2/22/2005 - Regular
February 22, 2005
177
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
February 22, 2005
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February, 2005.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A.
Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph
McNamara, Richard C. Flora
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa
Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverend Tommy London, First Baptist
Church - Cloverdale. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
February 22, 2005
178
Mr. Hodge requested the addition of a work session, Item P-2, to discuss
fire and rescue staffing needs. There was a consensus of the Board to add this item.
Mr. Hodge requested the addition of a closed session pursuant to the
Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (5) discussion concerning a prospective business
or industry where no previous announcement has been made.
Following discussion, there was a consensus of the Board to allow citizen
comments prior to a decision regarding the regional jail facility.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring the month of February 2005 as School
Board Appreciation Month in the County of Roanoke
Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to Drew Barrineau, School
Board Chair. Also present was Dr. Linda Weber, School Superintendent.
2. Certificate of recognition to David Craighead, Roanoke County
Communications Officer, for his services to the community
Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to
Communications Officer Craighead. Also present were Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police;
Donna Furrow, Assistant Chief; Pat Shumate, Communications Supervisor; Scott Smith,
Lieutenant in Charge of Services; and Aleta Coleman, Lead Communications Officer.
3. Certificate of recognition to Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors, for obtaining the Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC)
designation
February 22, 2005
179
Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to Ms. Childers.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Annual report from the Roanoke Valley Economic Development
Partnership. (Phil Sparks, Executive Director)
Mr. Sparks reported that since 2000, there has been $206.7 million in
announced new investment in the Roanoke Valley, 2,657 announced new jobs, and 22
different companies. The average cost per job created since 2000 is $1,580.70 with an
average salary for those jobs of $27,000. He advised that some of the notable
successes include the following: Integrity Windows and Doors, Cardinal Glass,
Novozymes Biologicals, and Trinity Packaging. In addition, there were expansions at
Maple Leaf, MW Windows, and Arkay.
Mr. Sparks advised that highlights for the year included the following: (1)
205 advertisements were placed, reaching 6.5 million readers and generating
approximately 1,000 inquiries. (2) Exhibited at 47 trade shows with exposure to an
estimated 92,000 companies. Eight of these shows were done jointly with the New
River Valley. (3) 16 marketing missions generating 160 qualified leads, 15 suspects,
and 3 prospects. Eight of these marketing missions included the New River Valley
Alliance. (4) At least 150 public relations placements which reached approximately 6
million readers. Mr. Sparks also discussed a focus on regionalism, and cited the
creation of a regional brochure and joint marketing missions and trade shows with the
February 22, 2005
180
New River Valley Alliance as examples of this effort. In addition, a Shenandoah Valley
Partnership has been formed to market the I-81 corridor.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution supporting the designation of the Blue Ridge Parkway
as an All American Road. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; Gary
Johnson, National Park Service)
R-022205-1
Ms. Scheid advised that the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) staff is in the
process of preparing a nomination for All American Road status for the BRP and has
asked the County to write a letter of support for the nomination. The All American Road
program has been established within the Federal Highway Administration to pay tribute
to the best of the nationally significant scenic byways. Ms. Scheid stated that the All
American Road designation is one of recognition only and does not involve a monetary
award. She advised that the designation is being sought to leverage the sources of
money to assist the parkway in protecting its resources. She further indicated that the
designation is a source of national and community pride. The National Park Service
(NPS) is working with representatives of the State of Virginia to prepare the nomination
for the parkway and also for the George Washington Memorial Parkway, the Colonial
Historic Parkway, and the Shenandoah National Park. Three roads within the State of
Virginia are up for nomination.
February 22, 2005
181
Ms. Scheid stated that there is no fiscal impact to the County and staff
recommends that the Board approve a letter and resolution of support to the All
American Road Committee.
Supervisor Wray requested an explanation of the leveraged sources of
money. Mr. Johnson advised that as a part of the program, there is a discretionary pool
of money at the United States Department of Transportation (DOT). He stated that one
of the most important parts of being designated as a national scenic byway or an All
American Road is the marketing aspect of making people aware that these are the best
scenic roads designated by states. He stated that several million dollars is set aside
each year for competitive funds obtained through planning, building facilities such as
visitors’ centers or new overlooks, and also working with gateway communities on
projects that benefit both participants. Mr. Johnson stated that they have been waiting
for the BRP to be designated as an All American Road so that they will have the
leverage to pursue this funding source. This will provide additional funding for the
parkway without taking money out of the state’s enhancement funds from the DOT.
Supervisor Wray questioned how this designation relates to the Last
Chance Landscape. Mr. Johnson stated that these are separate designations. He
advised that Scenic America worked with the County, the State, Friends of the Blue
Ridge Parkway, and the Western Virginia Land Trust to designate this as a Last Chance
Landscape in order to address scenic issues. He advised that Scenic Virginia has been
February 22, 2005
182
working with the BRP on the All American Road nomination. He indicated that both
designations speak to the scenic qualities of the road and its value.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 022205-1 SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF THE
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY AS AN ALL AMERICAN ROAD
WHEREAS, the designation of the Blue Ridge Parkway as an All American Road
by the Federal Highway Administration would enhance the importance of this scenic
highway, both nationally and internationally; and
WHEREAS, the Blue Ridge Parkway represents a cultural, natural resource and
tourism attraction for the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Parkway has been in existence for over 60 years and over this
period of time its significance as a natural resource has grown; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke, in recognition of the importance of the
Parkway to our community, has been involved in protecting the viewsheds of the Blue
Ridge Parkway for future generations.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors that we support the Blue Ridge Parkway’s nomination to the Federal
Highway Administration as an All American Road and direct the Clerk to the Board to
forward copies of this resolution to the All American Road Selection Committee.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Request to approve 2004-2005 Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) supplemental revenue sharing projects.
(Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
A-022205-2
February 22, 2005
183
Mr. Covey stated that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
annually provides localities the opportunity to request additional funds from the unused
allocations from the revenue sharing program. The County’s participation in this
program allows the opportunity to provide maintenance and proceed with construction
items that would otherwise take several years to accomplish. Mr. Covey advised that
Roanoke County is one of twenty-six counties eligible this year to receive these funds,
which total over $1,000,000. VDOT has limited the request of each locality to $100,000
each. Mr. Covey indicated that a list of project requests was provided to the Board and
includes the following: Tobey Road, Farmington Drive, Horseshoe Bend Road, Girard
Drive, and Friendship Lane. He stated that these were various projects relating to
drainage, as well as one area requiring the building of a shoulder and installation of
guardrail.
Mr. Covey indicated that the Department of Community Development has
$50,000 in the budget to cover one-half of the costs. They are now requesting that the
remaining allocation be appropriated through the County’s Minor Capital Fund. In
addition, staff requests that the Board approve the project list and authorize the County
Administrator to sign a letter of intent to appropriate $50,000 from the County Minor
Capital Fund.
Supervisor Church expressed appreciation for the prompt response to the
safety concerns on Tobey Road.
February 22, 2005
184
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (approve
the project list and authorize the County Administrator to sign the Letter of Intent and
appropriate $50,000 from County Minor Capital Fund). The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. First reading of an ordinance to consider spot blight abatement of
property located at 3821 Colony Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial
District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Building
Commissioner.
2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit for a
private kennel on 4.38 acres located at 4509 Red Barn Lane,
Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of Wayne and Martha
Pike.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for March 22, 2005. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
February 22, 2005
185
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. First reading of an ordinance amending Division 3. Courthouse
Parking Lot of Article III. Parking of Chapter 12. Motor Vehicles
and Traffic of the Roanoke County Code to provide for a new
Section 12-76. Authorization to Remove Vehicles. (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney advised that the County Code attempts to regulate parking
at the Courthouse complex in Salem. There is specific authorization in the State Code
that grants authority to counties to regulate parking on its property. He noted that one
provision not included in the Code is permission to tow vehicles that may be parked in
violation. This proposed ordinance would specifically grant authorization to the Sheriff’s
Office to tow or remove vehicles parked illegally at the courthouse parking lot. He
advised that he has communicated with the Circuit Court judges, the Sheriff, and the
Commonwealth’s Attorney regarding this matter. Mr. Mahoney requested that the
Board favorably consider the first reading of the ordinance.
Supervisor Wray questioned why this matter is not being handled by the
City of Salem. Mr. Mahoney responded that there are several reasons. First, this is an
outgrowth of the historical relationship between the City of Salem and the County. He
advised that Salem used to be a town and as a town, it was the County seat. Salem still
remains the County seat even though it has transitioned into an independent city status.
Secondly, counties have traditionally maintained law enforcement authority with respect
February 22, 2005
186
to the courthouse complex and other ancillary facilities and parking areas. The Sheriff
is typically in close proximity to the courthouse and it has traditionally been their role to
enforce powers relating to the public safety and security of the courthouse complex.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for March 8, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. First reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of
approximately 0.2785 acres of unimproved real estate fronting on
Pleasant Hill Drive from the Roanoke County School Board to the
Board of Supervisors for road improvements. (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney stated that this ordinance authorizes the conveyance of real
estate and dates back to July 2000 when the Board of Supervisors was working with the
School Board to undertake improvements to Pleasant Hill Drive, which is the entry road
into Hidden Valley High School. He stated that the motivating factor for the ordinance is
to conclude the real estate transaction. Since the School Board is unable to deal
directly with VDOT, the County must go through the process of having the School Board
convey the surplus property to the Board of Supervisors, who can then either convey
the property to VDOT or guarantee right-of-way in order to resolve the secondary road
issues. Once the secondary road issues are resolved, the County can receive a
February 22, 2005
187
reimbursement from VDOT for a portion of the funds supplied by the School Board with
respect to this transaction; subsequently, these funds will be allocated to the school
capital account. Mr. Mahoney advised that if the County had waited for VDOT to
complete this project, it would likely not yet be completed. The County undertook this
process to accelerate the completion of the project, which necessitated upfront funding
by the School Board and Roanoke County.
Supervisor McNamara questioned if the road improvements cost
$400,000. Supervisor Flora, who also serves as Director of Operations for Roanoke
County Schools, advised that it cost substantially more than this amount and noted that
the project involved the installation of a signal light, as well as the purchase of a home
which was relocated to secure the right-of-way.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for March 8, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
3. First reading of an ordinance to authorize conveyance of a 0.0348-
acre parcel of land to Michael S. & Deborah W. Harless as a
reversion of property in connection with an abandonment of the
rural addition of Artrip Lane, Catawba Magisterial District.
(Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
February 22, 2005
188
Mr. Covey reported that this is a housekeeping item and advised that in
December when the six-year road plan was presented to the Board, one of the items
addressed was the rural addition program. At that time, Artrip Lane was identified as
being removed from the rural addition program. This was due to the fact that there are
utility costs associated with the road improvement which are borne by the owners, and
the property owners have decided that they do not want to participate in the project.
Therefore, the County has moved forward to remove the road from the rural addition
program. As a part of this process, the right-of-way is required to be donated and this
has been done by the owners. Since the right-of-way is no longer needed, the County
needs to convey the property back to its rightful owners.
There was no discussion on this item.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for March 22, 2005. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of
approximately 9 acres of real estate located on Cove Road from
the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors
for use as the site for the new public safety building. (Dan R.
February 22, 2005
189
O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
O-022205-3
Mr. O’Donnell distributed a revised plat of the site and advised that since
the last meeting, the plat has been approved by the Community Development
Department and the School Board voted on February 9, 2005, to approve the transfer of
the property.
Supervisor Church commended Mr. O’Donnell for his handling of the
project and stated that this is an example of how to handle projects. There was no
discussion on this item.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 022205-3 TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF
APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON COVE
ROAD FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR USE AS THE SITE FOR THE NEW
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County School
Board entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in July of 2004 providing for the
conveyance of up to ten acres of real estate from the School Board to the Board of
Supervisors providing for a site for the new Roanoke County Public Safety Building; and
WHEREAS, a plat has been prepared by Hurt & Proffitt creating “Parcel 1”
containing 9.756 acres, which parcel is composed of an approximate 9 acre parcel of
real estate (portion of Tax Map No. 36.16-1-11) owned by the County School Board and
February 22, 2005
190
an approximate .8 acre parcel of real estate owned by the Board of Supervisors (Tax
Map No. 36.16-1-11.1); and
WHEREAS, at their meeting on February 9, 2005, the County School
Board declared the above-mentioned 9 acre parcel of real estate to be surplus property,
thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon
approval of this ordinance and recordation of a deed; and
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2004, the Board adopted Ordinance No, 060804-4
which authorized entering into a lease of certain real estate on Peters Creek Road with
the Virginia Resources Authority for the purpose of securing financing for the
construction of a new Public Safety Center, and to subsequently transfer this lease to
the real estate located on Cove Road; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance will be held on February 8, 2005, and the second reading
will be held on February 22, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acquisition from the County School Board of Roanoke County of
an approximate 9 acre parcel of real estate to be added and combined with an
approximate.8 acre parcel of real estate to form “Parcel 1” as shown on a preliminary
plat entitled “Plat Showing Division of the Property of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, and the County School Board of Roanoke County, Virginia,
Catawba Magisterial District” prepared by Hurt & Proffitt and dated January 19, 2005, is
hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate and to amend the financing documents with the Virginia Resources
Authority, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Second reading of an ordinance amending and re-enacting
Section 19-4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours and at
certain locations and enacting a new Section 19-28, Permit for
Street Solicitation of Article II, Chapter 19, Solicitors and
February 22, 2005
191
Solicitations, of the Roanoke County Code to authorize a
procedure for permits for street solicitation by qualified charitable
organizations. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County
Attorney)
022205-4
Mr. Obenshain reported that the first reading of this ordinance was held in
December and since that time, work sessions have been held to further discuss the
issue. He stated that the changes in the ordinance include the following: (1) the
requirement for a safety plan as part of the application process; (2) the applicant would
have to provide the County with a copy of any permit required by VDOT for use of the
public right-of-way; (3) a one-year sunset clause.
Supervisor Wray asked how many 501C (3) organizations there are in
Virginia. Mr. Obenshain advised that he does not know and any answer would be
speculation. Supervisor Wray further inquired if any 501C (3) organizations in Virginia
can participate. Mr. Obenshain responded in the affirmative and stated that any
organization that can provide the required documentation would be qualified to submit
an application. They would then also have to meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Supervisor Church questioned if a professional firefighter is conducting
solicitations while on duty and they are injured, would this be a workmen’s
compensation claim. Mr. Obenshain advised that if the firefighter is on duty, they would
have a strong argument in that regard. If the injury occurs during duty hours, there may
February 22, 2005
192
be defenses regarding whether the injury was arising out of or in the course of their
employment. He stated that this is a significant issue the County would have to
address. Supervisor Church voiced objections to the amendments for safety reasons
and noted that the Board made these changes several years ago to prevent activities
that created safety hazards. He stated that no safety enhancements have occurred
which reduce traffic congestion and recommended that these types of solicitations be
conducted on private property such as shopping center lots. He noted the potential for
accidents and stated there is no liability policy that can cover and hold harmless the
County if an accident occurs.
Supervisor McNamara stated that the proposed amendment has been
discussed for the last 6-8 months. He indicated that the amendment that is pending is a
reasonable compromise. He indicated that having firefighters solicit on their off-duty
hours for a good cause contributes to the County’s sense of community. He noted that
if the situation gets out of hand, the sunset provision will give the Board an opportunity
to review the amendments in one year and then determine if problems exist.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance.
Supervisor Wray noted that when Supervisor Church recommended
soliciting in parking lots during a work session, it was stated that it is financially more
beneficial to solicit in the road ways ($6,000 raised in parking lots vs. $40,000 in the
roadway). He further noted that in the County, speed limits along business corridors
where this type of activity would be lucrative are 35-45 mph. He indicated that these
February 22, 2005
193
speed limits are too high to allow individuals to enter the roadways. The County needs
to monitor and control this process and he stated that it would be unsafe to encourage
individuals to enter the roadways for solicitation purposes. This will create a burden on
the citizens of the County if an accident occurs as a result of being distracted by the
solicitors.
Supervisor Church requested that Robin Grayson, representative with the
Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA), advise whether the firefighters will never be on
the payroll while soliciting. Ms. Grayson responded that she can not say they will never
solicit while on duty. She noted that the most successful programs are those where the
firefighters collect while on duty and she stated that this activity does not interfere with
their ability to perform their jobs. She advised that allowing solicitations while on duty is
the most profitable method for the firefighters to be successful in their collections.
Supervisor Church requested clarification regarding whether on duty
collections would create a worker’s compensation potential. Mr. Mahoney advised that
it would create a potential liability for the County. Supervisor Church stated that with
respect to community service, the Board is all about helping the community; however
this would be a disservice to put citizens in jeopardy if this amendment is allowed. He
noted that if a rear end collision occurs, it will be the citizen who is subject to the liability
and he noted that the solicitations will result in driver inattention. He noted that there
will be other organizations that will want to take advantage of these amendments and
that the risk is the element that the Board cannot control. Ms. Grayson advised that
February 22, 2005
194
firefighters have been conducting this campaign for 50 years without any major
accidents or fatalities. She noted that it has been a successful program and advised
that every avenue has been taken to ensure that citizens are protected by these
amendments. Supervisor Church stated that he feels strongly that this would be a
mistake.
Supervisor Wray also noted that the Board must consider other
organizations in addition to MDA who may not have such organized procedures and
who might apply for a permit. He questioned if the ordinance can be restricted solely to
the MDA. Mr. Obenshain responded in the negative and stated that this would
constitute private legislation and reasonable standards must be established. He noted
that there are substantial requirements and not all 501C (3) organizations will come
forward to request a permit. He noted that the manpower required to conduct this type
of solicitation is also fairly substantial.
Supervisor Altizer questioned who would give permission for the
firefighters to solicit on County time. Mr. Hodge advised that this would come through
his office and he stated that he would want to review what other offices might be
conducting volunteer activities on County time. He stated that he would prefer that no
offices be allowed to solicit for any organization on anything other than a volunteer
basis. He noted that the Sheriff’s Office conducts a torch run and he is not certain if this
is done while on or off duty; however, he indicated that the procedures should remain
consistent for all employees.
February 22, 2005
195
Supervisor Altizer questioned if it is possible that we are already allowing
individuals to participate in fundraising activities while on duty and the County may
already have exposure to worker’s compensation claims. Mr. Mahoney responded that
anything is possible; however he is not aware of any such situations and he has not
seen any claims through Risk Management. Supervisor Altizer further inquired if there
was someone from the Sheriff’s Department participating in a torch run while on duty
and they had an accident, would the County be liable. Mr. Mahoney advised that the
legal standard for worker’s compensation is whether it is arising out of and in the course
of your employment. He indicated there is a body of legislation for determining this
issue. From an employer’s point of view when an employee is on duty and is injured,
the employer already has two strikes against them with respect to determining liability in
a worker’s compensation claim. Mr. Obenshain noted that Virginia courts are fairly
conservative and hazards incurred in the daily course of life will not qualify a person for
worker’s compensation benefits (i.e., falling while going down the stairs). Mr. Mahoney
stated that last year, there was a County initiative to assist with building a Habitat for
Humanity home; however, the employees who volunteered for this did so on their own
time.
Supervisor Altizer questioned if part of Supervisor McNamara’s motion
intended to disallow soliciting while on duty. Supervisor McNamara advised that he did
not make this part of the motion because he had always had the understanding that this
February 22, 2005
196
would be done on a volunteer basis. He stated it is not a volunteer activity if you do so
while on duty. He advised that he would be willing to amend the motion.
Supervisor Church stated that to the contrary, it was his understanding
that the solicitation would be conducted while on duty. He stated that while on duty, the
burden of proof will be on the employer. He again stated that his primary concern is for
the safety of County citizens.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he would support the motion if it is
amended to state that solicitations will not be conducted by County employees while on
duty. He noted that there were not a significant number of accidents that occurred
when these solicitations were allowed in the past and many of the problems were due to
the fact that the process was unrestricted. He stated that the Board sometimes has to
revisit issues when new circumstances exist and he noted the inclusion of the VDOT
permit requirement and stated that the issuance of this permit must occur before an
application is submitted to Roanoke County. He stated that VDOT will examine the
safety considerations and if they do not issue a permit, then there is no need for the
organization to apply to Roanoke County for a permit.
Supervisor McNamara noted that the ordinance is not specific to one
organization and advised that the Board should direct County administration that no
County employees are to be allowed to conduct solicitations while on duty. Mr.
Mahoney indicated that he did not want to submit to the Board private legislation that
applied to one specific organization. Any qualifying organization that can meet the
February 22, 2005
197
criteria can secure a permit. County administration has heard the Board’s direction that
staff not be allowed to conduct solicitations while on duty.
Supervisor Altizer advised that the Board is on the record as stating that
they do not want individuals conducting solicitations while on duty. Supervisor Church
stated that if this is not put in writing, the County will be opening itself up to dispute. He
questioned if an ordinance is law. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Church stated that this cannot be done with a handshake and needs to be
part of the legislation. He further stated that this request should never be placed in the
hands of VDOT. He indicated that the Board is empowered to make decisions
regarding whether to stop or allow an activity and he is not comfortable with allowing
VDOT to have authority regarding this decision. Supervisor Altizer advised that he was
not abdicating the County’s responsibility to VDOT; he was merely noting that VDOT
would have to also review the safety concerns.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray
ORDINANCE 022205-4 AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SEC. 19-4,
SOLICITING PROHIBITED DURING CERTAIN HOURS AND AT
CERTAIN LOCATIONS AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 19-28,
PERMIT FOR STREET SOLICITATION OF ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 19,
SOLICITORS AND SOLICITATIONS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE TO AUTHORIZE A PROCEDURE FOR PERMITS FOR STREET
SOLICITATION BY QUALIFIED CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
February 22, 2005
198
WHEREAS, Section 19-4(b) of the Roanoke County Code currently makes it
unlawful for any individual or representative of a charitable organization to engage in
solicitation, as defined by the County Code, from any occupant of a motor vehicle on a
public road; and
WHEREAS certain reputable charitable organizations have requested an
amendment to the Roanoke County Code to permit solicitation at intersections and
other locations on public roads for limited periods of time after filing an application,
paying a fee and providing the County with evidence of adequate insurance coverage
and legal proof of their charitable status; and,
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 7, 2004,
and the second reading was held on February 22, 2004.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as
follows:
1. That Section 19-4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours and at certain
locations, of Article I., IN GENERAL, of Chapter 19, SOLICITORS AND
SOLICITATIONS, of the Roanoke County Code be amended and re-enacted as follows:
Sec. 19-4. Soliciting prohibited during certain hours and at certain
locations.
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in solicitation in the County at
any time prior to 9:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in solicitation from any operator
or passenger of a motor vehicle that is in traffic on a public road without a permit for
charitable solicitation from the County as outlined in Article II, Sec. 19-21 to 19-
28, Roanoke County Code. A public road shall include the areas of the median and
the public right-of-way along the curbside.
3. That Section 19-28. Permit for Street Solicitation, of Article II, Permit for
Charitable Solicitations, of Chapter 19, SOLICITORS AND SOLICITATIONS, of the
Roanoke County Code be enacted as follows:
Sec. 19-28. Permit for Street Solicitation.
The prohibition on soliciting from a vehicle on a public road set forth in Section
19-4(b), above, does not apply to a charitable organization, and its authorized solicitors,
which has applied for and been issued a permit under this section and which is in
compliance with all other provisions of this Chapter. In order to solicit contributions
while standing in a public road, a charitable organization must comply with the following
requirements:
1. Not less that thirty (30) days prior to the date desired for beginning
solicitation, the charitable organization shall submit a complete application to the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors for a charitable solicitation permit. In addition to the
information required by Sec. 19-22, the form shall require the charitable organization to
provide its full name, the name, address and phone number of a local point of contact
for the organization, the desired date(s), time(s) and specific location(s) for soliciting
February 22, 2005
199
which shall be limited to not more than six (6) intersections with a traffic control signal
light, the name, mailing address and phone number of each individual who will be
engaged in solicitation activities on behalf of such charitable organization. Further the
charitable organization shall provide an agreement or document whereby such
organization shall indemnify the County, its officers, employees and agents, and hold
the County, its officers, employees and agents, harmless from any and all claims, suits,
demands, damages and attorney fees arising out of or related to the acts or omissions
of individuals or entities soliciting for such organization. The charitable organization
shall have an ongoing obligation to update or correct any information submitted in its
application for a solicitation permit so as to maintain all information in the County’s
possession as accurate. The County may require such additional or supplemental
information as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate the direct enforcement of this
section and the purposes of this Chapter.
2. When submitting a completed application to the County, the charitable
organization shall also submit the following:
(a) Written proof of general commercial liability and property damage
insurance coverage issued by a company authorized to conduct business
in the Commonwealth of Virginia in the amount of not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence that insures the organization and all individuals
and entities who may be soliciting on its behalf. The proof of insurance
shall include the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as an
additional insured and must specify that the insurance is primary over any
insurance which the County may carry or any provisions for self insurance
by the County.
(b) An application permit fee in the amount of $10.00 shall be payable
at the time the application is submitted. This fee shall be used to defray
the County’s cost of processing the application and for insuring
compliance with the conditions of any permit issued through monitoring of
the public roads. An applicant will be notified in writing of the approval or
denial of their request within fifteen (15) days after the County’s receipt of
a completed application. Within the County’s discretion, a portion of this
fee may be refunded in the event a permit is denied.
(c) Written proof that the applicant organization is a charitable
organization which has obtained qualification from the Internal Revenue
Service as a Section 501c(3) entity under the Internal Revenue Code.
(d) A safety plan which shall describe the measures which the
organization will implement during any solicitation period to insure
the safety of those participating in its solicitation activities and of
drivers and occupants of motor vehicles at intersections where
solicitations are permitted.
(e) A copy of a permit issued by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) for use or occupancy of the public right-of-
February 22, 2005
200
way at intersections at which solicitations will be conducted during
the term of the County’s permit.
3. Additional solicitation activity restrictions shall include the following:
(a) No more than one permit may be issued to an organization
during each calendar year. Permits shall be valid for a period of ninety
(90) days from the date of their issuance;
(b) Solicitation upon a public road in the County pursuant to a permit
shall be authorized for no more than four (4) consecutive calendar days,
and shall be limited to the period from 9:00 a.m. until one half hour prior to
sunset, at the approved location(s) specified in the application and permit;.
(c) Each individual solicitor shall have in his or her possession some
form of official identification with a photograph, such as a driver’s license
and shall wear a high-visibility, reflective safety vest over their clothing at
all times;
(d) A copy of the organization’s solicitation permit shall be maintained
at each approved solicitation location;
(e) All solicitors must be at least eighteen (18) years of age or older;
and,
(f) No solicitor may impede traffic at any time; touching a vehicle or
reaching inside a vehicle without the consent of the occupants of the
vehicle shall be considered as impeding traffic;
4. Additional conditions for consideration of and issuance of permits:
(a) In additional to the provisions of Sec. 19-24, an application for a
solicitation permit under this section may be denied or revoked, in whole
or in part, for the following reasons:
(i) A solicitation permit has been issued to a charitable
organization, and is currently in force, for one or more of the
intersections at which the applicant seeks permission to solicit;
(ii) In the opinion of the Chief of Police or his designee, approval
of the solicitation permit at one or more of the requested
intersections is determined to create a reasonable potential for
injury to solicitors, other pedestrians or vehicle occupants or an
unreasonable potential for disruption to normal traffic flow;
(iii) The applicant has made a false or materially misleading
statement on the application form or in any response to information
requested on behalf of the County; and
(iv) A material violation of the solicitation permit granted under
this Section or any action by the organization or any individual
solicitor acting in its behalf which creates a clear and immediate
danger to public safety.
(b) Issuance of any permit under this section shall not represent an
endorsement by the County of any charitable organization that the
February 22, 2005
201
permittee may represent nor any indication of supervision of or control
over the proceeds raised by the organization’s charitable solicitations.
5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after March 1,
2005. from and after its adoption. This ordinance shall be effective until February
28, 2006.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-022205-5; R-022205-5.b
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 022205-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING
IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED
AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for
February 22, 2005, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved
and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – January 25, 2005
2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the League of Older Americans
Advisory Council
3. Request to accept Integrity Drive into the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System
4. Request to accept donation of a drainage easement on the property of
Knights of Columbus, Windsor Hills Magisterial District
5. Request to accept donation of a deed of easement on property owned by
Larry W. McCarty and Patricia L. McCarty, Vinton Magisterial District
February 22, 2005
202
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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 022205-5.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
INTEGRITY 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, is 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 street meets 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 street 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.
Moved by: Supervisor Flora
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.
Supervisor McNamara requested that the General Fund Unappropriated Balance report
February 22, 2005
203
be revised to reflect the new graduated scale for the targeted fund balance. Supervisor
Flora’s motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Accounts Paid –January 2005
6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended January 31, 2005
7. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report
8. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report
9. Statement of the Treasurer’s accountability per investment and
portfolio policy as of January 31, 2005
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 5:05 p.m., Chairman Altizer moved to go into closed session following
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
been made. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
February 22, 2005
204
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss proposed revisions to the Roanoke
County Community (Comprehensive) Plan. (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
The work session was held from 5:22 p.m. until 5:53 p.m. Staff present
included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; George Simpson,
Assistant Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; David
Holladay, Zoning Administrator; and Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer.
Staff presented an overview of amendments that have been made to the
community plan based on input received from the Board at prior work sessions. There
was a consensus of the Board to accept and incorporate the proposed revisions.
There was general discussion regarding standards for steep slopes, and it
was decided that this issue will be addressed in the development of the ordinances
which will follow adoption of the community plan.
Supervisor Wray stated that stormwater management is a regional issue;
and as such, it is an issue that could potentially be handled by the Western Virginia
Water Authority (WVWA). Mr. Hodge advised that there is a joint meeting with Roanoke
City Council scheduled for March 7 and this could be added to the agenda for
February 22, 2005
205
discussion. There was a consensus of the Board to add discussion of regional
stormwater management to the March 7 agenda.
Supervisor McNamara requested that staff brief the Board in an upcoming
work session regarding the status of the County’s compliance with EPA stormwater
management regulations.
Staff was directed to provide the Board with a schedule for development of
ordinances based on which ordinances could achieve the most measurable gains
initially with a minimum amount of controversy.
There was a consensus of the Board to schedule a joint work session with
the Planning Commission on March 1.
2. Work session to discuss fire and rescue staffing needs. (Richard
Burch, Chief, Fire & Rescue)
The work session was held from 5:53 p.m. until 6:28 p.m.
Chief Burch advised that a mutual aid agreement with the City of Roanoke
will provide additional coverage for the Hollins and Mount Pleasant areas of the County.
As part of the agreement, 8 additional County personnel will be added, 4 each at the
Hollins and Mount Pleasant stations. In North County, Roanoke County agrees to
provide fire backup to Roanoke City in the upper end of the Williamson Road & Peters
Creek Road areas; Roanoke City agrees to provide first responder and initial fire
response to Roanoke County in the North Lakes and Montclair areas. In Mount
Pleasant, Roanoke County agrees to provide advanced life support (ALS) ambulance
February 22, 2005
206
response to Roanoke City in the Garden City area; Roanoke City agrees to provide fire
backup to Roanoke County in the Mount Pleasant coverage area. Chief Burch also
presented data on current and proposed levels of staffing and career coverage.
Supervisor McNamara noted that surplus revenues existed in the fee for
transport fund last year, and he requested that consideration be given to increasing
coverage in the Back Creek area.
There was a consensus of the Board to schedule a work session to
discuss Medicare rate adjustments.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 6:35 p.m. until 6:45 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-022205-6
At 7:07 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
RESOLUTION 022205-6 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.
February 22, 2005
207
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE
1. First reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of an existing
stormwater management easement, The Cottages at Wexford, and
vacation of a stormwater management easement, Wexford Place
Townhomes, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey,
Director of Community Development)
Mr. Covey advised that the request is from DAV, LLC, in conjunction with
the Wexford Homeowners Association, to vacate two stormwater easements. One of
the easements is around an existing facility that is adjacent to Starkey Road; the other
is an easement to be vacated on Capulet Circle. Staff has reviewed both requests and
determined there is no impact to the stormwater management facility and is requesting
approval of both vacations.
Supervisor Wray noted that the location is on Starkey Road. Mr. Covey
confirmed that it is at the intersection of Starkey Road and South Mountain Drive.
February 22, 2005
208
Supervisor Wray further inquired if this flows into the stormwater drain that comes from
Kings Chase and flows to Buck Mountain Road. Mr. Covey responded that it does.
Supervisor Wray questioned if there is any timeline to upgrade this for the Buck
Mountain area. Mr. Covey advised that there is no planned improvement at this time.
Supervisor Wray stated that there have been some problems with runoff further down
the channel. Mr. Covey noted that there had been some requests for improvements as
a result of the recent flooding; however, the home in question is in the floodway.
Supervisor Wray requested confirmation there is no further impact to citizens. Mr.
Covey responded in the affirmative.
Charles Osterhoudt, advised that he is a resident of Wexford Place and
has been speaking with residents regarding this matter. He stated that the maintenance
of the stormwater area has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. He
requested that the second reading be deferred until all paperwork can be signed by the
respective parties and noted that this could take several months.
Supervisor Wray inquired whether the matter can be continued until April
26. There was a consensus of the Board to continue the matter until April 26.
Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for April 26, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
February 22, 2005
209
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C1
Office District to C2 General Commercial District, and to obtain a
special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food
restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of
Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and Merriman Road, Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Seaside Heights,
LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until March 22,
2005 at the request of the petitioner.
2. Continued until March 22, 2005 at the request of the petitioner.
Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 20 foot waterline
easement dedicated by subdivision plat of Stonegate, Phase 2-B,
Lots 47-48, and creating a new waterline easement situated on
Lots 47 and 48, Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until March 22,
2005 at the request of the petitioner.
3. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
construct a 24,400 square foot, multi-purpose family life facility
for Ebenezer Baptist Church located at 7049 Thirlane Road,
February 22, 2005
210
Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Jerome Donald
Henschel, PC Architecture. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-022205-7
Ms. Scheid reported that the request is being submitted by Mr. Henschel
on behalf of Ebenezer Baptist Church. The current church was built in 1998 and has a
growing membership; at this time, the church needs a family life center including a
basketball court, locker and weight rooms, bowling alley lanes, classroom spaces,
kitchen, and other accessory space. The proposed family life center would be located
behind the existing church off Thirlane Road. A 24,400 square foot multi-purpose family
life facility is being proposed. Because it will be behind the existing church, some of the
existing parking would need to be removed and relocated. The proposed facility will
have an exterior constructed of a metal roof and combination of brick, metal and exterior
insulation finish system raw materials. She stated that it will resemble the current
church with respect to materials and color. There is a condition with the special use
permit which states that the building and roof colors be consistent with the existing color
scheme. Ms. Scheid indicated that Ebenezer Baptist Church is a growing church and
has been a member of the Kingstown neighborhood for over a century. The family life
center concept supports a creative ministry mission in a recreational setting, and the
religious assembly use is consistent with the community plan designation of this area
which is neighborhood conservation.
February 22, 2005
211
Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission heard this petition on
February 1 and one citizen spoke in favor of the petition. There were some questions
regarding parking and these were answered by the petitioner who has stated that there
will be adequate parking for the larger facility. The citizen who spoke also mentioned
that the church owns property across Thirlane Road which could be used for overflow
parking if necessary. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval
he site shall be developed in
of the petition with the following two conditions: (1) T
substantial conformity with the master site development plan prepared by Jerome
Donald Henschel, PC Architecture, dated December 6, 2004. (2) The exterior
building and roof colors of the proposed multi-purpose family life facility shall match
the existing muted color scheme of the existing church facility (brown, tan, white and
brick colors).
Jerome Henschel, 2839 Embassy Circle, advised that he is the
architect for the project and would address any questions by the Board.
Supervisor Church inquired if the minister was present at the meeting.
Reverend Herman Word, minister at Ebenezer Baptist Church, was present and
advised that he understands and is in agreement with the proposed conditions.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
February 22, 2005
212
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 022205-7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
EBENEZER BAPTIST CHURCH UPON APPLICATION OF JEROME
DONALD HENSCHEL, PC ARCHITECTURE TO CONSTRUCT A 24,400
SQUARE FOOT MULTI-PURPOSE FAMILY LIFE FACILITY TO BE
LOCATED AT 7049 THIRLANE ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 37.06-1-13)
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture has filed a petition for a
special use permit to construct a 24,400 square foot multi-purpose family life facility for
the Ebenezer Baptist Church to be located at 7049 Thirlane Road (Tax Map No. 37.06-
1-13) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
February 1, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on January 25, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on February 22, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Ebenezer
Baptist Church upon application by Jerome Donald Henschel, PC Architecture to
construct a 24,400 square foot multi-purpose family life facility for the Ebenezer Baptist
Church to be located at 7049 Thirlane Road in the Catawba Magisterial District is
substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said
special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
(1) The site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
master site development plan prepared by Jerome Donald Henschel, PC
Architecture, dated December 6, 2004.
(2) The exterior building and roof colors of the proposed multi-purpose
family life facility shall match the existing muted color scheme of the existing
church facility. (Brown, tan, white and brick colors.)
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
February 22, 2005
213
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
4. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 0.68 acres from I-1
Industrial District with conditions to C-2 General Commercial
District with conditions in order to construct a retail building
located at the northwest corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove
Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Mid-
Atlantic Realty, Inc. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-022205-8
Ms. Scheid reported that the request is from Mid-Atlantic Realty on behalf
of Thomas and Evonne Hubbard to remove the existing proffered conditions on a 0.68
acre parcel currently zoned industrial to rezone it to C-2 commercial with conditions. A
map was displayed showing the proposed changes. Ms. Scheid advised that there are
two adjoining parcels, one of which is also owned by the Hubbard’s, which are currently
zoned C-2. She reported that Mid-Atlantic Realty is attempting to rezone the 0.68 acre
parcel to make it consistent with the other two parcels. Mid-Atlantic is a developer for
CVS pharmacy and is planning to build a pharmacy on this site. Since the due diligence
for this project has not yet been completed, Mid-Atlantic is not proffering a CVS
pharmacy; they are, however, proffering a C-2 use. Ms. Scheid advised that the
petitioner has worked with County staff to provide proffered conditions aimed at
developing a functional site while significantly improving the architecture and landscape
conditions that exist on the property. The 0.68 acre site was developed commercially in
February 22, 2005
214
the 1970s and later purchased by the Hubbard’s, who had the property rezoned to light
industrial and operated Hubbard Heating and Air Conditioning from that site. They also
purchased the adjacent 0.37 acre parcel on the corner and a service station was
previously operated on this site. The petitioner has stated that they are the primary
developer for CVS and the intended use is a CVS pharmacy with approximately 12,000
square feet and a maximum building/roof height of 30 feet. Ms. Scheid indicated that
the petitioner has proffered that the Peters Creek Road access would be right in and
right out only, and there would also be access on Cove Road which would be for left
and right turn. The parking lot would provide 75 spaces with a dual drive-thru for the
pharmacy.
Ms. Scheid reported that the year 2003 VDOT traffic counts show slightly
over 2,000 vehicles per day on Cove Road and approximately 18,000 vehicles per day
on Peters Creek Road. The proposed project would redevelop the corner location
which is in need of redevelopment. Other quadrants of this intersection are Roanoke
City locations and are developed with high intensity commercial retail and
service/commercial uses. The Planning Commission heard this petition on February 1
and there were questions regarding the three contiguous tracts of property. The
proffers before the Board are only on the land which is being rezoned; the other two
parcels that would form the tract of land for the CVS are currently zoned C-2. The
conditions reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission include the following:
The property shall be developed as a C-2 use. (2) Entrances onto Peters Creek
(1)
February 22, 2005
215
Road shall be reduced to one (1) right-in and right out; entrances onto Cove Road
shall be reduced to one (I) full movement entrance. (3) All buildings constructed on
the property shall have exposed exterior walls (above finished grade) of face brick,
natural stone, dryvit, stucco, decorative split face block and/or glass or of an
equivalent, permanent architecturally finished material. No building shall be covered
with or have exposed to view any painted or unfinished concrete block, sheet or
corrugated aluminum, asbestos, iron or steel. Roofing materials shall either be
asphalt shingle or standing metal seam if a raised roof; if a flat roof system is used,
a perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam and decorative split face block or
brick shall be used. The proffered conditions set forth in Ordinance 82592-8 dated
August 25, 1992 and Ordinance 102291-10 dated October 22, 1991 are hereby
removed.
Susan Whaley, representative with
Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc., advised that
they are the contract purchaser for the three parcels. She stated that they are working
on the development of a CVS pharmacy.
Supervisor McNamara noted that the application references a 30’ height.
He questioned if this is typical for a CVS store. Ms. Whaley advised that it is 30’ to the
top of the parapet on the roof which screens the HVAC units. Kirk Cooper, engineer
with Kenley-Horn, advised that the entry feature can sometimes be above 35 feet. Ms.
February 22, 2005
216
Whaley further advised that there is a new prototype and this would be the first in this
area.
Supervisor Wray inquired if there is sufficient parking. Mr. Cooper advised
that there is sufficient parking to meet the Code, as well as the needs of CVS. He
advised that there are 75 spaces for an 11,000 square foot building and noted that
generally CVS prefers a few more parking spaces than required by Code. In response
to a further inquiry from Supervisor Wray, he confirmed that ingress and egress is not
an issue. Ms. Whaley noted that there are several entrances on Peters Creek Road
and two on Cove Road; she advised that some of these entrances will be closed.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Church stated that this action will be positive and he has not
received any negative feedback regarding the project.
Supervisor Flora advised that this is a busy intersection and the proposed
design will improve the traffic situation. He voiced support for the project.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 022205-8 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF A 0.68-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF PETERS CREEK ROAD AND COVE ROAD
(TAX MAP NO.37.17-01-05) IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-1, INDUSTRIAL
WITH CONDITIONS, TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2,
February 22, 2005
217
GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE
APPLICATION OF MID-ATLANTIC REALTY, INC.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 25, 2005, and
the second reading and public hearing were held February 22, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on February 1, 2005; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
0.68 acres, as described herein, and located at the northwest corner of Peters Creek
Road and Cove Road (Tax Map Number 37.17-01-05) in the Catawba Magisterial
District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of I-1, Industrial District with
conditions, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District with
conditions.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Mid-Atlantic Realty, Inc.
3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
hereby accepts:
(1) The property shall be developed as a C-2 use.
(2) Entrances onto Peters Creek Road shall be reduced to one (1)
right-in and right-out; entrances onto Cove Road shall be reduced to one (1) full
movement entrance.
(3) All buildings constructed on the property shall have exposed
exterior walls (above finished grade) of face brick, natural stone, dryvit, stucco,
decorative split face block and/or glass or be of an equivalent, permanent
architecturally finished material. No building shall be covered with or have
exposed to view any painted or unfinished concrete block, sheet or corrugated
aluminum, asbestos, iron or steel. Roofing materials shall either be asphalt
shingle or standing metal seam if a raised roof; if a flat roof system is used, a
perimeter parapet of dryvit, standing metal seam and decorative split face block
or brick shall be used.
(4) The proffered conditions set forth in Ordinance 82592-8 dated
August 25, 1992 and Ordinance 102291-10 dated October 22, 1991, are hereby
removed.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at an iron stake on the northwesterly right-of-way line of Peters
Creek Road (VA Rte. 117) 146.29 feet northeasterly from an angle point at the
northwesterly corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, said beginning point
being the northeasterly corner of the property of Humble Oil Co.; thence leaving
February 22, 2005
218
Peters Creek Road and with two lines of the Humble Oil Co. property N. 74° 21’
W. 100.0 feet to an iron stake; thence S. 34° 28’ 30” W. 165.00 feet to an iron
stake on the northerly right-of-way line of Cove Road (VA Rte. 116); thence with
same, leaving the Humble Oil Co. property N. 74° 21’ W. 113.00 feet to an iron
stake, a corner to the property of Mrs. Dorothy H. Whitesell, Mrs. Geraldine H.
Waring and Frances H. Easley; thence with same and leaving Cove Road, N. 35°
12’ 10” E. 250.0 feet to a point, a new corner; thence with a new division line
through the property of William Kenney S. 62° 16’ 50” E. 201.59 feet to a point on
the northwesterly right-of-way line of Peters Creek Road; thence with said right-
of-way line with a curved line to the left, having a radius of 2334.83 feet, a chord
bearing and distance of S. 36° 59’ 35” W.40.0 feet and an arc distance of 40.00
feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.685 acres, as shown on plat made by
David Dick & Associates, dated February 26, 1973, which plat is recorded in the
Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office in Deed Book 968 at page 99.
5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
5. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities located
at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon
the petition of Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless. (Janet
Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-022205-9
Ms. Scheid reported that Verizon Wireless proposes to construct a 199'
broadcast tower at the Moose Lodge property on Catawba Valley Road. The height of
the proposed tower would be the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance. The
February 22, 2005
219
proposed broadcast tower would be centrally located in the valley in order to serve
customers in Masons Cove, Bennett Springs, and those traveling on U.S. Route 311.
The tower would not be lighted and would be structurally capable of carrying at least
three other vendors. The Moose Lodge on Catawba Valley Drive was constructed in
1983. The property is 25 acres and is currently zoned Agricultural Residential with
conditions. In 1985 a "Use Not Provided For'' permit was issued to allow a campground
for Moose members which resulted in the conditional zoning. Verizon Wireless is
making improvements to their coverage in the Masons Cove area of Roanoke County.
The company currently has a site at Pinkerton Chevrolet on Electric Road, but the
coverage toward Masons Cove ends at the ridge tops of Fort Lewis Mountain and
Brushy Mountain. The proposed broadcast tower would be centrally located in the valley
in order to serve customers in Masons Cove, Bennett Springs, and those traveling on
U.S. Route 311. Ms. Scheid advised that the proposed tower site is on a small knoll in
the Masons Cove valley. The Moose Lodge property rises up to the east from Catawba
Valley Road. The tower location would be in the rear of the Moose Lodge at the edge of
an existing parking area. The Moose Lodge property consists of open grass fields,
parking areas, the lodge building and recreational facilities. Verizon proposes to lease
an 80' X 100' area adjacent to the existing parking lot in the southeast corner of the
Moose Lodge property.
Ms. Scheid stated that a 199' monopole tower is being proposed with an
accessory equipment shelter and perimeter fencing. A row of evergreen trees is
February 22, 2005
220
proposed around the outside of the perimeter fence. The site is open and relatively flat,
and should require very little land disturbance. Many of the adjoining neighbors are
separated from the proposed site either by the rest of the 25-acre Moose Lodge
property, or the County-owned Whispering Pines Park which lies to the north and east.
Adjoining neighbors to the south of the site would be the closest homes to the new
structure.
The Planning Commission heard the petition on February 1 and had
questions regarding whether the tower would be lighted, which it will not. At the
community meeting that was held for this petition, questions were raised by the
Appalachian Trail Commission regarding the potential impact on the Appalachian Trail
view sheds. Since that time, Appalachian Trail representatives have visited the site and
determined that this is not an issue. They have since sent a letter in support of the
petition. Ms. Scheid reported that the Planning Commission favorably recommends
approval of the petition with the following conditions: (1) The broadcast tower shall be a
monopole design with a maximum height of 199'. (2) The broadcast tower shall not be
lighted unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (3) The broadcast
tower shall be constructed of non-reflective materials to reduce visibility and reduce light
reflection. (4) The broadcast tower shall be structurally capable of carrying at least
three other vendors. (5) The broadcast tower shall be located in the lease area shown
on the concept plan entitled "Verizon Site Name: Bradshaw Road", prepared by
Engineering Concepts, Inc, with engineers stamp seal date of 12/10/04.
February 22, 2005
221
Gregory Tulley, land use planner representing Verizon Wireless, was
present at the meeting. He introduced Keith Simmons, Verizon System Performance
Engineer, who was also in attendance and prepared to address the E-911 impact to the
site and system design issues. Mr. Tulley advised that he will be available to address
any concerns or questions.
Supervisor Wray questioned if the monopole will support more than three
carriers. Mr. Tulley stated that the monopole will support three in addition to the anchor
tenant, which is Verizon; therefore, there will be a total of four. Supervisor Wray also
requested confirmation that the structure would be no taller than 199’. Mr. Tulley
responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Wray questioned if this would allow Roanoke County to use
the tower for E-911 purposes. Mr. Tulley responded that this is available if desired.
Supervisor Wray questioned whether there have been any citizen inquiries
since the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Scheid stated that she is not aware of
any. She advised that the only concern expressed at the community meeting was the
issue regarding Appalachian Trail view sheds, which has been resolved. Mr. Tulley
further stated that it is Verizon’s philosophy to work closely with the surrounding
community and any relevant associations. He noted Verizon’s participation at the
community meeting, as well as several meetings which were held with Appalachian Trail
representatives.
February 22, 2005
222
Supervisor Wray questioned if there is a requirement that the tower be
removed should it become obsolete in the future. Ms. Scheid advised that the County
ordinance requires that it be removed within a specific time frame.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Church stated that when the County goes to Phase 2 on the E-
911 system, it will benefit the residents in the Bradshaw Road area. Mr. Simmons
advised that Roanoke County is currently in Phase 1 and during this phase, you can
obtain the location of the tower from which a 911 call on a cell phone is made, as well
as the callback number of the phone and the antenna direction. Phase 2 will provide
this same level of information for 911 calls, but will also locate the phone to within 100
yards by use of a GPS triangulation system.
Supervisor Church welcomed Bill Wasky to the meeting. He noted that
there is currently no cell coverage in the Bradshaw Road area and this will provide an
important safety feature for the residents of this area.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance with the following
recommendation: (1) The broadcast tower is located in the valley floor, rather than on a
mountain side or ridge line. (2) The broadcast tower is a monopole design and can
structurally support three other vendors. (3) The broadcast tower would not be lighted
and therefore would have less visual impact on the surrounding community. (4) The
proposed site is already developed and would be served by an existing driveway and
electric service. (5) The proposed site is at least 1.5 to 2 miles from the Appalachian
February 22, 2005
223
Trail and significantly lower in elevation than the trail. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 022205-9 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A/ VERIZON WIRELESS TO
CONSTRUCT A 199 FT. BROADCAST TOWER AND ANCILLARY
FACILITIES TO BE LOCATED AT 3233 CATAWBA VALLEY DRIVE
(TAX MAP NO.16.03-1-46) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Cellco Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless has filed a petition for a
special use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities to be
located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive (Tax Map No. 16.03-1-46) in the Catawba
Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
February 1, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on January 25, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on February 22, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Cellco
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary
facilities to be located at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive in the Catawba Magisterial District
is substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said
special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
(1) The broadcast tower shall be a monopole design, with a maximum height
of 199 ft.
(2) The broadcast tower shall not be lighted.
(3) The broadcast tower shall be constructed of non-reflective materials to
reduce visibility and reduce light reflection.
(4) The broadcast tower shall be structurally capable of carrying at least three
other vendors.
(5) The broadcast tower shall be located in the lease area shown on the
concept plan entitled “Verizon Site Name: Bradshaw Road,” prepared by
Engineering Concepts, Inc., with engineers stamp seal date of 12/10/04.
February 22, 2005
224
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
6. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing the vacation,
quitclaim and release of portions of various easements in Valley
Gateway Business Park to the Commonwealth of Virginia in
connection with providing clear title and an unrestricted right-of-
way for Integrity Drive, Vinton Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey,
Director of Community Development)
O-022205-10
Mr. Covey reported that this ordinance was first presented to the Board on
February 8, 2005 and he indicated that no changes have been made since that time.
The County is quitclaiming the underlying easements on Integrity Drive in order to have
it accepted into the State Secondary Road System.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item and there was no
discussion.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
February 22, 2005
225
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 022205-10 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION, QUITCLAIM
AND RELEASE OF PORTIONS OF VARIOUS EASEMENTS IN
VALLEY GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA IN CONNECTION WITH PROVIDING CLEAR TITLE AND AN
UNRESTRICTED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR INTEGRITY DRIVE IN THE
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the development of Valley Gateway Business Park has necessitated
the creation of several easements for public utilities and drainage; and,
WHEREAS, the said easements were created prior to the establishment of the
full right-of-way boundary for Integrity Drive and portions of the said easements are
within the currently established right-of-way boundary of Integrity Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the various easements to be vacated were dedicated to Roanoke
County as a 20’ storm drainage easement recorded in instrument # 200313258 and a
20’ storm drainage easement recorded in instrument # 200313725, a 20’ public utility
easement recorded in Plat Book 19, page 166, and a 20’ public utility easement
recorded in Plat Book 27, page 23, a 30’ sewer and waterline easement recorded in
Deed Book 1273, page 605, and a 20’ waterline easement, recorded in Plat Book 19,
page 166 and Deed Book 1620, page 587, respectively, all of record in the Clerk’s
Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and,
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires that the
right-of-way for streets to be added to the state system of highways be unrestricted and
cleared of all encumbrances; and,
WHEREAS, Roanoke County desires to request the Virginia Department of
Transportation to add Integrity Drive to the state system of highways and the affected
County departments have raised no objection to the vacation, quit-claim and release of
the above described easements; and,
WHEREAS, published notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204
of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended and pursuant to the provisions of Section
18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on
February 8, 2005; and a public hearing and second reading was held on February 22,
2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That portions of existing easement designated and shown as “EASEMENTS TO
BE VACATED” on a plat entitled “PLAT SHOWING THE VACTION OF
EASEMENTS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF INTEGRITY DRIVE, VALLEY
GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK” prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc.
dated January 21, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference,
February 22, 2005
226
be, and hereby are, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, subject to the conditions set forth herein; and,
2. That the vacation, quitclaim and release of the storm drainage easements, the
waterline easement and the sewer and waterline easement is subject to, upon the
acceptance of Integrity Drive into the state system of highways, the issuance of a
land use permit by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) such that the
existing waterlines, sewer lines, storm drains and their appurtenances may continue
to occupy, in their current configuration, the area within the right-o-way boundary for
Integrity Drive.
3. That conveyance of the property identified as “INTEGRITY DRIVE” on the
above reference plat to the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby authorized and
approved.
4. That in the event said existing facilities are subsequently not within the
right-of-way boundary due to street abandonment or realignment, the County will exert
its prior rights and the subject easements shall revert to the possession of the County of
Roanoke.
5. That the County Administrator or any assistant county administrator is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this quitclaim and release of
easement interests and conveyance of property, all of which shall be on form approved
by the County Attorney.
6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption
and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272.2 of
the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended).
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for regional
jail reimbursement funding to the Commonwealth of Virginia,
Board of Corrections. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator;
John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator)
R-022205-11
February 22, 2005
227
Supervisor Altizer referenced a recent article in the Roanoke Times and
stated that after reading the article, he contacted Mayor Nelson Harris, Roanoke City,
and requested that he poll City Council members to determine if there was interest in
becoming a partner in the regional jail project. Supervisor Altizer advised that Mayor
Harris responded yesterday and advised that there is sufficient interest in possibly
participating in the project. Today, the Board received a second letter clarifying certain
points and also indicating that the City did not want to deter the County proceeding with
its application for funding.
Supervisor Altizer stated that some of the emails received by the Board
indicate that the article was confusing and appeared to indicate that a site in Roanoke
City had been selected or that the County could move into the existing Roanoke City
jail. He advised that he wants to make it clear that a second letter was received
clarifying that a selected site does not exist in Roanoke City. Mayor Harris further
advised that Roanoke City does not know if a site is available close to the existing jail in
downtown Roanoke. Supervisor Altizer advised that both he and Mayor Harris have
concerns regarding whether Roanoke City can obtain a waiver from the state to join the
regional project.
The following citizens spoke regarding this item:
Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, stated that Roanoke County should
submit the jail application to meet the March 1 deadline. He further advised that the
County should keep their options open and explore other possibilities. He stated that
February 22, 2005
228
the Higginbotham site has high development costs and he estimated that water, sewer,
gas, grading, driveways and roadways, site access, and stormwater costs will total $4.5
million. If this is added to the $1.6 million purchase price, the site totals $6 million. He
stated that the site could only be used for the jail and questioned if this is cost effective.
He indicated that citizens have not been receiving sufficient data on projected costs,
and the public may become more supportive if sufficient information is provided.
Craig Sharp, 4560 Cowman Road, advised that he has been impressed
with the Board’s stewardship of the citizen’s tax dollars. He stated that he is speaking
at the meeting due to new reports he has read and past meetings regarding the jail. He
stated that whether $6 million to develop a site is appropriate or not falls in the realm of
political economics. The Department of Corrections (DOC) has advised that final plans
can be developed over time, and Mr. Sharp urged the Board to vote to submit the
application. He stated that Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern (HSM&M) has extensive
experience in these types of projects and he encouraged the Board to ask them
questions regarding the best choice for the site. He stated that he has become aware
through the news media that there has been innuendo against certain staff members.
He stated that the commentary that has existed has not served to clarify the issues. He
stated that if the Board is interested in finding out the reasons why information is not
presented, they should sit down with the experts and listen to them. He stated that the
costs in this project will rise and noted the rising market costs. He voiced support for
continuing to move forward with the project in a fair manner to avoid further rising costs.
February 22, 2005
229
He stated that he hopes his words have been clear in case his body language has not
been.
Mark A. Layman, 6302 Dry Hollow Road, advised that he served on the
citizens’ committee and could not obtain information. He referenced a quote by Mr.
Hodge in the Roanoke Times article which stated “if the city wishes to do that with the
land we have available at the Higginbotham site, they can come in any time they want”.
Mr. Layman indicated that Mr. Hodge should have noted the possibility of an alternative
site with an open mind and that once again, unaccountability and an arrogant attitude
does not do anything for the County. He stated that it is the job of the County
Administrator to follow up on all possible site leads and staff’s job is to work for the
citizens and not to further their own agendas or visions of a master plan. He referenced
the letter from Mayor Harris indicating that the City does not have a site or know if they
will be able to meet the requirements. He questioned if the results would have been
different if this information had not been withheld from the citizens’ committee and the
Board. He asked that the Board not purchase the Higginbotham property until the
possibility of partnering with Roanoke City is fully explored.
Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive, advised that she is speaking as
the political chair of the Sierra Club. She indicated that the group has previously
commented in opposition to the Higginbotham site and advised that their opposition is
not to the regional jail. She stated that public facilities should be located on unused or
under-used land within the areas already served with streets, water and sewer, etc.
February 22, 2005
230
The location should not contribute to the environmental degradation of riparian habitat,
agricultural areas and natural woodlands. She noted that the citizens’ committee was
not made aware of possible interest on the part of Roanoke City and that the existing
Salem site was not fully explored. She questioned what special appeal the
Higginbotham site holds for the County. She further voiced concerns regarding Native
American sites along the banks of the Roanoke River, as well as an existing cemetery
on the site. She stated that the project reflects rising costs which now total $88 million
and that citizens deserve a full disclosure and exploration of all possible sites. She
requested that the citizens’ committee be given the opportunity to explore other options
before the site selection is finalized.
Bob Seymour, 7552 Boxwood Drive, stated that the most significant
concern is the capacity projections. He stated that the demographics are flat and there
is no population growth in the County; therefore, how is there such an enormous need
to accommodate a rising need for prison space. He stated that the scope of the project
should be examined and noted a projected cost of $53 million. He noted that bed space
is projected to increase from 280 to 452 and then to 1,006 in order to accommodate
other municipalities. He questioned why the County needs to take on so much. He
stated that the argument to rush due to rising costs could be used to justify any potential
capital outlay because costs will always rise. He questioned what is the return on
investment for a prison, why Roanoke City was not involved from the beginning, and
February 22, 2005
231
why the need to rush. He stated that the biggest concern is a problem with the process
and there is no constituent buy-in.
J.C. Whitlock, Jr., 5839 West River Road, noted that hundreds of citizens
attended the meeting at the Salem Civic Center in opposition to the jail. He stated that
now the majority is saying the Board will do what they want to do regardless of what the
citizens have to say. He stated that the Board works for the citizens. He further
advised that he has attended every meeting and the County administration is a one-way
street which shoves things down the citizens’ throat. He stated that Mr. Wray and Mr.
Church have been the only two on the Board who have been open-minded throughout
the process. He indicated that the Higginbotham site is not the appropriate location for
the jail and noted concerns about the 100 year floodplain. He stated that the Horn site
would be a better choice because it is not located in the floodplain. He stated that the
citizens of West County will not forget what is done and he questioned what Mr.
Hodge’s master plan is for the area. He stated that attempting to make the March 1
deadline is a mistake.
Jean Taylor, 5390 West River Road, stated that there are very few who
believe the jail is a good idea other than those who stand to gain financially. The cost of
the project is no object. She stated that she cannot believe that the Chair and County
Administrator met with the Mayor and City Manager regarding this matter and remained
silent. She stated that there is a plaintive cry for new and responsive leadership.
February 22, 2005
232
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Altizer declared the meeting in recess from 8:30 p.m. until 8:47
p.m.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
Mr. Hodge introduced the following individuals who were present from the
partner localities: (1) Franklin County: Lieutenant Ewell Hunt, Vickie Meador, and Chris
Whitlow, Assistant County Administrator. Mr. Hodge noted that the Franklin County
Board of Supervisors met this evening and adopted a resolution unanimously
supporting the regional jail project application. (2) Montgomery County: Sheriff Witt,
Captain Hall, and Clay Goodman, County Administrator. (3) City of Salem: Mayor
Sonny Tarpley and Sheriff Roger Surber. Mr. Hodge also advised that the following
individuals from HSM&M were present: Scott Hodge, Bill Porter, Bill King (Thompson
Litton), Dan Bolt, and Ed Powell (Powell Consulting).
Mr. Hodge advised that this is a request to submit an application to the
Virginia Department of Corrections for permission to construct a 592 cell regional jail on
behalf of Roanoke County, Salem, Montgomery County and Franklin County. This must
be done by March 1, 2005 to meet the state imposed deadline. He stated that during
the meeting, he will provide an overview of the staff presentation; Mr. Chambliss will
review the material that will be included in the application package. He noted that
representatives from the partner localities were present and expressed appreciation for
their support and participation. He further advised that Sheriff Holt is also present, in
February 22, 2005
233
addition to representatives from Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern (HSMM) who can
address engineering questions related to the project.
Mr. Hodge stated that the County has come a long way since discussions
began about expanding or building a new jail more than twelve months ago. He noted
that localities in Virginia must get permission from the State to build or add on to a jail,
and that Roanoke County obtained that permission during the 2004 General Assembly.
A copy of the waiver was included in the Board’s agenda package and states that the
County’s application must be submitted by March 1, 2005. The General Assembly has
not granted an extension beyond this date. Mr. Hodge reported that Montgomery and
Franklin counties, two of our partners, have applied to the General Assembly for a
waiver this year. He advised that if the Board grants approval tonight, the County will
be able to open the new facility in 2008. At the January 11th meeting, the Board voted
to authorize staff to obtain an option on the Higginbotham Farms property on which to
build the jail and this has been done. HSM&M has also completed geotechnical work
and prepared a preliminary design that fits well on the site. Staff is also pleased that the
projected cost for the County’s share of the new facility remains in the range of the $20
million that was presented to the Board several months ago. He noted that a reference
has been made to the $15 million that was in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
in April 2004. At that time, there were only two localities involved in the project. The
CIP indicates that the plan at that time was to expand the existing jail which would have
provided 80 beds. The County realized, as did the CIP committee, that more than this
February 22, 2005
234
approach was needed. Following this, a full analysis of the long-range needs was
conducted. The current engineering work indicates that Roanoke County’s share of the
new facility would be 224 beds.
Mr. Hodge reported that last year, staff advised that the DOC had
indicated that a rule of thumb when planning for jail construction was to set aside
$100,000 per cell. Anticipating a need for 600 new cells for all four localities, estimates
have been in the $60 million range to be shared by the state and all four participating
localities. The projected budget that has been presented is based on approximately
$120,000 per cell or roughly $88.7 million. Mr. Hodge noted that construction costs
(especially concrete and steel) are rising sharply and the DOC has suggested that a
projected annual inflation cost of 8% for 30 months (or the midpoint of construction) be
included. This has been done and a suitable contingency amount has been provided.
He stated that Roanoke County’s projected share of the construction cost remains
within the range of the original $20 million budget, and the annual debt payments are
included in the projected debt service fund for the school and county capital, which is
funded with the new $600,000 incremental increase that will be included in the 2005-06
budget. Upon the Board’s approval of this request, staff will submit the application to
the DOC in order to meet the March 1 deadline.
Mr. Hodge outlined the following steps that must be taken by the County
and/or the authority to meet the opening date of 2008: (1) Negotiate and form a
regional authority – Spring, 2005; (2) Receive Board of Corrections approval of the plan
February 22, 2005
235
– Summer, 2005; (3) Funding request in the Governor’s 2006 Capital Budget –
December, 2005; (4) Design and engineer building – Summer, 2005; (5) Request
construction bids – Summer 2006; (6) Close on the property by either County or
authority – Spring, 2006; (7) Seek County rezoning of the property – Winter, 2005; (8)
Conduct a 2232 Comprehensive Plan update – Winter, 2005; (9) Consider a Special
Use Permit – Winter, 2005.
Mr. Hodge advised that the request pending is not for any type of funding
and no money will be needed to close on land or for construction for almost a year. He
stated that it may be possible to have the Authority finance the project for all
participating localities. He stated that he understands the concerns and anxiety of the
citizens in that area and he indicated that he wished the County did not have to do this,
but the jail must be constructed. He apologized to the residents for the concerns that
this issue has caused.
Mr. Chambliss noted that Attachment C in the agenda packet is a cost
profile. He advised that the facility will be 592 beds based upon the median jail
construction cost for this region which is $205 per square foot and a local factor of 0.9
for an estimated cost of $184.50 per square foot for basic construction costs. He
indicated that the state requires information dealing with project construction costs,
offsite facility and future expansion of core facility costs, and associated fees for
architects, engineers, and geotechnical studies and permits. The total projected cost is
$88,742,017. This includes several factors which are outlined below:
February 22, 2005
236
(1) The basic cost of the facility (to include cost of the land, development
of the land, and the building) is approximately $60 million. To this cost, an 8% inflation
factor must be added which totals $10,105,000. The 8% is based upon the state
recommendation. Mr. Chambliss noted that many projects with longer lead times are
estimating inflation rates of up to 10%. In the County’s situation, an 8% inflation factor
was used for a 30 month period of time. When these two costs are factored together,
and he noted that the inflation cost is an eligible cost that will be shared by the state,
this brings the total to $70,993,000 or $119,900 per bed for construction costs. Of that
$70 million, the state will be sharing approved capital costs at a 50/50 ratio
(approximately $35,500,000 for the state’s share).
(2) Non-eligible costs are not shared by state but must be borne by the
localities. This includes items such as capitalized interest costs. If the debt is issued by
an authority, it will be a revenue bond issue and there will be a need to establish a debt
reserve fund of one year’s principal and interest. The capital equipment not built into
the facility (computer equipment, tables, and food carts) totals $2.25 million. Startup
expenses (training of new staff, transition of inmates into the facility) are projected at
approximately $17 million. Mr. Chambliss advised that this is in line with the items
normally recognized on the application forms to the state, and he noted that debt
service costs are not shared by the state. The County will need to borrow the full
amount of the debt and after construction is completed, costs are reimbursed up to 50%
of the allowable costs once reviewed and audited by the state. The County would
February 22, 2005
237
structure borrowing so that there is no long-term interest paid on the debt. Mr.
Chambliss indicated that the local share is approximately $53 million and advised that
beds have been allocated on a percentage basis: City of Salem-10%; Roanoke County-
38%; Franklin County-32%; and Montgomery County-20%. Roanoke County’s share
will total approximately $20,233,180 based on the pro forma model presented.
Mr. Chambliss stated that two studies are required for filing the
application. He indicated that the four jurisdictions hired Powell Consulting Services to
conduct the community based corrections plan study. In the study, the corrections
opportunities available within the community are examined, as well as the inmate
population, projections for the growth in the general population, and other factors which
may have an impact on the amount of inmate space required. He noted that the state
requires a projection of 10 years beyond the occupancy date of the facility. The report
indicated that 1,006 beds would be needed for the four jurisdictions. From this, the
current 217 rated bed space that is available in the existing three jails must be
subtracted (49-Franklin County; 60-Montgomery; and 108-Roanoke County/Salem).
The new beds will be allocated based on the previously mentioned percentage
allocations.
Mr. Chambliss advised that the footprint of the building will provide 592
rated beds and will be equipped so that 200 of these beds can be double bunked,
generating 792 new beds. Mr. Chambliss stated that as discussed earlier, the City of
Roanoke’s needs can be considered in the future. There is a March 1 filing deadline
February 22, 2005
238
and if the site needs to be changed or the type of facility must be amended, these can
be forwarded to the Board of Corrections (BOC) for approval. In addition, an authority
or cooperative agreement will need to be established to address the sharing of costs for
the facility. With respect to the requests made by the City of Roanoke, at the present
time they do not have a waiver from the state allowing them to participate in the
application; however, this does not prohibit the County from including the City in
discussions and them possibly joining in the authority at a future time. The application
being requested is based on the development costs for the Higginbotham site and will
also be for the four partners mentioned and for a 592 bed facility. Mr. Chambliss
requested approval of the resolution for submittal to Richmond by March 1.
Supervisor Church inquired about the cost for the Higginbotham site. Mr.
Chambliss advised that the first phase option was $10,000. Supervisor Church further
questioned if the site has been purchased yet. Mr. Chambliss responded in the
negative.
Supervisor Church stated that we have known about the overcrowding
situation for a number of years. He questioned why the County did not begin the search
for the site 8-10 months ago and he questioned if Mr. Hodge could provide any reason
why the discussion with Roanoke City in December was not brought to everyone’s
attention. Mr. Hodge advised that Mr. Chambliss would have to provide information
regarding the site selection because he dealt with the committee. With respect to
Roanoke City, Mr. Hodge stated that contrary to what was in the Roanoke Times, there
February 22, 2005
239
was never any indication from Roanoke City that there was a site available. The first he
heard of this was late Friday night or Saturday. Mr. Hodge stated that when he
attended that meeting in December with then Chairman Flora, he recalled there was a
short conversation toward the end of the meeting regarding the jail. He advised that the
key point was that the City Manager was going to speak with the City’s Sheriff regarding
the issue and this was the last that County staff heard of it. Mr. Hodge indicated that
there was nothing to report to the Board and that no one said that they might have a site
that they could share with us. Supervisor Church questioned, in light of all the
controversy and uneasy feelings of the citizens, if it wouldn’t have been proper to
pursue this. Mr. Hodge stated that if the Board recalls the history of the Roanoke City
jail, it was expanded in 1997 and the facts that County staff knew were these: (1) When
staff met with representatives in the General Assembly in January and February 2004,
we knew that you could get a higher reimbursement if the project was regional in nature.
When staff returned from the meeting, Mr. Hodge advised that he called other
surrounding localities to see if Roanoke County could be included in their construction
plans. One locality already had received bids and the project was too far along to
include Roanoke County. When Franklin and Montgomery Counties were contacted,
we were told that they had a need and they were interested in working with us. Mr.
Hodge stated that staff knew that Roanoke City had just completed an expansion and
they had excess capacity that they were allowing others to use on an interim basis. No
one from the City approached the County about being a part of this project until the
February 22, 2005
240
breakfast meeting in December and at that time, it was a brief inquiry as to whether or
not the Sheriff had had any conversation with us. Mr. Hodge advised that it was his
understanding that the City was going to discuss this issue and get back with the
County, and they did not.
Supervisor Church noted that Mr. Hodge had stated “contrary to what I
may have heard”, and he advised that this is not relevant. He stated that he works in
sales and he has two words that he lives by: just ask. All that they can say is no.
Supervisor Church noted comments made by Buck Simmons that the County was going
to wear down the citizens by holding too many meetings. Supervisor Church advised
that the citizens should have been included in the process over a year ago, and he
provided a recap of the process that has been followed to date. He indicated that the
need for the jail has never been a question; however, he questioned why Roanoke City
was never a consideration. He further questioned how many possible sites could have
been considered in the two months (since the December meeting) and how much
taxpayer money could be saved. He stated that we will not know if we don’t check into
it. He stated that we have been so focused on the Higginbotham site that we are
forgetting the obvious questions that should have been asked. He noted that the
citizens’ committee members expressed frustration with the process, and he indicated
that there is the matter of the certain yet uncertain deadline of March 1. Supervisor
Church stated that both he and Supervisor Wray had requested an independent and
separate evaluation of the current site in downtown Salem, but this was denied by the
February 22, 2005
241
Board. He stated that he still does not know the results of the Salem site evaluation.
He noted his past record of voicing concerns relating to procedural matters such as the
Mount Pleasant golf course and issues relating to the development of water and sewer,
Slate Hill, and Keagy Village. He stated that all he did was support the people’s
concerns and he advised that the County has unnecessarily disrupted people’s lives.
He stated that he has a hard time with all the coincidences and things that do not add
up, and he indicated that there is nothing wrong with the citizens’ cries for assistance.
Supervisor Flora advised that Mr. Hodge was correct regarding how the
meeting with Roanoke City took place, and he stated that at the end of the meeting the
discussion regarding the jail was brought up. He indicated that the statement was made
that one Council member had asked whether the City had been contacted about
participating in the project. Supervisor Flora advised that neither he nor Mr. Hodge
could answer that question because they had not been involved in the discussions. The
County then posed the question “are you interested” and the City replied that they did
not know. The discussion then turned to how Sheriff McMillan felt regarding the
prospect, and City staff did not have the answer to this question either. Supervisor
Flora stated that the last thing that was said was that the City would go back, speak with
the Sheriff to determine his level of interest, and they would respond back to the
County. He advised that this was in December and that from that point until the time he
completed his term as Chairman in January, no response was received from Roanoke
City. Supervisor Flora stated that there was never any intention to hide anything and
February 22, 2005
242
there was nothing to report. At no time was there discussion regarding a site; in fact, he
assumed that if the City were to participate at all it would be on the County’s site.
Supervisor Flora stated that regarding another issue, he would like to clear
up a comment that was made earlier in the meeting which was that the project is $88
million; however after the state’s share, $53 million remains as the local share. He
advised that he wants to make it clear that Roanoke County’s share is $20,233,000 of
the $53 million. He stated that another comment was made about not worrying about
the increasing costs; however, he referenced an article in the Washington Post during
the past week which addressed escalating construction costs. He indicated that he is
currently working to update estimates for school construction due to rising costs. He
advised that Hidden Valley High School was built for $100 per square foot; however
some new school construction costs are running $175 per square foot. He noted that
costs have increased at least 30% in the last year and this is a significant factor. If you
need to build a jail somewhere, a delay for two years could result in a cost increase of
as much as $15 to $20 million over current estimates. He urged the Board to not delay
the decision, and noted that we still have the opportunity to change sites and add
partners.
Supervisor Wray requested clarification that the 50% reimbursement ratio
mentioned is up to 50% and figures presented to the Board are based on 50%
reimbursement. Mr. Chambliss responded that the figures presented are 50% of what
staff anticipates as eligible project costs. In response to a further inquiry from
February 22, 2005
243
Supervisor Wray, Mr. Chambliss advised that the average reimbursement is 35%-50%
depending on the size of the facility and the type of construction costs encountered. In
Roanoke County’s case, the model reflects about 40% state reimbursement.
Supervisor Wray questioned if 10%-15% should be added to the projected cost. Mr.
Chambliss responded that the model used is based on realistic eligible costs and it is
within the range that staff anticipates the state will reimburse at the 50% rate. The
additional costs of $17 million are for non-eligible costs as explained earlier.
Supervisor Wray noted that in the minutes of the October 12 meeting, Mr.
Chambliss had advised that there are two specialized studies regarding the needs
assessment. He questioned if Roanoke City is brought in as a partner, does the needs
assessment say that you have to have a number. Mr. Chambliss advised that the
community based corrections plan determines the number of beds needed for the
facility and is specific to the localities in the project. The data was collected and
projected for the four partner localities. Powell Consulting Services projected 1,006
beds for the four jurisdictions for the year 2018. It is anticipated that the facility will be
occupied initially with 492 inmates, in addition to the 217 beds already available in the
three existing jails. The remainder of the growth would occur over a 10 year period and
the committee has attempted to allocate the relative share of beds that would be
needed for each locality. The 592 bed facility is approximately 200 beds short of
meeting the full 1,006 needed, and a waiver has been requested in order to double
bunk the facility in order to meet the projected 10 year need. Mr. Chambliss further
February 22, 2005
244
advised that any double bunk beds that are available can be rented out in order to
reduce initial operating costs or debt service so that the facility could be paid for earlier.
Supervisor Wray requested that Sheriff Holt address the possibility of
partnering with Roanoke City based on his knowledge of inmate populations. Sheriff
Holt referenced Supervisor Flora’s earlier comments regarding the December meeting.
He stated that when he read the article in the Roanoke Times, that was the first time
that he had any knowledge that there was interest in partnering by Roanoke City. He
advised that he spoke with Sheriff McMillan on Saturday and discussed the article with
him. Sheriff McMillan advised that he was approached by the City Manager in early
January and he had advised her that Roanoke City’s jail had adequate bed space and
additional space was not needed.
Sheriff Holt reported that the Roanoke City jail was expanded and the new
annex opened in 1997. He indicated that the jail was built based upon the City’s needs
assessment at that time and is in the vicinity of 400 beds. He noted that the City
immediately double bunked the beds and brought the total capacity up to approximately
800 beds. Since that time, they have had a contract to hold up to 100 federal prisoners
and they also hold some Roanoke County and Franklin County prisoners. Sheriff Holt
stated that based on their utilization, it would appear that they have sufficient bed space
to meet their needs. He indicated that all of his instructions on the standards of
operations imposed by the state require a demonstration of true need for additional
space specific to each locality. Because of the general knowledge that existed, Sheriff
February 22, 2005
245
Holt advised that staff knew that in all probability Roanoke City did not have a
demonstrated need. He stated that at some point in the future, a regional project would
be able to open the door to nearby localities to join the authority.
Supervisor Wray stated that he did not get a good feeling that Roanoke
City would be joining in the project or that they would qualify based on a needs
assessment. Sheriff Holt advised that this would be his opinion at this time; however,
only the DOC can answer that question. He advised that based on the standards
manual, localities must meet certain tests to qualify for construction of jail space.
Supervisor McNamara questioned if the Roanoke City Sheriff has
contacted Sheriff Holt in the past year and expressed an interest in participating in the
jail project. Sheriff Holt responded in the negative.
Supervisor McNamara asked Mr. Chambliss if at any point during the jail
study committee he had heard any expression of interest from Roanoke City prior to the
newspaper article on Saturday. Mr. Chambliss responded in the negative.
Supervisor McNamara asked Mr. Hodge if he had heard any expression of
interest from Roanoke City other than the passing comment. Mr. Hodge responded that
that was the only comment that had been made.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor McNamara, Sheriff Holt advised
that the capacity of the Roanoke City jail is in excess of 800 prisoners. In response to a
further inquiry from Supervisor McNamara, Sheriff Holt reported that the capacity of the
February 22, 2005
246
existing Roanoke County/Salem jail is 108 prisoners but the County holds between 280-
300 prisoners.
Supervisor McNamara questioned whether it is unusual in the State of
Virginia to have jails holding double the number of prisoners for which the facility is
rated. Sheriff Holt advised that it is not unusual and that the older the facility, the more
overcrowding that will exist. Sheriff Holt stated that there are slightly over 17,000 jail
beds in Virginia and an inmate population of over 23,000, leaving a 7,000 bed deficit
state-wide at this time.
Supervisor McNamara questioned if it would be reasonable to say if
Roanoke City has a capacity of 800, it would not be out of the norm to have a capacity
of 1,500 prisoners in a facility rated for 800. Sheriff Holt responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor McNamara requested confirmation that Roanoke City currently
houses prisoners for both Franklin and Roanoke County and they receive funds for this.
Sheriff Holt responded in the affirmative and noted that the localities pay a minimum per
diem cost to Roanoke City.
Supervisor McNamara stated that he assumes that the County would not
have a need to house prisoners in the Roanoke City jail once the regional facility is built.
Sheriff Holt responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor McNamara noted that one of the speakers spoke of fiduciary
trust in controlling costs and the statement was made that “money is no object”. He
stated that money is an object with the Board and they try to operate with a keen eye
February 22, 2005
247
toward providing cost effective services. He questioned what percentage of the total life
cycle cost of a jail over a 30 year period is initial construction. Mr. Bolt advised that it is
10%. Supervisor McNamara noted that 90% of the total cost of a jail is operational
costs.
Supervisor McNamara stated that the proposed layout of the facility is a
flat design as opposed to a high rise. He questioned if this is more cost effective in the
long run. Mr. Porter responded in the affirmative and advised that it is typically safer
and more cost effective to have a design with two levels of housing opening into a
single level day room.
Supervisor McNamara questioned what type of efficiencies exist in a flat
level over a multi-story facility. Mr. Porter advised that he does not have cost estimates
for this type of information. Supervisor McNamara questioned if it is accurate that a
“sprawl” concept is more cost effective than a high rise. Mr. Porter responded in the
affirmative and stated that generally, localities try to locate a jail facility in a rural area
that is open, allows for future expansion, and can be built on one level. He stated that
typically prisons and regional jails are more spread out because it is more cost effective
and cheaper to build.
Supervisor McNamara stated that there are efficiencies in having a jail
spread out rather than a high rise. The Board did, however, vote to hire HSM&M to
examine the feasibility of expanding the current jail facility. He indicated that the
existing jail was examined and it cannot be expanded. He advised that the 488 bed
February 22, 2005
248
projection was before there was a change in the City of Salem building code which
rendered that discussion as not a possible alternative. He stated that the Board needs
to submit the application and if something develops between now and when
construction begins, the Board can look at it. Supervisor McNamara indicated that to
not proceed is a breach to the individuals who work in the existing jail. He advised that
the Commonwealth’s Attorney has concerns about the overcrowding. He further noted
the support and equipment that has been provided to the Police and Fire and Rescue
Departments, and stated that we should not place the Sheriff’s Office in harm’s way for
an additional two years to continue with evaluations. He noted there are not major
problems with the Higginbotham site and that moving forward is the right thing to do; he
stated that it is worse on the citizens to keep bringing up options that are not feasible.
Supervisor Church asked Gerald Holt if he has personally asked Sheriff
McMillan about joining Roanoke County in the regional jail. Sheriff Holt responded in
the negative.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Chambliss if he has personally contacted
the City of Roanoke and asked them to join in the process. Mr. Chambliss responded
that he has not spoken with Roanoke City about this matter prior to today.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Hodge if he has spoken with Roanoke City
about the jail. Mr. Hodge responded in the negative.
Supervisor Church stated that we can agree to disagree. He noted that
Craig Sharp had made a comment and it tells him a lot about what goes on in Roanoke
February 22, 2005
249
County. He stated that there are only 8 or 10 people in the room who know what this
means because it relates to a personnel situation. He stated that it is amazing how
information can get all around this area and yet we cannot tell our citizens what is going
on. He stated that a jail is a tough choice, but you have to bring the tough object out in
front and say “let’s work it out”. He stated that he is not trying to put Sheriff’s Office
employees in jeopardy, and he noted that there is plenty of room in the Roanoke City
jail. He recommended that instead of making an $80 million possibility of a mistake,
why not allow Roanoke City to handle the overflow capacity for Roanoke County. He
stated that there has not been full disclosure and at best, he would vote to stop the
process. At worst, he would strongly encourage the Board to appoint a citizen
committee to do a true evaluation of all possible sites, including Roanoke City.
Supervisor Altizer stated that when we talk about an inflationary factor, if
we use conservative estimates and assume the projected cost is $80 million; if the
County submitted their application not figuring the state’s inflation rate of 8% and if we
chose to go with $80 million and it came out above that estimate, could we potentially
lose some of the state contribution. Mr. Chambliss advised that once the state BOC
has approved the project and the budget, that would be the maximum amount eligible
for reimbursement. If the costs came in higher than that amount, you could petition the
state for reconsideration or additional funding; however, it must go through a funding
cycle to be included in the state budget process. This could be as much as two years
later to receive funds, if any are received at all. Mr. Chambliss stated that typically there
February 22, 2005
250
has been a 10% cap on funding increases. At this time, it is difficult to project inflation
rates due to the increasing rate of steel and other construction costs.
There was general discussion regarding the water filtration plant in Salem
which had previously been presented as a potential site for the regional jail. Supervisor
Altizer stated that while it has not been a perfect process, when you are dealing with
controversial projects there will be some bumps. He stated that he does believe that
the Board tried to not make a quick decision and made a good faith effort in appointing
a citizens’ committee. He noted that individual members of the committee made
decisions but from the standpoint of the Board, all members tried to strengthen the
process and give it time to develop. He stated that there has been discussion about
extending two years; however in reality to extend two years is to extend four. He stated
that the reapplication process may begin in two years, but construction will be a four-
year process. He advised that it is incumbent upon the Board to do the best thing for
the taxpayers’ dollars. He stated that he has a fear that if the County does not move
forward, an $80 million project will become a $120 million project. With respect to
safety, all Board members are concerned for the safety of the Sheriff’s Department. He
stated that he has personally seen the overcrowding when he toured the facility and the
need has never been a question. Supervisor Altizer indicated that the Board has tried
to be visionary in this process, and citizens expect the Board to be visionaries and to
make the hard decisions. He noted that this was demonstrated recently when the
Board met with the School Board to establish a funding stream for school and County
February 22, 2005
251
projects. He stated that this weekend, he spoke with Mayor Harris because he wanted
to gauge the interest of Roanoke City. He advised Mayor Harris of his willingness to
continue to look at what the City could provide and asked him to formally poll his council
members, which was done. Supervisor Altizer stated that both he and Mayor Harris
knew there were many variables to be addressed, such as whether a waiver could be
granted. He stated that he personally realizes there are some obstacles and that he
also spoke with Mayor Harris today to clarify whether there is a site from the City to
determine how viable this option is for the County. Supervisor Altizer advised that the
County can move this project forward while at the same time evaluating Roanoke City.
He has promised Mayor Harris that he will remain in contact to determine how they wish
to participate, and there is sufficient time to study the City’s participation while
continuing to move forward with the application. If Roanoke City were able to obtain a
waiver, he does not foresee the DOC not allowing the site to be amended to include this
additional partner. Supervisor Altizer stated that the County must be visionary and
move forward with the information that is known today. He voiced support for moving
forward with a parallel process.
Supervisor Church stated that he does not feel he can support the
decision to move forward and he does not feel good about the process. He cited
numerous examples of regional cooperation and questioned why Roanoke City was not
considered as a potential partner.
February 22, 2005
252
Supervisor McNamara indicated that Roanoke County’s share of the jail is
just over $20 million and this is the amount that has been in the CIP for at least four or
five months. Further, he stated that the citizens’ committee did a lot of work and would
have liked more time; however, they came up with two recommendations:
Higginbotham Farms and CRT. The Board removed CRT from the list for consideration.
He stated that while the citizens’ committee was not in unanimous agreement, the
Board is not always in unanimous agreement. He thanked the members of the citizens’
committee and administration.
Supervisor Church noted that several members of the citizens’ committee
gave the CRT site a ranking of zero and that this impacted the outcome of the
committee results and skewed the averages. He expressed appreciation to the citizens’
committee members.
Supervisor Wray stated that he is struggling with the issue and wants to
find a way to move forward to meet the deadline while also looking at other localities.
He stated that it is cheaper to do this once; however he questioned if more localities
participate, would this not also be cheaper. Mr. Chambliss advised that it would be
cheaper overall because the fixed costs are distributed over more beds, as well as any
ineligible costs.
Supervisor Wray requested additional information regarding the March 1
deadline and the possibility of adding Roanoke City at a later date. Mr. Chambliss
reported that the March 1 deadline is for submitting the application and amendments
February 22, 2005
253
can be made after that date. At this time, Roanoke City does not have a waiver from
the General Assembly and without this, they cannot submit a plan. Roanoke City could
make this request in the next session, be granted a waiver, and then have a community
based corrections plan to determine their future need for beds. He advised that
Roanoke City can not piggy back on the County’s needs assessment and will need to
conduct their own. Once this is determined, it could be examined for incorporation into
a regional facility. Mr. Chambliss indicated that one of the advantages for the proposed
footprint is that a pod contains 112 beds and the modular design allows for expansion in
the future. He advised that no time has been lost in discussions for any localities that
may want to join. He stated that there are two critical points that must be addressed:
(1) Roanoke City must have a waiver; (2) Roanoke City must have their own
determination of the number of beds required.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve staff recommendation, adoption of the
resolution authorizing the County Administrator to sign the transmittal letter for the
application and submittal of the package to the DOC prior to March 1, 2005, with the
understanding that in the event another jurisdiction wishes to join we will consider
accommodating that in the process through either future amendments to the resolution
or whatever steps are required. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray
February 22, 2005
254
Supervisor Wray advised that his biggest disappointment was with the
process. He stated that the need has been demonstrated, and advised Sheriff Holt that
he will get his jail. He indicated that that the problem was that he felt like if it could have
been brought forward, we would not be where we are now.
RESOLUTION 022205-11 AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN
APPLICATION FOR REGIONAL JAIL REIMBURSEMENT FUNDING TO
THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, BOARD OF CORRECTIONS
WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Franklin County, Montgomery County, and the
City of Salem have determined that a need exists to construct additional jail space to
supplement their current jail facilities, and
WHEREAS, these localities have contracted with Powell Consulting Services to
prepare a Community Based Corrections Plan and with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern
to develop a Planning Study as required by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of
Corrections, Standards for Planning, Design, Construction and Reimbursement of Local
Correctional Facilities , and
WHEREAS, these four localities have requested a waiver from the moratorium so
that the regional jail plan may be submitted to the Department of Corrections prior to
March 1, 2005 in accordance with §53.1-82.3 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as
amended, and be considered by the Board of Corrections for recommendation to the
Governor to be included in the 2006 budget for appropriation by the General Assembly,
and
WHEREAS, these four localities intend to negotiate a cooperative agreement and
to form an authority pursuant to §53.1-95.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended,
to construct and operate said regional jail on behalf of the four localities, and
WHEREAS, the proposed authority (or the localities) shall be eligible for
reimbursement of up to fifty percent (50%) of eligible project costs of the regional facility
pursuant to §53.1-81 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
1. That it hereby supports the submittal of an application by Roanoke
County, Franklin County, Montgomery County, and the City of Salem for the
construction, operation, and reimbursement of a regional jail to serve the correctional
needs of these localities, and requests favorable consideration of this application by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Corrections.
2. That it requests reimbursement from the Board of Corrections and the
Commonwealth of Virginia of 50% of the eligible project costs for the proposed regional
jail as provided in the Planning Study, pursuant to §53.1-81 of the Code of Virginia.
February 22, 2005
255
3. That it hereby authorizes the County Administrator, or his designee, to
execute such documents and to take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish
the purposes of this Resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: Supervisors Church, Wray
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Wray: (1) He advised that there will be a citizens’ information
meeting regarding Buck Mountain Road - Route 679 on Monday, February 28, from
4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. at Clearbrook Elementary School. He requested that staff confirm
whether this is currently on the County’s website. (2) He stated that he had received a
letter from the WVWA concerning inquiries on the golf course (George Golf Designs)
and the extension of water and sewer lines. He inquired about the status of the project.
Mr. Hodge advised that the option on the property was extended and the developer is
working on the project. Mr. Hodge stated that he has not spoken with the developer for
approximately 30 days. Supervisor Church indicated that he had previously been
advised that work was going on; but in fact, this was incorrect information. He stated
that the letter was sent by Gary Robertson, Director of Water Operations for the WVWA,
to clarify this fact. Mr. Hodge advised that for any extension of water and sewer lines to
occur, the County would be involved in the process and will have control over
development within our locality.
Supervisor Altizer: (1) He advised that a press conference was held at the
Mount Pleasant Fire Station this morning to announce a mutual aid agreement between
256
February 22,2005
the County and the City of Roanoke to reduce fire and rescue response times. He
expressed appreciation to everyone involved in this project and the citizens for their
support. (2) He requested information regarding the installation of a traffic signal at
Valley Gateway. Mr. Hodge advised that the state (VDOT) is going to assist in funding
for this improvement. He noted that VDOT had previously been reluctant to provide
funding for the Valley Gateway signal light until funding for other signal light requests in
the nearby vicinity had been addressed. Mr. Hodge reported that funding for all three
signal lights is now in place and ready to move forward, one of which will be on West
Ruritan Road.
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. until Tuesday,
March 1, 2005, for the purpose of a budget work session, Roanoke County
Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, 4th Floor Training Room.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
f1~lo.. ~. dJJMALV
Diane S. Childers, CMC
Clerk to the Board
kJdu. dttt
Michael W. Altizer ~
Chairman