Loading...
5/10/2005 - Regular May 10, 2005 553 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 May 10, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May, 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 D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Pastor David Fraser, Faith Alliance Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. May 10, 2005 554 IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Mahoney added a closed meeting 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. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring May 15 through 21, 2005, as Emergency Medical Services Week in the County of Roanoke Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to Rick Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue; Dustin Campbell, EMS Battalion Chief; Lee Cabaniss, Cave Spring Volunteer Rescue Chief; and Jeff Stump, Paramedic/Firefighter. Also present were: Dave Podruchni, Amy Ham, Jim Janiuk, Lynn Hudson, Brandon King, Chuck Straub, Danny Irvin, Kevin Gresham, Troy Gray, Tracy Wood, Mike Lewis, Dana Lacey, and Jennifer Conley-Sexton. 2. Proclamation declaring May 15 through 21, 2005, as Business Appreciation Week in the County of Roanoke Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development, and Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist. May 10, 2005 555 IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing from the Economic Development Department regarding the existing business program. (Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development; Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist) Mr. Chittum reported that one of the more misunderstood aspects of economic development is the role that local government plays in fostering business development and working with its existing businesses. He stated that everyone in Roanoke County administration works on the existing business program to make businesses feel welcome, and he noted that our competition is not the neighboring states; it is the world. He indicated that Roanoke County has quality employers with locations around the world and they make decisions to invest in other countries. He stated that it is important for these businesses to understand that Roanoke County appreciates their business and wants them to expand here. He stated that he feels very good about the future of Roanoke County’s existing businesses and their ability to compete globally. Mr. Chittum reported that a ribbon cutting was held last week for a company which employs 90-100 people that had earlier made a decision to move out of Roanoke County. Through the Economic Development Department’s visitation program they learned of the planned relocation and worked with the company to assist with needed changes; as a result, the company has decided to remain in the County. May 10, 2005 556 Ms. Cox advised that staff has developed a strong partnership with the Virginia Department of Business Assistance (VDBA). In the past two years, the VDBA has awarded approximately $250,000 for training and re-training of 500 jobs. This is in addition to monies received for Novozymes, Integrity Windows, Cardinal Glass, and Tecton. She advised that this has been a great partnership and the VDBA has focused on all companies regardless of their size. With respect to business expansion, Ms. Cox reported that staff is getting more calls and interest in expansions. She also indicated that this trend is being seen across several sectors including retail, commercial, and industrial. She noted the following examples of recent expansions: Atlas Cold Storage, ($9 million dock and dry grocery expansion); and Hollins University ($9 million fine arts center). She stated that one of the goals to be accomplished in the next 6-9 months is to conduct an existing business survey. The feedback is critical to setting goals and providing assistance to County businesses, as well as providing information on potential expansions and personnel needs. Further, it provides the department with input regarding any format changes needed with respect to RVTV shows, promotional programs, the electronic newsletter, etc. Ms. Cox stated that the department is also seeking collaborative opportunities with Hollins University and they are examining a range of possibilities including master planning, student internships in County businesses, high tech camps for children, etc. She advised that the visitation program is the heart and soul of the existing business program. It builds relationships and is how the department reaches May 10, 2005 557 out to businesses to cement a relationship between the business community and the local government. She thanked the Board for their continued support. The Board expressed appreciation to the department for their efforts on behalf of the business community. 2. Briefing concerning the agreement for the creation of the Fort Lewis Regional Jail Authority and the appointment of Roanoke County’s members to the Authority Board. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Hodge reported that the project is progressing well and all four partner jurisdictions are working to put it in place. At this time, staff will provide a briefing to inform the citizens and the Board of the actions that will be needed in May and June in order to create the Authority. He indicated that this is a necessary step and the format for the creation of the Authority is one that has been used many times in the State of Virginia, and he noted that there are 16 regional jails in the state. There are two formats that have been used, and the Jail Study Committee has recommended the Authority format. Mr. Hodge noted that in the information provided is an agreement authorizing the creation of the Authority, and this information needs to be submitted to the State Department of Corrections (DOC). Also included for the Board’s review are the by-laws. Provisions have been included for a neighborhood protection program which will be based on the program used with the regional landfill. This item will be discussed in May 10, 2005 558 greater detail at the work session later today, and will subsequently be brought back to the Board at a future date (June or July) as part of the operating agreement. Mr. Hodge stated that the neighborhood protection program will also include an environmental protection component. Mr. Hodge stated that a work session will also be held later today and any changes recommended by the Board will be presented to the Jail Study Committee for discussion and incorporation into the final documents. He advised that the City of Salem and the counties of Franklin and Montgomery will adopt similar resolutions later this month; therefore when this item comes back to the Board at the May 24 meeting, the other localities will each have approved the resolution. He reported that a resolution authorizing the agreement for the creation of the Fort Lewis Regional Jail Authority will be brought back at the May 24 meeting and the Board will be asked to appoint the County’s members to the Authority Board. It is anticipated that the Jail Authority will assemble in June 2005. Mr. Hodge stated that there is still much work to do in terms of rezonings and public hearings, but this is an early step required for the Authority to begin functioning. Mr. Mahoney advised that Mr. Chambliss will provide a more detailed description with respect to the agreement; he will provide information regarding what is authorized by the State Code, the alternatives available, and staff recommendations. He will also discuss the draft by-laws. May 10, 2005 559 Mr. Mahoney indicated that there are several approaches in Virginia for addressing issues with respect to jails. One approach is a cooperative agreement between the jurisdictions; the second approach is the Jail Authority, which is being recommended by staff. He advised that either approach is successful and has its own strengths and weaknesses. With a cooperative agreement approach, one locality will take the lead and all the debt that would have to be issued to construct the facility will be on the lead locality’s books. By creating a separate legal entity such as the Jail Authority, it minimizes the fiscal impact and approaches it in a slightly different manner so that it does not have the potential adverse impact on the books. He advised that the Jail Authority has been successfully used in 16 other authorities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The DOC would like to encourage the use of authorities and this has been a successful approach. Mr. Mahoney advised that under the State Code, the governing bodies of two or more counties, cities, or towns, adopt a concurrent ordinance or resolution and by agreement, create an Authority. Under the State Code, that ordinance or resolution must include the following: (1) a name and an address; (2) the name of each of the participating political subdivisions together with the names, addresses, and terms of office of the initial members of the Authority Board; (3) the purpose(s) for which the Authority is created; (4) discussion of initial capital cost estimates and project financing proposals; (5) how other political subdivisions can join and any restrictions or limitations on them if they wish to withdraw; in particular, no political subdivision shall be permitted to withdraw from any Authority once obligations May 10, 2005 560 (i.e. bonded indebtedness) have been incurred except upon the unanimous vote of all the other members of the Authority; (6) sets forth the powers of the Regional Jail Authority, provides for the appointment of a fiscal agent, the methodologies of the acquisition of interest in land, and sets forth language regarding revenue bond indebtedness and state reimbursements for these expenditures. Mr. Mahoney stated that we have closely adhered to and followed the provisions of the State Code in terms of creating an Authority. He indicated that also included in the Board’s agenda packet is a set of draft by-laws for informational purposes. The by-laws will not be voted on by the Board; if a Jail Authority is created, the Authority Board will vote on the by-laws. However the members of the negotiating team want to submit to each governing locality the draft by-laws. Mr. Mahoney advised that as indicated earlier, Mr. Hodge described the community protection elements which are an important factor in this approach and the by-laws will also reflect other important elements which provide protection for Roanoke County by virtue of the super majority voting requirements set forth in the by- laws. Staff is recommending that the super majority voting requirement, which requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the members from each jurisdiction, be required for the following: adoption of the annual budget, incurring bonded indebtedness, amending the by-laws, and changing the allocation of the guaranteed bed space. These are all critical elements of the Jail Authority and as such, all negotiators felt it was important that these activities not be determined solely by a majority vote. May 10, 2005 561 Mr. Chambliss advised that the agreement for the creation of the Fort Lewis Regional Jail Authority requires the inclusion of a name for the Authority. One name that has been suggested is the Fort Lewis Regional Jail Authority; this name reflects the area and does not specifically denote the current list of members, which may change in the future if either a new locality joins or a participating locality withdraws. He stated that at this time, the participating jurisdictions are Franklin, Montgomery and Roanoke Counties, as well as the City of Salem. The purpose of the Authority will be to own, operate, manage, maintain, regulate, plan for and finance the regional jail. The powers being claimed are those outlined in the Code of Virginia. He noted that one of the critical components is the need and desire to retain the local jail facilities that will continue to be owned and operated by the local governments and Sheriffs; otherwise, an additional 217 beds would be required. Following preliminary discussions with the DOC regarding the community based corrections plan, the majority of the initial questions dealt with the number of beds and how the local jails would continue to be used. Mr. Chambliss also advised that it has been suggested that membership on the Authority Board be comprised of three representatives from each member jurisdiction as follows: (1) representative from the elected governing body; (2) Sheriff, as required by the Code; (3) administrative official. It is also being requested that an alternate be appointed for each of those positions in order to ensure that a quorum is present for meeting. Each member would have an equal vote and in the absence of the regular member, the alternate would attend and would possess full May 10, 2005 562 power and voting rights. The suggested terms of office are for one year expiring on December 31 of each year. In the case of counties, the elected members of the Board of Supervisors terms begin January 1 following their year of election; the Sheriff, in the cases of the three counties, also has a term beginning on January 1. With respect to cities, the term begins on July 1. Mr. Chambliss noted that the Sheriff is a required member and there is no anticipated turnover of the administrative officer; the one member subject to change each year is the elected member of the Board or Council. Any time an Authority Board member loses their eligibility for membership (i.e., their term has expired, they leave the employment of the locality, etc.), then the position is vacated and will be re-filled at the appropriate time. With respect to capital costs, Mr. Chambliss reported that the Authority would own property, issue bonds to finance the project, and would receive the state’s share of reimbursement once the facility is completed. He noted that we are continuing to move forward as a regional jail, and up to 50% of the appropriate capital costs are eligible for reimbursement; otherwise, the limitation would be up to 25% for a single jurisdiction. It is being suggested that the sharing of capital costs and the distribution of operating costs be handled on a per diem basis. To determine the per diem cost, you would divide by the total anticipated population in the jail per year. Each jurisdiction pays based on the number of beds occupied. It was noted that it is beneficial to keep the facility as full as practical to improve operational efficiencies and spread the costs May 10, 2005 563 over a larger group. Provisions have also been included for a differential rate for non- members utilizing the facility. Mr. Chambliss advised that the document also discusses the process for withdrawing from the Authority and he stated that before obligations have been incurred by the Authority, a member locality can withdraw for any reason. Once debt is incurred by the Authority, it requires approval of all member organizations for a locality to withdraw. In addition, the entity wishing to withdraw would either: (1) pay off their share of the outstanding debt; or (2) they would place this amount in escrow for use by the Authority. Mr. Chambliss reported that two provisions have been included regarding additional members: (1) Language from the State Code has been included which states that any entity in Virginia may, with the approval of its governing body and with the consent through concurrent resolutions of the governing bodies of each of the participating members, join and participate in the Regional Authority. This is included under the additional terms and conditions which may be prescribed by the Authority at that time. Mr. Chambliss noted that some of the incidental costs for development of the initial site could necessitate a buy-in requirement. He further stated that due to the existence of a moratorium on the building or expansion of jail facilities at this time, any potential new members must meet the necessary state criteria such as obtaining a waiver from the moratorium and conducting the requisite studies which include the community based corrections plan and the program plan. (2) A provision has been specifically included for the City of Roanoke which recognizes that they are physically May 10, 2005 564 located in the region, and also notes the City’s expression of interest in being a member of the Authority at a future date. The City must, however, still comply with the criteria of the Department of Corrections and a vote by the participant members of the Authority would be required. Mr. Chambliss advised that the guaranteed access to bed space is based on the 592 rated beds that are anticipated in the construction of the facility. It is also anticipated that up to 200 beds will be equipped for double bunking in order to meet the needs in ten years; if the bed allocation changes, it would require a super majority vote. He indicated that the jurisdictions are not required to pay for this number of beds annually; rather, they have guaranteed access to that minimum number of beds. If another locality that may or may not be a member of the Authority is using more than their capacity, they may be asked to relocate their inmates to provide the guaranteed minimum to one of the member jurisdictions. The regional jail facility is primarily anticipated to be used as a facility for sentenced inmates; however, it will also house specialized populations such as women or medical inmates. The facility can also be used to house pre-sentencing inmates if it is needed by a locality. Mr. Chambliss reported that each local jail has a current rated capacity and this determines how many inmates they can house at their local facility, which will be used for pre-sentencing inmates. He further advised that transport of inmates is a service that will be provided by the regional jail. May 10, 2005 565 With respect to the neighborhood protection program, Mr. Chambliss reported that the facility will comply with all the requisite zoning requirements, special use permits, etc., and these issues will be presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The community protection agreement will focus on the protection of property values and individual community concerns. The agreement can be amended in the future and if an additional member is added, it would necessitate an amendment by all the Authority members. He noted that it is being recommended that the last sentence in Article X, Section II, be struck from the agreement because it would require concurrent resolutions from each jurisdiction. This sentence stated that an affirmative vote of the governing body of 75% of the member jurisdictions shall be required to change this agreement. Supervisor McNamara voiced support for the Authority approach and cited the success of the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA). He further supported the manner in which Roanoke City is identified as a potential future member of the Authority. He noted that there is no discussion of operations and questioned if this will be left to the Authority to determine. Mr. Chambliss advised that a third document, which is the service (operations) agreement), is scheduled to be presented to the Board of Supervisors in June or July for approval. This document is still being negotiated and will address operational issues, allow for contracting among the participating jurisdictions, etc. May 10, 2005 566 Supervisor McNamara questioned when the members of the Authority Board will need to be appointed. Mr. Chambliss recommended that when the resolution authorizing the creation of the Authority is presented at the May 24 meeting, at this time the following actions would occur: (1) authorize the creation of the Authority; (2) adopt the agreement for the creation of the Fort Lewis Regional Jail Authority; and (3) appoint the Roanoke County representatives to the Authority Board. This will allow for constituting the Authority Board in June 2005. Supervisor McNamara stated that the Board of Supervisors may want this appointment to always be the function of the Vice- Chairman due to the commitments which are already tied to the position of the Chairman. He noted that the Vice-Chairman rotates annually and this will prevent discussions regarding who will be appointed to serve on the Authority Board each year. In addition, this process will allow each Board member an opportunity to serve on the Authority and obtain an understanding of its function, as well as being a way to maintain a fresh inflow of ideas. Supervisor Wray concurred with Supervisor McNamara’s recommendation and stated that the Regional Authority is the appropriate approach. He questioned how the per diem costs will be affected if a locality withdraws from the authority. Mr. Chambliss responded that the per diem rate is established annually during the budget process and will be based on the projected number of inmates per locality divided by the debt and operating costs in order to determine the per diem rate for the coming year. This rate can be monitored and if there is a significant fluctuation, the Authority May 10, 2005 567 can modify the per diem rate as needed to avoid deficits. He indicated that this model was successfully used in the juvenile detention facility. Mr. Chambliss stated that 592 beds are projected for the facility and it is anticipated that there will be approximately 500 inmates from the four partner jurisdictions when the facility is opened, which will allow capacity for renting to other localities. If a locality withdraws from the Authority, it could result in a slight modification to the per diem rate; however, inmates from other jurisdictions could be placed in the facility or the level of staff or number of operational pods could be downsized as needed. Supervisor Wray inquired if there is any way for a Sheriff to operate the regional jail facility. Mr. Chambliss stated that under the Authority model, the facility is operated by a Superintendent appointed by the Authority Board; under the cooperative agreement model, the facility is operated by a Sheriff. He noted that since the Sheriff of each participating jurisdiction is on the Authority Board, they will assist in the following: selecting the superintendent; the policies, procedures and guidelines that are in place; and oversight of operations. He further noted that State Code prohibits the Superintendent from being a member of the Authority Board. Supervisor Wray questioned what occurs if a locality needs more beds. Mr. Chambliss stated that a locality can use as many beds as are available from the participating jurisdictions. If the facility is approaching capacity and a jurisdiction (for example, Roanoke County) is using more than its allocated share of bed space and another jurisdiction (for example, Franklin County) was under-utilizing their space but May 10, 2005 568 had a need to transfer in additional inmates, then in this example Roanoke County would need to look at alternatives for housing those inmates. Mr. Chambliss stated that the service agreement also requires the participant jurisdictions to place their inmates in their own local facility or the regional facility unless ordered by the courts to be in another facility. Supervisor Wray inquired if the capital and operating costs are the two factors that comprise the per diem cost. Mr. Chambliss responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Church questioned how the name for the Authority was chosen and whether any citizens were involved in this process. Mr. Chambliss responded that the name was suggested by an individual in the early phase of discussions and it was recommended because it did not refer to a specific jurisdiction, and yet it reflected the area where the facility is to be located. Supervisor Church questioned what would be wrong with using the name Roanoke County Regional Jail and stated that the County should ask the citizens for input into the process. Supervisor Church noted that approximately one month ago, he had requested clarification regarding the appropriation of $250,000 with respect to the regional jail. He inquired about the status of this inquiry and whether staff has reviewed the meeting tape. Mr. Hodge advised the tape was reviewed and there was only one appropriation by the Board in the amount of $250,000. He stated that this was for the option on the Higginbotham property ($10,000), as well as the analysis of the downtown Salem site ($48,000). He advised that the remainder of the funds appropriated are still May 10, 2005 569 available; he further noted that the partner localities have agreed to share in all costs except for the costs related to the analysis of the downtown Salem jail site. Mr. Chambliss further advised that approximately $71,000 of the $250,000 appropriation has been used. He indicated that an additional $20,000 for the second tier option is due in June but the remaining balance is still available. He stated that in October 2004, the Board appropriated $85,922 for Roanoke County’s share of the community based corrections plan, the program plan, and the engineering study for the existing jail. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Church, he indicated that this was not part of the $250,000 appropriation. Mr. Chambliss also advised that at that point, the three partner jurisdictions appropriated their own funds for their share of the community based corrections plan and the program plan studies. The portion of the funds which are currently committed total approximately $91,000 ($71,000 already spent plus $20,000 for tier 2 option) and the other jurisdictions will either pay their share of these costs or this will be transferred in through the Jail Authority and reimbursed to Roanoke County. Supervisor Church noted that $71,000 of the appropriation is committed, and he questioned what is being done with the remainder of the $250,000. Mr. Chambliss advised that the balance is still set aside to cover the cost of future studies related to the development of the construction design such as surveys, geological studies, etc. These will likely be issued by the Authority and any funds remaining will be unappropriated and put back into the County’s General Fund. Supervisor Church stated May 10, 2005 570 that the Board should do something with the remainder of these funds rather than allowing them to remain there. Mr. Hodge noted that a report has been added in the agenda which outlines the jail study costs to date and this report will be updated monthly. He indicated that it is Item M-6 in this agenda. Supervisor Church inquired if an Authority Board member can be reappointed. Mr. Chambliss advised that there is no term limit and members can be reappointed. Supervisor Church stated that some of the media groups have inquired if he was going to be on the Authority Board and he stated that he has not been contacted or nominated; however, he stated that if the jail were in any other Board members’ district he would be the first to nominate them. He stated that this is a decision that is up to the sitting Board. He further advised that he does not think that the Authority Board members should be re-appointed following the first term. He indicated that it would be best to provide a fresh look and if Roanoke County is going to have a jail that citizens are paying for, we need to have representatives that are not locked in. Supervisor Church stated that we need to be careful when we have meetings and he stated that if you are holding a meeting and an attorney is present, people view an attorney as an officer of the court and a person of authenticity with respect to any statements that they make. Whether this is correct or not, the general public is dependent on what an attorney would say. He inquired if it is possible to have an attorney as Chairman of the Authority Board. He further stated that sometimes people receive information that is not accurate or is not verified when it should be. He May 10, 2005 571 stated that this could potentially lead to lawsuits. Mr. Mahoney advised that the statute sets forth at a bare minimum two members of an Authority: (1) one shall be the Sheriff of each locality; (2) there will be one representative from each political subdivision participating and that representative shall be appointed by the governing body. Mr. Mahoney indicated that the staff recommendation is two-fold: (1) they are recommending that each jurisdiction appoint three people to include the Sheriff, a member of the governing body, and an administrative official. (2) the above appointments are paralleled with respect to appointment of alternate members of the Authority Board. Mr. Mahoney suggested that members of the governing body should take first precedence with respect to appointments to the Authority Board. Mr. Hodge noted that the WVWA, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, and the Airport Authority have an attorney present at their meetings to advise the Board, and he anticipates that the same would occur for the Jail Authority. Supervisor Flora indicated that the regional jail facility will eventually reach capacity, and he inquired if it would be possible for the localities to house inmates in their local jail if capacity is available at that time. Mr. Chambliss advised that in many cases, the local jails are currently housing more inmates than the rated capacity so this would be possible. In addition, the guaranteed access to beds is based on 592 beds; however with the capacity of double bunking, the facility will be able to handle 792 beds. Once the facility reaches 80-85% capacity of member inmates, the Authority will make plans for future expansion of the facility. He noted that the design that has been May 10, 2005 572 submitted to the state will allow for future expansion to a total capacity of 1,500-1,600 inmates on the site. This total capacity will not be built initially, but rather will be accomplished by adding pods of approximately 100 inmates each. Supervisor Flora commented that the Regional Jail Authority is the appropriate approach and will be the best way to operate and finance the project. He further stated that the membership model which is being proposed has been used in many other localities and appears to work well. Supervisor Church questioned if a study has been done on the expected costs of transporting prisoners. Mr. Chambliss stated that this specific type of study has not been performed. He indicated that this facility will primarily house sentenced inmates and the transportation of prisoners between the regional facility and the local jail should be minimal, with the exception of special population inmates. He advised that it is more cost efficient to handle transportation from a central location, rather than by each jurisdiction. He stated that this issue has been examined based on the most efficient use of manpower and handling this from a central location allows for transporting inmates at various hours. Supervisor Church stated that he had had several of Sheriff Holt’s deputies inquire about whether this issue had been considered, and he stated that someone from the Franklin County/Boones Mill area had indicated that this could potentially be an astronomical cost. He questioned if the local jails would continue to be operated. Mr. Chambliss responded in the affirmative. May 10, 2005 573 Supervisor Church further inquired if additional staff will be needed if the County will be operating two facilities. Mr. Chambliss stated that there should not be additional staffing required from the local perspective. He advised that the Authority will have transportation officers available to move inmates and the localities have requested that they have the ability to transport their own inmates if the need arises. Supervisor Church clarified that he is referring to the total number of personnel. Mr. Chambliss stated that fewer personnel should be required by handling transportation at the regional level rather than keeping it at the local level. In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor Church, Mr. Chambliss stated that this is true even with keeping the local jail in operation and advised that any opportunities that exist will be utilized for the transport of inmates. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the Jail Authority can acquire property. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Altizer further inquired if the Authority will hold condemnation powers. Mr. Mahoney responded in the negative, and stated that the Regional Jail Authority does not possess the power of imminent domain. Supervisor Altizer questioned if any additional properties were purchased by the Jail Authority, would the purchase come to the Board of Supervisors for any necessary rezonings if it is for a use not provided for under the current zoning. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. May 10, 2005 574 IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 2005-2006 budget. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Mr. Robertson advised that the fiscal year 2005-2006 budget was presented to the Board on April 26, 2005 and a public hearing was held on that date to receive written and oral comment from the public concerning the proposed budget and the fiscal year 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He reported the following highlights for the budget: (1) the addition of 12 paramedic/firefighters to extend emergency response services; (2) the addition of six police officers to establish a new patrol district to improve response times; (3) $2.2 million of additional funding was provided to Roanoke County schools; (4) there was unprecedented capital planning including public safety, regional jail, economic development, infrastructure, libraries, information technology, and parks and recreation. Mr. Robertson advised that the total County budget is $305,757,879 including all inter-fund and intra-fund transfers. The budget net of transfers is $223,812,560 and includes the Roanoke County schools’ budget. He noted that of the remaining items in the budget, there is $350,000 in unallocated revenue. Staff is recommending that this revenue be placed in the Board Contingency Fund for funding of items in the next fiscal year. May 10, 2005 575 Mr. Robertson advised that staff recommends approval of the first reading of the fiscal year 2005-2006 budget appropriation ordinance and approval of the classification plan for fiscal year 2005-2006. He noted that the second reading of the resolution adopting the budget is scheduled for May 24, 2005. Supervisor Flora noted that the budget includes a four percent (4%) salary increase and he inquired how much of this amount is a cost of living increase and how much is based on merit. Mr. Hodge stated that he believes, but is not certain, that the breakdown is 2% cost of living and 2% merit. He indicated that the market survey conducted for public safety employees is over and above this amount. Supervisor Flora advised that he was told there was no cost of living increase and it is all based on merit. He requested that this be confirmed prior to the second reading. Mr. Hodge stated that it is not referred to as a cost of living increase; it is a market adjustment based on inflation and this approach is used to keep all employees moving forward. He advised that specific information will be provided prior to the second reading. Supervisor Flora stated that there are individuals who have not received a raise for several years because their pay scale has not moved. Mr. Hodge advised that this would only occur if the employee has reached the top of the scale; however, they would get the 2% market adjustment because the range is moved. Supervisor McNamara stated that with respect to the classification plan which shows a minimum, mid-point and maximum, it does not necessarily mean that a new employee starts at the minimum or an employee who has been here for some time May 10, 2005 576 is at the maximum. He requested that Mr. Robertson explain this process. Mr. Robertson stated that the raises will be based upon the current mid-point within a range. Mr. Hodge indicated that the County tries to hire individuals in the lower end of the salary range. Departments are allowed to hire within 10-20% above the minimum rate; if it is necessary to go above this level, it requires approval by the County Administrator and Human Resources. Mr. Hodge stated that when it is necessary to hire at this higher level, it is usually in a high demand area. He advised that salary increases are provided each year by looking at the range movement, which is two percent (2%) this year; the entire range is moved, which shifts the mid-point; and the percentage increase is then based on the new mid-point. Supervisor McNamara posed the following question: if you take all the employees and multiply by their mid-point to arrive at a summation, and then divide everything back, is the average employee between the minimum and mid-point or between the mid-point and the maximum? Mr. Hodge advised that most of the County employees are at mid-point or in the first one-third above the mid-point. He noted that this is a good healthy position to be in to maintain external competitiveness and internal equity. Supervisor Wray stated that as employees reach the maximum and are given lower increases, it sends a mixed message. He indicated that it is important to promote a job that is being performed well for many years by a seasoned employee. Mr. Hodge stated that a work session could be scheduled to further discuss this issue; May 10, 2005 577 however, there are many factors that go into a pay plan to balance internal equity with external competitiveness. He noted that it is important to attract the desired experience level, and the County competes with other industries, as well as local governments, for quality employees. He indicated that we must be externally competitive and the County pay system, in general, is approximately five percent (5%) behind Roanoke City. Mr. Hodge stated that internal equity must also be examined to compare job responsibilities within departments. As employees rise higher in the range, the standard range movement may not be as rewarding; but if this is changed for employees based on seniority, it takes away from the recognition for performance. He indicated that we also want to avoid compression of compensation wherein higher level positions are earning less than lower level positions, particularly when overtime compensation is factored into the equation. He stated that employees at various levels throughout the County work with Joe Sgroi, Human Resources Director, on this process each year. Supervisor Wray stated that it appears there is not much room to show appreciation for a seasoned employee who is doing a job well. Supervisor Flora stated that merit pay has a down side and it must be based on some form of evaluation. He indicated that it has a way of rewarding buddies and punishing enemies. He stated that no matter how good the system is, this occurs and if the County denies individuals a cost of living increase in favor of a merit pay increase, there is a down side. He indicated that not all employees perform at the same level. May 10, 2005 578 Supervisor Altizer questioned if the County employees understand how the pay system works. Mr. Hodge stated that it is always a difficult job to communicate this information to all employees, and staff makes every effort to do this through documents sent to employees and departmental meetings. He indicated that the County also provides information to employees regarding the County’s contribution with respect to health care costs. He noted that Roanoke County pays a significant portion of the health care costs, and this impacts employees at the lower salary levels in particular. He indicated that most employees understand this package. Supervisor Altizer stated that from a private sector perspective, employees understand what a 4% salary increase means and they are able to calculate this amount. He stated that the County needs to make sure that employees know exactly how the pay system works with respect to raise percentages. Supervisor Altizer stated that the staff recommendation requests that the $350,000 be placed in the Board Contingency Fund. He questioned if these are recurring funds. Mr. Robertson responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Altizer questioned if this is placed in the Board Contingency Fund, would it then become one- time money. Mr. Robertson responded that with respect to the 2005-2006 budget, it would be considered as one-time funding; however as the 2006-2007 budget is developed, the funds would recur. Supervisor Altizer questioned why the recommendation was not to include these funds in the capital account to expedite funding of capital projects. Mr. Robertson stated that it is at the discretion of the Board May 10, 2005 579 to do this; however, the Board would have greater flexibility if the funds are kept in the Board Contingency Fund. He noted that once the funds are placed in the capital account, there are policies and guidelines in place which restrict these funds to capital expenditures only. Supervisor McNamara stated that at the April 26 meeting, he had recommended that these funds be placed in the General Fund Unappropriated Balance and identified as a separate line item to be used at the Board’s discretion. Supervisor Wray concurred with Supervisor McNamara’s recommendation. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for May 24, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Clean Valley Council Supervisor Wray advised that he would provide a nominee at the next meeting. May 10, 2005 580 IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-051005-1; R-051005-1.a; R-051005-1.b Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 051005-1 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I - 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 May 10, 2005, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – April 26, 2005 2. Request to accept a segment of Pleasant Hill Drive, Rte. 1549/1548, into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System, and request to abandon a segment of Pleasant Hill Drive, Rte 1549/1548, as the result of a project to improve access to Hidden Valley High School, Windsor Hills Magisterial District 3. Resolution approving the sublease and co-location by “New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC” on the NTELOS owned tower located at the Hollins Fire Station at 7401 Barrens Road, Hollins Magisterial District 4. Request to add $304,969 to the fiscal year 2005-2006 Department of Social Services budget for the implementation of the Program Improvement Plan (PIP) for child welfare services and to increase the Classification Plan by six positions for the Department of Social Services 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the consent resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None May 10, 2005 581 RESOLUTION 051005-1.a REQUESTING AN ADDITION AND ABANDONMENT OF PLEASANT HILL DRIVE, RTE. 1549/1548, IN THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM AS A RESULT OF PROJECT NO. 1548-080-313, M501 WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development has provided this Board with a sketch dated April 26, 2005 depicting the addition and abandonment of Pleasant Hill Drive required in the secondary system of state highways as a result of Project No. 1548-080-313, M501, which sketch is incorporated herein by reference, and WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified to be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public need, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways the portion of Pleasant Hill Drive identified by the sketch to be added, pursuant to §33.1- 229, Code of Virginia, for which portion this Board hereby guarantees the right of way to be clear and unrestricted, including any necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board abandons as part of the secondary system of state highways the portion of road identified by the sketch to be abandoned, pursuant to §33.1-155, Code of Virginia, 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 Altizer Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer Nays: None RESOLUTION 051005-1.b APPROVING THE SUBLEASE AND CO- LOCATION BY “NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC” ON THE NTELOS OWNED TOWER LOCATED AT THE HOLLINS FIRE STATION AT 7401 BARRENS ROAD WHEREAS, by Ordinance 102604-7 Roanoke County authorized the execution of an option and lease agreement with Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C., d/b/a NTELOS for a 3,400 sq. ft. tower site to be located on property owned by Roanoke County at the Hollins Fire Station on Barrens Road in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, Section 14 of the Option and Lease Agreement, provides that NTELOS must receive consent from Roanoke County to sublease the tower; and WHEREAS, this Agreement also provides that 20% of the rental received by NTELOS for any such sublease shall be paid to Roanoke County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: May 10, 2005 582 1. That the Board hereby approves the NTELOS request to sublease to New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC space on the NTELOS owned tower located at the Hollins Fire Station at 7401 Barrens Road, Roanoke County, Virginia; and 2. That NTELOS shall pay Roanoke County 20% of any rents paid to NTELOS by New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC; said payments to be placed in the County Building Repair Account pursuant to Ordinance 102604-7. 3. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions approved by the County Attorney. 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: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Building Permit Activity Report for the month ended April 30, 2005 6. Jail Study Costs Report 7. Proclamation signed by the Chairman May 10, 2005 583 IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Church: (1) He thanked Butch Workman for contacting Joyce Blevins regarding a drainage problem on Catawba Valley Drive. (2) He thanked Mr. Hodge for contacting Ray Stone regarding the distribution of circulars by the Roanoke Times. (3) He advised that a meeting is scheduled for tomorrow in Cherokee Hills with Jim Vonderhaar at 4:30 p.m. (4) He expressed appreciation to Chief Lavinder for handling a recent noise complaint. (5) He requested that Mr. Hodge stay on top of the situation with the pastor in North County regarding numerous violations such as metal cutting, shredding, vehicles, wood piles, etc. He indicated that it was his understanding that photographs have been taken and citations issued. Mr. Hodge advised that Supervisor Church was correct and that this is one of the worst situations of its type he has seen in a residential community. (6) He requested that Mr. Covey contact Mr. Weeks regarding a repeat zoning violation. Supervisor Wray: (1) He reported that there will be a ribbon cutting for the Habitat for Humanity home on June 11 at 10:00 a.m. in the Crescent Heights area of Cave Spring. (2) He requested that Mr. Hodge provide an update on Mennel Mill. Mr. Hodge reported that some soil analysis has been done and the owner is re-engineering the location on the site to ensure that the plant is placed on the most solid soil. This will benefit the surrounding neighborhood because it will move the facility further away from the homes. Mr. Hodge indicated that the project is moving forward according to the schedule. Supervisor Wray inquired if testing will be done at the appropriate time. Mr. May 10, 2005 584 Hodge responded in the affirmative. (3) He announced that Faith Christian School has started cutting in their road and they are moving ahead with their project. (4) He inquired if any information was available regarding the Mason's Crest development. Mr. Hodge advised that he is aware that the project is moving forward with utilities and the owners are working with the Blue Ridge Parkway for use of the underpass. (5) He reported that the Clearbrook Overlay Review Committee is in place and moving forward. He expressed appreciation to staff for attending the recent meeting and advised that he anticipates a report will be submitted from the committee. (6) He advised that he met with residents in the Colonial Avenue area last night and noted that this issue will be coming to the Board again at the May 24 meeting. He expressed appreciation to Arnold Covey and his staff for being available to answer the citizens’ questions. (7) He advised that there will be a meeting on Thursday, May 12 with residents on Raintree Road regarding the rural addition speculative interest situation. He asked Mr. Mahoney to review this matter. (8) He reported that the Roanoke County employee picnic is being held this weekend. Supervisor Flora: (1) He extended his appreciation to County employees and advised that he will be out of town and unable to attend the employee picnic this weekend. Supervisor Altizer: (1) He requested that Mr. Covey provide an update from the Army Corps of Engineers on a drainage problem in Brookfield. Mr. Covey advised that staff has met with the Department of Environmental Quality to determine May 10, 2005 585 the parameters and they are within them. We are moving forward with the design and will be meeting with Fralin and Waldron and others to move forward with the project within the next 30 days. (2) He requested an update on the silt pond in the Falling Creek subdivision. Mr. Covey reported that the pond has been cleaned out; however, the contractor still has corrective actions which need to be taken and penalties still apply. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 5:00 p.m, Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting 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: AYES: Supervisor McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: WORK SESSION 1. Work session to discuss issues relating to Interstate 73 and potential subsequent changes to the existing Blue Ridge Parkway access to Route 220 in Roanoke County. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer) The work session was held from 5:13 p.m. until 5:38 p.m. Staff present at the meeting included the following: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, and Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer. Others present included: Pete Larkin, District May 10, 2005 586 Director for Congressman Bob Goodlatte; and Richard Caywood, Rob Cary, and Jeff Echols, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Mr. Ford advised that in February 2005, the County received notice from the National Park Service (NPS) of their desire to close the Route 220 access to the Blue Ridge Parkway and to include this language in the Memorandum of Agreement that the County has been invited to sign. The County subsequently submitted a written response to the NPS voicing concerns about the closing of this access. Mr. Cary advised that the existing access on Route 220 is not in keeping with what is allowed by the parkway, and that the NPS is willing to consider alternative indirect connections to the parkway. Mr. Caywood advised that it is important to note that one alternative available to the parkway is to not have any connection available. He advised that they are open to discussing alternative indirect connections, but they have not yet made a decision. It was the consensus of the Board that a trip is to be scheduled to meet with Gary Johnson in Asheville, North Carolina, within the next two weeks to further discuss this issue. Those who will attend the meeting include: Supervisor Wray, Mr. Hodge, and staff from the Community Development Department. May 10, 2005 587 2. Work session to discuss the creation of the Fort Lewis Regional Jail Authority. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) The work session was held from 5:38 p.m. until 5:41 p.m. Staff present at the meeting included the following: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; and Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney. Mr. Hodge provided the Board with a copy of the policies section of the Roanoke County Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies Manual. He indicated that staff would like to prepare a similar neighborhood protection program for the community and the environment with respect to the regional jail facility. He requested input from the Board regarding what they would like to see contained in such a document. There was a consensus of the Board to schedule a future work session to discuss this item. IN RE: RECESS Chairman Altizer recessed the meeting from 5:41 p.m. until 6:20 p.m. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 6:01 p.m. until 6:10 p.m. May 10, 2005 588 IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-051005-2 At 6:10 p.m., Supervisor McNamara 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 051005-2 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None May 10, 2005 589 IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (CONTINUED) 3. Joint work session with the Planning Commission to discuss the implementation schedule for changes resulting from the adoption of the Roanoke County Community Plan. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) The work session was held from 6:20 p.m. until 6:55 p.m. Staff present at the meeting included the following: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, and Janet Scheid, Chief Planner. Planning Commission members present included: Martha Hooker, Chair; Al Thomason, Rodney McNeil, Steve Azar, and Gary Jarrell. Mr. Covey reviewed the draft implementation schedule for projects resulting from the recent updates to the Roanoke County Community Plan, the list of recent projects added since the adoption of the Community Plan, and the Planning Commission’s work program for 2005. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Covey advised that the revisions to the storm water management ordinance are currently out as a Request for Proposal (RFP) and this is being handled on a regional basis in conjunction with the City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton. He noted that this will not affect current projects, and will apply primarily to new development. He further reported that the slope protection ordinance will require the use of a consultant, and staff is in discussions at this time regarding preparation of an RFP. May 10, 2005 590 The Board concurred with the schedule set forth by the Community Development Department and Planning Commission and requested that staff proceed with implementation of the projects. Supervisor Flora requested that staff submit a monthly report beginning in July 2005 to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors that will provide an update on the status of the project implementation schedule. The report is to be included in the reports section of the Board agenda packet. Mr. Covey advised that the County has been notified by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) that continued participation in the rural addition road program would require that the County’s ordinances be amended to not permit private roads. He advised that private roads are allowed, but they must be built to VDOT standards in order to continue in the rural addition road program. The money in the rural addition road program would be reassigned to other projects in the six-year road plan. He noted that staff is concerned if the standards are changed that it could jeopardize the County’s planning and development, as well as the cluster ordinance. He noted that the goal has been to promote clustering and better utilization of land and topography to preserve green spaces. He indicated that this will have a significant impact because new street standards have limitations on grade and trips per day. Mr. Mahoney advised that most localities in the state are acquiescing to the new requirements and are not challenging the guidance of VDOT. He stated that the County was directed to amend our ordinances by July 1, 2005 and we will likely not meet this May 10, 2005 591 deadline. However, if we are in the process of complying with the changes, the projects in the rural addition road program will be able to move forward. 4. Work session to provide an update on proposed kennel permit revisions. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) The work session was held from 6:57 p.m. until 7:15 p.m. Staff present at the meeting included the following: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney, and Janet Scheid, Chief Planner. Mr. Mahoney advised that based on feedback received from the Board, it appears that there are two primary areas of concern: (1) the number of dogs allowed; and (2) the use of the word “kennel”. He noted that the problem appears to be focused in the R-1 zoning district and stated that since 2002, there have only been four special use permit (SUP) applications which have come to the Board; of those four applications, two were approved and two were denied. He further noted that with respect to private kennel licenses which have been administratively approved in agricultural districts (where they are allowed by right), it is interesting to note that there were 129 issued in 2002; 99 in 2003; and 81 in 2004. He indicated that staff is not certain why the trend is declining. Some of the proposed changes recommended by Board members at the work session included the following: increase the number of dogs from two to three; eliminate the one acre minimum requirement; and change the name to eliminate the use 592 May 10, 2005 of the word "kennel". There was not a consensus of the Board regarding the proposed changes, and concerns were voiced regarding the impact to animal control enforcement. Mr. Mahoney advised that the proposed changes will go to the Planning Commission at their June meeting and the Board of Supervisors will hold their public hearing and second reading at the July 26 meeting. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: (\ DJ~JQ L\~ fj)rhAJ~ Diane S. Childers, CMC Clerk to the Board ;iJg~ 11. ~~ ichael W. Altizer Chairman