10/2/2004 - Special
October 2, 2004
767
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
October 2, 2004
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at
Bernard’s Landing Resort and Conference Center, Moneta, Virginia, this being a special
meeting for the purpose of the annual retreat.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 8:07 a.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Michael W.
Altizer, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph
McNamara, Michael A. Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Arnold
Covey, Director of Community Development; Diane D. Hyatt,
Chief Financial Officer; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public
Information Officer
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Hodge added a new business item, request to adopt a resolution
ratifying and confirming the declaration of a local emergency due to damages sustained
as a result of tropical storm Jeanne.
October 2, 2004
768
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt a resolutionratifyingandconfirmingthe
declarationofalocalemergency;authorizingemergencypowers
tothe County Administratoras Directorof Emergency Services;
authorizingthe County Administratortomakeapplicationfor
federalandstatepublicassistancetodealwithsuchemergency;
designatingafiscalagentandanagentforsubmissionof
financialinformationforthe County;andcallinguponthefederal
andstategovernmentsforassistance
R-100204-1
Mr. Hodge reported that the total damages sustained in Roanoke County
as a result of the storm were $500,000.He provided the Board with a report that
showed the damage estimates for the various divisions within Roanoke County. He
advised that the County will try to recover the damage costs through federal and state
assistance. He reported that the City of Salem’s damage estimate was $6 million, and
Roanoke City sustained $7.1 million in damages.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
October 2, 2004
769
RESOLUTION100204-1 RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE
DECLARATION OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY; AUTHORIZING
EMERGENCY POWERS TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AS
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL
AND STATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE TO DEAL WITH SUCH
EMERGENCY; DESIGNATING A FISCAL AGENT AND AN AGENT
FOR SUBMISSION OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR THE COUNTY;
AND CALLING UPON THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS
FOR ASSISTANCE
WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia Section 44-146.21 provides that “[i]n the event
the governing body cannot convene due to [a] disaster or other exigent circumstances,
the [local] director [of emergency services] . . . may declare the existence of a local
emergency, subject to confirmation by the governing body at its next regularly
scheduled meeting or at a special meeting within fourteen days of the declaration,
whichever occurs first”; and
WHEREAS, in conformity with the Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency
Services and Disaster Law of 2000 (Code of Virginia Section 44-146.13 et seq.), the
Board of Supervisors, by adoption of Resolution No. 111798-2, adopted an Emergency
Operations Plan for Roanoke County and designated the County Administrator as the
Director of Emergency Services; and
WHEREAS, by virtue of the authority vested in him by Section 44-146.21, the
County Administrator, as the County’s Director of Emergency Services, issued a
Declaration of Local Emergency on September 28, 2004 in response to flooding as a
result of Tropical Storm Jeanne.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 44-146.21, the Board of
Supervisors hereby ratifies and confirms the Declaration of Local Emergency
issued by the County Administrator, in his capacity as the County’s Director of
Emergency Services, on September 28, 2004, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The Board hereby ratifies and confirms that, during the period of the
emergency declared by this resolution, the County Administrator, as Director
of Emergency Management, shall possess and hold those powers, functions
and duties prescribed by the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Code
of Roanoke County, and the Emergency Operations Plan approved by the
Board of Supervisors, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
of the citizens and to address their needs, and to mitigate the effects of said
emergency.
October 2, 2004
770
3. The County Administrator is hereby authorized for and on behalf of the
County to execute applications for Federal and State public assistance as is
necessary and proper to meet this emergency and to provide to Federal and
State agencies for all matters relating to Federal and State disaster
assistance the assurances and agreements required by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and other agencies of State and Federal
governments.
4. Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance is hereby designated as Roanoke
County’s fiscal agent to receive, deposit and account for Federal and State
funds made available to the County to meet the emergency declared by this
resolution, and Elmer Hodge, County Administrator, is hereby designated as
the County’s agent for executing and submitting appropriate documentation
and information regarding Federal and State reimbursement for this
emergency.
5. The Board of Supervisors calls upon the Federal and State governments to
take steps to afford to Roanoke County and to the persons and business
concerns and other organizations and agencies suffering injury and damage
from this disaster such public aid and assistance as is necessary and proper
to meet this emergency.
6. The County Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to
the State Coordinator of Emergency Management for consideration by the
Governor of Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: DISCUSSION OF PRIORITY ISSUES FOR 2005
1. Discussion regarding the budget preparation process
This discussion was held from 8:10 a.m. until 8:53 a.m. Mr. Hodge
advised that the current and prior year budget calendars were included in the agenda
packet. He noted that the budget process begins with the development of the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), and advised that for the 2005-2006 fiscal year, the CIP
committee began meeting earlier. He stated that the CIP committee functioned very
October 2, 2004
771
well last year, and he indicated that staff anticipates bringing the budget to the Board for
review earlier this year. Supervisor Flora requested that the Board be provided with the
detail of the budget. Mr. Hodge advised that this can be provided in an excel
spreadsheet format if that is what the Board would like to see. He further stated that a
critical concern for the County in the upcoming budget will be the car tax reimbursement
from the state. He reported that Diane Hyatt and Jesse Hall, Director of Finance for the
City of Roanoke, will be going to Richmond in the coming week to meet with the
Governor concerning the issue. Mr. Hodge advised that the Auditor of Public Accounts
is attempting to make the property tax reimbursement a cash flow issue which will recur
in each fiscal year.
Ms. Hyatt reported that the Association of Public Accountants (APA)
issued a ruling that said if the money is received within 30 days of year-end, it could be
accrued. This could potentially be a problem if the County accrues these funds, then
the state must accrue this as a liability. Ms. Hyatt stated that revenues normally
received in April, May and June will not be received until July under the new method.
She advised that there is sufficient surplus in the state budget to cover this cost if the
state is willing to use it. Mr. Hodge advised that at this point, he does not anticipate
needing to reduce the budget by this amount. Ms. Hyatt pointed out that the potential
cash flow difference is another reason to build up the County’s fund balance.
Supervisors Flora, Wray and Church advised that they want the Board to
evaluate the entire budget prior to it being presented in April, rather than looking at
October 2, 2004
772
individual components separately. Concerns were expressed about the budget process
essentially being complete before it is ever presented to the Board. Mr. Hodge
questioned how much information the Board wished to receive from departments. It
was the consensus of the Board to back up the budget process by 30 days, and request
that the schools have their budget available several weeks earlier than normal. The
Board requested that the overall County budget be presented earlier, rather than seeing
incremental components of the process. They advised that once the information is
received, a select number of departments may be asked to present reports to the
Board.
Supervisor Altizer advised that it is important to understand what the
department heads feel are their priorities, and he requested that strategic plans be
submitted by departments projecting their priorities for the next two to three years. He
stated that the budget process should be more of a visioning process. Mr. Hodge
reported that the budget goals and objectives submitted by department heads are tied
directly to their performance evaluations.
Supervisor McNamara stated that as long as the County continues to
conservatively forecast revenues, we will not be able to fund ongoing projects with year-
end revenue. He stated that the current process allows for very little discretionary funds
at year-end. He noted that the County provides a high level of service to citizens, and
he is not convinced at this point that this is the wrong approach. He advised that
revenues have increased more than 5% every year except one that he has been on the
October 2, 2004
773
Board. He recommended that departments be given target budgets each year which
are 98% of the prior year’s budget, and the remaining 2% be allocated for capital
projects in the County.
Supervisors McNamara and Church also stated that when debt drops off,
the Board should be advised so that they know there is additional revenue available for
allocation. Supervisor Flora recommended that when debt drops off, this amount
should be set aside in a debt service fund for future capital needs because it is recurring
revenue.
Supervisor McNamara noted two potential areas of change: (1) He stated
that the Board should stop approving projects out of year-end money because when this
is done, it prevents an examination of the big picture which should occur during the
budget process. (2) He stated that revenues should be pushed out and the County
should project what they anticipate actual revenues will be; however, the money should
be held and not spent until year-end to see if the revenues are realized. He indicated
that this would free up funds that the Board could use to make prioritized decisions
regarding allocation. He noted that the drawback to this approach is that the County
has become accustomed to using year-end funds to complete small capital
improvement program (CIP) projects. Ms. Hyatt advised that with the joint funding
process for County and schools CIP, the year-end money will go into the capital fund.
Supervisor McNamara advised that he has real concerns about the County under
projecting revenues and reiterated that this severely limits what the Board can do to
October 2, 2004
774
prioritize projects. He encouraged use of a process that would remain conservative by
not spending the funds until year-end, but would at the same time try to more accurately
project revenues. Mr. Hodge stated that this could present problems because staff is
projecting 18 months out and the variables are too uncertain to accurately predict. Mr.
Hodge suggested that revenues and budgets be reviewed on a quarterly basis and
adjustments made accordingly. He stated that the approach recommended by
Supervisor McNamara would generate pressure to spend funds up front rather than
holding them until year-end.
It was the consensus of the Board to receive a list of departmental
priorities from each department, to move the budget process up one month (30 days), to
meet with individual departments if specific questions arise, and to implement joint
funding of the CIP with schools and the County.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the board to hold a joint
meeting with the School Board on Wednesday, October 27 at 5:30 p.m. at the School
Board offices.
2. Review of economic development incentive policy
This discussion was held from 9:05 a.m. until 10:25 a.m. Mr. Hodge
advised that the economic development incentive policy was first adopted in 1996 and
has been amended several times since then. He noted that most localities do not have
an official policy other than the criteria they set for their target markets (i.e.,
manufacturing, medical, tourism). He stressed that the confidentiality of an economic
October 2, 2004
775
development effort must be maintained, and indicated that large corporate prospects
frequently approach the County through agencies rather than on an individual basis. He
also indicated that some companies are requiring the County to sign non-disclosure
agreements in order to maintain confidentiality. Mr. Hodge stated that a basic concept
of the partnership policy is a comparison of what to do for existing businesses vs. new
businesses. He reported that Roanoke County did not offer incentives to existing
businesses until a large business was brought to the County. Since that time, there
have been numerous requests from existing businesses requesting incentive funds if
they are offered to outside businesses.Mr. Hodge advised that 75% of the expansions
in Roanoke County are from existing businesses. Another factor to consider with
respect to incentives is the balance of manufacturing vs. non-manufacturing and a
determination by the locality of what is their niche market.
Mr. Hodge stated that it has been the County’s policy to bring all requests
for incentives to the Board, regardless of the amount of the request. The County has
shifted from giving money up front to reimbursing companies for expenses put into
infrastructure. He advised that with smaller requests for incentives up to $50,000, he is
authorized to grant these; however, it has been his policy to bring all requests to the
Board, as well as to provide an annual update on the status of incentive
reimbursements. Mr. Hodge advised that incentives are qualified based on the criteria
established by the Board on Page 2, Item #5 of the policy. He stated that in the 10
years that the policy has been in place, incentives have been granted to 30 companies.
October 2, 2004
776
He noted that the County also tries to assist businesses in other ways such as securing
state funds, obtaining re-training funds, etc. Mr. Hodge suggested that the County
continue to selectively provide incentives to existing businesses as well as outside
businesses.
Mr. Mahoney advised that incentives can be categorized in several
components: (1) Assist businesses by putting in public facilities (traffic signal, road
improvements, water and sewer extensions, drainage facilities). He noted that with
these types of incentives if the business leaves Roanoke County, the public still has the
benefit of the public facilities. He stated that many localities provide these types of
incentives to encourage businesses to locate in a particular place. Roanoke County
typically has the business pay for putting these facilities in place and then reimburses
the business out of future tax revenues, thereby shifting the risk to the private sector.
(2) A more problematic area is when a government attempts to provide incentives
through a grant. Mr. Mahoney stated that this process is illegal under the constitution;
however grants can be made to private businesses if they are run through the Industrial
Development Authority (IDA) or a housing authority. This process is utilized when the
County develops performance agreements between the County, the IDA, and a specific
business.
Mr. Hodge noted that in the case of cities, they have their own public
works department. Therefore the method of using infrastructure improvements as
incentives, which is a practice utilized by counties, is handled as a normal part of
October 2, 2004
777
operations in cities. He also stated that zoning is never promised as an incentive to a
business, which is illegal. He advised that the County’s procedure for providing
incentives is very structured, professional, and is monitored by staff. He noted the need
to examine how the County will handle water and sewer extensions to areas that need
to be non-residential in the future, and he requested that this be discussed in a future
work session. Mr. Mahoney recommended that a meeting be scheduled with the IDA to
discuss incentives since they are a key player in the process.
Supervisor Church stated that the Board should review the incentives
policy to determine if any changes are warranted. Mr. Hodge requested that a work
session be scheduled and include Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development,
and Jill Loope, Assistant Director of Economic Development. He also requested that
the Board examine future extension of utility lines and how this will be impacted by the
formation of the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA).
Supervisor Wray inquired if there was a report detailing the list of projects
and the return on investment. Ms. Hyatt advised that this report is provided to the
Board in January of each year. Supervisor Wray asked for clarification regarding the
procedure for following up if a business does not meet the revenue projections. Ms.
Hyatt responded that with some of the earlier incentives, the funds were donated up
front and the County is required to follow up to determine if the criteria has been met. If
it has not, then the County must secure pay back of the funds. Since 2001, companies
are not awarded incentives unless they meet the established criteria.
October 2, 2004
778
Supervisor McNamara stated that the policy is generally good, especially
with respect to Marvin Windows, because it is creating wealth within the valley. He
stated that we must provide incentives for existing businesses if we do it for outside
businesses because their tax dollars are being used to pay for the incentives to new
businesses. He voiced concerns about incentives for retail and stated that if businesses
are aware of the policy for incentives, they will ask for it; however not all businesses
have this knowledge. He stated that he does not think the outcome would be any
different if the County did not agree to provide the incentives.
Mr. Hodge emphasized the need to maintain balance with respect to how
incentives are distributed, and he noted that incentives would be useful in the
Tanglewood Mall area. He also advised that Lowe’s and Wal-Mart could have easily
located in an adjacent locality, and the incentives were needed to encourage them to
locate their facilities in Roanoke County.
Supervisor Altizer voiced support for retail incentives, but questioned what
occurs when a business finds out about the incentive policy after the fact and comes to
the Board requesting the incentive money. He questioned what the County receives if
public infrastructure improvements are not being made by the company (i.e., the
infrastructure is already in place). He questioned if there should be an established
process for when and how to apply for incentives. Mr. Mahoney advised that, in theory,
every business can request incentives under the existing policy. He voiced concerns
that the process could snowball due to the County’s heavy emphasis on retail. Mr.
October 2, 2004
779
Hodge stated that he was not aware of any incentives being awarded after the fact and
noted that the purpose is to generate a future tax base. If the business is already in
place, then the potential to generate a future tax base does not exist.
Supervisor Wray stated that he would like staff to provide the Board with a
quarterly or monthly report of the status of incentives. Ms. Hyatt advised that due to
reporting requirements, the information can only be provided on an annual basis.
Supervisor McNamara stated that in Virginia, you are dealing with
independent cities so the location of a business makes a difference. He stated that
there is a set amount of retail dollars to be spent in an area (i.e. Valley View Mall vs.
Tanglewood Mall), therefore there is an impact where the tax revenues will ultimately be
received. He stated that if the County follows the guidelines in Item 2-J of the incentive
policy, which states that “incentives will not be approved in situations where it can be
determined that they would not materially effect the decision of the applicant to
undertake the project or otherwise make an investment in the County”, then he supports
the policy. He stated that the Economic Development Department does not have
enough staff to be a proactive marketer, and the County should work with the state to
develop a closer relationship and leverage our resources.
Supervisor Flora stated that the policy should be revised to remove the
ambiguous language and clearly specify what is reimbursable. He also indicated that
the County should evaluate incentive requests based on a particular segment of
business or industry that they wish to target.
October 2, 2004
780
Supervisor Wray indicated that the County should look at the types of jobs
being offered by businesses (i.e., try to attract higher level, technical jobs).
Supervisor Flora noted that when businesses such as Wal-Mart come into
the area, they take business away from smaller businesses and drive out other
businesses. He stated that incentives for retail are not always bad if you can create a
situation that will open up a commercial park and encourage future businesses to locate
in that area. He stated that the incentives given to Wal-Mart allowed the County to gain
concessions that protected the surrounding neighborhood. He noted that this is an
investment, but he feels the purpose should be to create jobs and future revenue for the
County and not take jobs from other businesses. He noted that he struggles with
providing incentives for retail businesses.
Mr. Mahoney requested feedback from the Board regarding who they
would like to receive incentives (i.e., the business or company locating in the County or
the developer of the land). Supervisor Flora voiced concerns with paying incentives to
the developers, and stated that the funds should go to the businesses that will be
locating in the County.One exception was noted which was if the developer has a
prospective business that wants to locate in the development, the incentive can be
provided to the developer and passed through to the business.
Mr. Hodge inquired about the use of incentives for Valley Point Phase II
and whether the Board supported providing incentives to the developer.
October 2, 2004
781
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Flora declared a recess at 10:25 a.m.The Board returned to
open session at 10:50 a.m.
IN RE: DISCUSSION OF PRIORITY ISSUES FOR 2005 (CONTINUED)
2. Review of economic development incentive policy (continued)
With respect to the question that was pending prior to the recess,
Supervisor Altizer suggested negotiating a single incentive for a development or project
and giving the developer a portion and reserving the remaining portion for businesses
that may locate there in the future. Following an inquiry from Supervisor Flora, Mr.
Mahoney advised that incentive reimbursements are limited to a maximum by the
County and there would not likely be a situation where the County gives the developer
more in incentives than they have invested in the property.
There was a general consensus of the Board to continue evaluating
incentives on a case by case basis.
Supervisor McNamara stated that government cannot decide which
businesses they want to give money to and which ones they don’t. He stated that if the
County provides incentives to one business, this business is competing with other
existing County businesses.He stated that to equitably provide assistance to
businesses, the County should reduce the business license tax. He also questioned the
use of RVTV Channel 3 to spotlight County businesses. Supervisors Church and Wray
stated that everyone benefits from programing on Channel 3 which promotes positive
October 2, 2004
782
achievements of Roanoke County businesses. Supervisor Altizer stated that this type
of programming demonstrates appreciation to County businesses.
3. Discussion of growth related issues in Roanoke County
This discussion was held from 11:15 a.m. until 12:12 p.m. Mr. Hodge
requested that the Board provide feedback regarding a schedule for addressing growth
related issues, and he noted that adoption of the community plan is only one step in the
process.
Mr. Covey advised that the goal is to complete the community plan update
by the end of 2004; however the plan consists of maps and plans with
recommendations. To move forward with enforcement, the Board will need to adopt
ordinances consistent with the goals set forth in the community plan. Mr. Covey stated
that he would like direction from the Board regarding what issues they feel are most
critical and where they would like staff to focus their efforts. He stated that storm water
management will be handled next year, and the Board also needs to examine the issue
of water and sewer. With respect to rural villages, he would like clarification from the
Board if they want to pursue public water and sewer or to allow wells and septic. If the
policy is to promote extension of utilities, then the concern is how to regulate the growth
in residential development along that corridor. He requested prioritization of key
ordinances and clarification of how to proceed with water and sewer. Mr. Covey
advised that one way to curb water and sewer extensions is to prevent pump stations
because in some areas, such as Back Creek, you cannot extend sewer without a pump
October 2, 2004
783
station. He stated that if the Board feels that rural villages are an important direction to
move toward, then decisions must be made regarding whether to extend public utilities
or allow private water systems, mass drain fields and private sewer systems.
Supervisor Altizer noted that the County is no longer in a position to
determine whether they will purchase community well systems now that the Western
Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) has been created. In the past, the County had the
option to purchase these systems and install public water and sewer.
Supervisor Flora inquired if the County could pay to extend water and
sewer to an area that they would like to see developed as a rural village, retain
ownership of the water and sewer lines between the rural village and where it connects
to the WVWA lines, and allow the WVWA to pass water and sewer through the lines by
means of an agreement. This would allow the County to control who can connect to the
utilities. Mr. Mahoney advised that once public water and sewer exists, the government
can not determine who is able to connect to the system and who is not. Supervisor
Flora suggested that the County could provide the IDA with funding to extend water and
sewer lines and have the IDA run the lines to the rural village.Through an agreement,
the IDA would turn over the lines within the rural village to the WVWA but the IDA would
retain ownership of the lines from the point where the WVWA lines stop. Mr. Hodge
suggested that some of the discussion pertaining to water and sewer extensions might
be good questions for Dr. Chandler to address at the community plan work session
scheduled for Monday, October 4. Mr. Mahoney advised that the water and sewer
October 2, 2004
784
extension decision is a critical component of the community plan and the CIP process.
Mr. Covey advised that with respect to the WVWA and the CIP, they are more focused
on maintenance projects as opposed to capital improvements.
There was general discussion regarding $2 million allocated to the WVWA
for water and sewer line extensions. Supervisor Altizer stated that when Roanoke City
increased their water rates, they also added an additional amount in order to
accumulate a $2 million base for their increased inflow and infiltration costs. This is
where the $2 million figure originated. Supervisors McNamara and Church indicated
that they were under the impression that Roanoke County was also investing $2 million
annually. Ms. Hyatt advised that Roanoke County is contributing $500,000 per year to
the WVWA. Mr. Church recalled that during the formation of the WVWA, there was
discussion regarding the poor condition of the lines in Roanoke City and the fact that
County lines had been well-maintained. He stated that he was under the impression
that the County would be investing $2 million to cover some of the problems with lines in
the City, as well as allow for capital improvements.
Mr. Hodge stated that Roanoke County should not allow the WVWA to
determine the growth pattern for Roanoke County. He recommended that the County
designated a specific growth corridor for future development in Roanoke County.
Supervisor Wray recommended the following locations for new industry: Hollins Road
area near Ingersoll Rand; I-81/Route 11 corridor; West Main in Glenvar near Dixie
Caverns; Wildwood Road near the Ramada. He questioned if developers can offer
October 2, 2004
785
proffers for any type of infrastructure improvements. Mr. Mahoney responded that this
is correct and some potential benefits of this approach were discussed. Mr. O’Donnell
noted that the community plan is what drives the process.
Supervisor Flora noted that the question was still pending regarding
whether the Board wants to support the rural village concept and if so, will public water
and sewer be extended. If so, he advised that the Board needs to schedule and plan
funding for these improvements. He stated that this concept ties in with Mr. Hodge’s
comments about designating specific growth corridors in the County. Supervisor Flora
noted that as the infrastructure fills in and once schools and utilities are present, the
Board could then examine the areas of infill between the rural village and the already
developed areas.
Mr. Covey questioned whether the Board was considering down zoning
and changing lot sizes. Mr. Mahoney advised that the County would not change the
zoning but revise the densities. Supervisor Flora stated that the Board needs to re-
examine lot sizes in some designations to prevent development of small lots.
There was discussion regarding the general course of development, which
typically begins with single family housing and is following by multi-family then
commercial. Supervisor Flora stated that the Board should not anticipate that
commercial development will exist first because it naturally follows residential
development. He stated that the Board should designate areas where they want to see
commercial development once it is ready to be developed.
October 2, 2004
786
Mr. Hodge stated that Route 220, Route 221, and the Route 460 West
areas should be reserved for commercial development. Supervisor Flora also indicated
that Route 11 should be added to this list. It was noted that these properties should be
promoted for commercial development.
Mr. Covey presented a list of land development and community plan
implementation strategies and requested that the Board prioritize the order in which
they would like to see these implemented.He advised that the development of a storm
water management ordinance is the top priority at this time and will be completed by
March or April 2005. Following discussion the Board advised that the following two
issues were the top priorities: (1) Zoning ordinance amendments - decrease rural
densities, increase urban densities, revise urban cluster ordinance, revise neighborhood
commercial and village center; and (2) Identify locations where non-residential
economic development growth should occur.
Mr. Covey advised that the County’s program of buying homes in the flood
plain, the regional drainage master plan, the Board’s support of staff when they deny
building on steep slopes, the drainage maintenance program (which is now looking at
drainage sheds and evaluating it as a whole rather than doing “patch” work), the storm
water management ordinance which is very stringent and goes above and beyond the
state requirements, have all contributed to the reduced amount of damage that
Roanoke County experienced during the recent floods.
October 2, 2004
787
There was discussion regarding Item #4 – development of a clear-cutting
ordinance. Mr. Mahoney advised that counties are limited in their ability to prohibit clear
cutting of trees on property. He inquired when the Board wanted to evaluate the
community plan and schedule public hearings. He advised that staff is anticipating that
public hearings will be held in early 2005.
There was a consensus to discuss changes to the community plan in work
sessions and then hold public hearings once a consensus has been reached. It was
noted that the objective is to reduce the number of public hearings. There was
discussion regarding possibly holding work sessions on the first and third Tuesdays of
each month for this purpose.
4. Presentation regarding the role of the Board as a policy maker vs.
manager
This discussion was held from 12:50 p.m. until 1:25 p.m. Mr. Mahoney
presented an overview which focused on the provisions in the Roanoke County Charter
with respect to policy making powers of the Board of Supervisors and the role of the
County Administrator within the charter. He also referenced provisions in the State
Code with respect to the role of the County Administrator. Mr. Mahoney referred to the
Virginia County Supervisors Manual. He stated that he has spoken with individuals at
the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) regarding the new supervisor training
sessions held in January following the elections. He advised that there is a training
session available through VACo for chairs. Mr. Mahoney provided handout materials
October 2, 2004
788
which contained excerpts regarding the individual authority of a Board member vs. the
authority of the Board as a whole, how to handle personnel matters, and how to interact
with County employees. He noted that the recommendations provided were derived
from VACo members who have been involved in the process as Board members and
administrators. The essence of the topic is to look at the role of the Board as a
legislative body that establishes policy, how it establishes policy, and to focus on the
dividing line between the legislative role vs. the managing role of the County
Administrator, department heads, and staff.
Mr. Mahoney reported that in the 1940s and earlier, Boards of Supervisors
exercised legislative, managerial and administrative powers. This is a reflection of the
limited role of what county government handled at that time. Over time, counties
assumed roles similar to those of cities and the current structure was no longer feasible,
so legislation was adopted to provide for County Administrators (Executive Secretaries).
One of the key elements of the process was to relieve the County Clerk of taking
minutes. He stated that the traditional form of county government did not provide
enough tools to respond to citizen demand for services, therefore different forms of
government developed. In the 1980s, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
secured a charter. Roanoke County was the first county issued a charter in 1986; since
that time two other counties have been chartered. What the County tried, but failed to
do, was to secure the same taxing authority as cities. This provided a stronger role for
October 2, 2004
789
the County Administrator and incorporated the provisions set out in Item #2. The
charter also attempts to protect the constitutional officer positions.
Supervisor Flora noted that a limiting factor for the locality is the fact that
Virginia is a Dillon Rule state; however the General Assembly has been creative in
allowing the different forms of government under which to operate. Forms other than
the County Administrator form require approval on a referendum. He stated that
Staunton was the first locality to adopt the City Manager form of government.
Supervisor Flora emphasized the need to go through the County Administrator to
resolve issues in order to avoid undue pressure on the staff. Mr. Hodge stated that if
care is not exercised, staff can be sent in different directions to the point that they are
no longer following a plan that has been approved by the Board. He commended the
Board members for not manipulating the decision making process.
Mr. Hodge expressed appreciation to the Board for the way they handle
processes within the County.He noted the policy of providing information to all Board
members when it is requested by one member, and stated that this helps to build trust
among all members of the Board and staff.
Supervisor Church stated that change can produce positive effects and
the Board is open-minded about change in Roanoke County.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. until Monday, October
4, 2004 at 5:30 p.m., for the purpose of a work session to discuss the community plan,
October 2, 2004
790
th
Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, 4 floor training room,
Roanoke, Virginia.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________________________________
Diane S. Childers Richard C. Flora
Clerk to the Board Chairman