a foregone conclusion that the developer would locate in Roanoke County, and they were very close to going to Montgomery County. He advised that staff was aware of the proffers that Mr. Noble referenced and they should be reviewed by Mr. Mahoney. Mr. Hodge advised that the proffer regarding access is why the County is allocating funds to construct the access from Plantation Road. There will be no access from the residential neighborhood, and they will do what is necessary to buffer and provide protection for the houses at the rear of the property. He advised that no special use permit is required and both of the projects can be built by right. He advised that a December 19, 2006 1041 special use permit would be necessary if Camping World were to sell recreational vehicles. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation. He advised that he was not willing to take a chance on economic development and that this is a small investment to guarantee a business of Gander Mountain's stature locating in Roanoke County. He advised that the County would receive significant revenues in the future as the businesses remain operational. He stated that it is an investment in the future of Roanoke County's economic development, and this is a retail establishment that is not located in every locality since the closest store is 150 miles away. Supervisor Altizer advised that he agreed with Supervisor Flora's comments and felt that this is a common sense investment due to the opportunity to open up a business park with two facilities and have approximately 25 developable acres remaining. He advised that there are properties throughout Roanoke County where it would only take one investor and one building to start the development process. He advised that he intends to support the motion because it is a great investment with a good return. Supervisor McNamara advised that he supported the motion but he recommended using revenue sharing so the State would pay half of the road costs. He advised that he understands that this would move some of the approved projects aside; however, he is requesting that staff continue to pursue revenue sharing to bring the County's contribution closer to one and one-half times the annual revenues. He 1042 December 19, 2006 reported that he does not view this project as a true retail development because Gander Mountain is a destination business that will attract a net positive to the valley for retail sales. He advised that revenues from retail sales are very important to the overall tax base for the County. He advised that he looks forward to the remainder of the acreage being developed, and he feels sure that this project will do well in the future. Chairman Wray advised that Supervisor Flora had moved to approve staff recommendation (execute a performance agreement between the County, the Roanoke County EDA and Oppidan and to authorize the reallocation of $1,000,000 from the Public Private Partnership account to a new account for Oppidan Public Private Partnership Agreement). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 3. Reauest to adopt! resolution authorizinQ ! continuinQ disclosure aQreement in connection with! financinQ .!ll! the Western Virainia Reaional Jail Authority in an aQQreQate principal amount not to exceed J127.000.000. (Diane D. Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer) R-121906-3 Ms. Hyatt advised that on October 1, 2005, the County of Roanoke signed a service agreement with the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority (Authority), along with the City of Salem, and Counties of Franklin and Montgomery. This agreement outlines the commitment of all the localities to place prisoners at the regional jail and to December 19, 2006 1043 pay for the use of the facility through a capital component which will pay the debt service, and an operating component which will pay the operating costs. Ms. Hyatt advised that approval of a resolution by the Board is required as part of the closing papers for the bonds that will be sold by the Authority for the construction of a new regional jail. This resolution states that the County is providing full financial disclosure and will continue to submit financial information that is included in the County's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) on an annual basis to the national repositories. She reported that the County currently provides this information for other bond issues that are outstanding. She advised that each of the member jurisdictions will adopt a similar resolution; that the City of Salem approved their resolution on December 11, 2006; that Montgomery County approved their resolution on December 18, 2006; and that Franklin County is considering approval of their resolution today. Ms. Hyatt advised that on Thursday, December 21,2006, the Authority will be approving the sale of long-term bonds and notes in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $127,000,000; of this amount, $47,000,000 will be reimbursed by the State at the completion of construction. These bonds are payable solely from funds generated by the Authority and do not constitute an obligation of the member jurisdictions. The County's commitment to the Authority was made with the signing of the service agreement. She advised that the combined per diem for the operating and 1044 December 19, 2006 capital component is projected to be in the range of $42 to $45. She requested that the Board adopt the resolution. There was no discussion of this item. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None RESOLUTION 121906-3 AUTHORIZING A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, DISCLOSURE INFORMATION AND CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH A FINANCING BY THE WESTERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY The County of Franklin, Virginia, the County of Montgomery, Virginia, the County of Roanoke, Virginia and the City of Salem, Virginia are members of the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority (the "Authority"). The Authority was created for the purpose of developing and operating a regional jail facility (the "Regional Jail") for the benefit of such member jurisdictions. The Authority plans to finance the development of the Regional Jail through the issuance of its regional jail facility revenue bonds and notes in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $127,000,000 (the "2007 Obligations"). To assist with the sale of the 2007 Obligations to one or more underwriters or other financial institutions, the Authority has asked the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "Member Jurisdiction") to enter into a Continuing Disclosure Agreement to be dated on or before the date of the issuance of the 2007 Obligations (the "Disclosure Agreement"). Further, as a member of the Authority, the Member Jurisdiction will be asked to provide certain information, including its audited financial statements, to the Authority for inclusion in an Appendix (the "Appendix") to the offering document to be circulated to investors in connection with the offering and issuance of the 2007 Obligations (the "Preliminary Official Statement"). The forms of the Disclosure Agreement and the Appendix have been made available to the members of the Member Jurisdiction's Board of Supervisors (the "Governing Body") prior to this meeting and have been filed with the Governing Body's records. December 19, 2006 1045 After careful consideration and in furtherance of the public purposes for which the Authority was created and the Regional Jail is being developed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT: 1. Authorization of Disclosure Aoreement. The Disclosure Agreement is hereby approved in substantially the form made available to the members of the Governing Body prior to this meeting, with such changes, insertions, omissions or amendments (including, without limitation, changes of the dates thereof and therein) as may be approved by the Chairman of the Governing Body or the County Administrator. The approval of any such changes, insertions, omissions and amendments shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Disclosure Agreement. The performance of the Member Jurisdiction's obligations under the Disclosure Agreement is authorized and directed. 2. Execution and Delivery of Disclosure Aoreement. The Chairman of the Governing Body or the County Administrator, either of whom may act, are each authorized and directed to execute the Disclosure Agreement on behalf of the Member Jurisdiction and to deliver it to the Authority. 3. Authorization of Information for Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement. The Chairman of the Governing Body or the County Administrator are each authorized and directed to work with the Authority to provide information with respect to the Member Jurisdiction, including its audited financial statements, that will be appropriate for inclusion in the Preliminary Official Statement, in substantially the form provided in the Appendix. The Chairman of the Governing Body or the County Administrator are each authorized and directed to provide such information with respect to the Member Jurisdiction, including its audited financial statements, for inclusion in the final Official Statement with respect to the 2007 Obligations, which information will be substantially similar to the information in the Preliminary Official Statement, with revisions necessary since the date of the Preliminary Official Statement as may be necessary or appropriate to incorporate therein. The underwriters for the 2007 Obligations are authorized to include the information provided by the Member Jurisdiction in accordance with this Resolution, including the Member Jurisdiction's Appendix and audited financial statements, in the Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement distributed in connection with the offering and issuance of the 2007 Obligations. 4. Authorization of Further Acts and Documentation. The members of the Governing Body and the staff of the Member Jurisdiction are authorized and directed to execute and deliver on behalf of the Member Jurisdiction such other instruments, documents or certificates, and to do and perform such other things and acts, as any of them shall deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the transactions authorized by this Resolution or contemplated by the Disclosure Agreement or such instruments, documents or certificates. All such actions previously taken are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. 1046 December 19,2006 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1.: Second readina of an ordinance amendina Section 2-118 of the Roanoke County Code. "Manner of Addressina the Board-Time Limit". to provide for yieldina and accumulatina additional time for speakers. (Paul Mahoney. County Attorney) This item was moved to the evening session as Item S-6. IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Buildina Code Board of Adiustments and Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) Chairman Wray advised that the four-year term of Richard L. Williams expired on October 24, 2006; the four-year term of Wilmore T. Leffell expired on December 12, 2006. Chairman Wray advised that Mr. Williams has indicated that he does not wish to serve an additional term; that Larry W. Degen, alternate member, has advised that he is willing to serve as a full member of this board; and that Mr. Leffell has stated that he is willing to serve an additional four-year term that will expire on December 12, 2010. It was the consensus of the Board to add confirmation of these appointments to the consent agenda. December 19, 2006 1047 2. Library Board (Appointed ~ District) Chairman Wray advised that the four-year term of Phyllis C. Amos, Cave Spring Magisterial District, will expire on December 31, 2006. He advised that he has discussed prospective members with Diana Rosapepe, Director of Libraries, and he plans to announce a nominee at the next Board meeting. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-121906-4 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 121906-4 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 December 19, 2006, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - December 5, 2006 2. Confirmation of committee appointments 3. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate the amount of $4,500 from Lewis Gale Hospital for the Cardiac 12-Lead ECG program 4. Request to reallocate $118,000 from the Mountain View Road project to a new account for road improvement projects 5. Request to accept and appropriate a local government challenge grant in the amount of $5,000 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts 1048 December 19, 2006 6. Request to accept the donation of approximately 3,182 square feet, to construct, operate, maintain, inspect and repair or replace a drainage system and related improvements including slope(s) across property of Robert Erickson, Betty Brown and James Minnix, Trustees of Colonial Avenue Baptist Church, Cave Spring Magisterial District 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 INRE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Reauest to schedule!. work session on January 23.2007. to review the Fire Hydrant Placement and Flow Policy. (Elmer C. HodQe. County Administrator) In response to Chairman Wray's inquiry, Mr. Hodge advised that staff is in the process of gathering information for the requested work session. It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the work session on January 23,2007. 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 ContinQency December 19, 2006 1049 IN RE: 4. Future Debt Payment Reserves 5. Accounts Paid = November 2006 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended November 30, 2006 7. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Budaet Report 8. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Chanae Order Report 9. Statement of Treasurer's accountability per investment and portfolio policv as of November 30, 2006 CLOSED MEETING At 3:50 p.m., Supervisor Wray moved to go into closed meeting following the work session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes, namely County garage; Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to actual litigation, namely Hawthorne. et al. v. Lavinder. et al.; and Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to probable litigation, namely, Cardinal Criminal Justice Training Academy. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 1 050 December 19, 2006 IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1: Work session to discuss the elimination of County decals for the tax year 2008. (Kevin Hutchins. Treasurer: Diane Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer) The work session was held from 4: 1 0 p.m. until 4:25 p.m. Mr. Hutchins advised that he sent the Board members a memorandum several months ago concerning elimination of decals; however, due to the cost of programming changes, it was deemed too expensive to accomplish this for the tax year 2007. He advised that at this time he is presenting a proposal to the Board to eliminate decals for tax year 2008 because the final vendor for the HP migration will be selected in December 2006, and the platform for the spring billing should be in operation by March 2007. Mr. Hutchins advised that he is a member of the HP Migration Vendor Selection Team. Mr. Hutchins advised that the use of decals, which began in the 1960's to assist in the collection of personal property taxes, has become a revenue source for the County and that $1,896,480.03 was collected in 2006. He advised that the reasons for eliminating the decals include the following: (1) decals are no longer needed as a collection tool; (2) an increasing number of localities have eliminated the use of decals; (3) it is an unnecessary intrusion in peoples' lives; (4) decals are a cumbersome process; and (5) cost savings. December 19,2006 1051 Mr. Hutchins advised that 36 localities have eliminated decals. 11 , localities are in the process of elimination; 6 localities have permanent decals; and Roanoke City and Botetourt County are seriously considering decal elimination for 2008. He advised that because many localities are eliminating decals, enforcement will become intrusive. He reported that the issuance of decals presents staff with many hours of problems; that staff's work load increases due to the longer lines of taxpayers during the tax season; and rejects occur within the revenue account for non-payment of decals. Mr. Hutchins advised that the total cost savings for eliminating decals would be $95,000 which includes $38,000 for purchasing decals, $50,000 for a new decal system, and $7,500 for police officers, overtime, rejects, and Information Technology staff assistance. He indicated that $15,000 would be needed for the possible modifications for handling of a Vehicle Licensing Fee (VLF). Mr. Hutchins advised that the proposed recommendations include: (1) elimination of the decal requirement for 2008, and (2) changing the decal fee to a VLF to achieve revenue neutral recovery. He advised that he proposes to bring an ordinance with the changes to the Board in January 2007, and after the taxpayers have been notified and the HP migration software implemented, the first revised bills could be mailed to taxpayers in April 2008. He reported that other options were considered such as elimination of the fee which would mean a loss of revenue of $1,896,480.03; elimination of the fee by rolling it into the tax rate which would call for a tax rate 1052 December 19,2006 increase; and changing the assessment method which would be a viable option for the County but not for the Town of Vinton. He also advised that the Commissioner of the Revenue would have to authorize a change in the assessment methodology. Mr. Hutchins advised that elimination of decals is possible because of a change in legislation in the State Code which states that "Nothing shall be construed to require a county, city, or town to issue a decal or any other tangible evidence of a local license to be displayed on the licensed vehicle if the county's, city's, or town's ordinance does not require display of a decal or other evidence of payment." In response to inquiries, Mr. Hutchins advised that the cost of the VLF is $20 per vehicle and it is not prorated. There was a discussion concerning the current method of transferring decals when cars are purchased and the effect that the $20 VLF would have on a citizen who purchases a new vehicle(s) mid-year. Mr. Hutchins advised that he would be glad to review proration again; however, if the County prorates the VLF, it would cause problems among the localities since 80% of the other localities have adopted the fee without proration and Roanoke City and Botetourt County will probably adopt the VLF without proration. He also advised that adjusting the fee to make it more equitable for citizens can not be achieved while keeping revenues neutral. In response to Supervisor Altizer's inquiry about how the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) will address the elimination of decals, Mr. Hutchins advised that John Hubbard, Chief Executive Officer, RVRA, advised that they are not sure of the method at this time but he feels that they can find a way to make it work. December 19, 2006 1053 IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-121906-5 At 7:00 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, Wr'iJ.Y NAYS: None RESOLUTION 121906-5 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 1 054 December 19, 2006 IN RE: RECOGNITIONS Chairman Wray recognized Skip Yeatts, Scoutmaster, and the members of Boy Scout Troop 7 who were attending the meeting to work on their citizenship badges. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION .1: Public hearina to consider reQuestina that the Virainia Department of Transportation restrict throuah truck traffic on Clearbrook Lane (Route 674), Cave Sprina Maaisterial District, and adoption of resolution. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planninal R-121906-6 Mr. Thompson advised that the issue before the Board is to consider requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to restrict through truck traffic on a portion of Clearbrook Lane. He reported that this issue was initiated by citizens who live on Clearbrook Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial District through Supervisor Wray. He advised that restricting through truck traffic is one of VDOT's neighborhood traffic programs dealing with residential streets. He reported that the process to restrict through truck traffic requires that the local governing body hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution requesting VDOT to place this restriction on a given section of roadway. Once the public hearing has been held and a resolution adopted, the request is forwarded to the local VDOT Resident Administrator who December 19, 2006 1055 passes the request with supporting documentation to the State Mobility Management Engineer. The State Mobility Management Engineer will then make a recommendation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) for action, and the CTB must act upon the formal request within nine months. Mr. Thompson advised that there are several key criteria that VDOT considers prior to approving any proposed restriction: (1) A reasonable alternative route is provided. (2) Character/frequency of the truck traffic on the route is not compatible with the affected area. (3) Roadway is residential in nature. (4) Roadway must be functionally classified as either local or collector. He advised that failure to satisfy both criteria one and two and either three or four will result in the request being denied. Mr. Thompson reported that local truck traffic, such as for deliveries or someone who resides on this route, are not affected by the restricted designation; however, all other through truck traffic would be required to use the selected alternative route. The through truck traffic restriction is proposed for Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) beginning at the intersection of Franklin Road (Route 220) traveling northwest on Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) and ending at the intersection of Clearbrook Village Lane (Route 675) with the termini to termini distance equaling approximately 0.48 mile. The alternate route proposed is Franklin Road (Route 220) beginning at the intersection of Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) traveling northwest on Franklin Road to Clearbrook Village Lane (Route 675), then traveling northeast on Clearbrook Village Lane (Route 1056 December 19, 2006 675) and ending at the intersection of Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) with the termini to termini distance equaling approximately 0.58 mile. Supervisor Flora inquired if the concluding paragraph of the resolution should contain a more specific description of the truck traffic restriction instead of referencing "Clearbrook Lane". Mr. Mahoney advised that while the concluding paragraph could be interpreted to include the more specific description, it would clarify the resolution to amend it as requested by Supervisor Flora. Chairman Wray requested that Mr. Mahoney make the change in the resolution. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the majority of the truck traffic on Clearbrook Lane was primarily traveling north or south or could it be traffic southbound crossing over and turning around to go north. Mr. Thompson advised that there was traffic from both directions but the majority of the traffic was northbound on Route 220. The following citizens spoke in favor of the restriction on truck traffic on Clearbrook Lane: (1) Louise Beamer, 5453 Clearbrook Lane; (2) Glenn Muncy, 6580 S Indian Grave Road; (3) Kelsie Moses, 5292 Amanda Lane; and (4) Harry G. Norris, 5346 Amanda Lane. Judv Hawks. 5314 Amanda Lane.. advised that with this restriction on Clearbrook Lane, the trucks will now be turning onto Clearbrook Village Lane at the traffic signal on Route 220 which is shared by four medical facilities and Clearbrook Elementary School. She advised that there will be an unknown number of trucks using this signal light which will create safety issues with first responders for emergency December 19, 2006 1057 medical services and a more hazardous condition for children attending the school. She requested that the Board reconsider this issue and put first the safety of the children attending the school, citizens needing emergency medical care, and travelers on Route 220. She asked that the Board uphold the provisions of the Clearbrook Village Overlay District, and stated that if the Board would limit Wal-Mart to 50,000 square feet, the delivery trucks would not cause a significant problem. John Saul. 5314 Amanda Lane, advised that he wanted to have the truck traffic eliminated on Clearbrook Lane; however; he is opposed to making Clearbrook Village Lane the designated truck route for Wal-Mart. He advised that no decision should be made in the absence of a viable traffic report and without knowing the identities of the businesses which will be located there. Supervisor Wray advised that he has traveled Clearbrook Lane many times and has first-hand knowledge of the safety hazards created by trucks. He advised that he does not feel that trucks should be allowed on Clearbrook Lane and moved to adopt the resolution. Supervisor Flora advised that he would support the motion. He advised that he is familiar with Clearbrook Lane and feels that it meets all of the criteria to support the restriction on truck traffic. He advised that it should be clarified that this restriction applies to Clearbrook Lane and not Clearbrook Village Lane. Supervisor Altizer advised that he has noticed while traveling north on Route 220 that traffic exiting the retail stores cut into the turn lane to go north and "--~~----~----~--_....__..~~-"----- 1058 December 19,2006 instead of making a U-turn, turn onto Clearbrook Lane to continue traveling north. He advised that it is not safe for trucks to use Clearbrook Lane and that he will support the motion. Mr. Mahoney inquired if Supervisor Wray's motion was to adopt the resolution as amended by Supervisor Flora. Supervisor Wray advised that this was correct. Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution as amended by Supervisor Flora. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None Chairman Wray inquired if there was anything that could be done to expedite the implementation of the restriction. Mr. Thompson advised that nine months is the time period that the CTB has to make a decision but it could be implemented sooner. RESOLUTION 121906-6 REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO RESTRICT THROUGH TRUCK TRAFFIC ON CLEARBROOK LANE (ROUTE 674), CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has studied the possibility of placing a through truck restriction on Clearbrook Lane (Route 674), and WHEREAS, the through truck traffic restriction is proposed for Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) beginning at the intersection of Franklin Road (Route 220) traveling northwest on Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) and ending at the intersection of Clearbrook Village Lane (Route 675) with the termini to termini distance equaling approximately 0.48 mile, and WHEREAS, the alternate route proposed is Franklin Road (Route 220) beginning at the intersection of Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) traveling northwest on Franklin Road December 19, 2006 1059 to Clearbrook Village Lane (Route 675), then traveling northeast on Clearbrook Village Lane (Route 675) and ending at the intersection of Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) with the termini to termini distance equaling approximately 0.58 mile, and WHEREAS, the alternate route has been found to be reasonable, and WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held according to Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to restrict through truck traffic on Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) beginning at the intersection of Franklin Road (Route 220) traveling northwest on Clearbrook Lane (Route 674) and ending at the intersection of Clearbrook Village Lane (Route 675) with the termini to termini distance equaling approximately 0.48 mile. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County will use its offices for enforcement of the proposed restriction by the Roanoke County. On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the amended resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None INRE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES .L Continued until January 23, 2007, at the request of the petitioner. Second readina of an ordinance to rezone 24.46 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential, in order to construct multi- family dwellinas at g maximum density of 5.15 dwellina units per acre located at 4800 Keaay Road, Windsor Hills Maaisterial District, upon the petition of Hidden Valley Villas, LLC. Chairman Wray advised that this item has been continued until January 23, 2007, at the request of the petitioner. 1060 December 19,2006 2. Second readina of !!l ordinance to rezone approximatelv 1.67 ~ acres from C-1, Office District, to C-2, General Commercial District with conditions, to rezone 0.68 acres from and R-3, Medium Density Multi-Familv Residential, to C-1, Office District, ~ General Commercial District, and to obtain .@. special use permit in order to construct .@. drive-thru restaurant located at 6065 Peters Creek Road, Hollins Maaisterial District. upon the petition of Lexinaton Falls, LLC. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planninal 0-121906-7 Mr. Thompson advised that Lexington Falls LLC is requesting to rezone two parcels of property totaling 2.35 acres and requesting a special use permit for the second parcel of 1.67 acres. The property is located along Peters Creek Road just east of the intersection of Airport Road. The project involves construction of a 3,365 square foot drive-thru restaurant with a maximum height of 22 feet and an entrance to be constructed onto Peters Creek Road which will be a shared entrance with the adjacent property owner. He advised that the proposal includes a 200 foot access road to the restaurant to help with stacking of the traffic from Peters Creek Road and a left-turn lane to the site on the other side of Peters Creek Road. They are also proposing a picnic area for the patrons with associated parking, landscaping, screening, lighting, signage, and stormwater management associated with commercial development. The project is served by public water and public sewer. The surrounding zoning of the properties on December 19, 2006 1061 the same side of Peters Creek Road is C-1; along the frontage of Peters Creek Road is zoned R-3, and to the rear of the property is zoned C-2, General Commercial. The surrounding land uses include a mixture of commercial, office and residential. Mr. Thompson advised that the community plan designation for future land use for the front parcel is transition and the back parcel is designated development. He reported that the proposed drive-thru and fast food restaurant with conditions is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the community plan; however, the rear parcel of property is inconsistent with the community plan. Mr. Thompson advised that a community meeting was held on November 15, 2006, at Burlington Elementary School with 8 citizens in attendance. The issues raised included traffic concerns, appearance of the building, and signage. Mr. Thompson advised that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 5, 2006, and that two citizens spoke at the public hearing. One citizen spoke in favor of the project and the other citizen asked questions regarding the entrance location and exiting traffic crossing the four lanes of Peters Creek Road. The Planning Commissioners discussed the applicability of the Hollins Village Williamson Road Design Guidelines, the outstanding zoning violations on the property, and the possibility of a traffic light being installed in the future at Alpine Road. It was felt that an additional traffic signal at Dwight Street would be too close to the traffic light at Airport Road. ------~-~--- ---~-- --- ---~- ~ ~ -- --- 1062 December 19, 2006 Mr. Thompson advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning the front parcel of 1.67 acres from C-1 to C-2 and recommended rezoning the rear parcel of 0.68 acres from R-3 to C-1. He advised that this is a change from the original request since the Planning Commission felt that the C-1 designation for the rear parcel would be consistent with the community plan and buffers the residential properties. The Planning Commission also recommended approval by a vote of four to zero of the special use permit for a drive-thru and fast food restaurant with nine conditions. Mr. Thompson summarized the nine conditions as follows: (1) requiring a brick monument-style sign limited in size to 5 feet tall and 7 feet wide; (2) restricting the building facade signage to 5%; (3) prohibiting off-premises signs; (4) designating building materials and design; (5) requiring additional landscaping around dumpsters, parking lot, and picnic area; (6) specifying light pole color, height, and fixture style; (7) placing two conditions on building lighting; (8) relocating the picnic area and providing better access; and (9) screening of the dumpster. Supervisor Flora inquired about the proposed entrance which is planned for construction across from Dwight Street. Mr. Thompson advised that Mr. Douthat owns the adjoining property and he has agreed to a joint easement between the properties to provide access for future development. Mr. Sean Horne, Balzer and Associates, advised that he was speaking on behalf of Stan Seymore and Lexington Falls LLC and requesting approval of the rezoning for the two parcels of property. He advised that they were requesting C-2 December 19, 2006 1063 rezoning for the front parcel and they were agreeable to the rear parcel being rezoned C-1 as recommended by the Planning Commission. He advised that the request is to allow a Bojangles restaurant to be constructed on the parcel adjacent to Peters Creek Road and a future commercial use to be allowed on the rear parcel. He advised that they have worked with County staff, VDOT, held a public meeting, and coordinated with adjacent property owners to provide the best possible plan for the site. The property is elevated above Peters Creek Road, and there is an existing house on the site which will be torn down. He reported that the issues of zoning violations on the current property are being resolved. He advised that they are sharing an access with Mr. Douthat's property and the traffic study included the front parcel of Mr. Douthat's property; however, if additional improvements to Mr. Douthat's property are necessary, another traffic study will have to be completed. Mr. Horne reported that one of the advantages for sharing this access point with Mr. Douthat is that they will be able to line up with the cross-over on Peters Creek Road and provide more stacking space to get the cars off Peters Creek Road faster to make it a safer situation. He advised that they are providing additional landscaping to buffer the adjacent properties and screening to prevent car headlights from shining across Peters Creek Road into houses and businesses. He advised that they worked extensively with County staff on all of the proffers and conditions and that the developer and owner agree to all of those conditions. 1064 December 19, 2006 Supervisor Wray inquired about the condition that there will be no cobra- head or shoe-box fixtures and inquired if there was any difference in light spill-over between them. Mr. Horn replied in the negative and advised that the light fixtures will be all full cut-off fixtures and will meet the ordinance requirement for not more than one- half foot candle at the property line. He advised that it was County staff's recommendation not to use cobra-head or shoe-box fixtures which creates big boxes or exposed bulbs; using steel fixtures creates a more residential situation. Mr. Mahoney advised that he was distributing a revised ordinance to the Board members which reflects the revisions as expressed by Mr. Thompson and Mr. Horne. He advised that the primary difference between the revised ordinance and the ordinance in the printed agenda is contained in paragraph 1. He advised that the ordinance in the printed agenda reflected the information in the initial application from Lexington Falls LCC. Mr. Mahoney advised that the revised ordinance reflects the proposal to split the property between two different zoning classifications so that the front portion of the property which fronts on Peters Creek Road containing 1.67 acres would be rezoned to C-2, and the rear portion which fronts on Burlington Road containing a 0.68 acre tract would be rezoned to C-1. He advised that typically the County goes forward with what the applicant requests and this is one of the first times that there has been a situation where a change has been requested in the zoning classification because the Planning Commission recommended splitting the property between two different zoning classifications. He advised that essentially the change in December 19, 2006 1065 paragraph 1 of the revised ordinance reflects the agreements between the County staff, the Planning Commission and the applicant. In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiry, Mr. Mahoney advised that the request to rezone the rear portion of the property was being down-zoned from C-2 to C- 1. Mr. Horne explained that they originally offered to proffer that they would limit the uses on the rear propriety if it were zoned C-2; however, County staff felt that because of the future land use designation, it should be zoned C-1. Mr. Horne advised that the C-1 zoning would provide the office uses that they were seeking. Supervisor Wray inquired if the applicant had agreed to the nine conditions. Mr. Horn replied in the affirmative. There were no citizens present to speak on this item Supervisor Flora advised that he concurred with the Planning Commission's decision that the rear property should be rezoned to C-1. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the revised ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 121906-7 TO REZONE 1.67 ACRES FROM C-1, OFFICE DISTRICT, TO C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS (TAX MAP NO. 27.13-5-1), TO REZONE 0.68 ACRE FROM R-3, MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C-1, OFFICE DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO. 27.13-5-2), AND TO OST AIN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVE- THRU RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 6065 PETERS CREEK ROAD HOLLINS 1066 December 19, 2006 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF LEXINGTON FALLS,LLC WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2006, and the second reading and public hearing were held December 19, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on December 5, 2006; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 1.67 acres located at 6065 Peters Creek Road (Tax Map Parcel Number 27.13-5-1) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of C-1, Office District to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District with conditions; and that the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing 0.68 acre located in the 6100 block of Burlington Road (Tax Map Parcel Number 27.13- 5-2) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-3 Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District to the zoning classification of C-1, Office District. 2. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Lexington Falls, LLC to construct a drive-thru restaurant to be located at 6065 Peters Creek Road (Tax Map Parcel Number 27.13-5-1) in the Hollins Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1) A monument-style sign shall be constructed measuring no greater than 5-feet tall and 7 -feet wide. The sign face shall be surrounded by brick to match the building and shall include architectural features such as a pre-cast concrete cap and base. 2) Signage placed on the building shall occupy less than 5 percent of the building fac;ade area. 3) Off-premises signs shall be prohibited. 4) The building shall be constructed in a style substantially conforming to Exhibit B, an accepted proffered exterior from the approved November 2005 Seaside Heights, LLC rezoning and special use permit for a Bojangles drive-in restaurant (case numbers 32-12/2004 and 33-12/2004), except that from grade to eave, all walls shall be constructed with at least two colors of red or brown brick instead of white brick. 5) Additional landscaping shall be provided. In particular, the dumpster enclosure shall be screened by tree and shrub plantings, additional trees shall be December 19, 2006 1067 planted in the parking lot, a perimeter planting bed shall be designed in front of the parking spaces facing Peters Creek Road, additional landscaping shall be planted around the picnic area to further delineate it as a site feature, and all plants used shall conform to the Plant Palette listed in the Williamson Road Hollins Village Design Guidelines. 6) Light poles shall be black, gray, or grayish-brown. Light fixtures shall be directed downward and inward into the site, shall be no taller than 15 feet in height, and shall not be cobra-head or shoebox-style fixtures. 7) Decorative building lighting shall be used and fixtures shall be recessed wherever possible. 8) The picnic area shall be moved northward away from the dumpster. A crosswalk shall be constructed to lead customers from the nearest building entrance across the parking lot and an identifiable path shall continue from the parking lot to the picnic area. 9) The sides and rear of the dumpster enclosure shall be brick construction to match the building. 3. That this action is taken upon the application of Lexington Falls, LLC. 4. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions applicable to Tax Map Parcel Number 27.13-5-1, which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: 1) The developer hereby proffers general conformance with the "Bojangles Restaurant - Concept Masterplan", prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated October 27, 2006, revised November 15, 2006, and last revised November 27, 2006, submitted with rezoning and special use permit application 31-12/2006 with no deviation from the shared entrance with the property to the north as shown. 5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: Parcel 1 - 1.67 acres located at 6065 Peters Creek Road (Tax Map Parcel Number 27.13-5-1) from C-1 to C-2 Parcel 2 - 0.68 acre located in the 6100 block of Burlington Road (Tax Map Parcel Number 27.13-5-2) from R-3 to C-1 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None -----'--~--~.~-_._-_._--_.__.- 1068 December 19, 2006 3. Second readinQ of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of approximatelv 0.35 acres of real estate located at 4808 Pleasant Hill Drive. Windsor Hills MaQisterial District, from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors. {Paul Mahonev. County Attornev} 0-121906-8 Mr. Mahoney advised that this ordinance authorizes the acceptance of a conveyance of approximately 0.35 acres of real estate from the School Board to the Board of Supervisors. He advised that the next item on the agenda will request authorization to sell this property. Chairman Wray advised that there is no public hearing required for this item and approval of this ordinance is required before the next ordinance can be considered. 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 121906-8 TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 0.35 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NO. 86.08-4-14) LOCATED AT 4808 PLEASANT HILL DRIVE, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, the County School Board of Roanoke County has determined that it has no further use for approximately 0.35 acres of unimproved real estate it owns in the December 19, 2006 1069 Windsor Hills Magisterial District and located at 4808 Pleasant Hill Drive and being all of Tax Map No. 86.08-4-14; and WHEREAS, at their meeting on October 25, 2006, the County School Board declared the above-mentioned 0.35 acre parcel of real estate to be surplus property, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon approval of this ordinance and recordation of a deed; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance will be held on November 14, 2006, and the second reading will be held on December 19, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the conveyance of a parcel of real estate containing approximately 0.35 acres and located at 4808 Pleasant Hill Drive (Tax Map No. 86.08-4-14) from the County School Board of Roanoke County to the Board of Supervisors, is hereby accepted, authorized, and approved. 2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 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 4. Second readina of an ordinance acceptina ~ bid for and authorizina the sale of approximately 0.35 acres of real estate located at 4808 Pleasant Hill Drive. Windsor Hills Maaisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney. County Attorney) 0-121906-9 Mr. Mahoney advised that this ordinance authorizes the acceptance of a bid for the purchase of this property. He reported that after the first reading of the ordinance, a notice was published in the newspaper advertising that the Board would accept bids on the sale of this property and that a public hearing would be held. He 1070 December 19, 2006 advised that letters were sent to the adjoining property owners as well as property owners across the street and a sign was posted on the property. Mr. Mahoney advised that all of the notices and letters indicated that anyone interested in purchasing this real estate would have to submit their offer in writing to his office by noon on Wednesday, December 13, 2006. He reported that he received two offers and the ordinance reflects the higher of the offers in the amount of $41,550 which was received from Ray Sowder trading as ERS Builders, Inc. and Roy Lochner trading as RVR&A. In response to Supervisor Flora's inquiry, Mr. Mahoney advised that the second bid was received from Ken Gustier in the amount of $32,101. Mr. Mahoney advised Supervisor Flora that the property was appraised for $37,500. Supervisor Flora inquired how this offer translates into fair market value. Mr. Mahoney advised that fair market value means what a willing seller will offer and a wiling buyer will accept. Supervisor Flora inquired about fair market value as compared to comparable sales in the area. Mr. Mahoney advised that he did not know. Supervisor Altizer inquired how the advertisement of the property was made. Mr. Mahoney advised that it was advertised in the Roanoke Times and World News under legal ads. Supervisor Altizer advised that in considering the fair market value, the bid price was about 11 % over the assessment and close to being comparable to similar properties in other neighborhoods of $42,500 to $48,000. He recommended that when the County has property to sell, that the advertisement should be placed in December 19,2006 1071 the legal section of the newspaper as well as the section where property is sold so that it would reach more people and result in higher bids being received. Supervisor McNamara advised that the Board's philosophy for many years has been that County property should not be sold for less than fair market value unless there are extenuating circumstances. He advised that for smaller purchases the Board has relied on the assessed value and not requested an appraisal. He advised that he values the opinion of Supervisor Altizer since he is in the real estate business but in general the fair market value in the County is somewhere between 105% to 110% of the assessed value. He advised that while there are exceptions, Mr. Mahoney was wise not to comment on the fair market value for this property. Supervisor McNamara advised that fair market value is considered what someone will pay assuming the property is advertised and all available sellers or potential buyers are aware of it. He advised that on a smaller transaction such as this item, he felt that the Board is being appropriately cautious. There were no citizens present to speak 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 121906-9 ACCEPTING A BID FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF APPROXIMATELY 0.35 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NO. 86.08-4-14) LOCATED AT 4808 PLEASANT HILLS DRIVE, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 1072 December 19,2006 WHEREAS, at their meeting on October 25, 2006, the County School Board declared a 0.35 acre parcel of real estate to be surplus property, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon approval of an ordinance and recordation of a deed; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance accepting the conveyance of this property from the Roanoke County School Board; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County has determined that it has no use for this parcel of unimproved real estate in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District and located at 4808 Pleasant Hill Drive and being all of Tax Map No. 86.08-4-14 and has declared said parcel surplus and available for sale to the public; and WHEREAS, in accordance with County policy regarding the availability of this property for purchase (i) a notice has been mailed to the adjoining property owners on Pleasant Hills Drive; (ii) a legal ad has been placed in the newspaper requesting bids for the purchase of this property; (iii) a public hearing to formally accept a bid for the purchase of this property has been placed on the Board's agenda for December 19, 2006; and (iv) placed a for sale sign on the property; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance will be held on November 14, 2006, and the second reading and public hearing will be held on December 19, 2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the bid of A. Rav Sowder Va ERS Builders. Inc. and Roy Lochner Va RVR&A. Inc. in the amount of $41.550 for the purchase of approximately 0.35 acres of real estate located at 4808 Pleasant Hills Drive (Tax Map No. 86.08-4-14) is hereby accepted and sale of this property is hereby authorized. 2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 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 December 19, 2006 1073 5. Second readina of an ordinance authorizina the relocation of ~ 15' access easement located upon portions of Huntridae Grove Subdivision. Section No. ~ and crossina Stayman Drive as shown on the plat of property of F&W Community Development Corporation. Hollins Maaisterial District. (Paul Mahoney. County Attorney) 0-121906-10 Mr. Mahoney advised that there have been no changes since the first reading of this ordinance. There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None ORDINANCE 121906-10 AUTHORIZING THE RELOCATION OF A 15' ACCESS EASEMENT LOCATED UPON PORTIONS OF HUNTRIDGE GROVE SUBDIVISION, SECTION NO.1, AND CROSSING STAYMAN DRIVE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF PROPERTY OF F & W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGE 99, LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, a 15 foot access easement for purposes of a stormwater management area was dedicated to the County of Roanoke by a plat for subdivision of property of F & W Community Development Corporation, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 18, page 99; and, WHEREAS, the said 15 foot access easement for purposes of a stormwater management area is shown as crossing various lots of Huntridge Grove, Section No.1, 1074 December 19, 2006 subdivision and underlying Stayman Drive, a public street proposed for acceptance into the Virginia Secondary Road System, all as shown on "Plat Showing Section No.1, 'HUNTRIDGE GROVE', Property of Fralin and Waldron, Inc., Being the Resubdivision of Tract "A" (P.B. 25, PG. 87) Situated Along Huntridge Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Roanoke County Virginia", dated October 9, 2002, prepared by Lumsden Associates; and, WHEREAS, in consultation with the Roanoke County Department of Community Development, F & W Community Development Corporation has agreed to the relocation of said 15 foot access easement upon its adjoining property, which proposed new easement location is acceptable to the County's engineers; and, WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has requested that this easement relocation be accomplished by formal action of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 (2), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, in order to permanently vacate that portion of the easement underlying Stayman Drive so as to permit the proper acceptance of Stayman Drive into the State Secondary Road System, and, WHEREAS, this formal Board action of vacation will serve to remove potential title question affecting several property owners in Huntridge Grove subdivision, Section No.1;and WHEREAS, the developer, as the Petitioner, has requested that, pursuant to 915.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate the existing 15 foot access easement dedicated in Plat Book 18, Page 99, and relocate said easement as now shown on the attached Exhibits "A" & "B"; and, WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected County departments have recommended this easement relocation and formal vacation; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by 915.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 14, 2006, and the second reading and public hearing was held on December 19, 2006. 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 November 14, 2006, and a second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on December 19, 2006. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the subject real estate, a 15 foot access easement, is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interests in real estate renders them unavailable for other public use. December 19,2006 1075 3. That the 15 foot access easement, being designated and shown as "EX 15' ACCESS EASEMENT (PB.18, PG.99) (TO BE VACATED)" on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and having been dedicated on the subdivision plat for F & W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 18, page 99, in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to 915.2-2272 of the Code ofVirginia,1950, as amended. 4. That a new 15 foot access easement substantially in accordance with the location as shown on "Plat Showing Zero Lot Line Subdivision 'KESWICK COURT', Property of FRALIN & WALDRON, INC., Being the Resubdivision of ROANOKE COUNTY TAX # 39.02-04-27.05, Situated Along Huntridge Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia", shall be dedicated to the County of Roanoke, Virginia, upon the approval and recording of said subdivision plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia. 5. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners. 6. 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. 7. 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 915.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray NAYS: None 6. Second readinQ of an ordinance amendinQ Section 2-118 of the Roanoke County Code. "Manner of AddressinQ the Board-Time Limit". to provide for yieldinQ and accumulatinQ additional time for speakers. (Paul Mahoney. County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney advised that in late summer or early fall 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a study of its by-laws and considered a series of changes. He reported that one of the changes they made was to limit the ability of individuals to yield 1076 December 19, 2006 time to speak at a public hearing to another citizen. Mr. Mahoney advised that as a result of the Planning Commission action, several Board members contacted him and indicated their desire to see a similar provision proposed for the Board meetings. He advised that in 1999, the Board adopted an ordinance for the process of conducting their meetings which includes a variety of procedural items that had been handled by Roberts Rules of Order. Mr. Mahoney advised that Roberts Rules of Order was designed for the U. S. Congress with 435 members and not a five-member legislative body. He advised the Board members that they would have to adopt an ordinance to amend the rules of procedure. He stated that he circulated a draft ordinance to the Board members via email and after receiving feedback, drafted the ordinance which is under consideration at this meeting. Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the second reading of the ordinance which would limit the opportunity of individuals to monopolize the public hearing process through an artificial means of yielding time. Steve Noble. 5276 Canter Drive, advised that he believes that this change in the procedures would cause a hardship for citizens and provide inferior citizen input. He advised that the timing of this ordinance is suspect because it is being offered after a lawsuit has been filed against the County. He questioned if the Board should be following the Planning Commission's lead and if the rules had to be consistent between different organizations, committees and boards. He inquired if it would affect the Planning Commission if the Board does not change its rules on timing. He advised that this change seems to center around land development issues and the vast majority of December 19, 2006 1077 the citizens' input is directed to zoning issues. He advised that a land owner who seeks rezoning has no requirement to speak directly to the Planning Commission or to the Board of Supervisors because they have numerous proxies to speak for them. He advised that up to ten professionals can speak for the land owners in complex cases without a time limit. He quoted the Board's goal from the Board report as follows: "desirous of maintaining the opportunity for citizens to address the Board in a uniform and consistent manner". He questioned if reducing the time that citizens can contribute to others who are better at presenting complex issues will really help towards this goal. He questioned whether the time for the developers should be shortened or should the land owner be required to present his case. Mr. Noble advised that after the citizens speak at a public hearing, those ten professionals can speak again on behalf of the land owners and there is no rebuttal time for citizens. He advised that the nine minutes that citizens would get to speak on complex issues is not enough, and the Board would be actually reducing the ability for uniform and consistent presentations. He advised that a larger number of citizens may speak if the time limits are approved but their presentations may be more disjointed, overlapping and repetitious, and citizens may perceive that the Board does not want to hear from them in groups. Mr. Noble stated that professionals making a 30 minute presentation can be more persuasive than ten individual citizens speaking for three minutes each or three citizens speaking for nine minutes. He advised that this change penalizes citizens while continuing to grant those 1078 December 19, 2006 presenting zoning matter greater leeway, and he does not recommend the change in the rules. Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Mahoney to clarify that there is nothing presently in the Board's rules and procedures that grants an extension of time and that the Board would be adding this provision to the ordinance. Mr. Mahoney advised that there is no provision in the current County rules and procedures that authorizes yielding of time by citizens and this is a practice that has evolved during the past seven or eight years. Supervisor Altizer advised that he has heard the accusation that this change takes away the ability of citizens to speak and he understands Mr. Noble's concern that developers have many people to speak for them. He advised that he intended to support approval because he feels there should be structure, and there have been circumstances where people have been yielded time and the person yielding the time was not present at the meeting. He advised that he would rather hear an individual's perspective and feels that the Board will hear more from individual citizens than someone trying to speak for them. He advised that by allowing only nine minutes for someone who has yielded time, more people can be a part of the process. He reported that the Board has had long public hearings several times and citizens have informed him that because of the time involved in the yielding to other citizens, they could not stay to address the Board themselves. He advised that this is not a change to December 19, 2006 1079 take away anyone's right to speak but to validate a time limit for speaking. He advised that at the appropriate time, he would make a motion to approve the ordinance. Supervisor Church advised that he did not give Mr. Mahoney any feedback on this item because he wanted to think about it and talk to the citizens who could be affected. He advised that being the second senior member of the Board, he has not found this to be a problem although the Board has had some highly contested issues and some meetings have lasted until midnight. He advised that he is a public servant and part of his job is to hear the viewpoints of the citizens. He advised that he would have a hard time limiting input from a citizen who could be adversely affected by a commercial project. He advised that if is a change is to be made, it should also limit the speakers and petitioners because it is sending the wrong message to give citizens three to nine minutes and allow others a much longer period of time. He advised that the Board members should receive input from the citizens to make a fair and unbiased decision. He suggest that in lieu of approving time constraints, any citizen who has been given the allotted time of up to nine minutes or more be placed at the end of the speakers that meeting, and the petitioners including attorneys and all representatives will be given an exact number of minutes to speak. He acknowledged that there are some people who abuse the system but he does not think a change should be made because one or two people take advantage. 1080 December 19, 2006 Supervisor Church suggested that it should be a requirement that anyone yielding their time has to be present, sign an appearance form, and verify that they have yielded their time. He advised that this change would be sending the wrong signal to the citizens who elect the Board members. He advised that some citizens are terrified to speak in front of people and questioned if you deter that person from speaking or allow them the opportunity to pass the allotted time to another citizen. He advised that he has talked with citizens, and believes it would be a mistake to make this change. He advised that most citizens cannot go to Richmond to talk to their representatives, and the County has set an example of government where citizens can talk to members of the Board. He advised that he has not heard about any major problems at the Board meetings, and the Board members ask citizens to contact them at home, by email, or schedule a meeting. He does not believe that this is a big enough problem to take this action; however, he advised that if changes are made, they should be uniform and applied to everyone. Supervisor McNamara advised that when they talk about modifying the procedures for speaking to the Board, they are talking about increasing the amount of time that the citizens are allowed to speak. He reported that this is not about limiting the amount of time that citizens can speak, and advised that the Board rules and procedures adopted in 1999 do not allow for the yielding of time by citizens. He advised that allowing citizens to yield their time is a recent practice of this Board and he does not think it is a bad thing; however, the Board has not had trouble with this in the past December 19,2006 1081 because it was not allowed. He advised that he approved of six or nine minutes being the yielded time limit but that amount is doubling the time that every citizen is allowed to speak. He advised that the Board members are very accessible, and it has always been the Board Chairman's discretion whether or not to restrict time for citizens to speak. He advised that if a citizen represents a large group of people, it makes sense to have one detailed presentation rather than six or eight shorter presentations, and the Board Chairman has always had that prerogative and the support of the other Board members to use it. He advised that he does not see this change as being limiting, and it is really just increasing the opportunity for citizens to speak up to nine minutes. He advised that the Board Chairman already has the prerogative to change the order of speakers. He advised that he supported the change. Supervisor Flora advised that in the past five years, hundred of citizens have spoken at Board meetings on many different issues. He advised that there have been only a few times when people collected time from other citizens. He advised that he would prefer that people come to the meeting and speak their minds in three minutes as opposed to hearing those who collect time and spend 15 to 20 minutes repeating the same comments. He advised that in his opinion this change opens up the democratic process to more people and six to nine minutes is adequate for a citizen to speak their mind. He advised that he agreed with Supervisor Church that any citizen who collects time should be placed at the end of the speakers. 1082 December 19, 2006 Supervisor Flora advised that he understands that there are citizens who are afraid to speak in public and it is appropriate to have someone else speak for them; however, he does not think they need to allow people to speak more than nine minutes. He advised that he would support the change because he believes that it is the right action and will give more people the opportunity to be heard. Supervisor Church advised that he agreed with some of the things being stated in this discussion; however, he advised that if a change is to be made, it should affect everyone and perhaps set a time limit of approximately ten minutes. He advised that this ordinance was passed at the first reading two weeks ago to bring it to the Board for discussion. He advised that he would like to amend the ordinance to limit the petitioner to the same time limit as is agreed upon for citizens, and he was making that motion. Supervisor Altizer advised that Supervisor Church's recommendation to limit the petitioners has some merit; however, the Board Chairman has always had the authority to limit the petitioners' presentations. He advised that if the Board puts stricter time limits on the petitioners, this could also limit the Board members in asking the questions that they need to ask because they just received the agenda information on Friday afternoon. He advised that he did not think a complicated zoning issue such as Keagy Village or Wal-Mart could be presented in nine minutes. He advised that the possibility exists that there could be 15 or 20 citizens speak who each have nine minutes; however, since the petitioner would be limited to nine minutes, some of the December 19, 2006 1083 detailed information might be left out of the presentation that is needed for the Board members to reach a decision. Supervisor Flora advised that this issue has generated a great deal of discussion, and he does not want the citizens to think that the Board makes decisions based on who speaks the longest. He advised that the Board makes their decisions based on the facts that are presented to them; they weigh the evidence accordingly; and they make decisions independently of each other. He advised that the point that Supervisor Church makes is a good idea; however, he is not sure that limiting the petitioner's presentation would have any effect negatively or positively. He advised that the Board cannot limit its own ability to ask questions and get answers. He suggested that the Board not limit the petitioner's time because that could be controlled at the discretion of the Board Chairman. Supervisor McNamara advised that he feels that the proposal to limit speakers who have been yielded time to nine minutes does not limit the citizen's ability to speak but instead it triples the time limit. He advised that he while he does not feel that this is a limiting proposal, if the other supervisors have a problem with it, he would be willing to lay the item on the table. He advised that citizens can speak for three minutes and the Board Chairman has the ability to alter the time limits for citizens representing groups. 1084 December 19, 2006 Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to Supervisor McNamara and advised that he would also suggest that they take no action. He advised that he does not believe there is a problem and stated that in his eight years on the Board, the meetings have ended late only a few times. He advised that he understands that some citizens may abuse the privilege of speaking but listening to citizens is part of the responsibility of being a member of the Board. He advised that he would withdraw his substitute motion so that the issue could be laid on the table. He suggested that the time limits for speakers could be handled by the Board Chairman. Chairman Wray confirmed with Supervisor Church that he had withdrawn his motion. Supervisor McNamara advised that he did not realize that a motion was on the floor. He advised that since Supervisor Church had withdrawn his motion, he would move to lay it on the table. Chairman Wray requested that Mr. Mahoney explain the motion of "lay it on the table." Mr. Mahoney advised that according to Roberts Rules of Order, a motion to lay it on the table is a motion whereby a measure that is currently before a governing body is laid on the table and no action is taken; the item has not been killed nor has it been approved; it would take a motion from any Board member to remove it from the table at any time in the future; the item is killed if it is not taken from the table before an intervening election occurs. December 19, 2006 1085 Supervisor Flora inquired if the current policy will be enforced which means that no time can be yielded since the Board was taking no action on this item. Supervisor Church advised that he understood from Supervisor McNamara's comments that yielding time would be at the discretion of the Board Chairman. Chairman Wray advised that he agreed that it would be at the discretion of the Board Chairman and inquired if the Board members understood the intent of the motion. The Board members indicated their consensus and there was no further discussion. Chairman Wray advised that Supervisor McNamara had moved to lay the item on the table (take no action at this time). The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: INRE: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Altizer, Flora, Wray None CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Bill Barrinoer, 5715 Longridge Circle, requested assistance in getting VDOT to install guard rails along a dangerous "S" curve on Sugarloaf Mountain Road. He advised that County statistics through October 20, 2006, which does not include the near-fatalities on November 28, 2006, indicates that there were 35 reported accidents along Sugarloaf Mountain Road and 14 accidents at or near the intersection of Longridge Drive and Elbert Drive where the "S" curve is located. He asked for the Board's support in getting the necessary engineering studies done by VDOT to get the guard rails installed. 1086 December 19, 2006 Supervisor McNamara requested that Mr. Berringer provide him with his telephone number and requested that Mr. Hodge contact VDOT to determine if this could be done as a maintenance request. He also suggested that the revenue sharing process might be used to help resolve the problem. Mr. Hodge advised that staff will meet with Mr. Berringer to review the problem and offer assistance. Chairman Wray advised that while it may not be possible to secure an engineering study of the road at this time, he requested that staff assist to get the guard rails installed. INRE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Flora: He wished everyone a Merry Christmas. Supervisor McNamara: He expressed appreciation to the County citizens, those in the school system, County employees and his fellow Board members for an enjoyable year and predicted that next year will be even better as they continue to accomplish great things. He advised that it was a pleasure to serve the citizens, and he wished everyone good health and an enjoyable holiday season. Supervisor Church: He advised that he echoed Supervisor McNamara's comments and expressed his appreciation to County employees and their families. He thanked the Board for their efforts and goodwill this year. He advised that the Board members care about the issues and advised that it would be good to remember that "each day is a new gift and you decide what is inside". He advised that the Board members will work as hard in 2007 as they did this year. He advised that it is an honor to serve the County citizens, and he appreciated the people's trust and faith. December 19, 2006 1087 Supervisor Altizer: (1) He wished the County staff a Merry Christmas and thanked them for the jobs that they do to make it easier for the citizens. He advised that it is a pleasure and honor to serve the citizens of the County. He advised that although the supervisors serve individual districts, they all work together to serve the County. He advised that he was humbled to serve the Vinton district. (2) He advised that some citizens called to tell him that the quality of the rebroadcasts of the Board meetings was poor while the quality of the live meetings was very good. He advised that he is a member of the Roanoke Regional Cable TV Committee and that the rebroadcasts will be converted to digital format by mid-February which will improve the quality. (3) He advised that William Byrd High School was chosen as one of 11 schools to participate in the Commonwealth Scholar Diploma program and requested that parents review this program when their children enter the 9th grade. He advised that there are grants in the amount of $750 for the first year of college, $1,400 for the second, and $4,000 for the third and fourth year. Supervisor Wrav: (1) He advised that although this is a festive time of the year, it can also be a sad time. He extended condolences to Marty Robinson and his family on the death of his wife. (2) He advised that his son will have three wisdom teeth removed tomorrow and asked for everyone to keep him in their thoughts. (3) He expressed appreciation to the citizens of the County, the Cave Spring District, and his fellow Board members. He advised that this has been a record year of economic development and that the Board has moved forward and not been afraid to make tough 1088 December 19, 2006 decisions. (4) He advised that he appreciated the opportunity to be Chairman this year and he thanked the citizens for their confidence in the Board members. (5) He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. INRE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Wray adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~~JJu*-- Brenda J. olton, CMC Deputy Clerk to the Board -\Y)~ O. LAJ~A _I Michael A. Wray - - D Chairman