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)