1/11/2005 - Regular
January 11, 2005
1
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
January 11, 2005
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the organizational meeting held on
the second Tuesday, and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of January,
2005.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.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; Teresa
Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: ORGANIZATION OF COUNTY BOARD
January 11, 2005
2
1. Election of Officers
a. Chairman
Supervisor McNamara nominated Supervisor Altizer to serve as
Chairman. There were no other nominations for Chairman. Supervisor Altizer was
elected by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora
NAYS: None
PASS: Supervisor Altizer
b. Vice-Chairman
Supervisor Church nominated Supervisor Wray to serve as Vice-
Chairman. There were no other nominations for Vice-Chairman. Supervisor Wray was
elected by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
PASS: Supervisor Wray
2. Length of Term for Chairman and Vice-Chairman
Supervisor Flora moved that the term of office run from January 11, 2005
to the organizational meeting on January 10, 2006. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
January 11, 2005
3
3. Resolution establishing a meeting schedule for the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County for calendar year 2005. (Paul
Mahoney, County Attorney)
R-011105-1
Mr. Mahoney advised that the board report and draft resolution
establishing the meeting dates for 2005 were included in the Board’s agenda packet.
The proposed meeting schedule continues the tradition of holding meetings on the
second and fourth Tuesday of each month. The only deviations from this schedule are
in the months of November and December. The resolution also sets the 2006
organizational meeting for January 10, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution establishing the meeting
schedule for 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION011105-1 ESTABLISHING A MEETING SCHEDULE FOR
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2005
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That for calendar year 2005, the regular meetings of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are set forth below with public hearings
scheduled for 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise advertised.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, February 8, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
January 11, 2005
4
Tuesday, March 8, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, April 12, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, September 13, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, December 6, 2005 at 3 pm
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 3 pm and 7 pm
2. That the organizational meeting for 2006 shall be held on Tuesday,
January 10, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Altizer declared the meeting in recess from 2:40 p.m. until 3:00
p.m.
January 11, 2005
5
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.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; Teresa
Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Rabbi Manes Kogan, Beth Israel Synagogue.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Supervisor Church requested that reports and inquiries of Board members
be moved to Item U in the evening session and the adjournment be moved to Item V.
There was a consensus of the Board to approve the change.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of appreciation to Richard C. Flora for his service as
Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in 2004
R-011105-2
January 11, 2005
6
Chairman Altizer presented the resolution and a commemorative plaque to
Supervisor Flora.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION011105-2 OF APPRECIATION TO RICHARD C. FLORA
FOR HIS SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN 2004
WHEREAS, Richard C. Flora served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors during 2004; and
WHEREAS, during Mr. Flora’s term as Chairman, the County achieved a variety
of accomplishments, including:
Manufacturing and commercial developments resulting in more than $50 million
dollarsbeing invested in Roanoke County and leading to the creation of 500 new
jobs for the community; and
Existing business expansions in Roanoke County resulting in an estimated
investment of over $13 million dollarsand the creation of more than 150 new
jobs; and
Revising the County’s five-year Community Plan to provide direction in decision
making concerning land development, public services, and resource protection;
and
Awarding the contract for the new Public Safety Center, which will soon break
ground, after effectively utilizing the Public Private Educational Facilities and
Infrastructure Act (PPEA) process; and
Working with Radford & Company, the National Parks Service, FRIENDS of the
Blue Ridge Parkway, and the Western Virginia Land Trust to preserve 60 acres
of scenic view-shed along the Blue Ridge Parkway in Roanoke County resulting
in an award from the nonprofit organization, Scenic Virginia; and
Dedicating the new Laurel Mountain Police Driving Center, a regional training
facility that is the first of its kind in southwest Virginia; and
January 11, 2005
7
Finalizing the creation of the Western Virginia Water Authority and participating in
the inaugural celebration with the City of Roanoke; and
th
Sharing in the 40
anniversary commemoration of Sister Cities program
participation by Wonju, Korea, and the City of Roanoke, as part of a local
delegation to Wonju, Korea; and
Working with the School Board on the development and adoption of a series of
formal fiscal policies to develop funding sources for needed capital projects and
to fund future debt service for major projects for the County and Schools; and
Roanoke County Schools being named a Gold Medal School District Winner by
Expansion Management Magazine and selected as one of the Best 100
Communities for Music Education for the third consecutive year; and
WHEREAS, Chairman Flora worked diligently during his term to represent the
citizens of Roanoke County by promoting regional projects and initiatives to benefit all
the residents of the Roanoke Valley.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its deepest appreciation to Richard C.
Flora for his service as Chairman during 2004 and for his belief in democracy and
championing of citizen participation in local government.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Appointments of Board Members to Committees, Commissions
and Boards for 2005. (Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board)
A-011105-3
Ms. Childers advised that the Board had received a listing of the current
2005 committee appointments in their agenda packet. She inquired if the Board wished
to make any changes to the appointments. There were no recommended changes.
January 11, 2005
8
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (that the
Board approve the committee appointments for 2005). The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Request to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of right-
of-way permits with the National Park Service (United States
Department of Interior) to cross the Blue Ridge Parkway with
public water and public sewer lines for the purpose of serving the
real estate of Radford and Company - Mason’s Crest
Development. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
R-011105-4
Mr. Mahoney advised that the draft resolution grants authority to the
County Administrator to execute several right-of-way (ROW) permits with the National
Park Service (National Department of the Interior). The Board is being requested to
authorize two permits, one each for water and sewer lines. The ROW permits and utility
lines are designed to serve the Mason’s Crest development in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District. He reported that in February 2004, the Board approved the
rezoning request for this project.
Mr. Mahoney noted that one issue to be considered is that Roanoke
County no longer controls water and sewer lines as a result of the creation of the
January 11, 2005
9
Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). The decision making authority, with respect
to these types of issues, is vested with the WVWA. Mr. Mahoney advised that
information included in the board report outlines excerpts from the permit language
dealing with the transfer of the permits to the WVWA. This is an issue that may need to
be discussed between the Board of Supervisors and the WVWA. He stated that one
aspect of the agreement with Roanoke City allows the County to specifically retain
control with respect to the extension of water and sewer lines. He indicated that
extending water and sewer lines across the parkway is something that the Board has
expressed an interest in monitoring. As a result, staff is recommending that the County
accept the permits and authorize staff to hold discussions with the WVWA and develop
further agreement to ensure that expansion of utilities across the parkway will be
consistent with the County’s plans for future growth and development. Mr. Mahoney
advised that language is included in Paragraph 3 of the resolution to set forth this
process.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Mahoney advised that
two permits are required, one each for sewer and water. Supervisor Wray noted that
the resolution does not stipulate that the permits pertain to the Mason’s Crest
development. Mr. Mahoney responded that this is referenced indirectly in the first
paragraph of the resolution where it states that the rezoning of the Planned Residential
Development (PRD) was authorized by the Board under an ordinance adopted on
February 14, 2004. Supervisor Wray further inquired if this information should be
January 11, 2005
10
included in the body of the resolution. Mr. Mahoney stated that if it is the Board’s
pleasure, the resolution can be amended to include that language. He also noted that
the title of the ordinance references the Mason’s Crest Development.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution with the amendment that
the resolution includes reference to the Mason’s Crest Development.
Supervisor Church noted that he has received phone calls regarding the
extension of water and sewer lines to the golf course, and he questioned whether this
could occur without the consent of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Mahoney stated that
by the terms of the agreement the County entered into with the City of Roanoke for the
creation of the WVWA, the County transferred all the real estate integral to the water
and sewer system to the WVWA, including all land and easements. The ROW permits
being presented for the Board’s consideration can be revoked at will by the Federal
government. Mr. Mahoney further noted that there was an additional provision in the
WVWA agreement which provided that the Board of Supervisors would retain control of
water and sewer line extensions and that these extensions would be subject to a
Section 2232 review to ensure that they are consistent with the County’s Community
Plan.
Mr. Mahoney advised that there are two issues: (1) real estate issues
where the County transfers real estate rights to the WVWA; and (2) the provision to
retain control by the Board of Supervisors regarding major utility extensions to ensure
consistency with the County’s Community Plan.
January 11, 2005
11
Supervisor Wray also requested that the amended resolution specify that
the Mason’s Crest Development is in the Cave Spring Magisterial District.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution with the amendment that
language identifying “Mason’s Crest Development, Cave Spring Magisterial District” be
included in the body of the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION011105-4 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF RIGHT-
OF-WAY PERMITS WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR) TO CROSS THE BLUE RIDGE
PARKWAY WITH PUBLIC WATER AND PUBLIC SEWER LINES FOR
THE PURPOSE OF SERVING THE REAL ESTATE OF RADFORD AND
COMPANY (MASON’S CREST DEVELOPMENT, CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT)
WHEREAS, in 2004 the County rezoned this property to Planned Residential
Development, subject to certain conditions voluntarily proffered in Ordinance #022404-7
by Land Planning and Design Associates, Inc., et al.; and
WHEREAS, this conditional rezoning would not become fully effective until a
right-of-way permit was secured from the National Park Service (United States
Department of Interior) to cross the Blue Ridge Parkway with public water and public
sewer linesfor the purpose of serving the real estate of Radford and Company
(Mason’s Crest Development, Cave Spring Magisterial District); and
WHEREAS, the National Park Service has granted to the County temporary
right-of-way permits for these purposes; and
WHEREAS, these right-of-way permits are substantially similar to the right-of-
way permit granted to the Town of Vinton to service the Wolf Creek Development in
east Roanoke County in 1996 and Boone, Boone & Loeb, Inc. and Nicholas Beasley, et
.
al. in 1997
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
January 11, 2005
12
1. That the terms and conditions of the right-of-way permits granted to
Roanoke County by the National Park Service (United States Department of Interior)
are hereby acknowledged and accepted.
2. That the County Administrator or his designee is hereby authorized to
execute said right-of-way permit on behalf of Roanoke County and the Board of
Supervisors, upon form approved by the County Attorney. Further, the County
Administrator is hereby directed to take such actions or to execute such documents as
may be necessary to implement the terms and conditions of this right-of-way permit.
3. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to transfer these permits
to the Western Virginia Water Authority so that this Authority can operate and maintain
these public water and sewer improvements.
4. That this resolution shall take effective immediately upon adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution with the amendment that
language identifying “Mason’s Crest Development, Cave Spring Magisterial District” be
included in the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-011105-5
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION011105-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN
ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K - 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 January
11, 2005, designated as Item K - 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:
January 11, 2005
13
1. Approval of minutes – December 21, 2004
2. Request from the Sheriff’s Office to accept and appropriate a grant in the
amount of $10,470 from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for a
Criminal Justice Record System Improvement Program
3. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate a
grant in the amount of $1,000 from Wal-Mart Foundation for the purchase of
safety education equipment
4. Ratification of the appointment of Kathryn Howe Jones, Assistant County
Attorney, to the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT)
5. Request to accept Sedgewick Drive into the State Secondary System
6. Request to allocate $2,307 from the State Compensation Board for
equipment purchases for the Commissioner of Revenue and the Treasurer
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, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION011105-5.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF SEDGEWICK
DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully
incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation,
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
January 11, 2005
14
Recorded Vote
Moved by:Supervisor Altizer
Seconded by None Required
Yeas:Supervisors, McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
Nays:None
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, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Major Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Minor Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
4. Board Contingency Fund
5. Future Capital Projects
6. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in
November 2004
7. Economic Development Report for the month ended December
31, 2004
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:38 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting followed
by the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (5) discussion
concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has
January 11, 2005
15
been made. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 3:50 p.m. until 4:03 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSION
1. Work session on fiscal year 2005-2006 budget development.
(Brent Robertson, Budget Director)
The work session was held from 4:13 p.m. until 4:52 p.m. Staff present
included: Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, and Brent Robertson, Budget Director.
Ms. Hyatt advised that the following issues were addressed when staff
met with state representatives regarding the proposed changes in the personal property
tax relief act (PPTRA): (1) Changes were made at the state level that broadened the
way tax bills are handled so that localities are not required to develop two separate
rates. The Board will only have to adopt one tax rate. (2) Through September 2005,
the state has guaranteed tax delinquencies up to the 2005 tax year and $23 million was
allocated in the state budget for this purpose. After that time, the new funding method
will be implemented. Supervisor McNamara recommended that notices be sent to
citizens advising them of this change. (3) Localities were unsuccessful in amending the
PPTRA to accommodate payment of spring collections in the spring; however, the state
will put in writing that this is a liability on the state side and localities can show this as a
January 11, 2005
16
receivable. John Bennett, Director of Finance, has advised the Governor of payment
dates and localities will receive payments within a 31 day period. (4) The state did not
include reimbursement for implementation of the proposed changes; however the
state’s agreement to change the methodology will mean that the implementation
process will not be as expensive as previously anticipated. (5) Towns will receive all of
their funds up front.
Mr. Robertson reported that some additional revenues are anticipated for
localities in the 2005-2006 budget, primarily in the areas of 599 funding increases and
additional funding for compensation board offices. ABC and wine taxes are being
increased, but these additional revenues will be retained by the state. State funding for
local education was overestimated in the original formula variables, and the actual
increase will be approximately 3-3½%. He advised that information on transportation
initiatives was also presented.
Mr. Mahoney advised that transportation appears to be a key issue and
many proposals will be made to address this crisis. One of the initiatives proposed was
to provide an opportunity for localities to put more money into secondary construction by
increasing revenue sharing funding so that localities can take on the building of state
secondary roads. In addition, because road maintenance is such a large portion of
transportation funding, there is discussion regarding making localities indirectly pay for
secondary and primary road maintenance. This proposed change is based on the fact
that localities are responsible for accepting subdivision roads, and therefore they should
January 11, 2005
17
bear the cost of maintaining the roads.
Mr. Covey reported that the state is also looking at additional opportunities
to involve local governments in constructing and maintaining their own secondary roads.
This will necessitate the future purchase of equipment and hiring of staff to handle these
needs.
Supervisor McNamara noted the County’s increase in real estate tax
revenues, and recommended that the Board examine the possibility of a 1 cent
reduction in the real estate tax rate and exemption of the Business and Professional
Occupancy License (BPOL) tax on the first $100,000 of revenue. Supervisor Wray
voiced support for examining a reduction in the real estate tax rate.
There was general discussion regarding the timing of the adoption of the
tax rates and the impact this will have on the budget process if the tax reduction is
implemented. Staff was directed to prepare an analysis of the proposed reductions in
the real estate tax rate and BPOL tax and report to the Board in a work session on
February 22. In addition, Mr. Robertson was requested to update the budget calendar
with the revised dates and provide this to the Board via email.
There was a consensus of the Board to schedule budget work sessions on
the following dates at 5:30 p.m. at the Administration Center: March 1, March 15, and
March 29.
Mr. Robertson further advised that the CIP review committee has
conducted site visits and ranked the CIP projects. A draft report will be presented to the
January 11, 2005
18
Board in work session on January 25.
2. Work session to discuss reciprocal trash collection with the City
of Roanoke. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services)
The work session was held from 4:52 p.m. until 5:03 p.m. Staff present
included: Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services; and Nancy Duval, Solid
Waste Manager.
Ms. Green reported that the following route changes will be implemented
under the pilot program: The City will collect on Colonial Avenue and Woodland Drive
from Ogden Road to the City border. The current garbage day of Monday would
change to Thursday and 46 homes will be affected. The County will collect all of Old
Mountain Road and Read Mountain Road from both City of Roanoke borders. The
current garbage day will change from Tuesday to Thursday and 29 homes would be
affected.
Ms. Green advised that the advantages of the program include: collection
efficiency, all containers on the street will be out for collection on the same day, and
County residents would receive weekly curbside collection of recycling. Disadvantages
include: collection days would change, bulk/brush would still be a different day as each
locality would continue to provide that service, collection accountability, and
holiday/inclement weather schedules. Affected County residents will be notified in the
following ways: via mail and door hangers which will be delivered by solid waste
personnel. Residents will be advised to contact the solid waste division if there are any
January 11, 2005
19
questions. Staff would like to begin the pilot program on February 1, 2005 for a six-
month trial period.
Supervisor Wray requested that Ms. Green report back to the Board in
three months on the status of the pilot program. Concerns were voiced regarding the
offering of recycling services to some County citizens when others do not have access
to this same level of service. It was the consensus of the Board that recycling not be
offered as part of the pilot program.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-011105-6
At 7:08 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION011105-6 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
January 11, 2005
20
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Citizens Advisory Committee report regarding proposed regional
jail facility. (Herman L. Lowe, Chairman)
Mr. Lowe introduced the following representatives of the committee who
were present at the meeting: Pam Berberich, Mark Layman, Elizabeth Abe, Steve
Noble, Don Davis, and Dawn Erdman.
Mr. Lowe presented the report on behalf of the citizens’ advisory
committee. He advised that there was insufficient time to do the job right and the
committee did the best job with the time available. The committee visited all 18 sites
and presented two proposed site locations to the Board: Higginbotham Farms and the
Center for Research and Technology (CRT). Mr. Lowe advised that the committee took
two approaches: (1) The sites were ranked by order of individual rating (each
committee member voted for the site that they ranked as #1). When this method was
utilized, the Center for Research and Technology (CRT) was ranked #1. (2) A jail
matrix ranking system was used which included criteria for the site selection with
weighted values assigned to each criterion. When this method was utilized, the
Higginbotham Farm site was ranked #1. The CRT site was ranked #6 with this method.
Mr. Lowe advised that the committee diligently discussed the proposed sites and some
January 11, 2005
21
members conducted follow-up site visits. He outlined the following matrix results for the
highest ranked sites: (1) Higginbotham Farm – 1429; (2) Horn – 1244; (3) Newbern -
1158; (4) Huffman Trust – 1103; (5) Meacham Road -1037; (6) CRT – 1012; (7) Ingersol
Rand – 975; and (8) Old Mountain Road - 955.
Mr. Lowe advised that the committee did the job assigned by the Board
and he requested that when future projects arise, the Board notify the citizens’ in
advance if possible. He stated that he believes the jail is needed and the County does
not want to encounter a potential lawsuit if an inmate is injured. He thanked the
committee members for their efforts. Mr. Lowe further advised that when the committee
visited the CRT site, they did not have the restrictive covenants in hand at that time. He
stated that once he received the covenants, it was his personal opinion that a jail could
not be put on the CRT site. He stated that to change the covenants would jeopardize
the integrity of Roanoke County and hinder efforts to encourage new businesses to
locate in the County. He stated that for this reason, he ranked the CRT site as a zero.
The following committee members spoke regarding this matter:
Pam Berberich stated that she was very disturbed at the last committee
meeting and she requested that all members review the ranking criteria to ensure that
everyone understood the scoring mechanism. She voiced concern that some of the
committee members had ranked sites as a zero and stated that in her estimation, it was
inappropriate for a site to get either a zero or a perfect score.She stated that the
committee was not given all the facts and the Board relies on the staff to provide them
January 11, 2005
22
with the facts. She stated that if staff does not provide all the facts or provides
inaccurate facts, it makes it difficult to make a decision. She noted that the architect
with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern (HSM&M) advised the committee that the current
Roanoke County jail could be expanded. She stated that the committee was given
incomplete information. The process, facts, and time allowed were all wrong and she
stated that she has no faith in the recommendation being provided by the committee.
Mark Layman stated that he agreed with Ms. Berberich to the point of
being embarrassed for having served on the committee. He noted that many questions
have been asked but remain unanswered; and those that have been answered are
questionable. He stated that CRT was built in 1999 and he noted that the committee
had received citizens’ letters that state that if the jail is built in CRT, it will forever ruin
the vision of the park and keep high tech companies from locating there. He questioned
what the County’s excuse is for the lack of development in CRT for the past five years.
He questioned if the jail is such a deterrent to business, how locating it one (1) mile from
CRT will change that fact. He stated that if it will not affect taxpayers’ home values, how
can it have such a huge effect on million dollar businesses. He questioned whether the
expansion of the existing jail and the surrounding property has been fully explored. He
stated that he has twice requested a copy of information from HSM&M and he has yet
to receive it. He questioned whether the General Assembly will grant permission to
Franklin and Montgomery Counties to participate in the regional jail project and if it is
granted, whether or not the localities will participate or back out such as the situation
January 11, 2005
23
that occurred with Spring Hollow. He questioned if one or more of the participating
localities back out of the project, will the project be downsized to fit the remaining
jurisdictions. He inquired what will be the total cost of the project and noted that County
staff has worked on the project for over a year and many questions remain. He stated
that the Board needs to look at a County Administrator who would try to shove through
a project of this magnitude and stated that maybe it is time for a new administration that
does not have the attitude that they are above answering for their actions. He
requested that the vote on the regional jail project be delayed until 2007.
2. Citizens’ comments regarding proposed regional jail facility
The following citizens spoke regarding this item:
James Weeks, 5938 Viewpoint Avenue, stated that he considers the
meeting tonight nothing more than a dog and pony show and that the Board already
knows how they will vote. He stated that a decision regarding the jail must be made
tonight and to delay the vote only deteriorates the process. He stated that residents
have come to realize this project will be in their back yard and he has accepted this. He
noted that both proposed sites are in his neighborhood and are head and shoulders
above other potential sites. He stated that the Board has the authority to change the
covenants at CRT if they choose to do so and he noted the estimated $2.6 million cost
to purchase the Higginbotham Farm site compared to no cost for CRT.
Victor Ianello, 2623 Bobwhite Drive, advised that he is President of
Synchrony, Inc. He commended the Board and County staff on taking the lead in
January 11, 2005
24
alleviating overcrowding in the jail. He stated that the regional approach will save
money and requested that CRT not be selected as the location for the new jail based on
future prosperity concerns. He stated that the Roanoke Valley is in a transition period
where past sources of prosperity such as banking and railroad will not sustain the valley
in the future. He stated that Roanoke needs tools to attract and retain technology
companies, and noted such items as excellent public schools and higher learning
institutions. He stated that CRT represents Roanoke County’s vision for a technology
park and indicated that with so little of the remaining land being suitable for this type of
development; it would be short-sighted for the County to allocate this land for a regional
jail. He further noted that the County should not violate commitments made to citizens
and business. He advised that the Higginbotham Farms site was ranked #1 by the
citizens’ committee when objective criteria were used.
David Shelor, 5502 Glenvar Heights Boulevard, reminded the Board of the
protective covenants at CRT which will prevent locating a regional jail at that site. He
advised that when the technology park was developed, the County formed a citizens’
advisory committee to determine which uses of the land would maximize the value and
be acceptable for the surrounding neighborhoods. To protect CRT, business residents,
and the surrounding neighborhoods, a specific set of restrictive covenants were
developed regarding what could be built at CRT. A design review team was created
which is comprised of nine members empowered to ensure that all covenants are
followed. He stated that as a member of the team, he has personally polled the
January 11, 2005
25
committee and all members are in agreement that a jail violates the covenants. Mr.
Shelor advised that the covenants were recorded in Roanoke County Circuit Court on
July 8, 1990, and were endorsed by the State of Virginia through Rick Boucher. The
covenants are in place for 25 years with successive 10 year options, as approved by the
design review team. He stated that if the Board wants to maintain their credibility, they
will keep their word, honor the covenants of CRT, and remove it from the list of sites
under consideration.
Charles Landis, 5268 Glenvar Heights Boulevard, noted that the Board
has a difficult task and the pending decision tests the reliability and credibility of
Roanoke County’s government. He stated that in 1999, he and David Shelor worked
with the County to develop a model for future high tech economic growth in Roanoke
County. As a result, the CRT was created and this cooperative, resident based model
includes enforceable covenants to protect the community, as well as existing and future
corporate tenants. In addition, the County established a design review team to ensure
compliance with the covenants. This model was used to attract high tech corporations
that will provide jobs and revenue for the area. He stated that the County is currently in
negotiations with a business who would like to locate in the CRT. He noted that the
County has a major investment in land and improvements in this park and the proffered
covenants are binding and enforceable contracts. The design review team has
informed the Board by unanimous vote that it cannot recommend that a jail be located in
this park as it would violate the express purpose of the park and constitute a breach of
January 11, 2005
26
faith and contract. It would also waste the limited amount of suitable land that the
County has for future economic development. The County’s model for high tech
economic development would be destroyed, and the credibility of the County would be
damaged if the written agreement is broken. Mr. Landis requested that the Board
remove CRT from consideration for a regional jail. He posed the following question:
Will the state provide funds for the purchase of land for a regional jail if the land is
already owned by the local government?
Supervisor Church noted that Mr. Landis mentioned a prospective
business partner for CRT, and he questioned how he had this information. Supervisor
Church stated that the Board was just briefed in closed session earlier this evening
regarding the prospective business. Mr. Landis responded that he has a friend in the
business community who knows there is a business willing to locate in CRT.
Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, stated that CRT was acquired by the
County in 1997 for $3.7 million. To date, the County has spent $9 million and has
budgeted an additional $1.7 million for the park in 2005. He stated that for all this
money, the citizens recently got a stone wall built along Route 581 this year and noted
that it took five years for the County to erect a sign. He indicated that the covenants
that hold the park hostage were recorded in 1999 and he stated that he is not sure he
understands the three documents which are comprised of the restrictive covenants,
maps, and the County’s zoning ordinance. He advised that he finds the covenants
difficult to understand because they deal with what is not permitted in the park. Mr.
January 11, 2005
27
Noble reported that the first and only tenant is Novozymes, which is a 26,000 square
foot lab located on Lot 1 and that even this business would not be permitted inside the
corporate circle of the park due to the restrictive covenants. He stated that the park
plans show an area in orange which is high tech and the remainder of the park is
designated for houses. He stated that 200 acres, which comprises more than 50% of
the park, are restricted to housing and offices are not permitted.He questioned how the
County will have a high tech park where over half the park prohibits offices.
Mr. Noble stated that most disturbing is how the County uses taxpayer’s
money, and he noted that the design review team has absolute power unless Mr. Hodge
decides to abolish or change the committee. Mr. Noble stated that absolutely no effort
has been made to market the CRT. With respect to the covenants, he noted that at the
McDonald Farm (Vinton Business Center), the Town of Vinton changed its restrictive
covenants on two lots to allow Cardinal Industries to locate in the park. The Town
dropped the requirements pertaining to building wall materials and modified the roof
slope to allow for a flat industrial roof. Mr. Noble stated that changing covenants is not
unique and noted that the Clearbrook Overlay District has guidelines which designate a
“village atmosphere” and yet the first project to locate in this area is a car dealership
with a flat roof. He stated that the first efforts do not conform to expectations, and the
citizens would be best served by placing the jail on the back side of CRT.
Ted Melnick, 5327 Silver Fox Road, advised that he is President of
Novozymes Biologicals. He stated that in 2001, he was present when Roanoke County
January 11, 2005
28
announced Novozymes as the first tenant for CRT. At the end of 2002, Novozymes
built a 27,000 square foot administration/headquarter/research and development facility
at CRT. By the end of 2004, Novozymes has added a total of 76 jobs, 20 of which went
to graduating seniors from a local university thereby helping to offset the “brain drain” in
the region. The company’s payroll has increased $3 million, capital investments have
totaled $10 million, and an additional $3-$5 million in capital investments is anticipated
in 2005. Mr. Melnick advised that Novozymes spends locally about $500,000 annually
for operating expenses. This indicates an overall economic benefit to Roanoke Valley
of $15 to $20 million. He stated that in 1999, the Board created a vision for the CRT; in
2001, they helped Novozymes become the first tenant. He asked that the Board not
lose sight of that vision or the facts. He stated that the economic development team
has a hard job in a competitive environment and asked that the Board not make their
job harder. He noted that the United States is now challenged to keep manufacturing
jobs in the states, and advised that manufacturing based technology is important and
will give the United States a competitive advantage.
Pam Berberich, 6609 Mallard Lake Court, stated that if the County
purchases land for the jail site, they will not be reimbursed for the land that has already
been purchased at CRT. She stated that the County paid $3.7 million for the land at
CRT, which is approximately $7,500 per acre. If the County needs 30 acres for the jail,
this would come out to about $230,000. If a road is built, the state will help pay for this
cost and businesses can tie into this. With respect to the Higginbotham site, she
January 11, 2005
29
advised that the County will be spending $1.6 million to purchase land which is in a
flood plain, it will cost approximately $5 million to get the site to the point where a
building can be put on it; and the County may need to purchase Ms. Cooper’s property.
This has added another $6 million to the cost. She noted that the Higginbotham Farm
site is one mile from CRT and will be CRT’s neighbor one way or another; so to say it
would ruin CRT because it is in the park is not a good excuse. She stated that the
Board is charged with spending taxpayers’ money, and she would prefer to spend
$200,000 versus $6 million.
Christopher Main, 5932 Harwick Drive, questioned if the County needs
two jails and stated that we need to find a way to have only one facility. He requested
the salary and benefit information for Mr. Hodge and both of his assistants including
holidays, sick days, and retirement. He voiced concern about how the County
government is being run, and stated that the taxpayers and supervisors are being
directed by non-elected County employees who have their own agenda for the County.
He stated that staff has no reserve when it comes to spending taxpayer money and
advised that the suggestion to buy both the Higginbotham and Horn sites are appalling.
He stated that the government should be trying to prevent purchasing overpriced items
and unnecessary salaries and services. He further stated that a jail consultant advised
him that 30 acres was not a requirement for this jail; however, a 20 acre site would be
fine. He questioned how many 20 or 15 acre sites exist that have not been considered,
and he stated that the best location is across from the County courthouse with a parking
January 11, 2005
30
garage attached. He stated that the Board needs to consider what is best for Roanoke
County, not the other localities.
Chris Spraker, 6001 Poor Mountain Road, commended the members of
the citizens’ committee for their service. He indicated that CRT is clearly the best site
for the jail and stated that industry, community, and the government must work together.
He stated that the County is considering paying $1.6 million for property with no utilities,
no road access, and flood plain problems; however with the CRT site, all of these
problems are eliminated. He requested that his representative in the Catawba District
vote no for any proposal where property is purchased for five times the assessed value.
James Garris, 3108-D Honeywood Lane, advised that he is President of
Roanoke TeleCom, Inc. He stated that his siblings in the technology business are trying
to scare us with ideas of yesteryear. He stated that those executives led us down many
paths that benefited them but may not have benefited the government or the people. He
stated that most technology executives live in an environment of constant change, and
so too does the necessity of the use of CRT. Most technology executives want to
compromise to make their ideas work and the County might need to modify their idea of
using CRT. With respect to the economics of using CRT, the County already owns the
land; it seems to be a best use in that a jail on the site would provide a great deal of
security for the businesses in the park. He indicated that the best use for the
Higginbotham Farm site might be an industrial company. He advised that he has heard
from CRT that there are covenants and he noted that the CRT and its covenants are
January 11, 2005
31
from citizens’ money and the governments’ will should be the peoples’ will since it was
the peoples’ money. He stated that government credibility only goes as far as its
willingness to do the will of the people. The will of the people is to put the jail at CRT,
and he requested that Mr. Hodge “clean house” on the design review team and appoint
new members.
William Scott, 3809 Harborwood Road, stated that the citizens elected the
Board to serve in their best interests. He stated that in a politically correct world, the
County does need a new jail because there are problems with overcrowding. He stated
that prisoners are not supposed to be comfortable and happy; they are supposed to be
miserable. He indicated that it is wrong to put this facility in a place where it is not
wanted. He stated that the County should dig a hole at the CRT, bring back chain
gangs, hold a few public executions. This would deter the problems with crime and the
County should “put the law back behind the law man”. He stated that he would hate to
be a law officer because there is no pay or respect. He further noted that there are
senior citizens that don’t have comfortable places to sleep, three square meals a day,
and they have to juggle money to pay their expenses. He stated that it is terrible to
spend millions of dollars to make inmates comfortable and happy.
J.C. Whitlock, 5839 West River Road, questioned what is more important
– business leaders and CRT or the citizens of Roanoke County.He stated that he
attended all the meetings of the citizens’ committee and for the most part, it was a joke.
He asked the Board not to vote to choose the Higginbotham Farm or Horn sites, and
January 11, 2005
32
requested that the Board choose the CRT site. He stated that he has lived in the area
for 44 years and he saw the flood in 1972 which was devastating. He stated that when
it floods, water goes over the Higginbotham Farm site. In 1972 it went across Route
460 and there is no way in or out. He stated that if the Board puts the jail at
Higginbotham Farm, the downstream runoff will make flooding worse for others. He
noted that he got his tax assessment recently and he can see how the County will pay
for the new jail. He asked that the Board consider the flooding problems and the tax
burden to citizens. He stated that locating the jail at CRT will not prevent businesses
from locating there.
Kristin Peckman, 8131 Webster Drive, countered the argument that a jail
is bad for neighboring businesses and houses. She stated that she has not seen
businesses, or homeowners for that matter, fleeing the City of Salem. She stated that if
the two sites are compared, potentially building a prison in a flood plain should prove
interesting in the event of needing to evacuate prisoners. She noted that CRT has
infrastructure in place and there is a difference in $1.5 million in the cost of the land.
She stated that the citizens’ committee came up with a divided set of recommendations,
and she further noted that we do not yet know whether Franklin and Montgomery
Counties will be participating so we are not yet ready to choose a site. She stated that
selecting a site at this point seems premature.
Robert Ziogas, 108 Stoneybrook Road, advised that he owns property
behind the Ingersol Rand sites and that he is speaking on behalf of residents in the
January 11, 2005
33
Hollins district who signed petitions that were sent to the Board yesterday. He stated
that those sites are an island within the midst of many subdivisions and there is no
reason, given the available alternatives, that the other localities would need to traverse
these seven (7) subdivisions to bring prisoners in and out of a regional jail. He noted
that the citizens’ committee moved these two sites to the bottom of their list, likely due
to their proximity to residential neighborhoods.
Mark McClain, 907 Greenbrier Court, advised that he is a member of the
Sierra Club and they oppose construction of the jail on land adjacent to the Roanoke
River. He noted that changes over the years have been detrimental to the environment,
and the Roanoke River is currently in worse shape than when the Roanoke Valley was
founded. He stated that much of the native wildlife and vegetation along the river are
now gone, and the increased amount of pavement along the river has contributed to
flooding. A continuing policy of development along the Roanoke River will continue its
degradation, and he stated that other sites could be used which would not negatively
affect the environment. He stated that it was a fatal flaw in the selection criteria to not
include protection of the environment as a criterion, and other sites were likely not
selected as a result of this fact. He stated that the Sierra Club urges the Board to be
creative in carrying out their duties without further degradation of the river.
Bob Seymour, 7552 Boxwood Drive, questioned where in the County’s
priorities this project suddenly developed. He stated that this now appears to be a crisis
and must be acted on immediately. He advised that the County should almost reject
January 11, 2005
34
making any decision based on the process alone, and that making a decision on a jail is
not something that should be rushed. He stated that he wanted to address the fact that
it is difficult for individuals in the profession of engineering to work in the Roanoke
Valley. He stated that the valley needs high tech businesses, economic development,
industry, and manufacturing. He stated that the County should stand behind the
decisions that have been made and not lose sight of the vision that started the CRT. He
indicated that no one wants a jail beside their home, but the Board must decide what
the vision of the County is and proactively communicate this to the citizens and
business community.
Ruth Ashworth, 5832 West River Road, stated it is with grave concern that
she urges the Board to consider CRT. She addressed the following points with respect
to CRT: (1) Covenants: there is a clause which allows amendments of the covenants.
This would not constitute breaking a promise, but rather amending the covenants based
on current conditions. (2) Reluctance of industries to locate in CRT if the jail is located
there: one of the arguments presented to residents was that jail would be an economic
boon to the valley. Why would this not be a boon to the businesses at CRT? (3) Fiscal
responsibility: the added costs of the Higginbotham site for road improvements, the
purchase of additional acreage, environmental studies, and purchase of land should be
considered when the County already owns land that could be used. (4) Environmental
issues: she voiced concerns for the river and the well being of thousands of people who
will be affected if the land on the river is developed. She stated that the residents in the
January 11, 2005
35
area want to protect the beauty of the river, as well as the quality of life of every living
thing who benefits from clean, unobstructed, unaltered waterways. She stated that the
County must eliminate industrial and urban sprawl, and she requested that the jail be
placed on the CRT site.
Beth Doughty, 4328 Foxcroft Circle, commended the County for working
with other localities to address a core function of local government through regional
efforts that will result in economies of scale. She stated that from the beginning, CRT
was intended to attract technology businesses. The County was quoted in a 1999
Roanoke Times as saying they were willing to wait patiently for at least 15
article in the
years to see that objective completed.She noted that the Board speaks of a healthy
balance of 70-75% residential tax base and 25-30% commercial and industrial tax base
and as former Chairman Flora noted in his State of the County Address, the County is
currently at an 85/15 ratio. She stated that the 200 acres at CRT represents the
complete inventory of prepared, County-owned industrial property, which is barely
enough for the County to continue to attract economic development projects. The CRT
is the primary capital that the County has to attract jobs and investment to Roanoke
County and spending any part of that 200 acre inventory on a project that is not
contributing to the commercial and industrial tax base will continue to put the County
further behind its goal. The high quality of education and levels of public services that
Roanoke County residents enjoy is paid by business and to allow a primary asset that
January 11, 2005
36
attracts businesses to be used for anything other than its highest and best use is not in
the best interests of the County.
Buck Simmons, 6055 Twine Hollow Road, stated that we are back where
we started. The Board appointed a citizens’ advisory committee and they selected the
same site as staff. He noted that the problem is there is a “bunch of upset people”. The
smartest thing for the Board to do tonight is to take the present jail and let that be the
site that is sent to the state for the paperwork. If the Board votes tonight on a site, there
is a possibility that a mistake can be made. To get the procedure moving, he suggested
using the existing site to send to the state. Once this is accomplished, there will be time
to conduct a full review of potential sites.
Jean Taylor, 5390 West River Road, stated that on Christmas Eve she
was interviewed by Channel 10 regarding the citizens’ advisory committee evaluation
and recommendation of the Higginbotham Farm site. She stated that the evaluation
was not done in an objective and responsible manner by all members of the committee.
Locating the jail on West River Road is unwise and irresponsible to every taxpayer due
to the added costs.The argument for not locating the jail in CRT is weak. She
questioned why the County could not sell the necessary acreage at CRT to the jail
authority, thereby removing it entirely from the park and the associated covenants. She
noted that the CRT site is 1.8 miles from the Higginbotham Farm site and has the
following advantages over the Higginbotham site: there is room to enlarge the footprint,
it is accessible to major highways, it is not in a flood plain, utilities are in place, it is not
January 11, 2005
37
in a residential area, and it is already owned by the County. If, as citizens were told in
the beginning that the jail will create jobs, why will locating it less than two miles away
change that? She questioned if the jail itself would not create jobs. She asked that the
Board not be swayed by a disparate few and stated that locating the jail on West River
Road would be poor stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Frank Porter, 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, stated that high tech industry in
this country loses $40 billion per year, and it is a subsidized industry. He noted that
Virginia Tech has a research park which took from 1987 to develop 675,000 square
feet, which is an average rate of 37,500 square feet per year, and there are still 18
acres remaining. There is also a biomedical park with 22 acres along the river, a
Radford College park with 77 acres, and Greenfields has 600 acres. He noted that the
valley does have Virginia Tech, which is the one major university that helps put these
things together. The Board must be realistic about inventory absorption and the
demand for their park. There is a lot of inventory and many people scrambling for this
demand in a subsidized industry. He voiced disappointment that County staff was
derelict in not pursuing all the opportunities in downtown Salem, and stated that there is
a window of opportunity to garner land that would allow the existing jail site to be
expanded. He stated that he is disappointed that the citizens’ were put through this
process because of staff’s inability to research the options. He voiced concerns about
development along the river, and stated that the County needs new leadership.
IN RE: RECESS
January 11, 2005
38
Chairman Altizer declared the meeting in recess from 8:55 p.m. until 9:09
p.m.
3. Request to obtain an option for the acquisition of land for the
location of a regional jail facility and authorization to conduct the
required testing of the site. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator;
John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Gerald Holt,
Sheriff)
R-011104-7
Mr. Chambliss advised that the purpose of this action is to request an
option on the site that is overall ranked the highest, which is the Higginbotham Farm
site. He stated that staff is requesting authorization to obtain an option and go on site to
determine if the site can be developed for a regional jail. Any of the proposed sites may
be disqualified based on future studies, but the purpose is to move forward with the
application to the State Department of Corrections prior to March 1, 2005. He stated
that the following individuals are present at the meeting: Ron Elliott and Brooks Ballard,
State Department of Corrections (DOC); Dan Bolt and Steve Chapin, Hayes, Seay,
Mattern & Mattern (HSM&M).
Ron Elliott, Local Facilities Supervisor for the State Department of
Corrections, stated that this is an evolutionary and serious process and he hopes that
with due diligence, which the County has thus far shown, the County will resolve the
issues relative to the site. He advised that the state is looking for two studies in order to
January 11, 2005
39
satisfy the requirements for state reimbursement of a jail project: (1) Community based
corrections plan: a needs assessment that requires information on the current condition
of the jail, intake and arrest rates, number of cases processed by the court system, age
of concluded cases, and all programs offered by the locality with respect to their impact
on the jail population (probation, parole, home incarceration, etc.). In summary, it is a
comprehensive study of the criminal justice system; and in this case, it will be a regional
study. One of the key elements resulting from the study is a population projection of the
anticipated 10 year need for the regional facility. (2) Planning study: examines what
will be done once the need is determined, including the number and type of beds that
are needed, what type of supervision model will be used, what services will be offered
and in what manner. Included in this study will be a cost estimate and an itemization of
the issues that are driving the cost and obviously, the site will drive the cost of the
facility. The site is very, very important. He noted that he has spoken with Mr. Church,
news media, and other concerned citizens regarding the site. The issue has been in
order to meet the March 1 deadline, is the County required to have a site specific
location? He apologized for any misunderstanding he may have caused with respect to
this issue and advised that the DOC needs site data for the application because from a
geotechnical perspective, it must be determined if the site is viable, the availability of
utilities, and any other issues associated with the site that would impact the design of
the facility. He stated that the site is very important and it should be determined early in
the process because this will be the basis for determining the location, design, and
January 11, 2005
40
footprint of the jail. He further advised that should the Board propose a site, it is a
proposed design. Once it is received by the state, it will be evaluated by the DOC,
meetings will be conducted with the locality, and modifications will be made. If the site
changes following submission on March 1 due to political, geotechnical, or other
reasons, the DOC will consider this requested change. They will, however, expect the
locality to provide an estimate of any additional costs which result from the change. He
noted that the Board of Corrections (BOC) meets bi-monthly; the final Board meeting
before the Governor submits his budget in December will be held in November.
Therefore any site changes must be to the BOC by the first part of October to review
and respond to it in time to be submitted to the BOC. If this deadline is not met, the
County will have to delay until 2007.
Supervisor Church stated that Morgan Griffith, Majority Leader, has
advised that he is willing and able to pursue an extension for Roanoke County. He
stated that this Board will not rush to make this decision and make an error. Mr. Elliott
responded that Supervisor Church is correct; the Board does have this one chance to
make a correct decision. He did, however, note that jail construction costs are not
getting any less expensive and the current cost per bed is approximately $100,000 and
will continue to increase. He advised that any delays will result in a higher cost and he
noted that the need has been justified, which led to the exemption on the moratorium.
In the early 1990’s, the need was noted in Roanoke County and will only continue to
grow.
January 11, 2005
41
Supervisor Wray advised that he spoke with Morgan Griffith on Friday
regarding the 60 day extension to choose a site. He requested that Mr. Elliott explain
the process for obtaining the extension. Mr. Elliott responded that he is not at all
familiar with that discussion or any 60 day extension, but noted that there are
exceptions to every rule. Supervisor Wray further inquired if Mr. Elliott was saying that
this had never been done. Mr. Elliott responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Wray requested that Mr. Elliott explain the definition of
“regional” and whether Roanoke County and Salem are considered regional. Mr. Elliott
advised that Roanoke County and Salem are not officially recognized at this time as a
regional jail; however, there is language in the Code that allows for two jurisdictions to
be considered regional if they had an agreement signed prior to June 1982. He stated
that he has received documentation indicating that Roanoke County and Salem did
have such an agreement, and there is no doubt in his mind that the BOC will recognize
Roanoke and Salem as a regional jail. He stated that this could be done at the next
Board meeting of the BOC.
Supervisor Church advised that he understood that Morgan Griffith could
easily make a request for a 60 day extension. He inquired if such a request has ever
been made. Mr. Elliott stated no, not since he has been with the DOC since 1994. He
stated that such a request would have to come in the form of a bill.
Dan Bolt, HSM&M, advised that his firm performed a study on the existing
jail in 1993, which was updated in 2001, to determine the maximum capacity of the site.
January 11, 2005
42
The end result was that the facility could be upgraded to a total of 444 beds. This is
significant because when it is compared to the community based corrections plan, the
facility would reach capacity in 10 years. This was the maximum capacity deemed
feasible for this site to house inmates. An additional factor to be considered is that at
some point, the courthouse will require an expansion. If the jail is expanded on the
existing site, there is no land left available for expanding the courthouse. The
approximate cost for this expansion was developed at that time and is available for
review if requested.
Mr. Bolt stated that one of the major considerations of selecting a site is
the unknown of what will be needed in the future. When discussing the number of acres
required, 20 acres might suffice for an initial 10 year period; however, capacity for the
existing jail was reached quickly due to the rapidly increasing inmate population. It is
important to ensure that the site has adequate space for future expansion. He noted
that the Board also heard considerable conversation tonight about the flood plain on the
Higginbotham site. He stated that under the current concept, none of the buildings or
future expansions would be in the flood plain. Also, we would consider raising some of
the site to address drainage concerns. He stated that when the dam at Spring Hollow
was designed, the state required a study to determine the consequences if the dam
failed. If this were to occur, it would stay within the 500 year flood plain and the building
would not be in this area.
January 11, 2005
43
Steve Chapin, HSM&M, advised that access to the Higginbotham site
would come from Route 460. If you are coming from Salem, currently there is a flush
meeting with the left-hand turn lane onto West River Road or Route 639. When coming
from Christiansburg to the south, the turn from Route 460 to Route 639 is anticipated to
require widening for a right-turn lane onto Route 639. Mr. Chapin advised that based on
the existing traffic counts for Route 460 and Route 639, it is not anticipated that a traffic
signal is warranted at this time. It is anticipated that from Route 460 traffic on Route
639 across the existing bridge over the Roanoke River and immediately before reaching
the railroad tracks, there will be a left-hand turn that will be upgraded to provide access
to the site. He stated that that road location would impact the 100 year flood plain and
may warrant a retaining wall. He noted that concerns about the flood plain have been
voiced; however, the project will be constructed outside of the flood plain and some of
the ground would be raised.He stated that the Roanoke River is a Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) studied stream and an appropriate hydraulic analysis
would be performed regarding any impacts to the floodway to ensure there is no
additional backwater caused upstream or any additional runoff caused downstream.
With respect to drainage and hydraulics, the runoff from the site would be designed so
there is no excess runoff directly into the river and there would be stormwater
management for the site as required by the state.
Supervisor Church inquired if Mr. Bolt had ever told Roanoke County
administration that the existing jail site in Salem could not be expanded on at all. Mr.
January 11, 2005
44
Bolt responded no, but that he has heard that comment.He advised that the study
clearly indicated that it could be expanded, but the capacity had a limit.
Supervisor Church stated that with respect to the flood plain, FEMA is very
particular regarding flood insurance policies. He stated that there is a 30 day waiting
period before a flood insurance policy becomes effective because FEMA knows that
things can happen. He stated that there is a lot of information that this Board needs to
evaluate.
Supervisor Wray noted that Mr. Chapin had reported that there would be
additional turning lanes going into the site. He questioned if this is based on a traffic
study. Mr. Chapin responded that this was based on a visit to the site, prior experience,
and conversations held with Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) personnel.
Supervisor Wray referenced the additional turning lanes and inquired whether the
County would need to purchase “that store” to get enough property for this purpose.
Mr. Chapin inquired if Supervisor Wray was referring to the left turn lane on Route 460?
Supervisor Wray responded in the affirmative. Mr. Chapin advised that purchase of
additional property is not needed at this time for the left turn.
Mr. Bolt noted that even though a traffic study was not done, HSM&M
does have traffic information which the Board may wish to review. Mr. Chapin reported
that based on 2003 traffic counts, approximately 10,000 vehicles per day travel Route
460 and over 600 vehicles per day travel West River Road.
January 11, 2005
45
Supervisor Wray inquired if a bridge becomes necessary, what would be
entailed in this process. Mr. Chapin advised that a bridge would require some of the
same studies. Site access would be evaluated to determine the most suitable location
for access, as well as where access from Route 460 could be best obtained. He
advised that the distance between intersections would be studied, as well as the
wayside in the area.
Supervisor Wray inquired how much fill is anticipated for the overall
project site. Mr. Chapin advised that this is difficult to project at this time but some slight
fill of the area is anticipated in the range of zero to ten feet, depending on where the
building is placed on the site. Mr. Bolt advised that one difficulty with a large site is that
portions may need to be raised to obtain proper drainage away from the site. He stated
that the reason for the fill is not directly related to the flood plain. Mr. Chapin noted that
the work which has been done thus far is a conceptual evaluation based on available
data; it is not based on a survey of the site or any detailed geotechnical work.
Supervisor Wray inquired if it would be necessary to purchase the Cooper
property in order to make an acceptable road into and out of the site. Mr. Bolt
responded that it would not be necessary but it might be to the Board’s advantage to do
so. Mr. Chambliss reported that Ms. Cooper’s property lies between the Higginbotham
property and West River Road. He advised that there is a right-of-way (ROW) in the
Higginbotham’s deed for their property to access the site. The acquisition of Ms.
January 11, 2005
46
Cooper’s property could be a benefit to the overall property, but the entryway into the
site could be accomplished with the existing ROW.
Supervisor Wray questioned whether staff has researched the purchase of
this property from Ms. Cooper. Mr. Chambliss responded that staff has spoken with Ms.
Cooper to discuss the possible availability of sale. He stated that when staff has been
working with any of the sites under consideration, they have not examined ancillary
properties adjacent to the proposed site until a determination of which site is best suited
for the project is made. At that point in time, staff would hold discussions with the Board
and property owners. In addition, property value protection programs could be
implemented that would ensure no negative impacts to the surrounding properties.
Staff has not at any time moved forward with a threat of condemnation of properties,
and Mr. Chambliss noted that one of the first criterions in the matrix was a willing
buyer/willing seller. In order to get utilities or roadways to the property, staff may need
to acquire an easement or ROW but not necessarily the entire property.
Supervisor Wray inquired about the number of acres owned by Ms.
Cooper. Mr. Chambliss reported that she owns 7.38 acres. In response to a further
inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Chambliss stated that a price for the purchase of this
property has not been discussed.
Supervisor Flora noted that the building will be out of the 500 year flood
plain, and he questioned whether the project would keep all excavation out of the 500
year flood plain so that it would remain undisturbed. Mr. Chapin advised that there may
January 11, 2005
47
be some work required in the 100 and 500 year flood plains; however no structures or
buildings will be located in this area. The work required would be minimal.
Supervisor Flora stated that he is more concerned about the footprint of
the building and the parking. Mr. Bolt advised that the footprint of the original building,
as well as the expansion which will double the capacity, will not be in the 500 year flood
plain and neither will the parking lots. Supervisor Flora voiced additional concerns
about disturbing the flood plain with excavation. Mr. Chapin responded he does not
anticipate that this will be necessary but if it is, it would be minimal and would be
included in any hydraulic analysis conducted on the Roanoke River. He further stated
that activity is allowed within the 100 and 500 year flood plain, the goal is not to disturb
the flood way.
With respect to the bridge across the river, Supervisor Flora noted that
there are currently 600 vehicle trips per day. He questioned what the peak capacity of
the existing bridge is. Mr. Chapin responded that in general, the bridge will not have a
capacity any different from the roadway; however he anticipates that it would be
substantially more than the 600 per day vehicle count. Mr. Chapin advised that
replacing the bridge would likely be the result of a desire to access the site differently.
Supervisor Flora confirmed that the maximum capacity for the existing site
in Salem is 444 beds. Mr. Elliott stated that rated bed capacity is based on a square
foot measurement and it drives the need for program, recreation, and segregation
January 11, 2005
48
spaces. Mr. Bolt advised that Salem’s zoning ordinance has a height limitation on
buildings, which restricted the maximum capacity.
Supervisor Flora inquired if Salem’s zoning ordinance was taken into
consideration when parking requirements were evaluated for the 444 bed capacity
facility. Mr. Bolt advised that some parking would be available on the first two levels,
that would be primarily for law enforcement vehicles and intake of prisoners. Supervisor
Flora further inquired if Salem’s zoning ordinance requires some onsite parking for
employees. Mr. Bolt responded that he was not certain but he would obtain an answer
regarding this matter.
Supervisor Altizer inquired about the location of a detention basin to
handle stormwater runoff. Mr. Chapin advised that stormwater management for the
Higginbotham property would require one to two acres if it is all exposed and there is no
underground stormwater management. It will be designed for the quantity of water that
runs off the site, as well as to improve the quality as the water runs off. He stated that it
will most likely be on the downhill side of the site and will flow into the Roanoke River.
In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor Altizer, Mr. Chapin confirmed that this
would be a slow water release.
Supervisor McNamara requested clarification of whether Roanoke County
and Salem are currently a regional jail. Mr. Elliott responded that currently it is not.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if there is a higher level of reimbursement for a regional
jail. Mr. Elliott responded that for a local facility, there is up to a 25% reimbursement; for
January 11, 2005
49
a regional facility, there is up to a 50% reimbursement. Supervisor McNamara inquired
if there is also a higher reimbursement for the operation of a regional jail. Mr. Elliott
responded in the negative and stated that the same formula applies to both local and
regional jails regarding Compensation Board per diem reimbursements. He advised
that a local inmate receives $8 per diem; if the sentence exceeds 12 months, the jail will
receive an additional $6 per diem for a total of $14 per day.In addition, the
Compensation Board has a staffing formula which applies equally to local or regional
jails. He stated that there is no difference in the formula used for providing per diems to
jails.
Supervisor Church requested clarification that if there was an agreement
signed prior to 1982, which there is one, that the County and Salem would in fact be a
regional jail. Mr. Elliott responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Church inquired if this
would then allow for up to 50% reimbursement.Mr. Elliott confirmed that this is correct,
and noted that the plan is to take a motion before the BOC recognizing that this
agreement exists.
Supervisor Altizer questioned whether the state encourages the process
the County is currently undergoing with respect to developing a regional facility with
added partners. Mr. Elliott responded “absolutely” and stated that there is an economy
of scale associated with jail construction. He stated that the cost per bed for a 100 bed
facility is higher than the cost per bed for a 500 or 600 bed facility. In addition, staffing
costs will be higher as a percentage of the bed space.
January 11, 2005
50
Supervisor Altizer noted that a question was raised about Franklin and
Montgomery Counties not being approved at this time to join in the project. He
questioned whether in all likelihood their request for an exemption will be approved. Mr.
Elliott responded that the probability of approval is good. He advised that he has
spoken with the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees, and they
understand what is trying to be achieved. The language might state that the
jurisdictions would be allowed to pursue participation in a regional jail; however it does
not stipulate that it would have to be Roanoke. He noted that Pittsylvania County is also
exempt from the moratorium and is currently pursuing partners for a regional jail.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he would have to think that with what Franklin and
Montgomery Counties plan on doing being dictated by what is done in Roanoke County,
the language would necessarily have to leave it open-ended for them to pursue other
options. Mr. Elliott stated that it is for this purpose, as well as to protect Roanoke
County and Salem which will be recognized as a regional jail. If the language tied
Roanoke County and the City of Salem to Franklin and Montgomery Counties and at the
11th hour there is a change, then Roanoke County’s exemption would be in jeopardy.
The same is also true for the other localities.
Supervisor Church stated that it is his understanding that Allen Dudley
with Franklin County would probably make a move; however as of today, Roanoke
County’s partners are not known for certain.
January 11, 2005
51
Supervisor Church inquired how familiar Mr. Mahoney was with the City of
Salem’s zoning ordinance. Mr. Mahoney responded “not at all”.Supervisor Church
stated that maybe the zoning ordinance can be changed. He indicated that the County
needs to pursue every possible avenue instead of just making a statement that
something is white or black. If the zoning ordinance changes, then everything else
possibly changes.
Supervisor Flora noted that with respect to parking at the existing site in
Salem, he thinks this is in the central business district and there is likely no requirement
for onsite parking.
Supervisor McNamara requested that Sheriff Holt clarify prior statements
made with respect to cost justification and whether there were different per diem
reimbursements for a local versus a regional jail. Sheriff Holt responded that the
regional jail will hold post-sentencing inmates and the majority of those inmates, unless
sentenced on a local ordinance, will receive the higher per diem. This would also be the
same reimbursement if they remained in one of the overcrowded local facilities.
Supervisor Church asked Sheriff Holt to specify the approximate number
of Roanoke County inmates that are housed in the jail. Sheriff Holt stated that the
inmates being held are from Roanoke County or Salem. Salem averages approximately
65-70 inmates. He advised that the average daily population in 2004 was
approximately 280 and currently the population in the facility is approximately 270.
There are a minimum number of inmates housed in Roanoke City. In response to a
January 11, 2005
52
further inquiry from Supervisor Church, Sheriff Holt advised that Roanoke County is
holding one Roanoke City inmate. In addition, one or two inmates from Craig County
are being held, per a contractual obligation.
Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Chambliss whether anyone had contacted the
City of Salem’s Economic Development Department regarding the feasibility of
expanding the current jail. Mr. Chambliss advised that he has had discussions with Jay
Taliaferro, Assistant City Manager, regarding height restrictions or development that
could occur in downtown. In addition, staff examined other vacant sites in the
immediate area to be used for any displaced parking. Mr. Chambliss advised that
developing the existing site in Salem would eliminate existing parking and this would
need to be offset. In addition, the parking requirements of additional employees would
need to be considered. Mr. Chambliss stated that questions have been raised
regarding the former Salem Office Supply building which was recently renovated by the
County. In working with the City of Salem, the only improvements allowed to this site
would be to build vertically. If other properties on the same side of the street are
examined, a significant portion is in the 100 and 500 year flood plain. Some additional
work with culverts could be accomplished, but this would still result in a reduction of
parking and office space which would add an additional cost that would not be shared
by the state. He further noted that the City of Salem has a 45 foot building height limit
under the new zoning and development standards recently implemented.
January 11, 2005
53
Supervisor Wray noted the possibility of building a parking garage with a
walkway to the facility. He stated that possibilities exist which should be pursued. With
respect to the environmental study, he questioned if there are any sites within a certain
radius of any of the sites with contamination. Mr. Chambliss advised that the Horn tract
may have a potential for contamination, but all other sites are primarily agricultural
operations. He noted that the railroad will also need to be examined and this will be
accomplished during the testing phase.
Supervisor Wray questioned if the County had an option on a piece of
property, how we would protect the County against a site that would have substantial
cleanup costs. Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the reason for securing option
agreements, as opposed to a real estate contract. During the initial option period, the
County would perform the necessary due diligence elements required to protect the
taxpayers and the County. He advised that this is the goal of this action, regardless of
the site chosen.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Chambliss if the Whitescarver property has
been considered for purchase. Mr. Chambliss responded that it has not been
considered with regard to this project. Supervisor Church further inquired why this was
not pursued. Mr. Chambliss advised that the site is not sufficient to build the type of
facility required. Supervisor Church inquired why we would not look at all available
sites. Mr. Chambliss stated that for the last five years, staff has brought approximately
two dozen opportunities to the Board to acquire property in the Salem area and a
January 11, 2005
54
number of those were rejected. The County does hold a lease on the property behind
the Getty Mart; however the property is not available for sale. Mr. Chambliss stated that
as the numbers of available beds for expansion on the existing site were examined, it
did not provide sufficient space to meet the current or future needs.
Supervisor Church inquired how we know if we don’t ask or examine the
ordinance. He stated that we don’t know if we don’t ask. He further stated that inquiring
about property for a parking lot and asking for an area for a regional jail expansion are
two different things.
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Altizer declared the meeting in recess from 10:15 p.m. until
10:26 p.m.
IN RE: CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION
Supervisor Church advised that the flood plain issue disturbs him. He
noted that on the County’s website, there is information regarding flood plain protection
overlay and yet this has not been addressed. The County needs to be consistent with
requirements. He further noted that there is a cemetery on the site and no one has
mentioned these concerns. He stated that just recently, there was an article in the
Roanoke Times regarding a citizen who was denied a permit due to the flood plain. He
noted that the County recently received a request from a citizen for a permit and she
was denied because of the flood plain area. He questioned how the County can deny a
January 11, 2005
55
citizen request and then attempt to build a regional jail. In his opinion, the process
started on a downhill swing and gained momentum. He stated that as Mr. Weeks
noted, when you start losing the confidence of the citizens, and we have on this issue, it
is very tough to turn that back around. He indicated that perception is reality when it
comes to the people who are paying the bill, and the County cannot handle a project
like a regional jail by the sequence that has been happening. He reported that he
received an email one day before the November 16 meeting stating that it had been
narrowed down to four sites in the Dixie Caverns area and a closed session has been
scheduled. He advised that he had stated that holding the discussion in closed session
would be the wrong thing to do. He stated that it is an absolute messed up process and
if he were one of the citizens sitting in the audience, he would not buy it. He questioned
if any citizen would make a major purchase without all the facts, so how can he possibly
vote yes on the Higginbotham site. He stated that he could not possibly vote if for no
other reason than the mere principle and the way it was handled - all other factors are
secondary. He stated that there are locations that have not been examined and Salem
City is one of them. He stated he is not satisfied that a tunnel can be put under water in
Chespeake, but the County can not put a structure over a creek bed. He stated that
until the matter can be studied and a cost analysis performed, the County cannot
determine the best option. He stated that this process embarrasses him and the County
should not be at this point in this matter whatsoever. He stated that he has had
problems from the start and the very best we can do would be to delay this. He stated
January 11, 2005
56
that we have known about the overcrowding for a long time; administration would have
you believe that we just found out about this need. He stated that the Board has never
been presented with an agenda to select a site. He questioned why this was not started
eight months ago and the citizens approached about the need for a regional jail in order
to discuss ways to make a plan work. He stated that the Board has been given a
direction and too many times a project has been brought forward with only a day, a
week, or an hour to make a decision.
Supervisor Church stated that the bottom line is whose money is it? He
indicated that this project has created more interest in Roanoke County and citizens are
looking under every page and behind every door as they should. He stated that this is
positive and encouraged the citizens to stay involved. He advised that he can not
imagine a piece of property assessed at $300,000 and the County wants to pay $1.3
million for it. He noted that the Board was told if it was discussed in closed session, the
price will not go up. He stated that this does not make sense. He further stated that the
Board cannot please everyone, but they must try to do what is best economically and in
the best interests of the citizens. He noted that there are many unanswered questions
and most importantly, the Board has lost their direction. He stated that it bothered him
to have a citizen mention a prospective business coming to CRT on the same night that
the Board holds a closed session and they are supposed to be the only ones who know
about it. He noted that the County is preparing to build a public safety building and is
embarking on an unknown trip. He stated that this matter has not been handled
January 11, 2005
57
properly and noted objections from Hollins, the Sierra Club, and Ms. Ashworth who
stated that her class knew the site before the Board did. He stated that there were
Salem officials who knew two months before the County Board started the selection
process. He advised the Board to address every legitimate request and concern with
due diligence.
Supervisor Flora noted that the decision to move forward or not is a
difficult one. He expressed concerns about not doing anything and stated that this is
not a good option. He advised that he served on the regional jail committee in the
1970’s when Roanoke City opted for a site in downtown Salem, and the proposed
regional study fell through. That is when the addition was done in Salem. Today, this
decision is considered short-sighted and it was probably considered short-sighted ten
years after it was made. He stated that he hopes the County does not make another
short-sighted decision. He noted that Mr. Weeks stated that “we don’t want it in our
backyard, our neighborhood, or our end of the County, but let’s make a decision and
move on”. Supervisor Flora stated that the longer this stays out the longer it festers.
When we walk out of here tonight, he stated that some people will be happy and others
will not. The citizens’ committee was given an awesome responsibility and they did an
outstanding job given the time and objective they were assigned. He voiced support for
moving ahead with a decision.He stated that this will not be the end of the process
because there is much more to be done including rezonings, special use permits,
January 11, 2005
58
Section 2232 reviews, etc. He urged the Board to move forward so that people will
know what they have to deal with.
Supervisor McNamara stated that siting a jail is a difficult thing and it must
go somewhere; however by virtue of that, you are not listening to one group of citizens.
He stated that when you serve on the Board, you take an oath to represent the
collective group of citizens in the County. It is a difficult process but the easy thing is to
not make a decision, and that is probably the most damaging thing to do to the citizens.
He voiced support for selecting a site. He stated that the citizens’ committee was
empowered to review the sites and he thanked the committee members for their efforts.
He indicated that no one will agree on everything, and there was not 100% agreement
on the citizens’ committee. He advised that the citizens’ committee was another source
of input he has used as he attempts to formulate a decision. He noted that based on
the raw numbers, the citizens’ committee provided a certain ranking. When they took
the number of first place votes, they arrived at a different ranking. Supervisor
McNamara indicated that if you look at the number of top three votes from the citizens’
committee, the ranking was very similar to the point-based ranking.He advised that the
Board is deciding between two sites: CRT and Higginbotham Farm. When we talk
about trust and faith in government, he stated that he has tremendous difficulty when
the Board has established a separate zoning district, as was done for the CRT, and
promises were made regarding what would be done with that site. The County’s
investment in this site has paid off and will continue to do so in the future. There will be
January 11, 2005
59
a need to have technology-based companies in the valley and the park acreage should
be kept available for future development. He noted that some of the areas zoned as the
Lone Eagle district were done so because of the challenging geographic area and their
lack of suitability for large footprint buildings. He stated that a decision for CRT is a
short-term decision that will sacrifice the future of Roanoke County in the long run. It
will satisfy many of the people in this room today, but will not serve the needs of
Roanoke County. The need for the jail is demonstrated and will not improve. It is a
core function of government which must be funded and the Board should move forward
with the project. There are many things remaining to be done with schools, but many
things have already been done. In the near future, the Board will set forth a plan to
continually fund future school improvements. He encouraged the Board to make a
decision and it should not include CRT. He indicated that he would be happy to make
this motion.
Supervisor Wray stated that he has tried to understand, first the Board
was told that the present site was unacceptable and it could not be done; then the
citizens’ committee was advised by the architect that it can be done, but not to the
needed capacity. He stated that we do an injustice by not pursuing fully the present
site. He indicated that the County should look at assembling properties, working with
individuals in that area, and evaluate the need for a parking garage. The County has
not pursued working with Salem; and even if Franklin and Montgomery Counties do not
participate, it would still qualify as a regional jail. Supervisor Wray stated that we need
January 11, 2005
60
to slow down and ensure that we are doing the right thing for the taxpayers. He stated
that the Board did not receive the information regarding the possible number of beds
allowed on the existing site until the citizens’ committee became involved. He agrees
with Supervisor McNamara concerning the commitment to technology and wanting
those areas to be as great as they can be. The Board wants to further that goal and
was advised in closed session tonight that there is another potential possibility for a
business to locate on this site. He stated that he does not see why an extension can
not be requested from the General Assembly.
Supervisor Wray moved to further study the feasibility of the existing jail
site with an option on the Higginbotham site for an independent cost study and report
back to the Board by April 1, 2005, before anything is purchased.
Supervisor Church stated that he cannot fathom how the Board could
move ahead. He noted that there is unknown information and the Board cannot be
fiscally responsible in moving ahead under those conditions. An option for anything
prior to examining what was missed is a mistake. He stated that to put forward a
substitute motion at this point would be a disservice to the citizens.
Supervisor Flora requested clarification of the motion.
Supervisor Wray re-stated the motion as follows: motion to further study
the feasibility of the existing jail location with an option on the Higginbotham site for an
independent cost study and report back to the Board by April 1, 2005, before anything is
purchased.
January 11, 2005
61
Supervisor Flora inquired if the motion authorizes securing an option on
the Higginbotham property.Supervisor Wray responded in the affirmative, but noted
that an independent cost study of the existing jail must also be performed. Supervisor
Flora requested that Supervisor Wray clarify what he means by “independent study”.
Supervisor Wray responded that an independent study would be conducted by HSM&M
and they would report back to the Board regarding the feasibility of the existing jail being
expanded. Supervisor Wray stated that he wants to see every detail regarding the site
to clarify whether or not this is a feasible site, even if it requires assembling properties.
Supervisor Flora inquired if the motion would authorize testing on the
Higginbotham site and allow the process to continue moving forward. Supervisor Wray
stated that this would have to be done in order to understand the feasibility of that site
as well.
Supervisor McNamara stated that as he understands the motion, is it
essentially the same as the staff recommendation concurrent with an independent study
and the provision that the land is not purchased until after the independent study.
Supervisor Wray responded that he wants his motion completely separate from the staff
recommendation. The Board either votes on the motion or not. Supervisor Flora noted
that the staff recommendation was to authorize an option on the property.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if Supervisor Wray is requesting that the
County authorize an option on the Higginbotham site, what will the option be subject to?
He further questioned whether, if all the studies are acceptable, the County would then
January 11, 2005
62
exercise the option on that property, irregardless of the current facility? Supervisor
Wray stated that it would authorize going on the property and conducting tests, but also
conducting a feasibility study on the existing jail.
Supervisor Altizer stated that for 60 days, the County has no guarantee of
an extension from the General Assembly. He noted that this delay could push the
project into the next two-year cycle if the extension is not granted. Supervisor Wray
responded that based on his conversations with Delegate Griffith, he is confident that
the extension could be obtained.
Supervisor McNamara advised that if the County secures an option on the
Higginbotham property, proceeds to evaluate the property, and concurrent with that
process enlists HSM&M to evaluate the suitability of Salem Bank & Trust, as part of the
staff recommendation it could be brought back for another vote on the purchase of the
property. He stated that he does not want to support anything that pushes the vote out
to April 1; however, he has no problem with evaluating the current downtown jail site.
He stated that the Board is creating a scenario where, if a decision is not made, CRT is
still in the mix and this could jeopardize the current prospect.
Supervisor Wray stated that he does not think the Board feels that CRT is
a viable site.
Mr. Mahoney voiced concerns that Supervisor Wray referenced exercising
the option. The draft agreement allows for an initial option period for 5-6 months, which
can be extended, and the County would not exercise the option. He indicated that
January 11, 2005
63
exercising the option means buying the property and there was never any intent to do
this in the next 60-90 days. The purchase of the property would not occur for almost a
year in order to allow the other studies and General Assembly actions to occur. Staff
would come back to the Board at a future date for a first and second reading to
purchase the property.
Supervisor McNamara made a substitute motion to approve staff
recommendation with the amendment to conduct an independent study to determine the
suitability of expanding the current jail facility.
Supervisor Church inquired if a Board member could make a substitute
motion on a substitute motion. Mr. Mahoney responded in the negative. Supervisor
Church stated that it would be much simpler if this were handled correctly the first time
and eliminate the Higginbotham site until the present site has been evaluated. This is
where the County has missed the boat. He noted that the County is making a decision
to do what should have been done a long time ago.
Supervisor Flora inquired if either or both motions preclude the County
from making application for a jail by March 1, 2005. Mr. Mahoney advised that he did
not understand Mr. Wray’s motion to prevent making an application to the BOC by
March 1. He advised that Supervisor Wray had requested that the independent
feasibility study be brought back to the Board by April 1. Supervisor Flora further
inquired whether, in order to file the application by March 1, the Board will be required to
take additional action. Mr. Chambliss responded in the affirmative and advised that a
January 11, 2005
64
resolution must be adopted by the governing body of each locality supporting the
application for the jail. Should circumstances change the plan that has been put in
place, an amendment could be filed and would require approval by the participating
localities. Supervisor Flora questioned if the application is submitted with the
Higginbotham site, could it be amended to reflect the existing jail site. Mr. Chambliss
responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Church requested that Supervisor Wray withdraw his motion.
He stated that the County is making an ill-advised decision until due diligence has been
performed on the current site in Salem. Supervisor McNamara raised a point of order,
and stated that a substitute motion is on the table and must be voted on first. Mr.
Mahoney advised that Supervisor Wray made the primary motion, and Supervisor
McNamara made the substitute motion.
Supervisor McNamara withdrew the substitute motion.
Supervisor Altizer stated that the motion pending by Supervisor Wray
authorizes an option on the Higginbotham property with a feasibility study on the current
jail site. This indicates to him that possibly, the existing jail site could be voted on at a
later date as the site for the new jail. He then questioned if this site is pursued, does
this result in the jail no longer being a regional jail with Montgomery and Franklin
Counties or is it still a possibility for them to remain as partners under this scenario. He
stated that it is his understanding that based on the 1994 study, the site could be
increased to a total of 400 beds. Supervisor Flora stated that the total is 440 beds.
January 11, 2005
65
Supervisor Altizer clarified that this figure includes the existing 108 beds. Supervisor
Altizer noted that under the jail study, it currently states a need for 600 beds for the four
participating localities.
Mr. Hodge requested that Supervisor Altizer re-state this information and
advised that it was his understanding was that this would be an additional 400 beds. He
stated that he is now hearing that this is the total number of beds and the jail expansion
would result in a total of 444 beds. Supervisor Altizer stated that under the jail study
which projects 10 year needs for the four regional partners, 600 beds are needed. He
indicated that this would virtually remove the existing jail site as a feasible alternative.
Supervisor Church advised that this is not relevant with respect to the regional concept
because Mr. Elliott has advised that Roanoke County and Salem are considered a
regional jail. Supervisor Altizer clarified that this would remove the existing jail site as a
possibility if the County pursues a regional jail with Franklin and Montgomery Counties.
Supervisor McNamara requested that Supervisor Wray re-state the motion
to clarify the portion regarding no action being taken until April. Supervisor Wray re-
stated the motion as follows: motion to further study the feasibility of the existing jail
location with an option on the Higginbotham site for an independent cost study and
report back to the Board by April 1, 2005, before anything is purchased.
Supervisor Church inquired if he intended an independent study on both
sites. Supervisor Wray responded in the affirmative.
January 11, 2005
66
Supervisor McNamara inquired if Supervisor Wray would consider stating
that the CRT site is not under consideration.
Mr. Hodge requested clarification on whether to move forward with the
application by the March 1 deadline. He stated that the County needs to move forward
with geotechnical and site work and noted that parallel to these studies, Supervisor
Wray has requested a study of the existing jail facility. He re-stated that what he has
heard tonight is that if the total number of beds achieved at the existing facility is 444,
this will only carry us forward for 10 years. He questioned if the Board is authorizing
submission of the application by March 1. Supervisor Altizer responded that that is the
intent. Mr. Hodge requested clarification that the Higginbotham site will be submitted by
March 1 if it is deemed a suitable site. Supervisor Wray stated that he wants to make
certain that independent studies will confirm that the downtown Salem site is not
feasible.
Mr. Mahoney stated that in order to pay for several feasibility studies, this
will necessitate an appropriation of funds from the Board. He requested a sum not to
exceed $250,000 which would include an option fee for the Higginbotham site,
geotechnical studies for Higginbotham, and the cost of a HSM&M study for the existing
jail site.
Supervisor Wray amended the motion to read as follows: motion to further
study the feasibility of the existing jail location with an option on the Higginbotham site
for an independent cost study and report back to the Board by April 1, 2005, before
January 11, 2005
67
anything is purchased and to exclude the Center for Research and Technology (CRT)
from the list of possible sites. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: Supervisor Church
Supervisor Church commented that the Board can not vote on a site with
so many unknowns included.
Supervisor Altizer stated that it is appropriate that the Board move forward
tonight. He stated that the process could have been handled better but to take no
action or put forward something that would delay this action for two years would result in
higher costs of almost $6 million. To delay for two years would also push out the 10
year study and this would result in an additional 25 beds for Roanoke County alone
which equates to an additional $2.5 million.
Supervisor Flora moved to appropriate an amount not to exceed $250,000
out of the County’s Minor Capital Fund to accomplish this objective. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: Supervisor Church
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor McNamara: (1) A number of citizens have received their 2005
assessments and he noted that there has been a good appreciation in the real estate
market in Roanoke County. He advised that there is a procedure if you feel your
January 11, 2005
68
assessment is inaccurate, and he stated the citizens can call the Clerk's Office if they
have a question. (2) He requested that Mr. Hodge have the Real Estate Valuation office
contact a citizen regarding a concern. (3) He requested that Mr. Hodge work with Parks
& Recreation to provide a handicapped swing at Garst Mill Park to accommodate some
new residents in the area.
Supervisor Church: He stated that he is disappointed for the citizens
because the Board looked at flawed information and still went forward. He indicated
that the money is coming out of the citizens’ pockets and there is a potential for more
money being used needlessly. He stated that he wants staff to respond to citizens'
inquiries in a timely fashion with accurate information. He stated that the citizens’ have
indicated they need a new way of doing business in Roanoke County.
Supervisor Wray: (1) He reminded residents in the Penn Forest area of
the community meeting at Penn Forest Elementary School on Wednesday, January 13
at 7:00 p.m. regarding the Mennel Mill. He encouraged citizens to attend and be
involved in the process. He stated that he has been requesting an update from from Mr.
Hodge regarding this project. Mr. Hodge advised that Mr. Mennel will be at the meeting
and his representative, Sam Lionberger, will be making the presentation. Mr. Hodge
stated that this is a preliminary meeting to provide information to citizens and plans are
not yet available. (2) He requested a work session to discuss Route 220 road
improvements and a possible sound barrier for the proposed I-73 corridor. Mr. Hodge
January 11, 2005
69
advised that staff will contact VDOT and schedule a work session to discuss the
following issues: crossovers, turn lanes, and sound barriers.
Supervisor Flora: He advised that he has received several complaints
regarding trash containers being left on the street in the 5500 block of Oakland
Boulevard. He requested that General Services address these concerns.
Supervisor Altizer: He thanked the Parks, Recreation & Tourism
Department, staff in Roanoke County, and the employees in the Town of Vinton for their
work on the Enchanted Eve celebration held on New Year's Eve. He stated that this
was a great endeavor.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 11:43 p.m. until Monday,
January 24, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of a joint meeting with the Roanoke
County School Board to discuss joint funding of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
for County and Schools. The meeting will be held at the School Administration Building,
5937 Cove Road, Roanoke, Virginia.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________________________________
Diane S. Childers Michael W. Altizer
Clerk to the Board Chairman
January 11, 2005
70
This page intentionally left blank.