Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/2011 - RegularOctober 11, 2011 633 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October 2011. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss Catawba Sustainability Center and Catawba Greenway (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator) In attendance for this work session were Louise and Frank Garman; Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Christy Gabbard, Director of the Catawba Sustainability Center (CSC) and Kay Dunkley, Director of the Virginia Tech (VT) Roanoke Center. Ms. Gabbard gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. She explained how the center operated with regard to VT Earthworks, training, marketing support, coordination of meetings between suppliers /buyers and access to Virginia Tech faculty and students for the community. In the future, they plan on increasing training programs, provide office space for start -up businesses, build more infrastructures for agricultural businesses, gown the Catawba's Farmers Market and increase the number of producers growing at the CSC. Chairman Church advised he is very supportive of this and hopes this presentation will enlighten the other Board members. Pete Haislip advised that a crucial part of this is how interested and active the community has been. Ms. Garman advised the community is very positive about what has already been done and indicated the entire community feels the same way. She indicated they are excited and thankful for this opportunity. Supervisor Altizer asked what percentage of the 377 areas is currently being used and what is projected for the next five (5) years? Ms. Gabbard responded only a small percentage, approximately one percent (1%) because they have been hesitant to promote. There is a conceptual plan included in the information packet provided to the Board. She indicated ten percent (10 %) of the property would be suitable for agriculture and the other areas can be used for warm season grasses, thirty (30) acres to product electricity; the challenge is transportation. 634 October 11, 2011 Supervisor Moore inquired if they planned on having Roanoke County students. Ms. Gabbard responded in the affirmative stating Northcross students had been utilized before. Additionally, someone else is currently working on a proposal and the Blue Blaze trail will assist with this endeavor. Mr. Garman advised the Catawba community is one hundred percent (100 %) behind this project and wants agriculture versus residential or businesses. Supervisor Elswick stated he felt this was a great idea and would like to see similar programs wherever there are farms. He indicated a lot of farming communities do their own canning and may want to look into. Mr. Goodman indicated this is a great opportunity for the Roanoke Valley in the Catawba valley. It is consistent with our comprehensive and long -range plans. He stated partnering with VT and other stakeholders will take time and ability to make very special. It was the consensus of the Board to bring this item to the Board for approval at the next meeting. This work session was held from 1:00 p.m. until 1:46 p.m. 2. Work session to review the preliminary financial results for June 30, 2011, for the County of Roanoke (Continued from September 27, 2011) (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) In attendance for this work session was Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance; Laurie Gearhart, Assistant Director of Finance; W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget; B. Clayton Goodman, III, County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator and Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator. Ms. Owens explained this was a continuation of last work session and proceeded to go through a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Altizer stated based on multiple capital projects it would make more sense to put into major capital because currently the borrowing percentage rate is three percent (3 %) and the savings return is only one percent (1 %). He stated he believes from a ratings standpoint, as long as the County continues to put a decent amount into the unappropriated fund balance, there should be no problem with the bonding companies. Chairman Church stated he realizes our return rate is currently low, but did not think it will remain that way. He advised he is afraid if the Board moves too quickly that it will be setting a dangerous precedent. He stated he feels the Board needs to move very slow and deliberate if it goes in this direction. He then asked what happens if you have to take funds out of the unappropriated balance with Ms. Owens responding it would depend on what it is being used for. She indicated by adding part of the year -end dollars as illustrated in option two, the ratings agencies would look at October 11, 2011 635 that as a positive. Chairman Church indicated that he is not against, just concerned about the timing and wants the Board to be cautious. Supervisor Elswick stated he is in favor of option two. Supervisor Moore asked the staff for their opinion. Mr. Goodman responded this is a policy decision of the Board. Ms. Hyatt indicated she would not want to decrease the fund balance. Ms. Owens responded the interest goes back to the general fund and thereby continues to save in both the unappropriated and major capital. Historically, the County has paid nineteen percent (19 %) in cash towards the various projects, which is good news. Mr. Goodman advised this is clearly a policy decision of the Board. Ms. Hyatt indicated under option 1, the unappropriated balance fund would be fully funded this year under the current policy so action could be taken next year. Under department encumbrances, Supervisor Altizer inquired why the difference in the prices of the two dog kennels with Laurie Gearhart explaining it was due to two different sizes. Under the review of prior approvals, under unallocated costs, Chairman Church inquired if staff expected the need for $130,000 in this category. Ms. Owens advised with the retirements lately it was possible. Chairman Church asked if this is the correct amount to allocate. Ms. Owens explained this was the only line item in the budget that could accommodate any retirements. Mr. Robertson explained this amount will be sufficient if the economy stays the same. Supervisor Altizer explained there are thirteen (13) unfilled positions that are actually being budgeted including both salary and benefits and he has no reason to believe that these thirteen (13) people will be added over the next year. Additionally, there is a line item for the termination pay. He does not understand the need for approximately $130,000 for this line item. It was the consensus of the Board for Mr. Goodman to review and advise the Board at a later date. Discussion then ensued about the timing with regard to contribution requests. It was the consensus of the Board for staff to revisit and advise the Board. Supervisor Altizer inquired if a cost benefit analysis was being done with regard to the electric car with Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services responding in the affirmative. Ms. Owens advised the final year -end report will be presented at the November 15, 2011, Board Meeting. This work session was held from 1:49 p.m. until 3:31 p.m. 3. Work Session on the Plantation Road Transportation Enhancement Program application (Megan G. Cronise, AICP, Principal Planner) 636 October 11, 2011 Megan Cronise, Principal Planner reviewed a PowerPoint presentation with the Board, a copy of which is on file in the office to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. There was no discussion. This work session was held from 2:32 p.m. until 2:46 p.m. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte A. Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Flora STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Teresa H. Hall, Director of Public Information and Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Pastor John Hemming of Cave Spring United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognizing Roanoke County for receiving Digital Counties, Best of the Web Award and the Governor's Technology Award (Bill Greeves, Director of Communication and Information Technology) In attendance for this recognition were Bill Greeves, Director of Communication and Information Technology; Chad Sweeney, Enterprise Services Manager; Gray Craig, Web Content Manager; Nicole Bird, Web Analyst and Teresa Hall, Director of Public Information. Mr. Greeves explained these three awards. All supervisors offered their thanks and congratulations IN RE: BRIEFINGS October 11, 2011 637 1. Briefing and presentation by Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc. on the 2011 Coventry Commonwealth Games of Virginia (Peter Lampman, Virginia Amateur Sports) Mr. Lampman briefed the Board and thanked them for the opportunity to appear and for their ongoing support. Each Board member was provided with an economic report. A 2011 Award was presented to the Board. All supervisors thanked and congratulated Mr. Lampman on a job well done. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution adopting a Legislative Program for the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly and petitioning the General Assembly to favorably consider the topics and issues addressed herein (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney reviewed the resolution with the Board and explained there had been several work sessions over the past several months with Roanoke County's liaison, Eldon James and with local elected officials. He advised this resolution reflects the concerns of the Board and encompasses ten topics with a common theme of stop shifting costs to local governments. There was no discussion, but the following comments. Chairman Church advised he hoped other localities would join Roanoke County in finding a common sense approach. Supervisor Altizer stated he was aware staff has received a letter from the Governor wanting input from the cities, towns and counties to submit things they believe are unjustified mandates from the State that came with no funding and would hope staff is getting that done. Additionally, another item which is not a mandate; the telecommunications tax bill but is a taking of funds by means that he feels should not happen. When the State took the telecommunications and brought it to Richmond, rather than having the localities be able to collect, the State skims approximately five percent (5 %) off the top for themselves. While that is not a mandate, he thinks it is a way of taking funds from localities. RESOLUTION 101111 -1 ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE 2012 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO FAVORABLY CONSIDER THE TOPICS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED HEREIN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified major legislative issues of Statewide concern to be considered by the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution as its Legislative Program for the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly. 638 October 11, 2011 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the following legislative initiatives are submitted for its legislative program for the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly for its favorable consideration and adoption. 1. Comprehensive Services Act — Since its foundation in 1992, the Virginia Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) has led the nation by consolidating funding sources and carefully coordinating treatment services for children with severe and significant needs. This care coordination has proven successful in both meeting needs for individual children, and in proving that state and local responsibility and cost sharing can and does work. Therefore, the General Assembly should require that any changes in CSA law, policy or implementation guidelines (by the CSA State Executive Council) benefit not only the State but also the local governments that share in the funding of CSA. Furthermore, the General Assembly and the SEC must direct the state Office of Comprehensive Services staff to work closely with local governments in a manner that further enhances the collaborative partnership established in the CSA and improves the outcomes observed in this special population of children. It is clear that the recent changes in the state /local rate sharing, in addition to other program improvements, have led to enhancements in community service capacity. Any proposed changes to the current rate structure should be resisted, leaving the current rate structure in place during the 2012 -2014 Biennium. The Board / Roanoke County supports the current structure under the CSA law that invests in the local Family Planning and Assessment Team (FAPT) and Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) the responsibility to ensure that the proper services are selected for each child, to be provided by properly licensed providers, and at reasonable costs to the public; and opposes any changes to the CSA program that would shift costs from the state to local governments. 2. VRS — Roanoke County is gravely concerned about the failure of the General Assembly to adequately fund the Virginia Retirement System as recommended by its actuaries. Only three times between 1995 and 2011 has the General Assembly paid the recommended contribution, while local governments have fully funded their recommended contributions to VRS. Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to fulfill its promises to its public employees, and adequately fund VRS as recommended by its actuaries, and restore VRS to an actuarially sound status. Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to maintain local discretionary authority to determine the share paid by local government employees and school board employees. Roanoke County opposes shifting additional costs to localities, such as the Line of Duty Act. 3. The General Assembly ordered local governments in Section 15.2- 2223.1 to amend their comprehensive plans to incorporate "urban development areas ". October 11, 2011 639 Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to adopt legislation repealing this mandate and providing that this be made optional for local governments. 4. Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to expand local taxing authority and to grant counties the same powers as cities and towns with respect to local taxing authority. 5. Roanoke County opposes efforts by the General Assembly to fund the operating budget of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by imposing a "tipping fee" on solid waste disposed at public solid waste disposal facilities (landfills). 6. The General Assembly is considering a plan of "devolution" to transfer responsibility to maintain secondary roads to counties. It is not fiscally prudent to proceed with this plan (i) without bringing these roads up to current, required standards, (ii) without expanding local replacement revenue authority, and (iii) without addressing the costs to the taxpayers of Virginia and inefficiencies of duplication arising from over 100 local transportation departments. This ill- considered plan might help balance the Commonwealth's budget, but it will only increase the costs to the taxpayers of Virginia by shifting required and necessary transportation costs onto the backs of the residential real estate taxpayer and homeowner. Roanoke County opposes this devolution plan, and requests the General Assembly to reject it. 7. Local Government State Funding and Mandates — As the General Assembly produces an annual budget, it is requested that if the General Assembly is required to further reduce local government funding that it also investigate the need to reduce or eliminate state mandates in relationship to the budgetary cuts. For the past two years the General Assembly has required local governments to either arbitrarily cut state - supported local programs or to appropriate funds to the Commonwealth to pay an additional portion of these required costs. State revenues have improved while local government revenues have remained stagnant (being substantially reliant upon real estate assessments). Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to eliminate the requirement for "local support for the Commonwealth" (current year amount exceeds $569,000). 8. The 2011 General Assembly has instructed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to study the effects of changing the Business Professional, Occupational and Licensing (BPOL) tax from a tax calculated on the basis of gross receipts to a tax based on "net income." Roanoke County opposes efforts by the General Assembly to reduce local sources of revenue. 9. Roanoke County supports the extension of passenger rail service from Bristol through Roanoke and on to Lynchburg and then to Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia (the " "TransDominion Express'). Roanoke is the largest city in Virginia without passenger rail service. The 2000 General Assembly provided $9 million in preliminary funding for this important economic development initiative. The County 640 October 11, 2011 supports the additional State funding necessary to place the service into operation. Priority should be given to instituting passenger rail service between Roanoke and Lynchburg, to enable residents of this region access to passenger rail service. This is a regional proposal supported by the localities in the Roanoke region. 10. Roanoke County supports legislation to correct deficiencies in the "Licensing and Regulation of Cable Television Systems" legislation (2006 Acts of Assembly, Chapters 73, 76, Section 15.2- 2108.19, et seq.). These corrections should strengthen the opportunity for local governments to enforce commitments by cable operations, assure upgrades in technology, enhance penalties for failure to comply with any ordinance and provide an efficient and inexpensive method to revoke non - performing franchises. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send an attested copy of this resolution to Governor McDonnell, Senator John S. Edwards, Senator Ralph Smith, Delegate Greg Habeeb, Delegate Onzlee Ware, Stephanie Moon, Roanoke City Clerk; Members of the Roanoke City Council; Kevin S. Boggess, Clerk for Salem City Council; Members of the Salem City Council; Clerk for the Town of Vinton; Members of the Vinton Town Council and the Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional Commission, and the Virginia Association of Counties. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora IN RE: APPOINTMENTS The three -year term of Reverend Keith Beasley expired on December 31, 2011. Tem Steller, Executive Director of Blue Ridge Behavioral Health has requested Reverend Beasley to serve an additional term. Confirmation was placed on the Consent Agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 101111 -2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM H- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: October 11, 2011 641 That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October 11, 2011, designated as Item H - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — September 13, 2011 2. Confirmation of designation of voting delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) conference to be held November 13 -15, 2011 3. Request to appropriate funds in the amount of $5,000 to the Roanoke County Public Schools 4. Request to amend the scope of services for the A/E contract with Holzheimer, Bolek and Meehan for additional design work necessitated by site conditions at the Glenvar Library project site 5. Confirmation of appointment to Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora A- 101111 -2.a A- 101111 -2.b A- 101111 -2.c A- 101111 -2.d IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The following citizens spoke: Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia stated he has been a Roanoke County resident since 1956. He informed the Board Our Mother Earth is a very resilient planet. He does know RC CLEAR is the right arm of ICLEI in Roanoke County; that means a play from U.N.- Agenda 21. He stated it is one of those using the environment to reduce people's property rights ", by preaching global warming caused by CO2. Indirectly this is from an NGO who is out to dupe us all, all over the world with their chicken little ", "The Sky is Falling Deception "; we are all bad men and women and must placed in a UDA. All of this ", "Not the same planet Earth on which we were born ". They are dedicated to proving global warming and that global warming is caused by those mean old capitalist ", selfish producers and cruel companies. Next, they will seek to remove the CO2 from my sodas. He stated he likes the carbonic acid produced by pressurizing CO2 into his sodas" Coke" Mountain Dew" Pepsi" etc. He added if he has a fire in his house he wants a CO2 fire extinguisher; helps lower the heat, smothers fires and does not make a mess. The real facts are that research has shown no global rise in temperatures in the last century beyond statistical normal variations. The volcanic 642 October 11, 2011 eruption in the Philippines several years ago expelled more carbon dioxide into earth's atmosphere in just a few weeks than all of mankind has put out since our ancients first began to ponder our external environment. In the mid- 1800s, the island of Krakatau was destroyed by the largest of observed volcanoes. Enough dust and carbon dioxide was released to greatly cool (NOT WARM) the world for several years. (It froze in Atlanta in July that next year.), Now, all the results from that event have disappeared due to earth's resiliency. The world's largest producer of volatile hydrocarbons is pine trees. The digestive systems of termites and cattle are other great polluters and combined with the trees produce far more than man does. Since the inception of Earth Day in 1970, the "Greens" own reports show air and water quality greatly improved. Man -made emissions have been reduced by as much as forty percent (40 %). All critters alive that go back to the earth when dead, bacteria and beetles, cats and crocs, mud hens and men, eventually make the soil spew great gasps of carbon dioxide into the air.; ten times as much - scientists say -as today's burnt fossil fuels. So, when an NGO comes knocking, just say "NO ". We have local governance of liberty. WE DO NOT need your help. Give liberty a break. We need ICLEI OUT, "NOW ". Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke County stated he has been a resident for 19 years. Just a little over a week ago, the National Housing Association put on a conference entitled Solutions for Sustainable Communities 2011 Learning Conference on State and Local Housing Policy in the DC area. There were dozens of star - studded speakers and over 400 participants from around the country present along with the multitude of the other sustainable related sessions. Held in the morning of day two of a conference was a session entitled encouraging more compact, equitable and sustainable communities. The purpose of this particular session was as follows. This session series will focus on the fundamental building blocks for sustainable communities including land use patterns that support and encourage compact development and allow for a mix of uses of the development of the basic infrastructure needed to support this development and the adoption of equitable and inclusive processes to manage the community change. One of the break -out, sub - sessions was titled, Adopting Land -Use Policies that support compact sustainable development. This particular subsection was moderated by Andrea Peat, a program officer at ICLEI USA. The purpose of this sub - session was as follows: join a discussion focused on developing land use policies that foster a sustainable community with a spotlight on increasing density and allowing for a broad range of uses to be met within walking distance or close driving distance of residential units. Panelist will document successful efforts to adopt new land use policies to support compact, sustainable development and discuss how they address community concerns. He stated he has a very specific request in the form of a FOIA that should be able to be answered by the County Planning Commission. Whose template was used to arrive at the future land -use designations found in the County's comprehensive plan. Designations entitled rural village sounds very progressive and collective. Did the designation come from EPA or ICLEI? If not, from whom. The future land use map is dated 2005. October 11, 2011 643 John Brill of Roanoke City stated he is here to discuss the scientific method behind climate research. The scientific method consists of collecting observable, empirical and measurable data in the formation and testing of hypothesis. A basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so that information may be available for careful scrutiny by other scientists. In the early 1980's a climate research unit was established at the UK's University of East Anglia to produce the world's first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It's known as the Jones and Wigley record for its authors Phil Jones and Tom Wigley and served as the primary reference standard for the UN Intergovernmental panel on climate change and prompted that panel to claim a discernable human influence on global climate. In 2005, when asked for the original data from a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work, Phil Jones said "we have twenty -five years or so invested in this work, why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to find something wrong with it." That statement is in direct contravention of the scientific method. Fast forward to November 2009 when more than one thousand emails and three thousand other documents from Jones Climate Research Unit were hacked and made public. These documents suggested conspiracy, collusion and exaggerated warming data, possible illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. We get such anti- scientific statements from Phil Jones as "I have just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last twenty years to hide the decline." By February 2010, only a few months after climate -gate broke, Jones publicly admitted that "It was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression that temperatures were not rising as our instrumental data clearly showed." He also admitted "the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different from two other planetary warming phases since 1850. There has been no statistics on warming since 1995 and it is possible the medieval warming period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures see in the later part of the 20 century by no means unprecedented." So, we now have a clear record of global warming scientists manipulating and falsifying data to support their agenda. Hiding this activity from the public, being caught and then finally admitting that what they were doing and that global warming was not occurring. I hope the Board of Supervisors will keep this information in mind in the future. He advised he had included on his transcript the links where he found the information. He advised please feel free to follow them to verify my statement. He hopes the Board does so with interest. IN RE: REPORTS 644 October 11, 2011 Supervisor Moore moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Elswick stated that he wants to let everyone know at the Board's next session, he has requested further discussion to rescind the section of the large wind utility system ordinance pertaining to the allowable decibels levels so that the Board can discuss it a little further. Supervisor Moore thanked everyone for coming out to help clean up the Roanoke River. We took a lot of trash, debris, all kinds of things out of the river; everyone did a great job and made a difference. She stated she would like to recognize ICLEI as being a nonprofit organization in which we can all benefit from. They gather information from all over the world so if we want to use that information, we may in order to help the next generation benefit from the ideas that they have and provide if we want. Supervisor Altizer advised the Western Virginia Jail Authority had a meeting last week and year -end numbers have been concluded. He is happy to report, issuing back to all four (4) localities $50,000 in year -end surplus. It was a good year, staff really saved a lot of money in cutting back on their expenditures, prison population was up over budget, which is not a good thing for society, but if it has got to happen, it was a good thing for revenues; not often you hear localities give back money. Thank all the jail authority staff and superintendent in cutting expenditures and going a great job. Supervisor Church thanked Clay Goodman and Dan O'Donnell and staff and passed along thank yous on from the Glenvar community. He explained he was referring to the Glenvar school electronic sign board that was a potential problem and our staff spearheaded by Mr. Goodman and Mr. O'Donnell and our architects, we were able to work out a compromise to keep everything the way it is. The Community is happy, the teachers are happy, the parents are happy so he is passing that thank you along to each of you and your employees. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 3:41 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2- 3711.A.5. Discussion October 11, 2011 645 concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the County and Section 2.2.3711.A.29. Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, for an economic development performance agreement with Anderson Properties of Virginia, LLC, where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora The closed session was held from 5:25 p.m. until 5:58 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session with Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission staff on Route 419 Corridor Plan (David Holladay, Planning Administrator) Mr. Holladay introduced Christina Finch from the Regional Commission and Michael Gray from the Virginia Department of Transportation. Staff from the commission has coordinated this plan from 2008 -2010, have had extensive public involvement and a couple public meetings in the neighborhood. The Regional Commission formally adopted this plan in March of 2010 and staff is making presentations to the localities; they would like at some time in the future to have the Board of Supervisors pass a resolution of support. Ms. Finch provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and advised their first step is to go to all jurisdictions to communicate the plan. Chairman Church asked for clarification of Route 419 and would it be the same as the exit on Plantation Road with Mr. Gray explaining that currently there is stripe on the pavement that will not allow you to go through the intersection. He added they are looking at removing the striping and resurfacing. He advised this would be a major positive to prevent the traffic from stacking up. Supervisor Altizer inquired where would funding come through with Mr. Gray responded funding is strapped for everything, but typically it would be through the six - year program and this would be primary road funds, unless looking at some turn lane improvements or signal improvements, which could happen under their operations budget. It could also be done under our maintenance program; there are some safety programs out there. Supervisor Altizer then inquired how would the funding program 646 October 11, 2011 operate since you are doing or taking a long stretch of road through three different localities. Mr. Gray advised typically, it is project by project, logical termini. He stated he feels the main focus would be in front of Tanglewood, at least from Ogden if not Starkey to Tanglewood to Route 220 and break that down into four manageable pieces. The funding would mostly be primary road funds, once into Salem that could be Salem urban funds. Supervisor Altizer stated it appears that in planning it would take two localities to go into together, with the Interstate 581, one side is Roanoke County and the other half is in Roanoke City. Mr. Gray responded the improvements that VDOT are recommending are mainly in Roanoke County and once you cross over Route 220 toward Franklin Road you are then into the City, which they have partial jurisdiction.. Originally, the project was going to extend all the way down Franklin to Wonju, but the budget would not allow. In terms of what would take coordination is Salem and the County, which is VDOT for control of the signals to coordinate the management of the signals and interlinking them together. Currently, the way the single systems operate there is enough space between the ones in the City of Salem and the ones VDOT has in the County that they do not need to be coordinated at this point. Supervisor Altizer stated there is no doubt that the Tanglewood area is a big problem and is he right to assume that doing exit ramps and things like that whether it is on the County side or the City side is doing to be interstate funds and federal funds. Mr. Gray advised it would be primary road funds. Supervisor Moore stated she is curious that Mr. Gray had mentioned safety grants and would that fall under pedestrian crossover. Mr. Gray responded under the safety programs you can use bike, peds, highway, etc. as it covers a rather large area. In the past, those safety grants were typically smaller in nature, we are going through and revamping where we are looking at trying to apply safety funds to more of a corridor focus so this may fit the bill fairly well. Ms. Moore stated she thinks it would be a great idea to build a crossover bridge from South Peak to Tanglewood, stating these can be coordinated because it would be suicide to put a pedestrian crosswalk on Route 419. Mr. Gray stated one thing that was noted as part of the study is the fact there have been some fatalities there with pedestrians crossing. Supervisor Elswick stated he felt VDOT was going a great job, especially around Tanglewood Mall because those signals are phased together and at busy hours traffic floats right through there. Mr. Gray stated after the study started, there had been doing some safety work out there and looking at the signals and that is one of those things VDOT actually initiated before finishing the study. Signals have been updated up through Brambleton and recoordinated. Mr. Elswick stated the ones on Route 221 South from Route 419 needed to be reviewed with Mr. Gray advising he did not know if they had plans to look at, but would talk to the signal folks and advice. The work session was held from 4:01 p.m. until 4:26 p.m. October 11, 2011 647 2. Work session with Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; Nelson Lafon, Deer Project Coordinator in charge of the urban archery program Mr. Mahoney introduced Nelson Lafon, Deer Project Coordinator in the urban archery program to answer any questions the Board has with regard to this program. Mr. Lafon advised staff is headed in the right direction; since 2002, there has been dual objectives, first to control deer conflicts with humans and for recreational opportunity. There is no buck hunting because you want to reduce the population by controlling the deer. The downside is hunting is new in urban areas and takes a while to catch on. Landowners are uncertain about allowing because they do not understand or the perception that you cannot hunt within a certain population density, which is certainly not true. One of the things he likes to note right away is Roanoke County is one of just a few counties that can participate because of the population density. The regulation was changed this past year at the State level that allows any city over 300 persons per square mile to be able to participate, before that it was just cities and town and Fairfax and York County. He advised it is still a little new for them in areas of low density, which Roanoke County has a lot of high density population, but also has a lot of rural areas. He stated it is his feeling in the rural areas, it should not hurt, just adding a little bit more time on the front of the season and three (3) months at the end of archery season. Compared to muzzle -load hunting and rifle hunting, archery hunting is less effective, so we can expect if implemented in the County of Roanoke, will expect to see more deer in the rural areas. Where it might make a difference and can help is in those areas where firearms have more restrictions. If you look at the proportion of Roanoke County harvest that is made up of archery already, it is a pretty significant part. So adding those four (4) more months of archery hunting; September and January through March will add a decent proportion. The success is going to depend where it is applied. Supervisor Ed stated he has had sportsman talk to him and this would not impact in his areas because it is rural and have lots of opportunity to hunt. Where it should help is in the urban areas if the landowners are willing to let people hunt and if there is a safe way to do so. He stated the problem he has in the urban areas though is the deer are going to run. If there was a devise, like a stun gun that you could attach to the arrow, which is easy to do then the deer would drop immediately and you would not endanger other people's property or perhaps their children who might be out playing in the back yard. It would be a great invention to attach; all you would need is two metal probes. He further added he thinks it is a good idea, but with limited use because the opportunity is not there. There are not that many landowners who are going to say okay and there will not be that many people who will take advantage of the extended season. He added he does not think it is a big deal to implement and would recommend staff to proceed. 648 October 11, 2011 Supervisor Moore stated she is a little perplexed, regarding extending the hunting season and the word "urban ". Additionally, would amateurs be allowed as they are going to come into an urban area and use archery, which can be fatal. She further asked if participants are going to be certified. Supervisor Moore stated she has no problem with extending the season, just issues with urban shooting. Mr. Lafon advised this is an extension of the season; one month on the front and three months on the back. The reason it was called urban archery season is in the beginning is because a lot of cities and towns had no hunting period. Roanoke County is different. He further added that it has been since the 1960's since a fatality involved. Basically, the numbers for injuries is in the teens for third parties. The most common accidents are involved with tree stands. He stated he feels the reason is there is a lot of self- restriction on the part of bow hunters. Supervisor Altizer inquired what is contained in Roanoke County's current ordinance with regard to where you can discharge a firearm. Mr. Mahoney responded there are restrictions along or across roads, public parks, schools, within 100 yards of the occupied dwelling. This same limitation applies to the bow hunter as well as to a person hunting with a rifle. Mr. Mahoney stated this really focuses for Roanoke County is it is just an extension of the season, with permission of the landowner you could possibly do more. Supervisor Altizer then inquired if there was a way to do this in certain areas. Mr. Mahoney responded one of the problems is that unfortunately a lot of people do not understand the demarcation, the line between different zoning categories. Supervisor Altizer stated he was aware of the overpopulation in certain areas within his district. He stated it does make sense, if you are not having the problem during the regular season, it should not be happening if you allow this. Mr. Mahoney explained if the Board wants to go in this direction; it would need to be communicated on or before April 1 St to enact before the next hunting season. The current season has been missed. The work session was held from 4:27 p.m. until 4:53 p.m. 3. Work session on Revenue Sharing Program for fiscal year 2012 — 2013 (Continued from September 27, 2011) (David Holladay, Planning Administrator) In attendance for this work session were David Holladay, Planning Administrator; Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Scott Woodrum from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT); B. Clayton Goodman, County Administrator and Butch Workman, Stormwater Operations Manager Mr. Holladay advised this was a continuation of a work session held on September 27, 2011. He proceeded through a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Goodman explained nothing is guaranteed until going through the budget process. October 11, 2011 649 Supervisor Elswick wanted to know if Roanoke County had funds in the budget with Mr. Goodman explaining the budget for this particular year has not been started. The first discussion item concerned Thirlane Road, which VDOT would like to increase project limits, estimated cost of $1,362,000. Chairman Church stated he has a big concern about Wildwood Road. There are some dire concerns, not as receptive to Thirlane without Wildwood getting some assistance. There have been approximately 8 accidents in this area. Mr. Woodrum advised last year, Patrick Wade met with Brandywine Road residents to add guard rails and improve site distances to the entrance. He stated one thing to keep in mind is there is a backlog that needs to be dealt with. Last year increased the scope to include some drainage improvements. This year, VDOT has looked at increasing from quarry access and tie in to create a project of almost a mile. There have been nine (9) accidents in the last three (3) years. Mr. Church asked Mr. Woodrum to confirm there were zero accidents on Thirlane Road, which Mr. Woodrum responded in the affirmative. Mr. Woodrum explained this area is divided into three segments; first segment has most of the accidents. He advised VDOT is attempting to get the biggest "bang for the buck ". The cost would approximate $1,800,500. Chairman Church inquired if the actual build would be 2013 with Mr. Woodrum confirming. He briefly went through the schedule up to that point. Mr. Woodrum advised he would be happy to meet with the citizens again. Chairman Church reiterated the need to get this project moving. Supervisor Altizer inquired how much money Roanoke County has to reallocate. Mr. Woodrum replied this project has about $460,000 on it now and the estimate VDOT has for this revised project would be $1.8 million. If this was applied, it would leave about $540,000 left to complete the project and that could be applied for in the next revenue sharing cycle. Supervisor Altizer inquired if that means staff would be budgeting $400,000 for this project with Mr. Covey explaining yes, if the County participates. Mr. Woodrum then explained there have been three drainage projects that have also been included for $100,000 and the balance could go to Wildwood Road, Thirlane or additional funding to a six -year project. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the Board can change priorities after going to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). Mr. Woodrum stated the estimate indicates the amounts of where they would go. Supervisor Altizer stated he wanted to know if these can retracted, as long as the CTB is notified before their June meeting. Mr. Woodrum indicated Supervisor Altizer was correct. Supervisor Altizer again stated if you have $400,000 left can you change your mind after the fact. Mr. Woodrum advised the Board should make a decision and move forward. Supervisor Altizer inquired where do the numbers come from, i.e. $1.8 million. Mr. Woodrum explained VDOT has a project cost estimation system. It was the consensus of the Board to go with Wildwood versus Thirlane and all drainage projects. This item will be brought forth at the next Board meeting scheduled to be held on October 25, 2011. 650 October 11, 2011 The work session was held from 4:54 p.m. until 5:18 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 5:58 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and adopted the certification resolution. RESOLUTION 101111 -3 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's 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 Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Flora October 11, 2011 651 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 5:59 p.m. L L bmitted by: Approved by: eborah C. J s oseph B. "Butch" Church Clerk to the bard Chairman 652 October 11, 2011 PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY