Loading...
12/6/2005 - Regular December 6, 2005 1283 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 December 6, 2005 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the first Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of December, 2005. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A. Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Richard C. Flora, Joseph McNamara MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan R. 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 Associate Pastor Bob Lanier, Salem Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS Chairman Altizer recognized representatives from Cub Scout Pack 219, Clearbrook, who were present at the meeting. December 6, 2005 1284 1. Recognition of the Fire and Rescue Department for receiving the 2005 Governor’s Award for Outstanding Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Call of the Year Chairman Altizer presented the certificate of recognition to Rick Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue. Also present were Dr. Ted Georges, Julie Georges, RN, and representatives from the Fire and Rescue Department, Roanoke County dispatchers, Catawba/Masons Cove Volunteer Rescue Squad, Masons Cove Volunteer Fire Company, Catawba Volunteer Fire Company, Cave Spring Volunteer Rescue Squad, and Med-Flight III. 2. Recognition of the Finance Department for receiving the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for fiscal year 2003-2004 Chairman Altizer recognized the following staff in the Finance Department: Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance; Laurie Gearheart, Assistant Director of Finance; Margaret Bacon, Finance Manager; Lisa Greer, Elizabeth Atkinson, Debbie Harris, and Brian Carter, Financial Analysts; and Karen McMillan, Financial Information Systems Coordinator. December 6, 2005 1285 IN RE: BRIEFING 1. Briefing regarding Fralin and Waldron, Inc. conservation easement to preserve 153 acres on Read Mountain. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Ms. Scheid advised that in 2003, Scenic America designated the 28 mile section of the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) in Roanoke County as a Last Chance Landscape. This action focused attention on the need to preserve the Parkway viewshed and has successfully encouraged people to take action. In 2004, Frank Radford donated a 60-acre parcel of land along the BRP to the Western Virginia Land Trust as part of their master plan development of Mason’s Crest subdivision. That land has subsequently been donated to the BRP. She stated that the example set by Mr. Radford with that donation is felt today with this announcement by Fralin and Waldron, Inc. (F&W). Ms. Scheid stated that F&W has donated a 153-acre conservation easement on Read Mountain. She advised that last month, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation agreed to hold this easement which will preserve, in perpetuity, a large portion of the eastern slope of Read Mountain. This property is highly visible from locations around Roanoke County and from the Read Mountain Overlook on the BRP. Ms. Scheid indicated that the F&W conservation easement preserves the natural resource value of this property, including the scenic viewsheds, open and recreational space, and forest land. The terms of the easement do not allow any subdivision of the property, no dwellings, no commercial timbering, and limits the size of structures on the December 6, 2005 1286 property to a total of 1,000 square feet. She stated that the easement allows use of the property as a public park and for passive recreational activities such as hiking, biking, and horseback trail riding. She advised that F&W is to be commended for their dedication to the preservation of Read Mountain and their acknowledgement of the importance of environmental stewardship. In 2006, F&W intends to donate these 153 acres to Roanoke County for use as a public park. Ms. Scheid recognized the following individuals who were present at the meeting: (1) Fralin and Waldron: Karen Waldron, CEO; Andy Kelderhouse, President; Steve Claytor, Vice President and Director of Development; (2) Virginia Outdoors Foundation: Dr. Rupert Cutler, Board Member. (3) Western Virginia Land Trust: Roger Holnback, Executive Director. (4) Martin, Hopkins and Lemon, P.C.: Stephen Lemon, Attorney. She also recognized Ron Crawford and the Read Mountain Alliance for their preservation efforts. Dr. Cutler stated that the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (VOF) is a state agency that is the largest land trust in the United States, holding conservation easements on over 300,000 acres in Virginia. He stated that the VOF is pleased to accept this conservation easement which protects an important viewshed, and he expressed appreciation to all parties involved, particularly Fralin & Waldron. The Board members expressed appreciation to all parties involved in preserving this natural resource. December 6, 2005 1287 2. Briefing regarding the Real Estate Valuation Department assessment process. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; William E. Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation) Mr. Hodge reported that at the October 25 meeting, Supervisor Church reported that he had received information from a citizen regarding assessment practices in the Real Estate Valuation Department. He stated that staff responded at that time to some of the concerns, but they did not have all the necessary information. The Board requested that a work session be scheduled to review this information in more detail, and he advised that a work session is scheduled for later today. Mr. Hodge indicated that following the October 25 meeting, he requested that several people review the work of the Real Estate Valuation Office: (1) Mike Quinn, CPA, Norfolk Southern Tax Department; and (2) Brian Bergen, Virginia Department of Taxation. Mr. Hodge reported that the assessing of properties in Virginia is a state program that is audited annually by the state. He indicated that there were approximately 12 questions raised in Supervisor Church’s comments, and staff has attempted to summarize and group these inquiries in the responses that have been prepared. He noted that most of the questions dealt with equity of assessments, the practice of the Director to ask for reviews of the assessments, and the qualifications of the staff. He advised that there is no requirement for certification for any of the assessors throughout Virginia; however, the County wants our staff to receive training and the additional designation that would December 6, 2005 1288 qualify them to work with any fee appraiser. Mr. Hodge expressed appreciation to Mike Quinn for volunteering his time to conduct this review. Mr. Quinn stated that every year the Department of Taxation conducts a study of each jurisdiction and the assessment results they have achieved, and he noted that the results achieved in Roanoke County are very good. He advised that equity deals with whether all property is being assessed at the same percentage of fair market value. The assessment level measures whether or not the assessor has the property at or close to 100% of fair market value. Mr. Quinn advised that the assessor has been able to achieve a very high degree of equity, the assessment level is in an acceptable range, and the overall performance is commendable. He referenced the chart in the agenda packet titled County of Roanoke assessment/sales ratio study history and stated that the best way to determine whether or not the assessor has achieved an acceptable assessment level is to look at the properties that sold during the preceding year. He advised that this chart shows that in 2003 there were 1,785 sales and the median of the assessed value to sales was 88.77% of fair market value. He advised that statisticians tell us that we should look at the median, not the mean, of all values because it is the value in the middle which is the best measure of central tendency. By using the median, it gives us a good idea of the value of all the parcels in Roanoke County. Mr. Quinn reviewed the following data for the assessment/sales ratio study history: In 1999, the median was 90.75; in 2000, the median was 90.4; in 2001, the median was 89.63; in 2002, the median was 90.62; in 2003, the median was 88.77; and December 6, 2005 1289 preliminary data for 2004 indicates a median of 88.18. He noted that the median is coming down slightly and this is likely because the market is rising so quickly. He stated that the assessor places a value on property on January 1 and if the market continues to rise, the sales data will likely indicate a value greater than the assessed value. He stated that at first glance, this might appear to indicate that in recent years the assessor might have been somewhat less aggressive in raising assessments. He stated that if the assessor had been slightly more aggressive, the median would have been higher than the 88.77%. Mr. Quinn stated that the assessment level, however, is only one of the items that the Board should be interested in; the other item is equity. When speaking of equity, Mr. Quinn stated that we are interested in how everyone is treated relative to each other. He advised that the coefficient of dispersion is a measure of how tightly all the sales tend to cluster around the median and the higher the coefficient, the more spread out the values are around the median. He referenced the bar graph which shows the 2003 sales data, and stated that one of the lines on the graph illustrates the median of 88.77 and the other shows a value of 100%. He noted that very few of the parcels are valued above 100% and that the data is grouped tightly around the median. He further referenced the assessment/sales ratio study history and advised that it shows the following data for the coefficient of dispersion: 1998 was 7.51; 1999 was 7.41; 2000 was 5.96; 2001 was 7.62; 2002 was 7.44; and 2003 was 7.71. He stated that for the last complete ratio study, only three counties and three cities were able to achieve this degree of equity; therefore, there is nothing in the state’s data that December 6, 2005 1290 would lead to a criticism of the assessor’s work. He stated that the work in this office is commendable and noted that there is one other measure of equity which is the regression index. He advised that this is used to ensure that there is no discrimination in favor of or against a higher versus a lower priced property and that in every year, the assessor has been able to achieve a regression index that is very close to 1. This indicates that that there is no discrimination in favor of or against higher versus lower priced property. Mr. Quinn stated that there is equity among the values of the properties, equity regarding the way all parcels are treated, and a median that is in an acceptable range during a time of rapidly increasing real estate values. He further stated that he chose to remain unaware of the circumstances that lead up to this inquiry because it was not relevant to his task; however, he stated that he had ascertained that there was some notion of pressure being applied to increase assessments. He stated that in a time of rapidly rising real estate values, there should be pressure on the assessor to increase values and that this pressure comes from the market. He stated that if there is market activity that leads to that pressure and the assessor interprets the market correctly, he is just doing his job. He also noted that this situation will reverse itself and real estate values will fall in the future. This will be a difficult situation for the County to make up for the loss in values; however, interpreting the market is the primary function of the assessor, and the data indicates that he is doing a very good job. Supervisor McNamara noted that the 2004 sales ratio reflects ratios in the range of 200% to 700%, and he stated that he hoped none of these were government December 6, 2005 1291 property purchases. Mr. Quinn stated that values over 100% likely account for less than 150 out of the total 1,785 sales and stated that there is more art and judgment than math and science involved in assessing property. Supervisor Altizer noted that in 2003, only three other counties and cities received a better coefficient of dispersion and it appears that our assessor’s department is not leading, but rather is reacting, to the market. Mr. Quinn concurred that this is what the data suggests and he stated that if there were a concerted effort to lead the market, then you would see a median higher than 88%. He noted that this is one of the positive aspects of annual reassessments because you do not experience the “jumps” in real estate values that are found in jurisdictions that only reassess every three or four years. Mr. Quinn stated that the data indicates that the assessor is not “out in front” of property values. Mr. Bergen advised that the state conducts a ratio study every year and they are finding that throughout the entire state, property values are escalating faster than the assessments can catch up. He stated that many of the ratios in northern Virginia counties and cities are below 80% due to rising real estate values. He stated that for the past three years in Roanoke County, the ratio has been approximately 88%, which means that even though there is a slight rise in real estate values, the assessor still can not keep up with the market. Mr. Bergen stated that values will level off and when this occurs, the assessor’s office has an opportunity to go back to the market and raise the ratios to the 90% to 94% range. He indicated that when you see a coefficient December 6, 2005 1292 of dispersion of 7.71%, that is saying that all the sales that have been examined and the work done by the appraiser’s office in analyzing the data has been “very, very on the market”. Mr. Bergen advised that for 2004, he examined the sales between $5,000 and $99,000 and the median ratio was 89%; between $100,000 and $199,000 it was 87%; between $200,000 and $399,000 it was 90%; and between $400,000 and $999,000 it was 84%. There were also six sales over $1 million that showed a ratio of 78%. He stated that the lower ratio for the higher valued property occurs because there is a lack of sales and noted that the more sales you have, the better the ratio. Mr. Bergen reported that the ratios in Roanoke County are in line with what has been going on the last two years, taking into consideration the rising real estate market. He stated that the assessor is doing as good a job as any assessor in the state. Mr. Bergen indicated that property assessments and appraisals are nothing more than hypothetical opinions; and when a property sale occurs, it then becomes a fact. He stated that assessors come close to the value as a result of their experience and interpretation of the market. Supervisor Church inquired if the State of Virginia sets a ratio that Roanoke County must meet. Mr. Bergen responded in the negative but stated that if Roanoke County falls below a minimum ratio of 70%, they will lose Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) funding. Mr. Hodge stated that the conclusions that he has drawn from these reports are that in Roanoke County, real estate is a good investment; and further, that the staff in the Real Estate Valuation Department does an outstanding job. December 6, 2005 1293 Mr. Driver thanked Mr. Quinn for volunteering his time as a citizen of Roanoke County to conduct this study, and he also thanked Mr. Bergen for attending the meeting today. He stated that every day, staff in the Real Estate Valuation Department is in the field conducting appraisals. He thanked the staff and recognized them for their dedication. He indicated that his job is uniformity and equalization, and he feels that this has been accomplished in Roanoke County and that the citizens can rest assured that property values are in line with uniformity assessment ratios and equalization. Supervisor Flora stated that he can count the number of complaints he has received on one hand and noted that these were not due to unfair values, but rather because the citizens just did not want to pay higher taxes. He stated that when he previously served on the Board of Supervisors, a mass reassessment was conducted once every six years. He noted that under that method, the Board meeting room would fill up with people complaining about the increase in their values. He stated that the increasing values experienced in today’s market will create difficulties for localities that do not assess annually. Mr. Flora advised that he feels the assessed values in Roanoke County are fair and that the report speaks highly of staff and their professionalism. He further noted that he has not received any complaints regarding the way people are treated by staff in the Real Estate Valuation Office. Supervisor Wray stated that assessments are re-evaluated based on property sales and he inquired about the process for adjusting assessed values in the December 6, 2005 1294 event that they are not properly assessed. Mr. Driver advised that there are internal controls that are used to examine the median. He indicated that when staff begins the reassessment process at the beginning of the year, there are 43,000 parcels that must be reviewed. He stated that sales data is subsequently received later in the year and staff re-evaluates neighborhoods to ensure that they are holding to Roanoke County ratio standards and coefficient of dispersion. Supervisor Wray referenced property located on Colonial Avenue which received an adjustment to the assessed value last year, and he stated that Mr. Driver saw a situation there that needed to be addressed. He stated that he assumed that what prompted the adjustment was the sale of property in the area, even though this piece of property was not on the market. He indicated that he was speaking in general terms and asked that Mr. Driver explain how property is assessed if the parcel is residential and is located next to property that is sold as commercial. He stated that we don’t want to take our citizens and say “we’re going to hammer you now because all of a sudden there was this sale in commercial and now I’m going to assess you out of the market.” Mr. Driver advised that the property Supervisor Wray referenced on Colonial Avenue has a land use designation of transition, and he stated that recent rezonings indicate that there will be commercial properties in the area. Mr. Driver indicated that this is a difficult situation for residents in this area because the area will likely change and the key is when it will change. He stated that in this instance, staff went to the home of the property owner to make sure that a value was established that would December 6, 2005 1295 reserve openness in the County’s philosophy regarding what the valuation should be. He stated that following a re-evaluation of the property, it was decided that the value would be reduced. Mr. Driver noted, however, that when there are adjacent properties that have a commercial value, this is a factor that can not be ignored. He stated that sales drive what will happen but if citizens are not happy with their assessment, they can appeal it to staff and if they are still not satisfied, they can appeal to the Board of Equalization. He stated that appraisals in transition areas are difficult to make. Supervisor Wray stated that he wants to make sure that Mr. Driver is not putting undue pressure on citizens to sell their property or to take them completely out of the market. He stated that citizens might be fortunate to some degree that they purchased property in an area that is transitioning to commercial; but if they are not in the market to sell, they want to be assessed fairly so that they can still live there until such time as they are ready to sell. Mr. Driver stated that this is why staff works to develop a rapport with the citizens in their neighborhoods and review these types of cases. He stated that they give the citizens every consideration before a value is established for property. Supervisor Church stated that he does not have any reason to think that Mr. Driver’s office has does anything on purpose, and that what brought this to the public was a memo that was sent to him. He stated that contrary to popular belief, the memo was not sent to him by Ms. Simmons (a former employee in the Roanoke County Real Estate Valuation Department) and he stated that the memo inquired if the December 6, 2005 1296 reassessments were at the direction of the Board of Supervisors. He indicated that this bothered him and he advised that he received this information in September 2005. Supervisor Church stated that he gets numerous calls from citizens who feel they are overtaxed, and he noted that Roanoke County surplus revenues in 2000 were $3.3 million; 2001 was $2.9 million; 2002 was $335,000; 2003 was $2.5 million; and 2004 was $4 million. He stated that he did not ask for this report or a work session; however, if Roanoke County has a soundly run financial operation, the people are wondering why the County is continually “digging in their pockets”. He stated that it has come to light that assessments are being done all year long and who knows if this is right or wrong. He read the following comments that he indicated were made by Mr. Driver based on information provided to him by Ms. Simmons: “raise Donnelly to the value of last year or more, don’t let it be lowered”. He stated that he has a problem with that statement. With respect to Hanging Rock Country Club, he read the following comment: “land value; reduce adjustment”. He stated that these seem to be directives and if that is normal, it is fine. He advised that he has never insinuated that the Real Estate Valuation Department is driving the market; but if this is the normal procedure, then we need to have notations made on every parcel in the County. He stated that he received the report provided by Mr. Quinn but that it did not mean a lot to him, and he advised that he has no idea regarding some of the items discussed because he is not trained in this field. He stated that he is accountable to the people to try to be fair and equal with their assessments. He read additional comments from the notes provided by Ms. December 6, 2005 1297 Simmons regarding requested changes she was asked to make by the Director of Real Estate Valuation. Mr. Bergen advised that when he was the assessor for the City of Richmond, he followed the same procedure as Mr. Driver with his appraisers. Supervisor Church stated that this is not a “finger pointed at anyone” and stated that everyone cares about every dollar of their taxes. He referenced a memo the Board received from Mr. Hodge in which Mr. Hodge was complimentary of Mr. Driver and stated that Mr. Driver should be reviewing the work of his assessors. Mr. Bergen stated that Supervisor Church referenced the taxes being paid and advised that it is important to understand that the assessor’s office does not make the taxes. They interpret the market and the tax rate is then multiplied by the assessment to determine the amount of the taxes. He stated that when people complain about the assessments, they must look not only at the assessment but also at the tax rate. Supervisor Church stated that the Board must take criticism and stated that he is following up on at least two citizen inquiries. He stated that he did not plan for this discussion to be on the air, and further advised that the County must be open and ready to explain the situation when questions arise. Supervisor Church referenced a comment in Mr. Hodge’s memo which stated that “the staff does not understand why one unhappy employee has caused them to be subjected to criticism.” He stated that this statement bothers him and advised that he did not know the employee was going to resign or he would have raised these December 6, 2005 1298 questions earlier. He stated that this has been a very informative meeting today and we are not all right, all the time; but we have to answer the citizens’ questions. Supervisor Altizer stated that he started tracking the assessment and sales prices of homes in his subdivision, and he advised that houses are selling for $20,000 to $25,000 above the assessed values. He indicated that assessments were much lower than actual sales in his neighborhood. He also noted that by being conservative in our approach to assessments, the County will be better positioned if the rising market slows or stops in the future. He stated that there are years where there is a budget surplus in the County; but that surplus can change quickly depending on what is occurring in the market. He stated that the data reflects that we are right where we need to be with our assessed values. There was a consensus of the Board to cancel the work session scheduled for later in the meeting. Mr. Hodge referenced the comments that were made relating to R.R. Donnelly and stated that the County does all it can to attract businesses to the area; however, we would still like to shift more of the tax burden from residential property owners to the business sector. He questioned if there was anything more the Board would like for staff to do with respect to this matter, and he inquired if the Board was comfortable with the fact that they have an outstanding staff doing an excellent job. Supervisor Church advised that he does not think we can ever rest. He stated that we could become known as the county in Virginia that doesn’t go to 98%. He stated that December 6, 2005 1299 the citizens need to feel like the County is operating well. Mr. Hodge stated that the constitution indicates that the assessed value must follow the market. Supervisor Wray stated that he supports a better balance between commercial and residential real estate values. He noted that the County is currently at 86% commercial versus 14% residential now, and it demonstrates that we are seeing the shift as new businesses locate in Roanoke County. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Adoption of a resolution in support of the Virginia Department of Transportation secondary road project, Boones Chapel Road (Route 614), located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Anthony Ford, Transportation Engineering Manager) R-120605-1 Mr. Ford advised that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) recently held a design public hearing for the Boones Chapel Road bridge replacement project. He stated that the purpose of the project is to replace the bridge and the approaches on Boones Chapel Road over a branch of Back Creek. He noted that the bridge is in poor condition and the current sufficiency rating is 16.2 on a scale of 1 to 100. At the public hearing, VDOT presented the plans for review and comment, and the proposed improvements included the following: (1) Replacing the bridge structure at its current location. Mr. Ford stated that the bridge will most likely be a pre-stressed, pre- cast slab span concrete structure 30 feet in length. (2) The approaches will be 9 foot December 6, 2005 1300 lanes with a 2 foot shoulder. The shoulder will be 4 feet where there is guardrail. (3) The design speed for the project will be 30 mph, which means it will be posted at 25 mph. Mr. Ford stated that to facilitate replacing the bridge at its existing location, the road will need to be closed during construction. VDOT presented previous designs to the County and citizens that included a separate facility adjacent to the existing structure; however, the adjoining property owners wanted the bridge replacement to occur within the existing footprint and that the road be closed during construction. VDOT has met these requests with the current plan being presented. Mr. Ford reported that a public hearing was held on October 20 and three people attended the meeting, with one person submitting comments. He advised that VDOT feels they have adequately addressed the comments that were presented and that the proposed design is the best possible option for all parties involved. The anticipated schedule for the project is as follows: begin right-of-way acquisition in late 2006; advertise for construction in November 2007; begin construction in March 2008, the road will be closed for the bridge construction for 90-120 days between April and July 2008. Mr. Ford reported that the total project cost is estimated to be $947,200, and that this allocation is funded in the County’s secondary roads six-year improvement program with state funds. He advised that there is no County allocation to this project. Supervisor Wray requested that Mr. Ford elaborate on the comments made by a citizen at the meeting regarding easements. Mr. Ford stated that there is one property owner that owns a large amount of property in the area and he does not December 6, 2005 1301 see the need for the project; however, Mr. Ford noted that the VDOT sufficiency rating supports the need for the project. He indicated that VDOT closes any bridge which has a sufficiency rating of 10 and this bridge is already rated 16. He advised that any bridge that reaches a rating of 50 is placed on a list for replacement. Mr. Ford further advised that a comment was made that the project is taking too much property; however, VDOT feels that the project is as tight and precise to the existing footprint as it can be and he noted that there are no excessive right-of-way takes due to the project. Mr. Ford stated that the other concern voiced at the meeting was that replacing the bridge would increase speeds in the area; but he advised that VDOT has designed the approach to the bridge for a 30 mph speed and they do not feel that this concern is valid. Supervisor Wray inquired if a possible bridge or support collapse might occur if the ratio gets to 10. Mr. Ford stated that he does not want to scare people, and advised that when VDOT feels that it has reached that point, they will close the bridge due to safety concerns. Supervisor Wray noted that Mr. Ford had advised that the speed limit is designed for 30 mph but will be posted at 25 mph. Mr. Ford advised that the speed limit in the area could be posted at 25 mph, but stated that he does not think the speed limit is currently posted in this area. He stated that if it is posted, it will remain at 25 mph; if it is not posted, it is assumed to be 55 mph. He stated that staff can request that VDOT conduct a study regarding the possible posting of a speed limit in the area. Supervisor December 6, 2005 1302 Wray stated that he would like to look at the speed sign postings in this area. Mr. Ford indicated that he would forward this request to VDOT. 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 120605-1 REQUESTING APPROVAL AND SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (0614-080-306,C-501, B-683) BOONES CHAPEL ROAD (ROUTE 614) WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a design public hearing on October 20, 2005 for the purpose of soliciting public comments on the proposed improvements to Boones Chapel Road (Route 614). WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation feels they have adequately addressed the public comments as submitted to them for this project. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve and support the improvements as proposed to Boones Chapel Road (Route 614) (including the future temporary road closure as necessary for the project) as outlined in Roanoke County’s Six-Year Secondary System Construction Plan for Fiscal Years 2006 – 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that a certified copy of this resolution duly attested be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation, Salem Residency Office, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Moved by: Supervisor Wray Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Flora, Wray, Altizer Nays: None 2. Request to increase the allowable County match for the mini- grant program. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development) December 6, 2005 1303 A-120605-2 Mr. Hodge stated that this is a request to increase the match that the County offers to small businesses in some of the main corridors into the Roanoke Valley to assist them with improvements to their businesses. He advised that the program was put in place in the Hollins area approximately 10 years ago, and it recognized that the businesses in the area wanted to modernize their facilities. He indicated that improvements consisted of signage or parking lot improvements. Due to the success of the program, it was expanded to the Vinton and Route 11/460 area. Mr. Hodge stated that the grant program works well for small businesses who want to improve the appearance and function of their business and in past, the match has been up to a maximum of $5,000. The program is operated by the Department of Community Development who monitors the grants to ensure compliance with the guidelines, and the grants are administered by the Economic Development Authority (EDA), formerly the Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Hodge advised that the County needs to renew our efforts to inform businesses of the existence of the program, and also noted the need to increase the amount of the grant. He requested that the Board consider an increase to at least $10,000 or greater. He advised that the accumulated balance in this account shows that it has not been used recently and we would like to revitalize this program. It is recommended that staff meet with the businesses in these corridors and remind them of the program and encourage them to use it. December 6, 2005 1304 Mr. Chittum stated that as mentioned, this program began in the Williamson Road corridor in 1994 and it has been expanded into West Roanoke County Route 11/460 and the Town of Vinton. The Route 11/460 project is currently on hold and consequently, many businesses are reluctant to take advantage of the grant program due to the uncertain nature of the situation. He advised that Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist, has profiled this program on RVTV and staff from the Community Development Department provided information regarding the administration of the program. Following the presentation on RVTV, there was a slight increase in interest in the program. Mr. Chittum advised that the objective is to improve businesses in these designated corridors and try to get uniformity in signage and parking lots because it makes the area more attractive and cohesive, and it will also assist in attracting new businesses to the area. He stated that staff examines programs to determine if there is a better way to administer them, and he noted that Community Development is currently conducting a comprehensive evaluation of this program. Supervisor Church stated that Route 11/460 has been under consideration for many years and he asked that the County recognize that these businesses are in a state of uncertainty. He requested that staff attempt to develop an equitable plan that will target businesses in this area. Supervisor McNamara stated that he has been on the Board for eight years and has never heard of this program. He voiced concerns regarding a program that will benefit certain businesses and not others. Mr. Chittum stated that the December 6, 2005 1305 philosophy behind the facade grant program when it was initially implemented in other communities was to target urban areas and provide incentives for development. He advised that the EDA administers the projects and in 1994, the philosophical decision was made to develop this program to assist with property improvements. Subsequently, the program was expanded into other areas of the County. Supervisor McNamara stated that if businesses are not taking advantage of the program, he would rather take the annual contribution of $35,000 and use the funds to reduce the tax rate. He indicated that if the fund balance is currently $210,000, this amounts to six years worth of funding and this might indicate that it is not an effective program. Supervisor McNamara advised that he would prefer to consider any changes to this program as part of the budget process. Supervisor Wray stated that $5,000 may not be a sufficient amount for completing projects. He stated that an increase to $10,000 might be adequate to meet the needs of the businesses considering improvement projects. He advised that when we cross jurisdictional lines, we are trying to promote a positive image of the County, but stated that he was not certain that this was the solution. Mr. Chittum advised that one of the reasons why the program has not been sufficiently utilized is that small businesses wanting to make improvements may want to move quickly and the amount of time required to complete the process for a small amount of funding is sometimes an issue. Supervisor Wray stated that the County’s return on investment must be considered, and he voiced support for implementing the changes in order to give the December 6, 2005 1306 program a fair chance to be successful. However, he recommended that a review be conducted after six months to determine whether the program is cost effective. Supervisor Flora stated that in 1994, the program was implemented to improve the appearance of the Williamson Road corridor and it was subsequently expanded to include other areas of the County. He stated that this program is needed to address concerns such as signage and facades in transitional areas, and he advised that these matters are routinely handled by cities. He also noted the deteriorating condition of the Williamson Road corridor prior to implementation of the program. He stated that businesses that are located in nice shopping centers do not need the benefit of the incentive because they are located in an aesthetically pleasing environment. He voiced support for assisting businesses located in older buildings through the continuation of this program and advised that it will assist businesses that do not meet today’s standards. He stated that this should not be considered a subsidy to a business, and that the funds should be granted to businesses that need improvement so that the neighborhood is improved also. Supervisor McNamara outlined a hypothetical situation in which four businesses are located side-by-side in a 1950’s style strip center and they want to jointly make improvements to their center totaling $40,000. He inquired if these four businesses would be able to qualify for a grant under this program. Mr. Chittum advised that they would be able to do so if they are located within one of the previously stated corridors. Supervisor McNamara stated that he has difficulty justifying this when all December 6, 2005 1307 businesses pay the same tax rate in Roanoke County, and yet the grant is only available to businesses located in a specified corridor. He stated that the County can not pick and choose which businesses to support, and indicated that he would be willing to support the program if the cost benefit throughout the County is examined. He advised that within the narrow confines that currently exist, it creates a situation where government is deciding which businesses should be helped. Supervisor Church noted that two Board members have indicated that they were not aware of the existence of this program, and he recommended that a work session be scheduled to further discuss this matter. Supervisor Altizer stated that the Board passed this same ordinance approximately one and a half years ago to authorize the expansion of this program to include the Town of Vinton. He referenced the conditions on Plantation Road and Williamson Road where one of the side roads had been made a dead-end near the former Harvest House restaurant. He stated that when this program first began, significant landscaping improvements were made in this area and he advised that there has been a return on the County’s investment. He stated that sometimes funds are allocated to specific areas for specific reasons. Supervisor Altizer stated that in 1994, $5,000 might have gone a long way; but in today’s market, it does not. He indicated that the Board may want to consider adding other areas to this program and stated that the $5,000 match has become obsolete. He further stated that a concerted effort is December 6, 2005 1308 needed to solicit businesses to participate in the program and at the end of one year, the Board should re-evaluate the status of the program. Mr. Hodge stated that this is part of community planning where we look at communities and try to anticipate where changes are being made and attempt to keep the areas as vital as possible. He stated that this was the reason the program was started and it worked very well. He advised that there are several requests under consideration at this time, and this is the reason the proposed changes are being presented at this time. Supervisor Church stated that it is okay with him if the Board wishes to vote on this matter tonight; however when he heard two Board members say they were not aware of the program, he requested a work session. He stated that he does not need a work session if the remaining Board members are willing to proceed. Supervisor Altizer requested that staff reassert the program. Supervisor Altizer moved to increase the maximum grant amount to $15,000; allow grant requests between $15,000 and $20,000 to be submitted to the Board for approval; direct staff to report back to the Board in 90 days regarding their efforts to communicate this information to businesses; and re-evaluate the program one year after the end of the 90 day period previously outlined. Supervisor Flora advised that with respect to the cost benefit ratio, it is hard to quantify the benefit of this type of improvement program. He stated that when the “big picture” is examined, improving corridors into the County makes it more December 6, 2005 1309 attractive for other businesses to locate in this area. He noted that two large businesses recently located at the Plantation Road and Williamson Road intersection that was just discussed. He advised that the Route 460 West corridor could also use improvement, and he noted that it was previously commercial/industrial but is now in transition. Mr. Mahoney advised that the Board can not make grants directly to private businesses; these must be handled through the EDA. The Board establishes the design guidelines, policies, and limits for the EDA action. Supervisor Church called for the question and concurred with Supervisor Flora’s remarks regarding the Route 11/460 corridor. Chairman Altizer requested that the Clerk call the roll. Supervisor McNamara raised a point of order and requested clarification that the vote being taken is on the motion to call for the question and not the original motion offered by Supervisor Altizer. Supervisor Altizer clarified that the vote at this time is a vote on the motion to call for the question. Supervisor Church’s motion to call for the question was defeated by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Church, Flora, Altizer NAYS: Supervisor McNamara, Wray Chairman Altizer requested that the Clerk call the roll on the motion remaining on the floor. Supervisor McNamara raised a point of order and made the December 6, 2005 1310 following inquiries: (1) Is the motion to increase the grant amount from $5,000 to $7,500 or from $5,000 to $15,000; and (2) He noted that the staff recommendation states that applications will be reviewed on a first-come, first-served basis county-wide, and he inquired if this means the program is open county-wide. Mr. Hodge stated that when this program was implemented, guidelines were put in place and the action pending will not alter these guidelines. This is an action that would be brought to the Board as part of the review. He advised that at this time, staff is requesting that the Board increase the grant limit and noted that funds will be administered by the EDA as they have been in the past. Supervisor McNamara further inquired if the staff recommendation referencing first-come, first served county-wide applies only to certain corridors. Mr. Hodge responded in the affirmative and noted that all of the areas discussed in the meeting are in the corridors which are currently included. He stated that these grants are designed to target older areas that are undergoing transition and the policies reflect this philosophy. Supervisor McNamara inquired if the program is not, in fact, county-wide. Mr. Hodge advised that it is not county-wide, but it was the intent to expand the program county-wide. He stated that the purpose is to work with older neighborhoods that are in transition to keep them vibrant; however, the Board can expand this scope if they wish. In response to Supervisor McNamara’s request, Supervisor Altizer clarified and re-stated the motion as follows: motion to increase the maximum grant amount to $15,000; allow grant requests in the range of $15,000 to $20,000 to be December 6, 2005 1311 submitted to the Board for approval; direct staff to report back to the Board in 90 days regarding their efforts to communicate this information to businesses; and re-evaluate the program 12 months from that point. Supervisor Wray requested clarification regarding the time frame and noted that there was a review at the end of 90 days and an evaluation at the end of one year. Supervisor Altizer clarified that staff would report back to the Board at the end of 90 days regarding their efforts to re-market the program to businesses; and at the end of 12 months from that date, the Board would re-evaluate whether the program was successful. Supervisor Flora inquired if this program were to be made County-wide with the existing guidelines that are in place and without designating specific corridors, would this create a problem. Mr. Hodge advised that he did not anticipate that this would be a problem. Supervisor Altizer noted that there was a motion to call for the question and the Board needed to end the debate and vote on the pending motion. Supervisor Altizer’s motion to increase the maximum grant amount to $15,000; allow grant requests between $15,000 and $20,000 to be submitted to the Board for approval; direct staff to report back to the Board in 90 days regarding their efforts to communicate this information to businesses; and re-evaluate the program one year after the end of the 90 day evaluation period carried by the following recorded vote: December 6, 2005 1312 AYES: Supervisors Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: Supervisor McNamara Supervisor Wray commented that he did not want to get hung up on $5,000, but it was his interpretation that staff was asking the Board to double the incentive and now it is being tripled. He advised that the underlying principle is that the Board is making an effort to revitalize certain areas and while he does not necessarily agree with the time frame and increasing the amount, he does not want to limit the ability of staff to market the program. Supervisor Flora voiced support for expanding the program county-wide. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. First reading of an ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by adding a new Section 21-22 to provide for the implementation of the 2004-2005 changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) of 1998. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) Ms. Hyatt reported that a work session was held at the November 15 meeting related to this ordinance, and this is a revision to the County’s policies for implementing the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA) based on the changes made by the state during the 2004 session of the General Assembly. She advised that the portions that are included in this ordinance that are specific to the County are as follows: (1) The County chooses the “specific relief” method (percentages reduction) of December 6, 2005 1313 computing tax relief; (2) The County will allocate the relief at a single percentage across the board to the first $20,000 of personal vehicle value; (3) The County will continue to exempt vehicles valued at $1,000 and below from taxation; and (4) The Treasurer is authorized to “balance bill” any taxes from 2005 and prior that are still delinquent at September 1, 2006, or when the state funding for tax relief is depleted. Ms. Hyatt advised that this is the first reading of the ordinance, and a second reading and public hearing will be held on December 20. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for December 20, 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 exempt the property owned by Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. from property tax, said real property assessed at $712,100 being 2.60 acres at 3640 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the first reading of an ordinance that would grant a real estate tax exemption to the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs for its property located on Colonial Avenue. He indicated that this is the first time the Board December 6, 2005 1314 has had an opportunity to address a tax exemption petition and advised that prior to January 1, 2003, these types of requests were acted upon by the General Assembly. In 2002, the Constitution was amended to provide for local governing bodies to determine whether certain categories of organizations will be tax exempt. Mr. Mahoney stated that in the past, the Board has sought an agreement with the entity to pay a service fee of 20% in lieu of taxes, and the Council of Garden Clubs has agreed to this fee. The amount of the projected tax loss is $3,130, less the service fee. He advised that under State Code, the Board is required to hold a second reading and public hearing and this is scheduled for December 20. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for December 20, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 3. First reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of an easement to Verizon Virginia, Inc. on property owned by the Board of Supervisors to provide telephone service to the new Public Safety Center, Catawba Magisterial District. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) December 6, 2005 1315 Mr. Obenshain reported that this is a utility easement to allow Verizon to provide telephone service to the new Public Safety Center. He stated that they will require four poles on Roanoke County property for purposes of the telephone connection. Mr. Obenshain advised that this matter has been discussed with Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator who is overseeing the project, and that Mr. O’Donnell advises that this action is necessary for the completion of the new Public Safety Center. Supervisor Flora questioned if the map that was provided to the Board and shows the poles being located between Ponderosa Drive and the original entrance to the Administration Center is the correct version. Mr. Obenshain advised that he could not verify this information but stated that this is the plat that was submitted for this purpose. Mr. Obenshain noted that the property on the other side of Ponderosa Drive is not owned by the County. Supervisor Flora advised that the map indicates that the poles are to be located on property that was retained by the School Board, and he noted that the property purchased by the County only came up to and included the entrance road. Mr. Obenshain advised that he would notify the appropriate parties of these concerns and stated that they provided the plat and it is their responsibility to know where they are locating the poles. He indicated that the County can only convey what interests we have, and that he would investigate this matter prior to the second reading. December 6, 2005 1316 Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for December 20, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None 4. First reading of an ordinance authorizing the acceptance of a donation of an easement from Occidental Development, LLC, for construction of a drainage easement at Sunscape Apartments, Cave Spring Magisterial District. (Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney) Mr. Obenshain stated that this is a donation that will assist the Community Development Department with stormwater management improvements in the Colonial Park subdivision. He advised that a collection area is needed on 3,000 square feet of the Sunscape property. He reported that staff has been dealing with an out-of-state corporation and it has taken several months to receive the necessary documents; however, staff has received the temporary construction easement and a permanent easement for the property. Supervisor Wray expressed appreciation to Mr. Obenshain for his efforts on behalf of this project. December 6, 2005 1317 Supervisor Wray moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for December 20, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Disability Services Board Supervisor Altizer advised that the three-year term of Debbie Pitts, County appointee, will expire on December 31, 2005. Ms. Pitts has indicated that she is willing to serve an additional term, and there was a consensus of the Board to add confirmation of this appointment to the consent agenda. 2. Grievance Panel Supervisor Altizer advised that Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources, has recommended that Jim Garlow be appointed as an alternate member. Mr. Garlow will complete the remainder of King Harvey’s three-year term that will expire on October . 28, 2006There was a consensus of the Board to add confirmation of this appointment to the consent agenda. 3. Roanoke County Planning Commission (Appointed by District) Supervisor Church nominated Martha Hooker, Catawba District, to serve an additional four-year term that will expire on December 31, 2009. Ms. Hooker has advised that she is willing to serve an additional term, and Supervisor Church reported December 6, 2005 1318 that confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the consent agenda for confirmation. 4. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Supervisor Church advised that the four-year terms of Suzie Snyder and Keith Tensen will expire on December 31, 2005. He indicated that both representatives have indicated that they are willing to serve an additional term, and confirmation of these appointments has been placed on the consent agenda. 5. Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority Supervisor Wray advised that his one-year term as elected representative and Supervisor McNamara’s one-year term as alternate elected representative will expire on December 31, 2005. He nominated Joseph P. McNamara to serve a one- year term as elected representative and Richard C. Flora to serve a one-year term as alternate elected representative. These terms will expire on December 31, 2006. Supervisor Altizer nominated John M. Chambliss to serve an additional one-year term as the administrative official and Diane D. Hyatt to serve an additional one-year term as the alternate administrative official. These terms will expire on December 31, 2006. There was a consensus of the Board to add confirmation of these appointments to the consent agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-120605-3 December 6, 2005 1319 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 120605-3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM 1- 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 December 6, 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 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - November 13 and November 15, 2005 2. Request from the schools to appropriate mentor teacher program allocation in the amount of $11 ,460.72 3. Acceptance and appropriation of a grant in the amount of $130,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to prepare Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) 4. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $233,199 from two Department of Criminal Justice Services grants 5. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke County Planning Commission and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1: Reauest to schedule ª work session on December 20. 2005. to discuss the County of Roanoke secondary roads system six-year December 6, 2005 1320 improvement plan for fiscal years 2006-2012 and review of the revenue sharing program for fiscal year 2006-2007 It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the work session on December 20, 2005. IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The following citizen spoke: Joan Carver, 8469 Willett Lane, stated that a request was made in September to have the Bent Mountain Library open one morning per week with a preschool reading program. She advised that there is, however, one problem; the building is not open in the mornings so children can not come. She advised that the County's concern was the impact on the budget and that she was asked what it would cost to implement the program. She stated that the anticipated cost was $3,000 and that for the remaining six months of the fiscal year, the cost would be $1,500. She further stated that the Women’s Club has offered to provide the $1,500 funding for the program for this year and if it proves successful, it is their hope that the County will fund the program in future years. Ms. Carver indicated that there are four things needed to provide this program: a place, finance, a librarian, and a program coordinator. She noted that the Board has just mentioned that there was a $4 million surplus in the prior fiscal year. She stated that when she spoke with Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, regarding the funding request, Ms. Hyatt asked her to provide information about how they would attempt to secure grants to provide for continued funding of the program. December 6, 2005 1321 Supervisor Church stated that the Board needs to address this situation and attempt to work something out. Supervisor McNamara requested that John Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator, provide an update on this matter. Mr. Chambliss reported that staff has been evaluating this request and is in the process of obtaining information from Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services, regarding the anticipated cost of adding this program at the Bent Mountain Library. He noted that there are a number of programs that the libraries are attempting to implement while at the same time balancing the levels of service. He advised that staff could provide a report to the Board in two weeks regarding this matter. 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. Jail Study Costs Report 6. Roanoke County Erosion and Sediment Control Program review December 6, 2005 1322 IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Church: (1) He advised that a good community meeting was held in his area regarding a cell tower, and he encouraged the citizens to stay involved in the process. (2) He expressed thanks to James Lynn for staying on top of the Glenvar Library situation. (3) He advised that he has someone working on Mrs. Jackson’s inquiry. Supervisor Wray: (1) He advised that there was a fatality on Route 221 recently, and noted that this area is scheduled for improvement. He asked that Mr. Hodge schedule a meeting with the legislators or send them a letter in order to emphasize the need for improvements to this area. He stated that completion of this project is way past due. (2) He advised that he received a call from an elderly citizen regarding leaf collection. He questioned if this could be implemented on a fee basis for some individuals who can not handle it on their own. Mr. Hodge stated that staff could look at this as part of the budget process, and further indicated that staff can speak with private companies to see what can be done. (3) He noted that the Rising Star property is available for sale and asked that staff consider this property for land banking purposes. He directed Pete Haislip to examine the feasibility of this purchase. (4) He requested installation of drop-off receptacles in various locations throughout the County for recycling purposes. He asked that staff pursue this issue and either report back to the Board or schedule a work session for further discussion of the issue. (5) He invited December 6, 2005 1323 everyone to attend the Christmas tree lighting ceremony tomorrow night at Tanglewood Mall. Supervisor McNamara: (1) He stated that he would also like to invite everyone to attend the Christmas tree lighting and advised that it begins at 6:00 p.m. tomorrow. Supervisor Altizer: (1) He requested that Mr. Hodge and Anthony Ford, Transportation Engineering Manager, schedule a work session with VDOT in January 2006 to discuss issues on Challenger Drive. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 6:37 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 (30) discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract for an economic development performance agreement with Mennel Milling Company, where discussion in open session would adversely effect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: ABSENCE Supervisor McNamara left the meeting at 6:42 p.m. December 6, 2005 1324 IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 6:42 p.m. until 7:02 p.m. th IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (4 Floor Conference Room) 1. Work session to discuss the Real Estate Valuation Department assessment process. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; William E. Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation) There was a consensus of the Board to cancel this work session. 2. Work session to discuss technology features of the public safety building project. (Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) (a) Computer Aided Dispatch System (CAD) (b) Emergency radio transition plan The work session was held from 7:23 p.m. until 7:47 p.m. The following staff members were present for the work session: Bill Hunter, Technology Services Manager; Maria Ward, Application Services Manager; Billy Fadorick, Programmer/Analyst; Sergeant Scott Smith, Police Department; David Craighead, Communications Center CAD Administrator; and Steve Simon, Fire and Rescue Division Chief. The following individuals were unable to attend the meeting but were recognized for their contributions to the project: Wayne King, CAD Administrator; and Rodney Thompson, Communications Shop Supervisor. December 6, 2005 1325 Mr. O’Donnell reported that the CAD system was successfully switched over on November 1, 2005. He gave a power point presentation which showed the construction progress to date, and advised that the project is three days behind schedule but the construction is going well. Ms. Ward reported that the New World Systems’ Aegis MSP system was purchased in January 2005 and went live on November 1, 2005. They have received 11,000 calls in the first month of operation and all calls have been successfully answered. The system replaced a 10-year old product that was no longer able to support the County’s needs. At the same time, the County also had to become compliant with mandated national Phase 2 guidelines which require cell phone calls to be accurately located, and the enhanced mapping capabilities of this system were used to meet this requirement. Ms. Ward outlined the following benefits of the AEGIS system: (1) fully integrated CAD, fire and police records, and mobile CAD; (2) integrated mapping showing caller locations and units from CAD and mobile stations; (3) system redundancy; (4) expanded data collection that offers more automating reporting and investigation; and (5) operational reporting enhancements for the Fire Department. She advised that the system implementation was handled by representatives from County departments and outside agencies and was a complex project. The higher level of risk with this project was due to the number of modules that had to be implemented simultaneously, as well as the fact that the County shares the radio system with 1326 December 6, 2005 Roanoke City. She advised that over 100 staff members have been trained and training is ongoing. Ms. Ward advised that the County purchased four Windows servers and one IBM server to facilitate redundancy, and also utilized the County's current network, radio, phone systems, and GIS data. Ms. Ward stated that future benefits of the AEGIS system include: police field reporting from mobile data units; detailed automated crime analysis and crime/fire mapping; and opportunities for integration with external or other County systems such as digital paging system and possibly EMS billing system. Mr. Hunter advised that the radio system serves 2,500 users in Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and the Town of Vinton. He stated that one area of concern with the initial radio transition plan was coverage in the downtown Roanoke area, and the initial plan was to temporarily license the National Public Safety channels and broadcast from the top of Mill Mountain; however in April 2005, the FCC placed a freeze on all temporary licenses as part of a ruling on the 800 MHz rebanding process. He reported that Rodney Thompson worked with representatives from Motorola and Northrop- Grumman to develop a modified plan that will allow for coverage during the time the radio system is being moved and to also address the in-building coverage concerns in downtown Roanoke. The new plan utilizes the Mill Mountain site to simulcast with Poor Mountain. He stated that although the new plan has an increased cost, it eliminates a single point of failure from the system for both the move to the new building and also for future operations. December 6, 2005 1327 Mr. O'Donnell stated that the completion date for the building is December 3; however, the radio system will be moved in November. There will be two radio systems: the new one being built and the one being taken apart. Mr. Hunter stated that both the old and new microwave systems will be running at the same time, thereby allowing the new system to be brought up and ensure that it is working properly before the old system is turned off. 3. Work session to discuss the fiscal year 2006-2007 budQet process. (Elmer C. HodQe. County Administrator: Brent Robertson. Director of ManaQement and BudQet) This work session was postponed until December 20, 2005. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-120605-4 At 7:22 p.m., Supervisor Church moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor McNamara Chairman Altizer requested that the record reflect that Supervisor McNamara was not present for the closed meeting. 1328 December 6, 2005 RESOLUTION 120605-4 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 Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor McNamara IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ~ÚJa ~\~ - (J;IrbÜ) ) Diane S. Ctil ders, CMC Clerk to the Board ~ ¡t. {{¡¡¿- Michael W. Altizer ~ Chairman