Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/27/2007 - Regular March 27, 2007 251 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 March 27, 2007 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of March, 2007. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C. Flora, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Michael A. Wray MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Mary V. Brandt, Assistant Deputy Clerk to the Board; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Reverend Ed Dunnington, Christ the King Presbyterian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to approve the health insurance rates for County and Schools for fiscal year 2007-2008. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) March 27, 2007 252 A-032707-1 Ms. Hyatt advised that the County of Roanoke, Roanoke County Public Schools, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA), and the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) participate in a joint health insurance plan. This medical plan is self-funded; however, the plan purchases administrative services, access to network physicians and facilities, and claims administration from Anthem. Ms. Hyatt further advised that the initial renewal proposed by Anthem included a 13.7 percent increase for fiscal year 2007–08. This increase was negotiated down to an overall increase of 7.3 percent. This increase compares favorably to national and regional medical plan trends of 9 percent to 10 percent. Ms. Hyatt reported that prescription drug expenses have increased by 13 percent and are increasing faster than the national average which is less than 10 percent. She stated that the number of prescriptions filled and the higher use of non- preferred (Tier 3) brand drugs are driving the higher-than-expected claims. Ms. Hyatt advised that there was an increase in “large” claims paid on members this year; 41 members had claims in excess of $50,000, compared to the prior year with 29 members with claims exceeding $50,000. Ms. Hyatt stated that on March 12, 2007, the Finance and Human Resource Departments met with employee representatives for the County, Schools, RVRA, and WVWA to review the renewal and discuss recommendations for the 2007– 08 plan year. As a result of this review, County staff is recommending the rate increase March 27, 2007 253 of 7.3 percent be put into place with the following plan changes: (1) Change the co- insurance on the plan from 10 percent to 20 percent. Medical plan co-pays as well as the out of pocket limit will remain the same. This change reflects the same benefit offered at other government and school entities in the area. (2) Increase the prescription drug benefit from $10 generic/$20 preferred brand/$35 non-preferred brand at a retail pharmacy to $10 generic/$25 preferred brand/$40 non-preferred brand (two times these co-pays for up to a 90 day supply by mail). She reported that the County has excellent generic drug utilization but has higher than normal usage of Tier 3 drugs that have therapeutic alternatives available at a lower cost. Ms. Hyatt advised that changing these two benefits will make it possible to reduce the overall increase in premiums to 7.3 percent. She added that the School Board is scheduled to adopt this proposal at their meeting on March 26, 2007. Ms. Hyatt advised that Anthem will honor their commitment to wellness and will partner with the County and Schools again next year by providing $50,000 for wellness efforts. Ms. Hyatt further advised that the retiree medical program, eligibility requirements, plan design, and County/Schools contributions were also discussed as a result of the upcoming GASB 45 reporting standards whereby public employers will be required to recognize the ultimate financial liability of employees’ post-retirement medical and dental plan costs. She stated that during the 2007–08 fiscal year, staff will review the cost of retiree insurance and the liability which we will need to record as of March 27, 2007 254 June 30, 2008, based on GASB 45. Staff will present recommended changes to the Board by December 31, 2007, with a planned implementation for the changes by July 1, 2008. Ms. Hyatt advised that to address the GASB 45 liability, it is recommended that any savings resulting from the negotiation of the renewal be set aside for the County retiree health insurance liability. Ms. Hyatt advised that the fiscal impact of the renewal at an overall increase of 7.3 percent will be $385,000 for the County and $812,000 for County Schools. She concluded that County staff is recommending approval of the health insurance rates for fiscal year 2007–08. Supervisor Church commended the County’s plan for the wide range of services offered in such a cost-effective manner. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None 2.Request to approve the dental rates for County and Schools for fiscal year 2007-2008. (Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance) A-032707-2 Ms. Owens advised that the County of Roanoke and Roanoke County Schools participate in a fully insured group dental insurance program for their eligible March 27, 2007 255 employees and retirees. She added that the provider is Delta Dental and the group includes members from the Roanoke Valley Regional Health Care Consortium. Ms. Owens further advised that dental rates for employees for 2007–08 will increase 5 percent. She reported that retirees will pay the entire amount of the premium. She advised that an additional benefit to the dental insurance program was added at no additional cost and is designed for individuals who have been diagnosed with diabetes or are pregnant. This benefit provides those individuals with an additional cleaning per year. Ms. Owens advised that the fiscal impact of the renewal will increase the County budget $15,000 and the School budget $25,000. These increases are included in the proposed 2007–08 budgets of the County and Schools. She stated that County staff recommends approving the dental insurance rates for fiscal year 2007–08. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None 3.Request to adopt a resolution setting the allocation percentage for personal property tax relief in Roanoke County for the 2007 tax year. (Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance) R-032707-3 March 27, 2007 256 Ms. Owens advised that the Board is required by the State to adopt a resolution annually setting the percentage reduction for personal property tax relief for that year. The attached resolution establishes the percentage reduction at 63.50 percent for the 2007 tax year. Ms. Owens further advised that the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA or the Act) of 1998 provided a five-year phase-in period; however, additional legislation was passed to amend the original Act in 2005. She reported that this legislation capped PPTRA at $950 million for all Virginia localities for tax years 2006 and beyond. Ms. Owens reported that in 2006, County staff used the PPTRA allocation model developed by the State to calculate the rate for the County which was 65.13 percent. These calculations proved to be very accurate and the amount collected with the calculation was almost as if the old method of personal property tax collection were in place. In 2007, County staff again used the State’s PPTRA allocation model to calculate the rate for the County which is 63.50 percent. This percentage is similar to neighboring localities that are ready to adopt their resolutions. The rate for the Town of Vinton will be 63.24 percent. Ms. Owens advised that the percentage reduction is calculated to distribute the block grant allocation from the State in the manner described above. She stated that there will be some timing delays in the receipt of the State funds since they are now being received in the following fiscal year (2007–08), but the County will be March 27, 2007 257 allowed to accrue these funds back to the 2006–07 fiscal year for accounting purposes so that the budget will be balanced. Ms. Owens advised that County staff recommends adopting the resolution. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 032707-3 SETTING THE ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE 2007 TAX YEAR WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1- 3524 (C) (2) and Section 58.1-3912 (E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of the Acts of Assembly and as set forth in item 503.E (Personal Property Tax Relief Program or “PPTRA”) of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly and qualifying vehicle with a taxable situs within the County commencing January 1, 2007, shall receive personal property tax relief; and WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted pursuant to Ordinance 122005-10 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 2005. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. That tax relief shall be allocated so as to eliminate personal property taxation for qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less. 2. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,001–$20,000 will be eligible for 63.50 percent tax relief. 3. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall only receive 63.50 percent tax relief on the first $20,000 of value; and 4. That all other vehicles which do not meet the definition of “qualifying” (for example, including but not limited to, business use vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor homes, etc.) will not be eligible for any form of tax relief under this program. March 27, 2007 258 5. That the percentages applied to the categories of qualifying personal use vehicles are estimated fully to use all available PPTRA funds allocated to Roanoke County by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 6. Supplemental assessments for tax years 2005 and prior shall be deemed ‘non-qualifying’ for purposes of state tax relief and the local share due from the taxpayer shall represent 100 percent of the assessed personal property tax. 7. That this Resolution shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None 4.Request to adopt a resolution regarding regional water supply planning and application for a fiscal year 2008 water supply planning grant. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator) R-032707-4 Mr. Hodge advised that this is a request to participate in an area-wide water study that the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVARC) is conducting. He stated that it was not too many years ago that the County experienced droughts as well as problems with its water system. He reported that over the years, the County has been able to make improvements; however, it all starts with an adequate water supply. To address this the County constructed Spring Hollow Reservoir. Mr. Hodge advised that this action asks the County to look years into the future. Even though many improvements have been made to the County’s water system, there are still areas that will be developed and those areas will need water and waste water. He reported that rather than allowing each individual locality to work on its March 27, 2007 259 own, the State has mandated that the State Water Control Board act to coordinate the development of water supply plans throughout the State. He added that the County in conjunction with neighboring localities will study the region’s water supply to coordinate water resources for the betterment of the whole region. Mr. Hodge reported that the other localities willing to participate in the regional water supply plan are the counties of Bedford, Botetourt, and Franklin; the cities of Bedford, Roanoke, and Salem; and the towns of Boones Mill, Buchanan, Fincastle, Rocky Mount, Troutville, and Vinton. Mr. Hodge advised that the County’s share of the cost to develop a regional water supply plan will be an amount not to exceed $21,469 for the first year of the project. He reported that an additional $10,000 will be required for the second year of the plan’s development; however, the WVWA has announced its intention to fund half the cost of the project. He further advised that if the Board adopts the resolution with the original funding figure, it will cover the funding required for both years. Supervisor Church inquired if the $21,469 was the total cost of the County’s participation. Mr. Hodge responded that the study will take place over a period of two years. He added that the $21,469 represents the County’s share for the first year so an additional amount would have been included in the budget for the following year; however, all of that will be cut in half by the WVWA’s participation. There was no discussion on this item. March 27, 2007 260 Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 032707-4 REGARDING REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLANNING AND APPLICATION FOR A FISCAL YEAR 2008 WATER SUPPLY PLANNING GRANT WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly has mandated the development of local and regional water supply plans throughout the Commonwealth and the State Water Control Board has developed regulations to implement this planning process; and WHEREAS, based upon these regulations, Roanoke County is required to complete a water supply plan that fulfills the regulations by deadlines based on population, specifically: ? November 2, 2008, for local governments with populations in excess of 35,000; ? November 2, 2009, for local governments with populations between 15,001 and 35,000; ? November 2, 2010, for local governments with populations 15,000 or less; and Whereas, local governments may elect to join one or more other local governments to develop a regional water supply plan for which a deadline of November 2, 2011, has been established; and WHEREAS, the following elements must be included in all local or regional water supply programs: ? A description of existing water sources in accordance with 9 VAC 25-780-70; ? A description of existing water use in accordance with the requirements of 9 VAC 25- 780-80; ? A description of existing water resource conditions in accordance with the requirements of 9 VAC 25-780-90; ? An assessment of projected water demand in accordance with the requirements of 9 VAC 25-780-100; ? A description of water management actions in accordance with the requirements of 9 VAC 25-780-110 and 9 VAC 780-120; ? A statement of need in accordance with the requirements of 9 VAC 25-780-130; ? An alternatives analysis that identifies potential alternatives to address projected deficits in water supplies in accordance with the requirements of 9 VAC 25-780-130; March 27, 2007 261 ? A map or maps identifying important elements of the program that may include existing environmental resources, existing water sources, significant existing water uses, and proposed new sources; ? A copy of the adopted program documents including any local plans or ordinances or amendments that incorporate the local program elements required by this chapter; ? A resolution approving the plan from each local government that is party to the plan; ? A record of the local public hearing, a copy of all written comments, and the submitter's response to all written comments received; and WHEREAS, it is reasonable and prudent for the following local governments to coordinate and collaborate in the development of a regional water supply plan: the counties of Bedford, Botetourt, Franklin, and Roanoke; the cities of Bedford, Roanoke, and Salem; and the towns of Boones Mill, Buchanan, Fincastle, Rocky Mount, Troutville, and Vinton; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has announced the availability of grant funds to assist localities in offsetting some of the costs related to the development of these plans and are encouraging localities to submit applications for grant funds using regional water supply plans; and WHEREAS, regional water supply planning is a sensible approach to developing a water supply plan since watershed boundaries do not follow political boundaries and since there will likely be cost savings to all jurisdictions participating; and WHEREAS, for purposes of this DEQ water supply grant fund program, Roanoke County will participate within a water supply region consisting of the localities of the counties of Bedford, Botetourt, Franklin, and Roanoke; the cities of Bedford, Roanoke, and Salem; and the towns of Boones Mill, Buchanan, Fincastle, Rocky Mount, Troutville, and Vinton; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission has previously managed the development of successful regional water supply plans and other regional plans and is a logical entity to organize and manage a regional water supply planning process; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission has previously written, received, and managed DEQ water supply grants and is the logical entity to apply for, on behalf of the communities participating in the regional water supply plan; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission desires to manage and develop a regional water supply plan for the region, and participating localities in the region agree with this approach; and WHEREAS, the region, through the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, wishes to apply for and secure DEQ grant funds to help offset the cost of the plan development. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Roanoke County agrees to participate with the counties of Bedford, Botetourt, and Franklin; the cities of Bedford, March 27, 2007 262 Roanoke, and Salem; and the towns of Boones Mill, Buchanan, Fincastle, Rocky Mount, Troutville, and Vinton in the development of a regional water supply plan and authorizes the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission to manage and develop said regional water supply plan that will comply with mandated regulations; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission is authorized to develop an application for water supply planning grant funds to offset to the extent feasible the cost of developing said regional water supply plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, is authorized to sign the DEQ grant contract and other appropriate documents related to the source water planning grant and the regional source water supply plan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Roanoke County intends to provide up to $1,500 in matching funds (in-kind) for the project for work performed within the organization to meet the requirements of the regional water supply planning effort; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Roanoke County will participate financially for the costs of the regional water supply plan that is not covered by the DEQ grant in an amount not to exceed $21,469; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the State Water Control Board and the DEQ should consider this resolution from each of the participating localities their Letters of Intent to participate in a regional water supply plan with a completion due date of November 2, 2011, in accordance with 9 VAC 25-780-50.B.4. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Grievance Panel Chairman McNamara advised that the three-year term of Joanne Thompson, alternate member, is vacant due to Ms. Thompson’s recent appointment as a full member of the Grievance Panel. This term will expire on October 31, 2007. He reported that Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources, has provided the Board members with a nominee for this vacancy. March 27, 2007 263 It was the consensus of the Board to appoint Mark Franck to serve as an alternate member for a three-year term that will expire on October 31, 2010, and add the confirmation of his appointment to the consent agenda. 2. Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission Chairman McNamara advised that the three-year term of Richard Kelly will expire on April 8, 2007. Mr. Kelly has advised that he does not wish to be reappointed. 3. Western Virginia Water Authority Chairman McNamara advised that John Williamson, at-large member, resigned from the Board effective November 16, 2006. He stated that this four-year term will expire on June 30, 2008. At-large members are selected by the majority vote of the other six members of the Board and confirmed by Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-032707-5; R-032707-5.a; R-032707-5.b; R-032707-5.c; R-032707-5.d; R-032707-5.e Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 032707-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA March 27, 2007 264 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February 27, 2007, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – March 13, 2007 2. Acceptance of Stayman Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 3. Acceptance of New Barrens Court into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 4. Acceptance of Albert Road, Cee Street, and Linn Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System 5. Request to authorize the filing of an application to rezone approximately 28.7 acres on Merriman Road for a Library 6. Request to adopt a resolution requesting approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) of one proposed welcome sign in the Bonsack community within a public right-of-way in Roanoke County 7. Confirmation of committee appointment 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 Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 032707-5.a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF STAYMAN DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form LA-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition. March 27, 2007 265 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's subdivision street requirements, after receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer, whichever occurs last in time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Supervisor Altizer Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara Nays: None RESOLUTION 032707-5.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF NEW BARRENS COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form LA-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's subdivision street requirements, after receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer, whichever occurs last in time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Supervisor Altizer March 27, 2007 266 Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara Nays: None RESOLUTION 032707-5.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF ALBERT ROAD, CEE STREET AND LINN DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM. WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form LA-5(A), fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation’s subdivision street requirements; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form LA-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's subdivision street requirements, after receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer, whichever occurs last in time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Moved by: Supervisor Altizer Seconded by: None Required Yeas: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara Nays: None RESOLUTION 032707-5.d AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO INITIATE AN APPLICATION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 28.7 ACRES ON MERRIMAN ROAD FOR A COUNTY LIBRARY WHEREAS, Section 30-14 of the Roanoke County Code and Section 15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia provide that whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice requires, an amendment to the March 27, 2007 267 zoning regulations or district maps may be initiated by resolution of the governing body; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke owns a parcel of land on Merriman Road of approximately 28.7 acres that is currently zoned R-1; and WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke desires to construct a public library on this parcel of land. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That the County Administrator, or his designee, be authorized to initiate an application to rezone the 28.7 acre parcel of land on Merriman Road owned by the Board of Supervisors to one of the commercial zoning categories. 2. That this application be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation, which shall be forwarded to the governing body. 3. That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice requires these amendments. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 032707-5.e REQUESTING APPROVAL BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF ONE PROPOSED WELCOME SIGN IN THE BONSACK COMMUNITY WITHIN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation shall review specifications for the design, installation and maintenance of community welcome signs in highway medians at particular locations in Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has previously selected, received approval for, established and maintained numerous community welcome signs on primary highways; and WHEREAS, the Bonsack community has indicated its desire for, and the Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its willingness to fund one-half of said cost of the design and installation of this project—not to exceed $1,831.25—and that the Board of Supervisors will provide for the perpetual maintenance of this project in lieu of a permit fee or continuous bond. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation approve the submitted specifications and permit a community welcome sign at the following location: U.S. 460 at the southern terminus of VA 603 (Bonsack Road). On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: March 27, 2007 268 AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara 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 Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Accounts Paid – February 2007 5. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended February 28, 2007 6. Public Safety Center Building Project Budget Report 7. Public Safety Center Building Project Change Order Report IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2007-2008 budget development. (Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) The work session was held from 3:41 p.m. until 4:16 p.m. with the following staff members present: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Brent March 27, 2007 269 Robertson, Director of Management and Budget; Holly Salvatore, Budget Manager; Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police Mr. Robertson advised that he would like to review the Board’s funding recommendations for the health and human service agencies. Supervisor McNamara reported that there were four agencies on the list that had received funding from only two Board members, and he recommended that unless agencies receive funding from three Board members, they should be deleted from the list. He further advised that it is difficult to discontinue funding once an agency has received funds. He added that denying funds to the four agencies would involve approximately $1,000. The agencies in question were: (1) Southeast Rural Community Assistance Project, Inc.; (2) Eastern Appalachian Teen Challenge, Inc.; (3) Council of Community Services-Nonprofit Resource Center; and (4) Blue Ridge Legal Services, Inc. Supervisor Church advised that the current policy is to throw out the high and low recommendations and average the remaining three to determine funding. He further advised that funding requests need to be handled methodically, and he requested that the Board arrive at a consensus on any changes in policy. Supervisor Altizer advised that the Board had established a policy last year to deny funding to agencies that did not submit their request for funds prior to the deadline. He added that there were agencies on the list that deserve more funding, and he suggested that the Board establish a policy that a new agency which does not receive funding from three Board members will be removed from the list. It was the March 27, 2007 270 consensus of the Board to adopt this recommendation and also that the four agencies that had not received funding recommendations from three Board members not be funded. Mr. Robertson was directed to delete agencies that were not requesting funds from the list of agencies requesting contributions in the future. Mr. Robertson requested that the Board review the funding for Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, noting that only two Board members made funding recommendations for the agency. He advised that Mr. O’Donnell would provide further information regarding this funding request. Mr. O’Donnell reported that Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare is a State agency and the funding formula for this agency requires that local governments provide matching funds. If the agency does not receive 100 percent of its local matching funds, there is a provision that allows the State to withhold the agency’s funding. He added that this has not happened, but it remains a possibility. Mr. O’Donnell noted that the County’s contribution is lower proportionally than surrounding localities. Supervisor McNamara requested that Mr. Robertson provide a list comparing locality contributions. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to increase the County’s contribution to $157,000. Mr. Robertson advised that the History Museum and the Science Museum did not receive any funding for their capitol requests and inquired if that was correct. Supervisor McNamara advised that was correct. Mr. Robertson requested that the Board review the funding requests of the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors’ Bureau (CVB) and the Economic March 27, 2007 271 Development Partnership (EDP). He reported that the County did not have a contractual obligation to fund these agencies based on a specific schedule; however, he advised that both agencies requested increases based on a per capita formula. Mr. Hodge reported that the City of Roanoke contributes $850,000 to the CVB which was out of line with the contributions from other localities. When the City recently indicated they were planning to reduce their contribution, the other localities suggested that they increase their contributions over a period of time to match the City instead. He advised that to remain on parity with the other localities, the County needs to increase its contribution approximately $25,000. He reported that the other localities have increased their contributions as promised. Supervisor McNamara suggested increasing the County’s contribution over a period of five years. Mr. Haislip noted that the revenue the CVB receives from the hotel tax is greater than the funds it receives from the County. He added that the CVB does a great deal of good for the Valley especially in the area of sports marketing. He reported that the CVB would eventually like to tie contributions received to business generated to create more accountability. Supervisor McNamara recommended that the CVB receive $155,700 and that the EDP receive $160,000. Supervisor Altizer requested that these two agencies be listed separately from the other dues and per capita agencies next year. Mr. Robertson responded that he would do so and provide a more comprehensive explanation of each. March 27, 2007 272 Mr. Hodge requested the Board provide direction regarding funding for Explore Park. He advised that the State has allocated $300,000 for the Park for another year and that he was recommending that the Board contribute $200,000. Supervisor Altizer advised that $300,000 was needed to match the State appropriation so another $100,000 from other sources will be required if the Board agrees to contribute $200,000. Supervisor Church advised that each year the Board states that it will no longer fund Explore Park, and yet each year it continues to do so. He suggested that the developer be required to finance the Park. Supervisor Wray inquired what the Park’s status would be if the Board declined to provide the funding. Supervisor Altizer reported that the Park would be required to close, and he added that funds would still be required to provide Park security and to keep the visitors’ center open. Supervisor Church advised that he would be willing to continue funding Explore Park if the developer agreed to begin contributing to the Park’s finances. Mr. Hodge reported that the other localities have agreed to make contributions to the Park including Franklin County and the City of Roanoke. Supervisor McNamara inquired if everyone was in favor of $200,000 in funding for Explore Park. Supervisor Church advised that he was against further funding. Supervisor Flora advised that he was in favor, adding that the Park would close without funding. Supervisor Altizer advised that he was also in favor of continuing the funding. March 27, 2007 273 Mr. Hodge advised that he wanted to brief the Board on a press conference held earlier today concerning an award for public safety totaling $100 million of which $50 million was to be invested in this area. Chief Lavinder advised that the press conference had been held at 1:00 p.m. today at the Poff Federal Building. He reported that his department has only been involved in the periphery of the investigation which has been ongoing since 2001. He further advised that his department had uncovered evidence six or seven years ago that night vision technology was being transferred to other countries. The Defense Department investigated; and as a result, ITT agreed to pay a $100 million fine. $50 million will be used for night vision research and development, and $50 million will be allocated among various government entities. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor McNamara, Chief Lavinder reported that ITT was looking for an off-shore source to replicate the night vision lenses, so they sent the lenses to Great Britain, Singapore, and mainland China allowing the technology to be studied. Supervisor Wray inquired how much the neighboring localities would receive. Chief Lavinder responded that the exact amounts to be awarded to local governments would be announced later this year or early next year. He added that the awards were to be used for law enforcement purposes. Supervisor McNamara inquired if this award could be used to pay for the County’s radios. Mr. Hodge responded that would be an acceptable use; however, he recommended that a work session be held to discuss the best possible use of the funds after the awards are March 27, 2007 274 announced. He suggested that the funds be used for large non-recurring capital purposes. Mr. Robertson advised that the public hearing for the proposed budget would be advertised for the second meeting in April and that he would provide the budget to the Board members as soon as possible. Supervisor Flora requested that the budget be sent out as an Excel spreadsheet rather than as a PDF. Mr. Robertson agreed to do so. IN: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation of appreciation to the Glenvar Youth Boosters (GYB) for their contributions to Green Hill Park Chairman McNamara presented the proclamation to Donna Wooldrige, President of the Glenvar Youth Boosters, and three members of the Glenvar Youth Boosters. Also present were Pete Haislip, Director of the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department; and Mark Courtright, Assistant Director of Parks. March 27, 2007 275 IN: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) regarding the Norfolk Southern Intermodal Facility site selection process and potential locations in Roanoke County. (Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; Kevin Page, Director of Rail Transportation—Department of Rail and Public Transportation) Mr. Hodge introduced Kevin Page, Director of Rail Transportation, DRPT. He stated that Mr. Page has worked over the years to bring jobs to the region and has worked with the County’s Economic Development Department on projects such as Mennel Milling. He advised that the citizens who wished to speak concerning the intermodal facility will be allowed to do so at the end of the briefing. Copies of the presentation handout were distributed to citizens who requested them. Mr. Hodge advised that he would review the four sites located in Roanoke County from a County perspective as well as address the issues brought up by the citizens and the Board that may impact those sites. He stated that four of the ten sites identified by Norfolk Southern are located in Roanoke County. He further advised that a display of each site has been prepared and that he would review each site in detail from a land use perspective. He reported that Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development; Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Teresa Becher, Transportation Engineering Manger; and other members of County staff have worked March 27, 2007 276 with the DRPT and Norfolk Southern to analyze the sites since the beginning of the selection process. Mr. Hodge advised that this is the first time the County has publicly addressed the possibility of locating the intermodal facility in Roanoke County. He reported that there are benefits to having the intermodal facility; but based on the County’s analysis, staff believes the Roanoke County sites will not work. He advised that this does not discredit the work performed by Norfolk Southern or the DRPT; it actually confirms what Norfolk Southern told the County at the beginning of the process, that Roanoke County sites are not the best sites. Mr. Hodge reported that Norfolk Southern announced in September 2005 its intention to pursue the development of the Heartland Corridor. This is a multi-state freight-to-rail, rail-to-freight project that involves Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky. This double-stacked freight-to-rail system is designed to ensure that Virginia, Roanoke County, and the Roanoke Valley can compete favorably and participate in the economic sector of moving freight inland from the ports. He advised that trucking, Federal Express, UPS, and the Roanoke Regional Airport have had a major impact on the region’s economic development and that the region’s economic base and employment opportunities would suffer without them. He stated that the intermodal facility is important to the Roanoke area and Western Virginia; however, it is important that the facility is located on the best site, a site that is expandable and suitable for rail. March 27, 2007 277 Mr. Hodge further advised that he would demonstrate that the sites in the County have limitations. He added that his presentation is not from a rail engineering perspective. He reported that a letter dated March 31, 2005, was sent by the Chairman of the Board supporting the intermodal concept, encouraging the location of the facility in this area and an appropriate site selection process. He stated that similar letters of support were prepared by approximately a dozen other localities. The intermodal concept was supported by all the counties and cities of the Fifth Planning District Commission (PDC). He advised that he had sent a letter to the DRPT in October 2006 responding to a request for information regarding suitable sites in the County. Mr. Hodge reported that County staff had already analyzed the available sites and had concluded that these sites were unsuitable. He added that he had advised the DRPT that Norfolk Southern had conducted a site evaluation and chosen a site located in another jurisdiction, and that County staff did not know of any other suitable sites located in the County. Mr. Hodge advised that the criteria used by the County in its site analyses were the same criteria Norfolk Southern used in its evaluations. He added that there has been criticism of these criteria, but the criteria make sense if reviewed. He reported that when the criteria are applied to the County sites, a clear picture emerges. He advised that some of the criteria are: (1) the facility needs to be on the main line (Heartland Corridor); (2) the location must not create the need for additional grade separations—it cannot require an overpass or underpass; (3) the site has to have a March 27, 2007 278 configuration that is appropriate and relatively flat in topography; and (4) the site must avoid degrading other rail or highway traffic. He further advised that he would review each of the four sites using these criteria, but he stated that he would go into more detail on the Horne and Ashworth sites. Mr. Hodge advised that the first site is the former Norfolk and Western site located on Garman Road. He reported that all of the area in blue on the site map is in the floodplain and cannot be used. The hatched area is in the floodway and cannot be used for construction of any type. He advised that the floodplain and floodway cover the significant portion of the site. He stated that Norfolk Southern and County staff have advised that constructing the facility on this site would create considerable traffic back up on Diuguids Lane as well as other access roads in the area. Mr. Hodge advised that the second site is the former Virginian site, also located on Garman Road. He stated that Mr. Page will elaborate on this site later. He reported that most of this site is in the floodplain and has the same problems with traffic back up that the first site does so a crossing that is not at grade would be necessary. Mr. Hodge advised that the Singer site, if expanded, would include the Ashworth and the Horne sites. He stated that the portion of the site along the river is in the flood plain. He reported that the access road from Route 11/460 is short and has very little stacking potential. He added that a river runs through the site which would necessitate a bridge crossing. March 27, 2007 279 Mr. Hodge advised that County staff compiled this information to address some of the comments made in a recent Roanoke Times article. He stated that the configuration of the site needs to be in a straight line and the Singer site combined with the Ashworth and Horne sites does not meet this criterion. He advised that the three curvatures shown on the display simulate how a rail siding would be required to access an intermodal facility at this site. He advised that individuals accustomed to driving cars and trucks rather than trains may not understand that slope is very important in a rail operation. A truck or car can be driven up a steep slope, but a train cannot. The recommended maximum slope for a line of this type is 2 percent, so County staff has superimposed the main line over a topographical map showing elevations. He further advised that the elevations are at the maximum 2 percent, so that a train going toward Christiansburg will be pulling very hard. It is very difficult to stop and restart a train on a grade of that type. Pulling in a curve is even more difficult since curves are banked; and to get the prescribed radius required by this site, a very tight curve will be required, one that will be a very difficult curve to make. Mr. Hodge reported that another possible configuration for this site would start at Dry Hollow Road and would require a bridge and two road crossings. The road crossing angle required with this configuration is not safe and would not be allowed by VDOT. Another problem is that the slope from the level of the rail line to access the Horne site would require significant cut and fill since there is a drop of approximately 40 March 27, 2007 280 feet. He advised that the facility needs to be at the same level as the line or as close to it as possible. He added that stacking will also be a problem at this site. There is a strong possibility that the bridge at the river would also need to be rebuilt. This bridge is suitable for cars and small trucks; but would not be sufficient to transfer freight trucks in and out of the facility. He concluded that these were the findings that County staff wanted to share with the Board and with the DRPT. He inquired if there were any questions before Mr. Page began his presentation. Supervisor Church advised that the information in the Roanoke Times article did not correspond with the material presented this evening. Mr. Hodge responded that the writer had evidently not spoken with anyone that has constructed tracks. Supervisor Church advised that Mr. Hodge’s briefing had clarified the situation, and he suggested it would clarify the issue for the public as well. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Church, Mr. Hodge reported that the Roanoke Times writer had not received information from Roanoke County. Mr. Hodge advised that Mr. Page would begin his presentation shortly. He added that Mr. Page is with the DRPT not Norfolk Southern. He noted that Norfolk Southern and Roanoke County want to do the right thing when it comes to the intermodal facility. He added that Norfolk Southern is an outstanding company, and one of the strongest railroads in the country. Norfolk Southern will do the right thing; and if there is any impact on Roanoke County, the County will also do the right thing. He stated that Roanoke County has taken on tough regional projects successfully and will March 27, 2007 281 again in the future. The intermodal facility is an important project, and one that needs to be done right; however, it needs to be located in the right place and that is not on these sites. Mr. Page gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk’s Office. He advised that he has visited all but one of the jurisdictions where the ten sites under review are located. He reported that the City of Salem is the remaining locality. He stated that the County’s presentation was one of the most detailed analyses of sites presented to date. He advised that the DRPT is the State agency that supports rail and public transportation in Virginia. The agency falls under the Commonwealth Transportation Board and reports to the Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Page advised that he was here to listen to what Roanoke County and the Board have to comment on the four sites that lie within the County. He reported that he would give a brief overview of the sites including a review of the traffic patterns and statistics provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), and then he would turn the floor over to the Board and the public for comments. He added that this is an opportunity for the State to hear what the County and the Board feel is appropriate or inappropriate about the four County sites. Supervisor Altizer thanked Mr. Page for his briefing. He inquired when the land was purchased for the Inland Port and how much of the Port’s 162 acres is currently utilized. Mr. Page responded that he did not know when the land was purchased, but approximately 50 acres is under asphalt and approximately half the site March 27, 2007 282 is currently in use. In response to Supervisor Altizer’s inquiry concerning the evaluation performed for the site located in Elliston, Virginia, Mr. Page reported that it is one of the ten sites the DRPT is currently evaluating and that the Elliston site was named by Norfolk Southern as its preferred site. He added that the DRPT had not participated in the preliminary site analysis performed by Norfolk Southern. Supervisor Altizer advised that he was the Chairman who signed the letter of support for the intermodal facility, adding that the facility will be good for the region. Supervisor Altizer advised that he has concerns regarding the impact that the use of State funds for the project will have on site selection. He stated that a site has been chosen and now the DRPT is reviewing all ten of the original sites. Mr. Page responded that the DRPT is reviewing the original sites as well as offering localities an opportunity to identify additional sites. He added that Norfolk Southern’s criteria are not the criteria the DRPT is using to evaluate the sites. He stated that the agency’s process requires that the site selected makes the best use of State funds. Norfolk Southern has the ability to build an intermodal facility at any location it believes is suitable, but it is the DRPT’s responsibility to determine through this process where the best use of State funds is. Supervisor Altizer advised that Norfolk Southern made a business decision based on many factors to identify its preferred site. Mr. Page responded that he understood that Norfolk Southern has announced the site it prefers but that does not necessarily reflect what the State is working through. March 27, 2007 283 Supervisor Altizer inquired who will make the final decision on the location of the site. Mr. Page advised that for the application of State funds, the decision will be made by Mathew Tucker, the agency director. Supervisor Altizer requested Mr. Page to clarify who would make the finial decision regarding site selection. Mr. Page responded that the DRPT will decide how the $12.6 million in State funds is invested in an intermodal facility. He added that where Norfolk Southern chooses to build the site is not necessarily a part of the DRPT’s involvement. The process the DRPT is currently working through is a separate process from anything done prior to this. He stated that the DRPT is evaluating the ten original sites based on the agency’s criteria to determine the best investment of State funds. Supervisor Altizer inquired how the DRPT will respond if the agency prefers one site and Norfolk Southern prefers another. Mr. Page reported that the DRPT will negotiate with Norfolk Southern per an agreement. Supervisor Altizer advised that the process has not been the best, but he believed that Norfolk Southern has probably selected the best site from a business standpoint. He stated that he hoped when the final decision is made, it will not be based on politics but on selecting the best site. He added that after looking at the County sites which are all approximately 30–45 acres in size, he felt that constructing a facility of this magnitude on sites of this acreage without any consideration being made for the estimated 61,000 containers expected to come through the facility in 2020 would be a mistake. Looking at the inland port for comparison, that facility has the acreage to expand. Based on the March 27, 2007 284 criterion which states that a minimum of 65 acres of flat topography is required, the sites in Roanoke County will be expensive to develop and have no room for expansion in the future. Supervisor Altizer advised that for the record, he supports the intermodel facility; but he also supports using a business approach, not a political approach, to identify the site. When constructing this facility, it is necessary to think of the future. Supervisor Altizer advised that he does not see a future in the County’s sites in 2020 and beyond. He further advised that his biggest fear is that politics will get in the way. If one of the County sites is selected, how will the Board tell citizens in the future that it’s time to reopen the 10 sites again because the facility has to expand. He stated that he has heard from citizens who are concerned that the County is being considered as an alternative site. He added that the County has made bold decisions in the past by following a process. No one likes having a jail built in their backyard, but the County used a business approach to select the right site based on the criteria. Supervisor Altizer reported that after reviewing the site selection criteria, he has concerns about the process and where it’s going. Supervisor Church advised that he is not sure that Mr. Page is just the messenger, because he represents the agency which will have a great deal of input in the final decision on the site. He stated that he considered Mr. Page’s role as that of a fact finder as well as a messenger. He reported that he will try to be objective, but all March 27, 2007 285 the proposed County sites are in his district. He added that the regional jail, the landfill, and the water reservoir are located there as well. Supervisor Church stated that there were many concerns raised tonight by Mr. Hodge, in addition to Supervisor Altizer’s comments, concerning expandability, floodplains, and traffic issues. He added that there is an elementary school located near the proposed sites. He noted that mention was made during Mr. Page’s presentation that Route 11/460 will be widened in the future. He advised that the widening of Route 11/460 has been in the planning stages for at least 15 to 20 years. He further advised that even a modest increase in traffic on I-81 will cause traffic problems. He stated that every time an accident occurs on I-81, gridlock ensues. It is even difficult for motorists trying to enter I-81 due to the congestion caused by accidents. He added that this is a regular occurrence and that motorists using I-81 regularly listen to their radios during their commutes to help deal with accidents and congestion. Supervisor Church advised that he has many questions and that he wanted to go on record regarding a couple of points. Supervisor Church stated that Mr. Hodge has on at least two or three occasions stated that the County does not have any suitable sites in response to requests for information, and he noted that the print media occasionally reports stories such as the recent article that probably contained some misguided boundary lines. He reported that he wanted to be clear on that point. March 27, 2007 286 Supervisor Church inquired if Mr. Page planned to speak to all the local jurisdictions regarding the ten sites under review regardless of the suitability of the sites. Mr. Page advised that was correct, adding that the City of Salem is the only remaining jurisdiction. Supervisor Church reiterated that the DRPT was meeting with all the localities regardless of site suitability. Mr. Page responded that was part of the process. He stated that these meetings are essentially reverse public hearings with the State requesting feedback from local governments regarding sites within their jurisdiction. He further advised that the feedback has been very informative. This process provides governing bodies an opportunity to give feedback regarding the suitability of the sites in their localities. Supervisor Church advised that he does not understand why the DRPT is reviewing sites that do not meet the criteria. He stated that the County’s sites have so many negatives based on the requirements established by Norfolk Southern and the DRPT. He added that he was reassured that the DRPT was reviewing all the sites impartially. He stated that in addition to the concerns referenced this evening, he was concerned about safety and traffic issues on I-81 and at the Dixie Caverns Exit. He reported that he didn’t feel that the briefing tonight was about site selection since all the negatives point to another area. In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry, Mr. Page reported that the 150,000 trucks that would be removed from the highway system by the intermodal facility would be state wide, per year running from the Port of Norfolk westward through March 27, 2007 287 the State. He added that this figure represented the estimated number of containers that would be shipped bi-directionally via the Heartland Corridor. Mr. Page, in response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry, advised that the DRPT was notified in October 2006 that there were no additional sites in Roanoke County and that this had been confirmed by the County Administrator during a meeting at a later date. He advised that the DRPT had not been a party to the article in the Roanoke Times and was not a party to conversations between Norfolk Southern and the County; nor did the DRPT receive notification from Norfolk Southern of any conversations with Roanoke County. He advised that the agency appreciated the County’s work with Norfolk Southern to identify potential sites in the County. Supervisor Church advised that the intermodal facility may be a good thing for Virginia, although he is not convinced of this. He further advised that he does not believe the appropriate location for the intermodal facility is in Roanoke County. He added that he has heard from many of his constituents and that not one is in favor of locating the facility in Roanoke County. Supervisor Flora advised that it appears that the State and Norfolk Southern are in agreement in terms of which sites should be evaluated. He added that Norfolk Southern may have moved ahead of the State in terms of evaluating sites and announcing a decision, and he noted that there has been a great deal of publicity generated by their announcement of a site. He suggested that the publicity may have hurt the process, and he stated that Norfolk Southern may have moved ahead of the March 27, 2007 288 public input portion of the process when it announced that it had selected the Elliston site. Supervisor Flora advised that he believes the intermodal facility will be an economic boon for Virginia wherever it is located; however, the process followed so far has made it such a controversial issue that it will be difficult for any governing body to support it. Supervisor Flora advised that the intermodal facility may have been a great idea several years ago, but that he felt that the process has tainted the whole prospect of the project. He reported that the location for the intermodal facility needs to be the best possible site regardless of the jurisdiction. He added that if the chosen location is the best site, then the decision can be defended; otherwise, the project will receive opposition and create difficulties for the State. He advised that he believes Norfolk Southern has picked the best site, but that he wishes they had waited until the State had completed its evaluation so that the announcement could have been made jointly. Supervisor Wray advised that he is an employee of Norfolk Southern, he has been for many years, and is proud of his employment with the company. He further advised that he does not want to say anything that might jeopardize his position in the County or with Norfolk Southern. He added that he would like to endorse the comment made by Mr. Hodge regarding Norfolk Southern being a long-time presence in the Roanoke Valley. He stated that although he agreed with Supervisor Altizer’s comment that the process of site selection should be looked at from a business standpoint, he would not be making any further comments. March 27, 2007 289 Supervisor McNamara inquired what the wage rate was for the Inland Port. Mr. Page reported that he would have to provide that at a later date. In response to Supervisor McNamara’s request for a job development forecast for the intermodal facility and the surrounding area, Mr. Page reported that the DRPT was working with the Virginia Port Authority and Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) to prepare a forecast. Supervisor McNamara recognized Doug Chittum, Director of Economic Development, and inquired if Mr. Chittum could recall any projects that had created jobs comparable to the number of jobs that the intermodal facility could generate if it creates even half of the 7,000 jobs that were created by the Inland Port. Mr. Chittum responded that he could not. Supervisor McNamara inquired if this project has the potential to become the biggest single economic development activity to occur in Southwestern Virginia. Mr. Chittum stated that he believed that would be an accurate characterization. He added that the challenge for the VEDP as noted by Mr. Page is to identify appropriate land for development within one to fifty miles of the project which would have a direct effect on this region. He reported that County staff has been examining the economic impact potential of the intermodal facility because wherever this facility is located; it will have an impact on the entire region. Supervisor McNamara inquired why many mail order companies ship out of the Roanoke area. Mr. Chittum advised that Roanoke County is a good location because it is within a day’s drive of two-thirds of the population of the United States. He March 27, 2007 290 added that although traditional manufacturing is no longer considered viable, three manufacturers have moved into the area and all three ship goods, so the intermodal facility will help the region not only with distribution jobs but also with manufacturing and other types of jobs as well. Supervisor McNamara inquired how important public opinion is in the agency’s decision-making process and if there is a matrix that would weight public opinion against other factors. Mr. Page responded that the agency has selection criteria to work through and public opinion will be included in the discussion. At this point, public opinion has not been weighted since all the factors as well as the input the agency is receiving from the local governments still has to be evaluated. He reported that the socio-economic issues are still being analyzed with respect to the impact of the facility. He reported that the DRPT is trying to base its decision on many different components. As in any economic development or land use issue, there are many challenges that the DRPT needs to work through before taking into consideration public opinion, the information received from the local Boards and Councils, and input received during the 45-day public input process. Supervisor McNamara advised that compared with other big economic development opportunities that have occurred in the Valley, an intermodal facility will have a tremendous impact on the region. He stated that a tremendous positive has been turned into a negative as noted by Supervisor Flora. He further advised that it behooves the State to make the right decision. He added that an interstate traveling March 27, 2007 291 through an area is not popular, but we have all been through areas that do not have interstate access and are aware of the impact they have on a region. He concluded that the intermodal facility is enormously important and that he hoped the DRPT makes the right decision. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Church, Mr. Chittum advised that the economic impact of the intermodel facility would be the same whether the facility is located in Roanoke County or in the surrounding area. Supervisor Church stated that the Board is unanimous in their opinion that based on the criteria, the facility is not suitable for Roanoke County and he wanted that to go on record. The following citizens spoke regarding this item: Ms. Ruth Ashworth, 5832 West River Road, advised that she was never notified by Norfolk Southern or the DRPT that her property was being considered as a possible site for the intermodal facility and that she had learned of it from an article in the Roanoke Times. She stated that she was dissatisfied with the way Norfolk Southern and the DRPT had handled the selection process. She reported that Norfolk Southern never responded to her inquires and that the DRPT’s response had been vague. She added that the Singer site does not meet the criteria set for the facility and would not be a suitable location. She stated that land owners should be informed when their property is considered for a project such as this. James T. Gregory, 7026 Campbell Drive, advised that he lives in Campbell Hills and will be impacted regardless of where the facility is located. He March 27, 2007 292 inquired how I-81 is going to be affected and advised that the process has been convoluted. He stated that Norfolk Southern has been “way out in front on this” and that this process has impacted many people. He inquired why all this time is being wasted since the Elliston site best meets the criteria. Mr. Page advised that the DRPT is working with the site parameters provided by Norfolk Southern. Regarding the impact on I-81, he advised that there will be an increase in short-haul truck traffic; and according to VDOT, there will be a minimal increase in truck traffic within the Roanoke region. IN: RECESS Chairman McNamara declared a recess from 8:42 p.m. until 8:50 p.m. IN: PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing to elicit citizen comment on the following items: (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Mr. Robertson advised that staff advertised the proposed real estate, personal property, and machinery and tools tax rates for calendar year 2007 as follows: (1) real estate tax at a rate of not more than $1.09 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation; (2) personal property tax at a rate of not more than $3.50 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation; and (3) machinery and tools tax at a rate of not more than $3.00 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. Mr. Robertson advised that State Code mandates that when reassessment of real property in a locality results in a real estate revenue increase of 1 March 27, 2007 293 percent over the previous year, the locality must either reduce the tax rate so that the revenues are no more than 101 percent of the previous year’s or hold a public hearing indicating an “effective” real property tax increase. Mr. Robertson further advised that consistent with past practices, the Board has expressed a desire to hold a public hearing to elicit general comment on the upcoming annual budget development process. This hearing gives citizens the opportunity to express their priorities and concerns for the Board to consider during formulation of the budget. He reported that the public hearings scheduled for today are for receiving written and oral comment on these three topics. He added that Mr. Hodge and staff will make a brief presentation on the budget prior to the public hearing. Mr. Hodge advised that he would present a snapshot of the budget followed by briefings from Police Chief Ray Lavinder and Fire and Rescue Division Chief Steve Simon. He reported that Roanoke County is an outstanding place to live and work and has one of the best education systems in the country. He further advised that the County has many award winning departments including Police and Fire and Rescue. He advised that the State Department of Taxation publishes a comparative analysis annually which captures information from all the localities in Virginia and that Roanoke County has one of the lower cost-of-service deliveries in Virginia. He stated that the County provides many services that other counties do not such as trash collection, career firefighters and paramedics, and parks and recreation programs. March 27, 2007 294 Mr. Hodge advised that the County has worked hard to prepare a good budget, one that includes a $0.02 tax reduction and funding for six additional police officers for a six-month period. The budget includes three new vehicles and an increase for fire and rescue volunteers. He added that Roanoke County is one of two counties in Virginia that provides a length of service training incentive to volunteer firefighters. The budget also includes a capital contribution of $200,000. Mr. Hodge reported that there has been an increase in calls for both Police and Fire and Rescue, and he advised that the Sheriff’s Office has more prisoners than it can accommodate which has required that prisoners be outsourced. Mr. Hodge concluded that Roanoke County is an outstanding place and that the County encourages its citizens to support and participate in local government. He thanked the Board and County staff for their work on the budget. Mr. Robertson advised that he would provide general summary information on the budget to provide context for the public hearing. He reported that the tentative budget for fiscal year 2007–2008 is $160,682,000, and he advised that staff is still working through information that is being received from the State following the adoption of its budget. The County will be projecting new revenues of approximately $9 million and this revenue is composed of the following: (1) real estate taxes of $79,590,000, an increase of $5,375,000 assuming a 2 percent rate reduction; (2) personal property revenues of $28,525,000, an increase of approximately $1.5 million; (3) sales tax representing approximately 5 percent of the budget at $8.8 million, an March 27, 2007 295 increase of approximately $740,000; and (4) meals tax of $3,375,000, an increase of approximately $285,000. He added that the County has interest income projected at approximately $1 million, an increase of $400,000. He reported that the State has allocated $9,500,000 to the County which represents an increase of approximately $127,000. Mr. Robertson reported that in the broad category of public safety, the County is projecting expenditures of $21,700,000, an increase of approximately $800,000. The County’s expenditures for community services is $12,348,000, an increase of $500,000. Human services expenditures are $16,366,000, an increase of $428,000. He advised that $62,450,000 is scheduled to be transferred to the Schools for their operations, representing a $3.6 million increase. The County is also transferring $6,785,000 to the Schools for capital projects. He advised that the County is projecting $5,097,000 for capital projects which is an increase of approximately $1 million. Mr. Robertson advised that salary increases for County staff will be 3.5 percent at a cost of $1,610,000. He reported that the County’s portion of health insurance costs for next year is projected to be approximately $600,000, an expense that employees will share. Mr. Robertson concluded that the Auditor of Public Accounts prepares a comparative report of local government expenditures that provides the County a benchmark. He further advised that the County has always compared itself to a city in March 27, 2007 296 terms of the services it offers. He stated that the services citizens want and need are similar to an urban setting rather than a rural county. Division Chief Simon advised that one of the Department’s top priorities is the construction of a new fire station in the Hollins District to relieve the existing fire station which is the busiest station in the County. He reported that the Hollins station turns over approximately 900 calls to other stations leading to increased response times and interfering with staffing at the stations responding to the transferred calls. He reported that the station is currently not meeting its advance life support (ALS) goal of 6 minutes response time due to the number of calls it handles, and he noted that this situation is creating a ripple effect that is impacting the entire County. The Department has partnered with the City of Roanoke where possible; however, the City of Roanoke also has high call volumes, so the Department’s goal is to reduce call volumes. The ALS response is a concern because if life support cannot be provided in a timely manner, the chance of survival for someone who has stopped breathing drops significantly. Supervisor Church inquired which area responds first if the Hollins station turns over a call. Division Chief Simon responded that it would depend on where the call originated. He advised that if the call came from an area near Catawba, it would probably be answered by the Masons Cove station which is also a busy station that provides back up for the Fort Lewis station. He stated that the Catawba or Cave Spring stations could also respond. March 27, 2007 297 Division Chief Simon advised that the Department is planning to use career personnel for the new Hollins Station since it is becoming harder to get volunteers due to the training and the certifications requirements. Supervisor Church noted that this situation affects five or six stations depending on demand. He further advised that it is the County’s goal to lower response times to save as many lives as possible. He noted that several years ago, the Board directed “life before property” as a priority for the Fire and Rescue Department and that the six minute ALS goal is important to protect lives. Chief Lavinder stated that the Board is familiar with the Police Department’s goals. He advised that the Department had to provide an additional officer for the School system as well as responding to 93,000 calls; this represents an increase of 5 percent and requires additional manpower. He added that the Department has been working hard to decrease response times especially in the outlying areas. He reported that the Department also needs officers to provide backup to responding officers as a safety measure. He reported that the price of gasoline is increasing, and this creates an additional expense for the Department. He added that the Department is grateful for the support the Board has given to the Department. Supervisor Church advised that he was riding with an officer one evening when a call was received requesting backup for a domestic violence incident near Glenvar High School. He stated that it took 14 or 15 minutes to reach the location, and March 27, 2007 298 he advised that he was not pleased with this response time. He added that it could not be helped, but the County must do more to assist the officers in the Police Department. In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiries, Division Chief Simon reported that the cost of a new fire truck is $394,000 and Chief Lavinder reported that it costs the County approximately $88,000 to put an officer on the street, and he noted that this includes the cost of salary and benefits, vehicle and equipment, uniforms, and training. He added that it takes 54 weeks to place an officer on the street. Supervisor Flora advised that since the incident at Columbine High School and September 11, 2001, we are living in a different world; and the County is now proactive in dealing with potential problems such as the video system in the schools and the Police Department practice of providing backup for officers. He reported that I-81 is dangerous as well. He stated that the County does not have a crime problem, but we are trying to make sure that our citizens are safe. He added that it is better to prevent a crime than to catch a criminal after the crime has been committed. Chairman McNamara inquired if it would be acceptable, from a procedural standpoint, to open the public hearing for all three of the budget items at one time, hear all the speakers’ comments, and then close the public hearing. Mr. Mahoney responded that the Board could hold a combined public hearing on all three of these budget items and then close the public hearing. He advised that it would be within the Board’s discretion to take three votes on the three rate tax orders after that. March 27, 2007 299 Chairman McNamara opened the public hearing for the following three items: (a) General comment on the annual budget for fiscal year 2007- 2008 (b) “Effective” tax rate increase resulting from real estate reassessments and (c) Real estate, personal property and machinery and tools tax rates There were 15 citizens present to speak on these items. The citizens who spoke were: (1) Bill Overstreet, 6741 Parkway Drive; (2) Del Eyer, 7110 Blacksburg Road; (3) John Reed, 4407 Bradshaw Road; (4) Eddie Elswick, 8550 Willett Lane; (5) Arthur Mellen, 4346 Bradshaw Road; (6) Warren Basham, 4742 Brookwood Drive; (7) Marvin Anderson, 8499 Newport Road; (8) Dale Dewease, 4664 Bradshaw Road; (9) John Broznsky, 9000 Newport Road; (10) Louise S. Garman, 8870 Newport Road; (11) Michael Ricucci, 7475 Blacksburg Road; (12) Joseph Nieves, 9020 Newport Road; (13) Genny Henderson, 5412 Twelve O’Clock; (14) Jimmy Barlow, 3820 Travis Trail; and (15) Larry A. Hunt, 5631 Catawba Valley Drive. All those who spoke were in favor of lowering the real estate tax rate more than the $0.02 recommended reduction. Several citizens made the following requests: (1) that the Board lower the tax rate for real estate by $0.05 per $100 assessed value; (2) that the Board index the real estate tax rate to the rate of inflation; and (3) that the County reduce expenditures and services. Several citizens expressed dissatisfaction March 27, 2007 300 with the increases in their real estate assessments, and those citizens who own farm land advised that the land use program does not provide sufficient assistance and that they are unable to take advantage of the tax relief program for the elderly and disabled. 2. Request to adopt the following tax rates for calendar year 2007: (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) a. Real estate tax rate of $1.09 per $100 assessed valuation O-032707-6 Mr. Robertson advised that at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, the real estate tax rate for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2007, and ending December 31, 2007, was advertised on March 13 and March 20, 2007, at $1.09 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation. This advertised rate represents a reduction of $0.02 from the current rate of $1.11. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2007-08 is predicated on the advertised real estate tax rate; therefore, staff recommends that the real estate tax rate be established at the rate of $1.09 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation for the 2007 calendar year. Supervisor Church inquired if a citizen who has received a $60,000 increase in their real estate assessment, for example, would pay that amount as their real estate tax. Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation, responded that would not be the case; he advised that the County has a land use program that reduces the tax burden based on the use of the property. Supervisor Church advised that he has heard reports of increases in assessments of anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000, and March 27, 2007 301 he requested that Mr. Driver provide an example of the reduction in taxes that a citizen would receive under the land use program with an assessment increase of $30,000. Mr. Driver advised that the adjustment would vary based on the property’s land use rate classification. He stated that each classification has a different valuation that is used to calculate the reduction. Supervisor Church requested that Mr. Driver provide a ballpark figure and questioned if the reduction could be as much as one-third of the tax. Mr. Driver advised that the reduction could be that much. He reported that, as an example, the market value of one property increased from $157,300 to $208,800; however, the citizen who owns this property will only be taxed on $23,400 of the value as a result of the land use program. Supervisor Church advised that he has had conversations with citizens in his district regarding reductions in assessments, and he reported that the General Assembly is considering several measures that will provide relief in combination with the tax rate reduction. He stated that it bothered him to have a citizen call him a thief. He stated that he is a hard-working public servant not a thief. He concluded that the Board cannot please everyone, but the Board must examine the land use program. Mr. Driver reported that the County has had a land use program since 1975 to protect those individuals who are still farming in the Roanoke Valley. Supervisor Church advised that he will not turn his back on public safety. He stated that the regional jail is in his district and the projected cost to incarcerate a maximum of 800 inmates is approximately $78 to $80 million. He reported that in a March 27, 2007 302 recent meeting with the School Board, the Board of Supervisors was advised that the Schools are considering capital projects with an estimated cost of $110 million over the next 10 to 15 years. This $110 million cost is for approximately 15,000 students compared to the $80 million required for 800 inmates. He advised that it is a shame that such a large sum must be spent on criminals. Supervisor Church advised that the County could possibly make changes in its spending; however, changes do not happen over night. He stated that he has heard criticism that the site of the new South County Library is a waste of money, but he reported that the County will receive federal grants to preserve the wetlands on the site. He advised that the Board sometimes has to make tough decisions, and he advised that he understands the frustration citizens are feeling about their taxes. He concluded that he hoped that an equitable solution could be found. Supervisor Wray advised that he felt that sharing information with the citizens is a critical part of the process. He added that the citizens had made some very good points which is why good communication is so important. He suggested that Mr. Hodge continue to find ways to communicate information to the citizens. He reported that the County has several unfunded mandates from the State and Federal government that the County must fund such as the No Child Left Behind Program. Supervisor Altizer advised that he wanted to review the County’s revenue and expenses many of which the County has no control over. He advised that he would focus on the Schools. He stated although the Schools will receive $3,866,000 from the March 27, 2007 303 State, the Schools have expenditures of $6,104,000. He reported that the State’s retirement program will cost $95,000, the retiree health credit is another $484,000, the health insurance rate after negotiations is 7.3 percent, and employees will get a 3.5 percent raise that will cost $3,220,000 on the Schools side. He added that the Schools have capital improvement needs as well as mandated programs for children who have disabilities or are disadvantaged that must be funded. He advised that when the revenues for the County are combined with the revenues for the Schools, the result is approximately $12,300,000, but he reported that when expenses are subtracted, approximately $1.6 million is left. Supervisor Altizer advised that the funding for six police officers for six months is $264,000; the funding for six firefighters for six months is $135,000, and the renovations to the existing jail are $500,000 per year for a total of $2.5 million. He stated that when the County’s expenses are subtracted from revenue, the County has approximately $600,000 left to spend. He added that each $0.01 reduction in the real estate tax rate results in a reduction in revenue of $730,000. He stated that those are the numbers the County has to deal with. Supervisor Altizer advised that the issue of tax incentives for businesses was raised earlier. He reported that he was aware of a company that requested tax incentives from the County that went beyond what the County normally approves. The County did not approve the request, and the company located in another locality where it invested $80 million dollars and created 250 jobs. He advised that there is a fine March 27, 2007 304 balance to granting tax incentives; but until the playing field is leveled and all localities stop giving incentives, the County has to make a decision whether or not to compete for new businesses. Supervisor Altizer advised that he hoped this allowed the citizens to better understand the decisions the Board must make. Supervisor Flora advised that he was on the Board 35 years ago and tonight’s public hearing was very reminiscent of the public hearings held in the early 1970’s. He stated that Roanoke County was very different then with small urban areas; many of the areas that are now developed consisted of farmland. He reported that the County had to face the urban vs. rural conflict then just as it did tonight. He advised that he represents a district that is now 100 percent built out. He stated that the Windsor Hills and Vinton Districts are also primarily built out adding that the urban sprawl of the last 35 years has consumed most of the County’s rural areas. He further advised that in 1975, the Board adopted the land use assessment program to protect the farms and guarantee open spaces would remain for future generations. He added that his family had a farm that they were able to keep for 50 years after farming operations had ended as a result of the land use program. Supervisor Flora advised that urban sprawl will raise the value of land until many will not be able to keep their property without additional income. He stated that the County’s urban areas are placing demands on the County. These areas want more services, schools, recreation areas, and public safety. He stated that the Board has to look out for all the citizens in the County including those in the urban areas. March 27, 2007 305 Supervisor McNamara advised that this will not be the largest percentage tax increase in the history of Roanoke County after the reduction is implemented. He stated that the tax increases for the prior two years were both higher. He added that averages can be misleading but that the overall increase in real estate assessments for the County was 7.2 percent. He advised that new construction adds to that figure, but noted that new construction also requires new services. Supervisor McNamara advised that the correlation to the inflation rate is excellent; however, the correlation needs to be done in context with the County’s index. He added that salary and benefit costs are a large percentage of the County’s total budget and that the County is dependant on funding from the Sate because they provide approximately one-half of the funding for Schools. Supervisor McNamara advised that State funding for the Schools is $3.8 million, and the Schools approximate budget is $120 million so that represents a slight increase. He reported that health insurance increased $1.1 million, and the retirement system cost is $1.2 million. He stated that if the County does not provide funding to the Schools, they will only be able to fund a 1.1 percent raise for their employees. He advised that the County assessments would not increase as they do without the great school system and the services that the County offers. Supervisor Church advised that he would vote yes to the tax rate reduction with the comment that he feels that this is the best the Board can do at the present time. March 27, 2007 306 Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the order. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None ORDER 032707-6 SETTING THE TAX RATE ON REAL ESTATE SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007 BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2007, and ending December $1.09 31, 2007, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable real estate and mobile homes classified by Sections 58.1-3200, 58.1-3201, 58.1-3506.A.8, and 58.1-3506.B of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, situate in Roanoke County. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the order. The motion and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None (b) Personal property tax rate of $3.50 per $100 assessed valuation O-032707-7 There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the order. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None March 27, 2007 307 ORDER 032707-7 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON PERSONAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007 BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2007, and $3.50 ending December 31, 2007, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property, excluding that class of personal property generally designated as machinery and tools as set forth in Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and excluding all those classes of household goods and personal effects as are defined in Sections 58.1-3504 and 58.1-3505 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, but including the property separately classified by Sections 58.1-3500, 58.1-3501, 58.1- 3502, 58.1-3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service corporations based upon the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation Commission and duly certified. 2. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1- 3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and adopted by Ordinance No. 121592-11, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans. 3. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2007, and fifty (50%) percent ending December 31, 2007, be, and hereby is, set at of the tax rate established in paragraph 1 for the taxable, tangible personal property as herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by Section 58.1-3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the order. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None (c) Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.00 per $100 assessed valuation O-032707-8 There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt order. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 27, 2007 308 AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None ORDER 032707-8 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON A CLASSIFCATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - MACHINERY AND TOOLS - SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007 BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1- 3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery and tools. 2. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2007, and $3.00 ending December 31, 2007, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property as herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery and tools. Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the order. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None 3. Public hearing to receive comments on the Secondary Roads System Six-Year Construction Plan for fiscal years 2007-2013 and the allocation of secondary road funds for fiscal year 2007-2008. (Teresa Becher, Transportation Engineering Manager) Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, advised that there have been no changes since the work session on this matter. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. March 27, 2007 309 a. Approval of resolution for the Secondary Roads System Six- Year Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2007-2013 and the allocation of secondary road funds for fiscal year 2007-2008 R-032707-9 There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 032707-9 REQUESTING APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2007–2013 AND APPROVAL OF THE ALLOCATION OF SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007–2008. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 27, 2007, to receive comments for the adoption of the Roanoke County Secondary Roads System Six-Year Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2007–2013 and the adoption of the secondary road funding for fiscal year 2007–2008; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the adoption of the Secondary Road System Six-Year Construction Plan for Roanoke County for fiscal years 2007–2013 and allocation the allocation of secondary road funds for fiscal year 2007–2008. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Roanoke County Secondary Roads System Six-Year Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2007–2013 by the Clerk to the Board. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 27, 2007 310 AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to vacate a 15’ drainage easement dedicated in Plat Book 10, Page 36, North Meadows Subdivision, Section 1, Block 2, said drainage easement crossing Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Section 1, Block 2, and to accept dedication of a new drainage easement crossing the same properties, Catawba Magisterial District. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) O-032707-10 Mr. Covey advised that there have been no changes regarding this item since the first reading of the ordinance. There were no citizens present to speak on this item, and there was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None ORDINANCE 032707-10 TO VACATE A FIFTEEN FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 36, NORTH MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, SECTION 1, BLOCK 2, SAID DRAINAGE EASEMENT CROSSING LOTS 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11, SECTION 1, BLOCK 2, AND TO ACCEPT DEDICATION OF A NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT March 27, 2007 311 CROSSING THE SAME PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, by subdivision plat for North Meadows, Section 1, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 10, page 36, a 15’ width drainage easement was dedicated, as shown on Exhibit A: Proposed Easement Plat for County of Roanoke showing Lots 7 through 12, Block 2, Section 1, North Meadows, Plat Book 10, page 36; and WHEREAS, the property owners of Lots 7 through 11 of Block 2, Section 1 of North Meadows Subdivision and representatives of the County’s Department of Community Development have meet and jointly agreed to a realignment of the existing 15’ drainage easement to remove its encroachment upon existing home structures on the lots crossed by this easement; and WHEREAS, the County’s engineering staff has determined that the proposed realignment of this easement will have no negative impacts upon the functionality of this portion of the drainage easement for this subdivision; and WHEREAS, the designated lot owners and the Department of Community § Development, as the Petitioners, have requested that, pursuant to 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate a portion of the existing 15’ drainage easement as shown on Exhibit A and accept a new 15’ drainage easement as shown on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, this vacation cost will be assumed by the County and the affected County departments support this vacation and rededication of a 15’ drainage easement; and § WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), and the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 13, 2007, and the second reading and public hearing was held on March 27, 2007. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on March 13, 2007, and a second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on March 27, 2007. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the subject real estate (existing 15’ drainage easement) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interest in real estate renders it unavailable for other public use. 3. That a portion of a 15’ width drainage easement, crossing Lot 7 (Tax No. 44.03-08-06), Lot 8 (Tax No. 44.03-08-07), Lot 9 (Tax No. 44.03-08-08), Lot 10 (Tax No. 44.03-08-09) and Lot 11 (Tax No. 44.03-08-10), of Block 2, Section 1, North Meadows Subdivision, being designated and shown as the “Exist. 15’ D. E. (Vacated)” on Exhibit A, attached hereto, said easement having been dedicated on the subdivision plat for North Meadows, Section 1, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Plat Book 10, page 36, March 27, 2007 312 in the Catawba Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated § pursuant to 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended). 4. That a new 15’ drainage easement, crossing Lot 7 (Tax No. 44.03-08-06), Lot 8 (Tax No. 44.03-08-07), Lot 9 (Tax No. 44.03-08-08), Lot 10 (Tax No. 44.03-08-09) and Lot 11 (Tax No. 44.03-08-10), of Block 2, Section 1, North Meadows Subdivision, being designated and shown as “Proposed New 15’ D. E. 6,500 Sq. Ft. ” on Exhibit A, attached § hereto, be, and hereby is, accepted, pursuant to 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended). 5. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the County. 6. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 7. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit § Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with 15.2-2272.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended). Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by amending Section 21-73, General Prerequisites to Grant of Division 3. Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Persons of Chapter 21. Taxation to increase the total combined net worth provisions for real estate tax exemption for the elderly and disabled, and extending the application deadline for the current tax year. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) O-032707-11 Mr. Mahoney advised that this is the second reading of this ordinance. He reported that at the first reading, the Board requested additional background data which March 27, 2007 313 has been provided with the assistance of Mr. Robertson. This data is included in the exhibits attached to the board report. He added that although staff was able to find data on annual incomes, they were unable to find accurate data for combined net worth although that data is the key element of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Mahoney stated that this is a difficult public policy decision for the Board. He advised that there is a legitimate public policy debate with respect to extending tax exemptions to certain classes of citizens. He further advised that there is a logistical benefit that flows from establishing an incremental series of increases up to the State-wide limit that benefits the County’s planning process not only for this year but also in the foreseeable future. This will benefit County staff as well as the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer, it will improve communication with the citizens, and assist the Board during the budget process. Mr. Mahoney advised that there are difficult fiscal issues on the immediate horizon such as the 20 percent homestead exemption which may pass the General Assembly next year. He added that transportation could also become an issue. Mr. Mahoney further advised that the deadline for filing for tax relief is March 31; therefore, he recommended that the filing deadline be extended until April 30, 2007, if the ordinance is adopted. He reported that the Commissioner of the Revenue has agreed to accommodate the citizens who become eligible. He added that the County Administrator has made some recommendations with respect to deferring the future increases, but he indicated that will be the Board’s decision. March 27, 2007 314 Mr. Mahoney advised that the exhibits provide demographic data for Roanoke County. He noted that the County has a greater number of citizens falling within the eligible categories for this program than the State-wide average. He stated that Mr. Robertson has generated a range of projections regarding the fiscal impact. The fiscal impact in 2009 is approximately $945,000, which represents the high end of the range. He reported that staff estimates that an additional $100,000 will have to be allocated to this budget line item for the 2007-08 budget. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Altizer advised that 163 citizens have applied for the program this year and that those applications are not related to the proposed increase. These new applications represent an increase of approximately 8 percent. He further advised that the new applications are the result of the County’s efforts to make citizens aware of the program, but he added that the increases in assessments are the driving factor behind the increases. There was no discussion on this item. Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance with the recommendation to extend the filing deadline to April 30, 2007. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None March 27, 2007 315 ORDINANCE 032707-11 AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 21-73, GENERAL PREREQUISITES TO GRANT OF DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS OF CHAPTER 21. TAXATION TO INCREASE THE TOTAL COMBINED NET WORTH PROVISIONS FOR REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED, AND EXTENDING THE APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR THE CURRENT TAX YEAR WHEREAS, Section 21-73 of the Roanoke County Code currently establishes a limitation on the total combined net worth of the owner and his or her spouse of $125,000 during the immediately preceding calendar year; and WHEREAS, the State Code limits the “net combined financial worth” to $200,000 and that the locality may annually increase this limit by the Consumer Price Index; and WHEREAS, Section 21-74 of the Roanoke County Code provides that a person seeking an exemption under these provisions shall file an application for exemption between February 1 and March 31 of the year for which the exemption is claimed; and WHEREAS, this application for exemption deadline should be extended only for the current tax year to allow eligible citizens to avail themselves of these amendments; and WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on March 13, 2007, and the second reading and public hearing were held on March 27, 2007. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-73, General prerequisites to grant of Division 3. Exemption for elderly and disabled persons of Chapter 21, Taxation be amended to read and provide as follows: CHAPTER 21. TAXATION ARTICLE II. REAL ESTATE TAXES DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS* Sec. 21-73. General prerequisites to grant. Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following conditions are met: (1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar year, from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not exceed fifty six thousand five hundred sixty-six dollars ($56,566); provided, however, that the first ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) of income of each relative, other than the spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total. (2) That the owner and his spouse did not have a total combined net worth, including all equitable interests, exceeding one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000.00) one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one (1) acre of land. March 27, 2007 316 (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above if a person qualifies for an exemption and if that person can prove by clear and convincing evidence that his or her physical or mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only alternative to permanently residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility or physical or mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for that person, and if a relative does then move in for that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of the relative’s spouse shall be counted towards the income limit, provided the owner of the residence has not transferred assets in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) without adequate consideration within a three-year period prior to or after the relative moves into such residence. 2. That the total combined net worth amount be increased to $175,000 form the 2008 real estate tax year. 3. That the total combined net worth amount be increased to $200,000 for the 2009 real estate tax year and the tax years thereafter. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption and it shall become effective for the 2007 real estate tax year. Supervisor Wray motion to adopt the ordinance with the recommendation to extend the filing deadline to April 30, 2007. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Altizer: He thanked the Parks and Recreation work crews who installed the playground equipment in Mount Pleasant Park for doing an excellent job. He thanked the Community Development Department for their drainage correction work in the Mount Pleasant community. Supervisor Wray: He thanked Chief Lavinder and the Police Department for doing a tough job well. He advised that if the County did not have quality schools and a good quality of life that citizen’s have come to expect, the assessments would be lower; but no one would want to live here and that the citizen’s expect and deserve quality services. March 27, 2007 317 Supervisor Church: He thanked the citizens who attended and participated in the meeting. He expressed appreciation to the following County staff: Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation; Chief of Police Ray Lavinder; Fire and Rescue Division Chief Steve Simon; and Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget. He stated that many citizens do not understand the work required to prepare the County budget. Supervisor McNamara: He thanked everyone for their hard work and advised that he appreciated their efforts. INRE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Submitted by: ~ Assistant Deputy Clerk Approved by: ~ o eph P. McNamara hairman March 27, 2007 318 (This page left intentional blank)