Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3/26/2019 - Regular
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors March 26, 2019 INVOCATION: Pastor Vannie Harrell Church Alive International PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG Disclaimer: shall be the voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Board. The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Board and do not necessarily represent the religious beliefs or views of the Board in part or as a whole. No member of the community is required to attend or participate in the invocation and such decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business of Page 1 of 5 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda March 26, 2019 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for March 26, 2019. Regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and on Saturday at 4:00 p.m. Board of www.RoanokeCountyVA.gov. Our meetings are closed-captioned, so it is important for everyone to speak directly into the microphones at the podium. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. Please turn all cell phones off or place on silent. A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition to acknowledge successful projects completion fully complied with Stormwater Management and Erosion & Sediment Control of Roanoke County Ordinances under the Stormwater Clean Award - Contractor Appreciation Program (Tarek Moneir, Acting Director of Development Services) D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing to introduce Kenneth Fay, RES, Director of Real Estate Valuation (Daniel R. O'Donnell, County Administrator) E. NEW BUSINESS Page 2 of 5 F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of a new easement across Tax Map Parcel 087.07-03-08.00, for Ingress and Egress to the Roanoke County Administration Center from Penn Forest Boulevard (Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney) G. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance approving an amendment to Section 7.1 of the Comcast Franchise Agreement regarding Comcast Local Office (Mary Beth Nash, Senior Assistant County Attorney) H. APPOINTMENTS 1. Budget and Fiscal Affairs (BFAC) (appointed by District and At-Large) 2. Economic Development Authority (EDA) (appointed by District) 3. Library Board (appointed by District) I. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 1. Approval of minutes November 26, 2018, November 28, 2018, December 4, 2018 and December 18, 2018 2. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $1,929.88 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia 3. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $35,763 for two cardiac monitors from the Virginia Department of Health (VDOH) J. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS K. REPORTS 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of February 28, 2019 Page 3 of 5 4. Accounts Paid February 28, 2019 5. Proclamation signed by the Chairman Census Awareness Day 6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of February 28, 2019 L. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Operating Budget (Daniel R. O'Donnell, County Administrator; Christopher R. Bever, Director of Management and Budget; Anne Marie Green, Director of Human Resources) M. CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows: 1. Section 2.2-3711.A.1, Personnel, namely discussion concerning the performance measures of the County Attorney EVENING SESSION N. CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION O. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring March 2019 as Girl Scout Month (Barbara N. Duerk, Girl Scouts of Virginia Skyline) P. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public hearing for citizen comments on the Real Estate Effective Tax Rate for calendar year 2019 (Christopher R. Bever, Director of Management and Budget; Kenneth Fay, Director of Real Estate) Q. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS 1. Public hearing for citizen comments on the maximum 2019 calendar year tax rates for Real Estate, Personal Property and Machinery and Tools Taxes (Christopher R. Bever, Director of Management and Budget) 2. Resolutions to set the following maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 to support this fiscal year 2019-2020 operating budget: (a) Resolution to set the Real Estate maximum tax rate for calendar year 2019; (b) Resolution to set the Personal Property maximum tax rate for calendar year 2019 Page 4 of 5 (c) Resolution to set the Machinery and Tools maximum tax rate for calendar year 2019 (Christopher R. Bever, Director of Management and Budget) R. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. The petition of Skyway Towers to obtain a Special Use Permit for a broadcasting tower (cell tower) approximately 199 feet in height in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District on approximately 4.00 acres, located near the 6700 block of Split Oak Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Acting Director of Planning) S. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS T. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. David F. Radford 2. P. Jason Peters 3. George G. Assaid 4. Martha B. Hooker 5. Phil C. North U. ADJOURNMENT Page 5 of 5 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition to acknowledge successful projects completion fully complied with Stormwater Management and Erosion & Sediment Control of Roanoke County Ordinances under the Stormwater Clean Award - Contractor Appreciation Program SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir Acting Director of Development Services APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Public recognition before the Board of Supervisors to acknowledge successful project completion for the next recipients of the Stormwater Clean Award under the Department of Community Developm- Contractor Appreciation Program BACKGROUND: Land development in Roanoke County presents difficult challenges in the minimization and control of erosion and sedimentation and in the management of stormwater runoff due to the steep slopes and highly erodible soils in the region. Because of these challenges, the Department wishes to recognize contractors who conduct exemplary work within the County relative to the protection of its natural water resources through the: · Proper use of onsite erosion and sediment controls; · Effective implementation of stormwater pollution prevention and good housekeeping measures; · Proper upkeep and use of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and, · Proper construction and use of stormwater management best practices Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: 2017). Three of these six projects were recognized at the February 13, 2018, Board Meeting, but one recipient (Dominion Builders) was unable to attend the meeting. Two of the remaining three projects have now been successfully completed and maintained program compliance throughout construction. This evening, we would like to recognize these selected contractors and their projects to be recognized as the next recipients: Property Catalyst Group and Bowman Excavating, Inc. Plantation Storage 7544 Plantation Road Roanoke, VA Building Consultants, LLC Single Family Residence 1600 Bottom Creek Lane Bent Mountain, VA Previously awarded, unable to accept at the time: Dominion Builders Single Family Residence 6726 Waterstone Drive Roanoke, VA Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Briefing to introduce Kenneth Fay, RES, Director of Real Estate Valuation SUBMITTED BY: Daniel R. O'Donnell County Administrator APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: This time has been set aside to introduce Kenneth Fay, the new Director of Real Estate Valuation to the Board of Supervisors. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of a new easement across Tax Map Parcel 087.07-03-08.00, for Ingress and Egress to the Roanoke County Administration Center from Penn Forest Boulevard SUBMITTED BY: Peter Lubeck Senior Assistant County Attorney APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Whether to accept a new (expanded) easement from Strauss Properties, LLC, allowing continued County access to the RCAC property from Penn Forest Blvd. BACKGROUND: In 1993, the Board of Supervisors acquired the 3.395-acre parcel of real estate at 5204 Bernard Drive, which property is presently being used as the Roanoke County Administration Center (RCAC). In 2012, the Board subsequently acquired an adjacent .0454-acre parcel, located at 2727 Penn Forest Blvd, which was used as a separate parking lot to service the RCAC. The .0454-acre parcel is accessed by an easement from Penn Forest Blvd, across the parcel located at 2741 Penn Forest Blvd, which is presently owned by Strauss Properties, LLC (and is the site of Adecco's business operations). In 2013, the County combined the 3.395-acre parcel and the .0454-acre parcel, and removed the curb that separated the parking lots. County employees and members of the public have since been using the ingress/egress easement to access the entire RCAC parcel (and not just the former .0454-acre parcel). Strauss Properties, LLC has expressed concern that this expansion of the scope of the easement has placed a greater burden on their property. Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: Strauss Properties, LLC is willing to grant the Board a new easement that would allow continued ingress/egress for the entire combined RCAC parcel, but has requested that the County bear two-thirds the cost of routine maintenance of the easement area, up to the amount of $3,333 per year. Any work planned by either party that would cost more than $5,000 requires the approval of both parties prior to the commencement of the work. Given the nature of the easement, routine maintenance costs would generally consist of pot-hole repair and periodic repaving. The location of the new easement is slightly different than the existing easement in order to allow for the creation of additional parking along Penn Forest Boulevard on the Strauss property. Roanoke County will need to make some minor changes to its existing parking area in order to accommodate the revised easement location. FISCAL IMPACT: The County is responsible for routine maintenance costs for the easement area, up to the amount of $3,333 per year. The County, with its prior approval, is responsible for two-thirds of the cost of any required work in excess of $5,000. Roanoke County is also responsible for any reconfiguration costs associated with the modified location of the new easement. These costs are anticipated to be nominal. Funding is available in the General Services Capital Maintenance Program (CMP) if the County should incur these costs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this item in order to ensure continued access to the Roanoke County Administraton Center via Penn Forest Boulevard. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF A NEW EASEMENT ACROSS TAX MAP PARCEL 087.07-03-08.000, FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER FROM PENN FOREST BLVD WHEREAS, in 1993, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County acquired the 3.395-acre parcel of real estate located at 5204 Bernard Drive, which property is presently used a- WHEREAS, in 2012, the Board of Supervisors subsequently acquired an adjacent .0454--- acre parcel was used as a separate parking lot to service the Roanoke County Administration Center; and WHEREAS, the .0454-acre parcel is accessed by an ingress/ egress easement from Penn Forest Blvd, across the parcel located at 2741 Penn Forest Blvd (Tax Map No. 087.07-03-01.0000), which is presently owned by the Strauss Properties, LLC.; and WHEREAS, in 2013, by the filing of a combination plat, the 3.395-acre parcel and the 0.454 acre- designated on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map No. 087-07-03-08.00). The curb that separated the 3.395-acre parcel and the .0454-acre parcel was removed and the parking lots were combined; and WHEREAS, the ingress/egress easement is now being used by Roanoke County employees and members of the public to access the entire Combined Parcel; and WHEREAS, Strauss Properties, LLC is willing to grant a new easement to the Page 1 of 2 Board; the new easement would 1) adjust the location of the Ingress/ Egress Easement, and 2) enlarge the scope of the Ingress/Egress Easement, to allow use of the easement to access the Combined Parcel and not just the prior 0.454-acre parcel. In exchange, the County would contribute towards the expense of maintaining the easement area; and WHEREAS, 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. Accordingly, a first reading of this ordinance was held on March 26, 2019, and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on April 9, 2019. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the acquisition of a new easement from Strauss Properties, LLC, across 2741 Penn Forest Blvd (Tax Map No. 087.07-03-01.0000) for ingress and egress to the Roanoke County Administration Center, located at 5204 Bernard Drive (Tax Map No. 087- 07-03-08.00), is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on forms approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. Page 2 of 2 Prepared by: Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney (VSB #71223) 5204 Bernard Drive; P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Official Tax Map Nos. Property Owners 087.07-03-08.00-0000 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County 087.07-03-07.01-0000 Strauss Properties, LLC Prepared by the Office of the Roanoke County Attorney Exemption Claimed: Grantee is exempt from recordation taxes and fees pursuant to Section 58.1-811C(3) of the Code of Virginia DEED OF EASEMENT THIS DEED OF EASEMENT is entered into this _____ day of __________________ 2019, by STRAUSS PROPERTIES, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the ), and the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY (hereinafter referred to as the , a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (together, the Grantor and . WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, in 1993, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County acquired by deed (nia as Instrument No. 04671) the 3.395-acre parcel of real estate located at 5204 Bernard Drive, which 3.395-acre p and WHEREAS, in 2012, the Board of Supervisors subsequently acquired by deed (recorded 201204650) an adjacent .0454-acre parcel, located at .0454-acre tğŭĻ Њ ƚŅ Џ Prepared by: Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney (VSB #71223) 5204 Bernard Drive; P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 . The .0454-acre parcel was used as a separate parking lot to service the Roanoke County Administration Center; and WHEREAS, the .0454-acre parcel is accessed by an easement from Penn Forest Blvd, across the parcel located at 2741 Penn Forest Blvd (Tax Map No. 087.07-03-01.0000), which is presently owned by the Grantor. The ingress/ egress easement is set forth on the above mentioned 2012 deed (Instrument No. 201204650), which references a perpetual non-exclusive easement for ingress and for the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 1242, Page 1314 (the WHEREAS, the 2012 deed (Instrument No. 201204650) further sets forth other easements, including access easements, as shown on an Easement Agreement dated May 31, 1983, of record in Deed Book 1196, Page 116, as shown on survey recorded in Deed Book 1196, Page 119. These other easements shall remain in effect and shall not be affected by this deed; and the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia as Instrument No. 14549), the 3.395-acre parcel and the 0.454 acre-parcel were consolidated into one parcel , designated on the Roanoke County land records as Tax Map No. 087-07-03-08.00). The curb that separated the 3.395-acre parcel and the .0454-acre parcel was removed and the parking lots were combined; and tğŭĻ Ћ ƚŅ Џ Prepared by: Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney (VSB #71223) 5204 Bernard Drive; P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that the Ingress/Egress Easement is now being used by Roanoke County employees and members of the public to access the Combined Parcel. The Parties acknowledge that this use exceeds the scope of the original easement; and WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to adjust the location of the Ingress/ Egress Easement in order to enlarge the parking area on his parcel; and WHEREAS, the Parties agree that purpose of this deed of easement is to 1) adjust the location of the Ingress/ Egress Easement, and 2) enlarge the scope of the Ingress/Egress Easement, to allow use of the easement to access the Combined Parcel and not just the prior 0.454-acre parcel. NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor hereby GRANTS and CONVEYS with General Warranty and Modern English Covenants of Title unto the Grantee, its successor and assigns, the following described easement, in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to wit: A NON-EXCLUSIVE INGRESS/ EGRESS EASEMENT from Penn Forest Blvd to the parcel presently identified as 5204 Bernard Drive (and designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No. 087-07-03-08.00), over and across the parcel identified as 2741 Penn Forest Drive (Tax Map No. . 087.07-03- 01.0000). The location of said easement shall be within the area 4,012 S.F., Across Tax # 087.07-03-07.01, Property of Strauss Properties, LLC, Instrument 3201300960, Situated at 2741 Penn Forest Blvd., Cave Spring Magisterial District, Roanoke County, VirginiaFebruary 22, 2019, prepared and sealed by Larry Thomas Ogle, Jr., said plat being attached as Exhibit A and to be recorded in the Roan tğŭĻ Ќ ƚŅ Џ Prepared by: Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney (VSB #71223) 5204 Bernard Drive; P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Said Ingress/ Egress Easement shall be subject to the terms, conditions, and maintenance agreement stated below. 1. The Parties agree that no traffic calming devices, including speed bumps, shall be installed within the Easement Area. 2. Each Party shall have the right to clear the Easement Area from debris, including snow, without prior approval from the other Party. Each party shall bear their own expense for removing such debris. 3. Each Party shall have the right to maintain the paved surface of the Easement Area. The costs of such maintenance shall be borne as follows: a. Either Party (but not both) may arrange for maintenance costing five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) or less, per calendar year, without first obtaining prior written approval from the other Party. The Grantor shall bear one-third (1/3) the cost of such maintenance (up to $1,667.00 per calendar year) and the Grantee shall bear two-thirds (2/3) the cost of such maintenance (up to $3,333.00 per calendar year). The Party who arranges for such maintenance may seek reimbursement from the other Party (for the above-noted proportionate share of the such maintenance costs) by presenting the other Party with a detailed invoice for the work performed. b. Written approval of both Parties shall be required, in advance, for any maintenance costs above $5,000.00 per calendar year. If both Parties consent to tğŭĻ Ѝ ƚŅ Џ Prepared by: Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney (VSB #71223) 5204 Bernard Drive; P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 such costs, the Grantor shall again bear one-third (1/3) the cost of such maintenance, and the Grantee shall bear two-thirds (2/3) the cost of such maintenance, unless otherwise agreed upon by the Parties. 4. The Parties acknowledge that the cost of any improvements located outside of the newly-designated Easement Area shall not be shared jointly by the Parties. The cost of any such improvements shall be borne exclusively by the Party who owns the property on which the improvements are made. WITNESS the following signatures and seal: GRANTOR: STRAUSS PROPERTIES, LLC By: ______________________________________ Printed name/ title:__________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) COUNTY OF ROANOKE ) to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _________ 2019, by ________________________________________________. My commission expires: ________________________ ______________________________________ Notary Public Registration No. ________________________ (SEAL) tğŭĻ Ў ƚŅ Џ Prepared by: Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney (VSB #71223) 5204 Bernard Drive; P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 GRANTEE: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By: ______________________________________ Printed name/ title:__________________________ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) COUNTY OF ROANKE ) to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _________ 2019, by ______________________________________________________________________. My commission expires: ________________________ ______________________________________ Notary Public Registration No. ________________________ (SEAL) Approved as to Form: __________________________________ Office of the Roanoke County Attorney tğŭĻ Џ ƚŅ Џ ACTION NO. ITEM NO. G.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance approving an amendment to Section 7.1 of the Comcast Franchise Agreement regarding Comcast Local Office SUBMITTED BY: Mary Beth Nash Senior Assistant County Attorney APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Section 7.1 of the Franchise Agreement mandates that Comcast maintain a local office, or agent, at a location conveniently located for customers residing in the County. Comcast wishes to close this office. It will maintain installation/repair staff in the County, but would no longer operate a store-front customer service office. Closing the store requires an amendment to the franchise agreement. BACKGROUND: The current office, located in Salem, is primarily a venue to accept payments. Comcast employs two part-time representatives in this store front office. Comcast reports that the number of County customers who actually visit the storefront office has declined. In an effort to mitigate any inconvenience for customers who might otherwise visit the store to pay bills or make arrangements to exchange defective equipment, Comcast will hold a series of afternoon seminars, with refreshments, to "train" customers on how to receive a mailing envelope to return and exchange defective equipment. Comcast will also mail advance notice to all customers regarding the store closing. Finally, Comcast will provide other local venues for customers to make in-person payments. DISCUSSION: Given the decline in foot traffic in the storefront and the fact that the two employees will be offered work in the Blacksburg Comcast office, it appears that this office closing will Page 1 of 2 have a de minimis effect on service and the local community. Comcast will maintain local repair and installation staff. Comcast utilizes U.S. based call center staff for customer service calls. All other customer service requirements will remain intact for the Comcast Franchise Agreement. There have been no changes since the first reading held on March 12, 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: This closing and franchise agreement amendment has no fiscal impact on the County. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPEVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019 ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7.1 OF A CABLE TELEVISION NEGOTIATED FRANCHISE WITH COMCAST CORPORATION WHEREAS, by Ordinance 102213-12 adopted on October 22, 2013, Roanoke County granted a non-exclusive cable franchise agreement to Comcast Corporation ; and WHEREAS, Section 7.1 of that Ordinance requires, inter alia, that Comcast customers residing in the County; and WHEREAS, Comcast currently maintains a storefront office in the City of Salem to serve County and Salem customers; and WHEREAS, the current office serves primarily as a venue for County and Salem customers to pay their cable invoices; and WHEREAS, the number of County residents who visit the storefront office has declined significantly since the inception of this Franchise Agreement; and WHEREAS, Comcast avers that County residents who are Comcast customers can receive all customer service benefits from alternative payment venues in the County, its U.S.-based call center, and internet-based customer service applications; and WHEREAS, the current employees of the Comcast store will be offered employment at the Blacksburg Comcast store; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, this Franchise ordinance amendment will have no adverse fiscal impact on the County; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff supports the execution of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 12, 2019, the second reading and public hearing was held on March 26, 2019. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, as follows: 1. That Section 7.1 of the Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement be modified to relieve Comcast of its obligation to maintain an office in the County and that the amended Section 7.1 shall read shall read as follows: 7.1 Customer Accessibility & FCC Records Availability. The Franchisee shall maintain a local office, or agent, at a location which is conveniently located for customers residing in the County, subject to County approval. Pursuant to Part 76, Subpart U, §l 700(b) of the rules of the FCC, as be amended from time to time, all records, reports and documents required to be maintained in the public inspection file of the Franchisee shall at all times be maintainedat the Franchisee's office as herein described. At all times during the term of this Agreement, the following documents and records shall be subject to public review in the public inspection file: i) requests for cablecast time made by or on behalf of a candidate for public office, together with appropriate notations showing the disposition made on each request; and the charges made, if any, in the event the request was granted; ii) record of free time provided candidates if such time was made available; iii) copies of any Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Reports required to be filed with the FCC; iv) commercial records on children's programs sufficient to verify compliance with Section 76.225 of the FCC's rules; v) proof of performance test data required by Section 76.60 I of the FCC's rules; vi) signal leakage logs and repair reports as required by Section 76.614; vii) a written designation and location of Franchisee's principal headend and the designation of any new Page 2 of 3 principal headend; and, viii) all other records and reports as required by Section 1700(b) of the rules of the FCC, as amended. 2. The remaining portions of the Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 3. Roanoke County, by its County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute the amended Cable Franchise Agreement establishing the rights and obligations of the Franchising Authority and the Franchisee consistent with the provisions of Section 15.2-2108.20 of the Code of Virginia. 4. That this ordinance shall become effective from and after the date of its adoption. Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Open district appointments. BACKGROUND: 1. Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee (BFAC) (appointed by District) The following District appointments remain open: Cave Spring Magisterial District Vinton Magisterial District Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee (BFAC) (At-Large) Two open appointments 2. Economic Development Authority (EDA) (appointed by District) Leon McGhee has resigned from the EDA effective February 1, 2019. This is a four-year term and will not expire until September 26, 2021. 3. Library Board (appointed by District) The following District appointment remains open: Page 1 of 2 Vinton Magisterial District FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY,MARCH 26, 2019 RESOLUTION APPROVINGAND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I-CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for March 26, 2019,designated as Item I-ConsentAgenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through3 inclusive, as follows: 1.Approval of minutes –November 26, 2018, November 28, 2018, December 4, 2018, December 18, 2018 2.Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $1,929.88 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia 3.Request to accept and allocate grant funds for two cardiac monitors in the amount of $35,763.00 from the Virginia Department of Health (VDOH) Page 1of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $1,929.88 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia SUBMITTED BY: Jill Camilletti Deputy Clerk IV APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Acceptance and allocation of funds in the amount of $1,929.88 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia. BACKGROUND: The postage allocation represents a request to the Compensation Board to help offset postage costs. DISCUSSION: The funds received from the Commonwealth of Virginia have been earmarked for postage needs. FISCAL IMPACT: All funds are provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia. No County matching funds are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting and allocating $1,929.88 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court Page 1 of 2 from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. I.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $35,763 for two cardiac monitors from the Virginia Department of Health (VDOH) SUBMITTED BY: Stephen G. Simon Chief of Fire and Rescue APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Acceptance and allocation of $35,763 from the Virginia Department of Health (VDOH)-- Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS)--Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) BACKGROUND: The financial assistance for Emergency Medical Services Grants Program, known as the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) Grant Program is a multi-million dollar grant program for Virginia non-profit EMS agencies and organizations. Items eligible for funding include EMS equipment and vehicles, computers, EMS management programs, courses/classes and projects benefiting the recruitment and retention of EMS members. DISCUSSION: In the current Fire and Rescue budget, funds were approved to purchase one cardiac monitor. Staff then leveraged these funds to apply for and receive a grant for a second cardiac monitor, saving the County $35,000. The grant was awarded from the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) in the amount of $35,763 for the purchase of two (2) cardiac monitor/defibrillators for use on Advanced Life Support (ALS) calls. The grant requires a 50% local match. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: The VDOH grant funds total $35,763 with a required local match of 50% by the County, which was appropriated as part of the fiscal year 2018-2019 Fire and Rescue operating budget. No additional funds are required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the acceptance and allocation of grant funds to the Fire and Rescue Department in the amount of $35,763.00 from the Virginia Department of Health Office of Emergency Medical Services. Page 2 of 2 County of Roanoke Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency, and Capital Reserves Fiscal Year 2018-2019 General GovernmentCapital Unappropriated % ofBoard BalanceRevenuesContingencyReserves Audited balance as of June 30, 2018$ 23,531,962$ -$ 2,625,851 Approved Sources: Appropriated from 2018-19 budget (Ordinance 052218-1-a) 50,000 Allocated per the Comprehensive Financial Policy (12-18-2018) (651,462) 651,462 Allocated from Year End to Capital Reserves (12-18-2018) 142,294 Approved Uses: Appropriated for 2018-19 budget (Ordinance 052218-1-b) (1,611,089) Appropriated for 2018-19 budget (Ordinance 031219-5) (187,000) Balance at March 26, 2019$ 22,880,50012.00%$ 50,000$ 1,621,518 County of Roanoke Unappropriated Balance, Board Contingency, and Capital Reserves Fiscal Year 2018-2019 General GovernmentCapital Unappropriated % ofBoard BalanceRevenuesContingencyReserves Audited balance as of June 30, 2018$ 23,531,962$ -$ 2,625,851 Approved Sources: Appropriated from 2018-19 budget (Ordinance 052218-1-a) 50,000 Allocated per the Comprehensive Financial Policy (12-18-2018) (651,462) 651,462 Allocated from Year End to Capital Reserves (12-18-2018) 142,294 Approved Uses: Appropriated for 2018-19 budget (Ordinance 052218-1-b) (1,611,089) Appropriated for 2018-19 budget (Ordinance 031219-5) (187,000) Balance at March 26, 2019$ 22,880,50012.00%$ 50,000$ 1,621,518 COUNTY OF ROANOKE Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances General Fund - C100 For the Eight Months Ending Thursday, February 28, 2019 Prior YearCurrent YearVariances ExpendituresExp & EncumExpendituresExp & Encum% of Budget& Encumbrances% of BudgetBudget& Encumbrances% of BudgetActuals Variance Legislative340,015206,38760.70%327,209207,59763.44%1,2110.58% General & Financial Administration7,573,7304,927,65465.06%8,107,3505,277,86765.10%349,2936.63% Electoral Board & Officials370,955283,11376.32%415,671317,96976.50%(2,395)-0.85% General Government Administration8,284,7005,417,15365.39%8,850,2305,803,43465.57%348,1096.04% Courts1,540,484863,86156.08%1,596,496862,52754.03%(1,334)-0.15% Other Judicial Support1,137,358718,95863.21%1,103,538750,95168.05%33,0794.40% Judicial2,677,8421,582,81959.11%2,700,0341,613,47959.76%31,7451.97% Law Enforcement & Traffic Cont13,475,4698,821,12965.46%14,210,0619,779,17068.82%916,9819.42% Fire and Rescue14,972,24710,046,34767.10%15,778,43210,440,50066.17%391,8753.76% Correction & Detention7,966,3515,358,47267.26%8,392,0575,396,50564.30%71,1881.33% Animal Control663,488368,76855.58%603,792370,03561.29%1,2680.34% Public Safety37,077,55524,594,71666.33%38,984,34225,986,21066.66%1,381,3125.33% General Services Administration571,140375,70465.78%591,055395,88966.98%18,7044.74% Refuse Disposal4,754,0802,902,34961.05%4,865,3643,107,05763.86%204,7086.59% Maint Buildings & Grounds4,579,6123,104,67067.79%4,826,6823,322,91068.84%219,7496.61% Engineering2,189,0661,223,63355.90%1,879,3221,307,82669.59%76,4935.98% Inspections1,052,570739,65170.27%1,213,867771,27863.54%25,6273.35% Garage Complex000.00%000.00%00.00% Public Works13,146,4688,346,00763.48%13,376,2908,904,96066.57%545,2816.15% Mental Health000.00%000.00%00.00% Public Health500,358372,47874.44%500,358481,71396.27%109,23622.68% Social Services Administration6,582,9104,258,14664.68%7,153,7274,413,52661.70%155,4963.52% Comprehensive Services Act000.00%000.00%00.00% Public Assistance4,195,6662,927,60769.78%4,702,6662,828,03760.14%(99,570)-3.52% Social Services Organizations208,85000.00%000.00%00.00% Health and Welfare11,487,7847,558,23165.79%12,356,7517,723,27662.50%165,1612.14% Prior YearCurrent YearVariances ExpendituresExp & EncumExpendituresExp & Encum% of Budget& Encumbrances% of BudgetBudget& Encumbrances% of BudgetActuals Variance Parks & Recreation2,305,2171,473,91863.94%2,405,6441,555,29864.65%81,4755.24% Library4,060,3422,602,35564.09%4,261,4382,562,74360.14%(42,028)-1.64% Cultural Enrichment52,35048,25092.17%000.00%(48,250)0.00% Parks, Recreation & Cultural6,417,9094,124,52364.27%6,667,0824,118,04161.77%(8,803)-0.21% Planning & Zoning1,026,763650,00163.31%1,041,476689,08666.16%39,0855.67% Cooperative Extension Program87,09742,92149.28%87,09743,39349.82%4731.09% Economic Development521,374327,35762.79%534,202307,79457.62%(19,564)-6.36% Contribution to Human Service Organizations87,45082,95094.85%000.00%(82,950)0.00% Community Deveopment1,722,6841,103,22964.04%1,662,7751,040,27362.56%(62,956)-6.05% Employee Benefits2,378,022892,55537.53%2,302,8631,035,07344.95%142,51713.77% Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup57,00011,15419.57%52,00027,67453.22%16,52059.70% Miscellaneous8,598,3096,365,69274.03%9,261,4916,965,14675.21%571,8538.24% Tax Relief/Elderly & Handicapp825,000446,26154.09%850,000463,29454.51%17,0333.68% Refuse Credit Vinton110,00055,00050.00%110,00055,00050.00%00.00% Board Contingency43,50000.00%50,00000.00%00.00% Unappropriated Balance23,531,96200.00%22,880,50000.00%00.00% Non-Departmental35,543,7937,770,66221.86%35,506,8548,546,18724.07%747,9238.78% Interfund Transfers Out91,093,42449,387,95754.22%91,336,64867,386,62273.78%17,998,66626.71% Intrafund Transfers Out4,114,2603,411,67582.92%4,302,1953,559,76182.74%148,0864.16% Transfers Out95,207,68452,799,63255.46%95,638,84370,946,38374.18%18,146,75125.58% Grand Totals211,566,419113,296,97153.55%215,743,201134,682,24262.43%21,294,52415.83% ACTION NO.___________________ ITEM NUMBER_______________ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER. MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEMS: Statement of the Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy, as of 28-Feb-19 SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: CASH INVESTMENT: SUNTRUST CON4,561,468.514,561,468.51 GOVERNMENT: SCOTT STRINGFELLOW CONTRA(60,586.00) SCOTT STRINGFELLOW 46,003,990.26 WELLS FARGO7,000,000.00 WELLS FARGO CONTRA(43,220.00)52,900,184.26 LOCAL GOV'T INVESTMENT POOL: GENERAL OPERATION 15,241,125.2415,241,125.24 MONEY MARKET: AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK2,046,915.64 BRANCH BANKING & TRUST96,361.97 HOMETRUST BANK11,558.43 SCOTT STRINGFELLOW - JAIL1,138,732.78 SCOTT STRINGFELLOW 2,657,666.81 WELLS FARGO5,148,369.95 BANK OF THE JAMES505,703.4211,605,309.00 TOTAL84,308,087.01 3/26/2019 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. L.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Operating Budget SUBMITTED BY: Christopher R. Bever Director of Management and Budget APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Review the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Operating Budget. BACKGROUND: As part of the annual budget development process, County staff conducts a series of work sessions with the Board of Supervisors after the County Administrator proposes his budget. This year's operating budget was proposed on March 12, 2019. This work session is the first of three scheduled work sessions before first reading to adopt the budget on May 14, 2019. The second and final reading is scheduled for May 28, 2019. DISCUSSION: This work session will provide information to the Board of Supervisors regarding the County Administrator's Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Operating Budget. Topics to be discussed by County staff include employee compensation and benefits, position changes, and the County's CORTRAN program. The Board of Supervisors may also wish to discuss other topics related to the proposed operating budget. The attached Power Point presentation will be shown. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of the attached presentation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors receive information regarding the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Operating Budget. Page 2 of 2 FY 2020 Budget Development Budget Work Session #1 Board of Supervisors Budget Work Session March 26, 2019 Work Session Agenda •Total Compensation •Overview •Roanoke County Workforce Demographics •FY 2020 Proposed Total Compensation •Health Insurance and Other Benefits •Total Compensation Next Steps •CORTRAN •Next Steps FY 2020 Budget Development 2 Budget Work Session #1 Total Compensation Overview FY 2020 Budget Development 3 Employee Total Compensation Components of Total Compensation SalaryBenefits Development & Professional Enhance competency Pay provided in return for servicesMandated and value added Performance & RecognitionWork-Life Satisfaction Alignment to business goalsBalance FY 2020 Budget Development 4 Employee Total Compensation Compensation Philosophy •Recruitment and retention of high quality employees •Internal equity and regional market comparability •Compensation consistent with fiscal constraints •Balance total compensation between pay and benefits FY 2020 Budget Development 5 Employee Total Compensation Roanoke County Total Compensation •Pay, salaries, and wages•Development and Professional •Continues to lag behind inflation•Tuition Reimbursement •Scholarship Programs •Benefits •In house and outside training opportunities (reduction in FY •Non-Managed 2020 due to “freezing” Human Resource position) •Social Security/Medicare •Performance and Recognition •Virginia Retirement System (VRS)•Longevity Bonus •VRS Life Insurance•Service Awards •VRS Health Credit •Work-Life Satisfaction •Long Term Disability •Flexible Leave Plan / Holidays •Managed •Part Time Holidays •Health and Dental Insurance •Employee Discount at Green Ridge •Deferred Compensation •Family-friendly employment policies and flexible work place •Flexible Leave Payout •Community Service Leave •Short Term Disability •Vision Insurance FY 2020 Budget Development 6 Employee Total Compensation Roanoke County Total Compensation FY 2020 Proposed Total General Government Budget (excluding Schools Operating, CSA, and CommIT Transfers) $126,093,099 Salaries Non-Personnel$49,565,564 $40,497,204 39.3% 32% Salaries and Benefits $69,547,558 55.2% Debt Service & Capital $16,048,337 12.7% Non-Managed Benefits Managed Benefits $10,379,000 $9,602,994 8.2% 7.6% FY 2020 Budget Development 7 Employee Total Compensation Roanoke County Benefits FY 2020 Proposed Benefits ManagedBenefits General Government and CommIT $19,981,994 Non-ManagedBenefits Health Insurance$7,046,23535.3% SocialSecurity/ Dental Insurance$319,2191.6% $3,862,14519.3% Medicare Retiree Health Ins.$765,3803.8% VirginiaRetirement $5,665,52828.3% System Termination Pay$435,0002.2% VRS Life Ins.$601,9983.0% Flexible Leave $370,0001.9% Payout VRS Health Credit$137,8600.7% Line of Duty $286,0001.4% Long Term Benefits $111,4690.6% Disability Deferred Comp. $381,1601.9% Total Non- Match $10,379,00051.9% Managed Benefits Total Managed $9,602,99448.1% Benefits FY 2020 Budget Development 8 Employee Total Compensation Roanoke County Workforce Demographics FY 2020 Budget Development 9 Employee Total Compensation Workforce Demographics CategoryPublic SafetyNon-Public SafetyTotal Full-Time Employees 395575 970* Part-Time Employees 60695 755 Gender: Male 89%40%60% Gender: Female 11%60%40% Age Range 20–6520 –73 20 –73 Median Age 3744 40 Yearsof ServiceRange 0 –400 –45 0 –45 Median Years of Service 95 6 MedianSalary $44,268$40,807$42,403 Public Safety: Fire & Rescue, Police, Sheriff (Sworn/Uniform Only) Non-Public Safety:All others *Payroll data from March 2019; does not include vacancies or non-classified positions (i.e. County Administrator, County Attorney, Constitutional Officers, or Board of Supervisors); 1,007 total approved positions Mid-Year FY 2019. FY 2020 Budget Development 10 Employee Total Compensation Years of Service and Age All Full-Time Employees Years of Service -All Full-Time Employees 400 970 Employees 298 269 300 200 158157157 150 146 140 138 111 60 100 51 28 20 19 18 10 55 2 0 <11-45-910-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940+ Years of Service FY 2018FY 2019 Age -All Full-Time Employees 970 Employees 200 155 153 137 135 150130 121 117 116 113 104 103103 10080 74 71 66 64 60 50 19 17 4 0 0 <2020-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465+ Age FY 2018FY 2019 FY 2020 Budget Development 11 Employee Total Compensation Years of Service and Age Sworn Public Safety Employees Years of Service -Sworn Public Safety Employees 150 395 Employees 106 99 88 100 82 73 7171 67 47 50 27 26 22 7 5 4 3 22 11 0 <11-45-910-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940+ Years of Service FY 2018FY 2019 Age -Sworn Public Safety Employees 100 395 Employees 88 78 80 66 65 64 6363 62 54 53 60 34 40 30 30 29 20 8 6 5 4 2 0 0 20-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465+ Age FY 2018FY 2019 FY 2020 Budget Development 12 Employee Total Compensation Years of Service Years of Service –All Full-Time Employees Year0 –45 –1010 –2020 + 2016322195279132 2017385151298114 2018409158295110 2019409157296108 Years of Service –Sworn Public Safety Year0–45 –1010 –2020 + 20161188014240 20171506416040 20181467315337 20191337115536 FY 2020 Budget Development 13 Employee Total Compensation Age Age –All Full-Time Employees Year18 –2425 –2930 –3940 –4950 + 201663121211250283 201758144221247278 201868153229238284 201974155247240254 Age –Sworn Public Safety Year18 –2425 –2930 –3940 –4950 + 2016277211811746 2017337912912350 2018308812711648 2019297812911841 FY 2020 Budget Development 14 Employee Total Compensation VRS Full Retirement Eligible Now Workforce Eligible for Full Retirement (61 Employees) # of Employees Assistant Directors & Managers/ CategoryAll OthersDefinition EligibleAboveSupervisors Age: 50, YOS: 25 Public Safety14383 Age: 60, YOS: 5 Age: 50, YOS: 30 Non-Public Safety4751131 Age: 65, YOS: 5 •6.3% of Roanoke County workforce eligible for full retirement now (61 eligible of 970 current Full-Time employees) •34% of Non-Public Safety employees eligible for full retirement are Managers, Assistant Directors & Above •15% of Roanoke County workforce eligible for full retirement within five years FY 2020 Budget Development 15 Employee Total Compensation VRS Full Retirement Workforce Eligible for Full Retirement Public Safety & # of Employees Public Safety Non-Public Safety Year% of Total WorkforceNon-PublicSafety EligibleEmployeesEmployees Management 2016859.2%236236 2017606.3%174331 2018565.8%154132 2019616.3%144727 FY 2020 Budget Development 16 Employee Total Compensation Salary Distribution for Full-Time Classified Employees Salary Distribution for Full-Time Employees 600 As of March 2019 484 500 970 Total Full-Time Positions Average Salary$47,221 400 Median Salary$42,403 300 250 Minimum Salary$21,693 200 Maximum Salary*$146,000 97 76 100 38 1010 3 2 0 $20,000 - $29,999$30,000 - $44,999$45,000 - $59,999$60,000 - $74,999$75,000 - $89,999$90,000 - $104,999$105,000 - $119,999$120,000 - $134,999$135,000 - $150,000 Salary Range •58% of all full-time salaries are below $45,000 •84% of all full-time salaries are below $60,000 *Note:Does not include vacant positions or non-classified positions (i.e. -County Administrator, County Attorney, Constitutional Officers, and Board of Supervisors) FY 2020 Budget Development 17 Employee Total Compensation Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Operating Budget Total Compensation FY 2020 Budget Development 18 Employee Total Compensation Proposed FY 2020 Operating Budget Compensation & Benefits Total Compensation Element$ Change Over General GovernmentFundFY 2019 Regular full-timesalaries (includes 2.5% compensation & all position changes)$1,220,800 Overtime$236,200 Part-timesalaries($102,463) Vacancy savings($91,000) Managed benefits (health,dental, deferred compensation, etc.)$672,082 Non-managed benefits (SocialSecurity, Medicare, VRS, etc.)$294,885 Transferto SAFER Grant Fund$149,738 Total, General Government Fund Compensation and Benefits$2,380,242 All totals above include compensation / benefits cost for current employees and proposed full-time and part-time staffing level adjustments for all General Government departments including new positions from Vinton FY 2020 Budget Development 19 Employee Total Compensation History of Pay Adjustments Example Salary Adjustments Compared to Inflation $42,403 Median Salaried Employee in FY 2009 $52,113 $50,842 $52,000 $49,631 $50,000 $48,448 $47,437 $48,927 $46,846 $48,000$46,791 $46,044 $48,220 $45,379 $46,000 $47,274 $44,459 $46,576 $45,662 $43,099 $44,000 $42,403 $44,549 $43,675$43,675 $42,000 $42,403$42,403$42,403$42,403 $40,000 Pay AdjustmentInflation* $38,000 FY 2009FY 2010FY 2011FY 2012FY 2013FY 2014FY 2015FY 2016FY 2017FY 2018FY 2019FY 2020 Pay --------------------3.0%-----2.0%2.5%2.0%1.5%2.0%2.5% Adjustment Inflation*-----1.64%3.16%2.07%1.46%1.62%0.12%1.26%2.13%2.44%2.44%+/-2.50% Note: •FY 13 also included a hold harmless 5.75% increase for VRS Plan 1 employees due to state mandate that all employees pay theirshare of VRS contribution •Non-recurring bonuses were received in FY 10 ($500) and FY 12 ($500 -$2,500) •0.5% of FY 16 increase was a hold harmless increase for Health Insurance rate changes *Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov FY 2020 Budget Development 20 Employee Total Compensation Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Position Changes FY 2020 Budget Development 21 Employee Total Compensation Proposed FY 2020 Position Changes – Eliminated Positions ProposedEliminated Positions Net Cost/ DepartmentPosition(Reduction)FTE Count Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors – Clerk to the Board of ($33,486)(1.0) Eliminate full-time position and provide resources for a part-time Supervisors Deputy Clerk. Greenway/Blueway Planner – Parks, Recreation & Tourism($83,302)(1.0) Eliminatefull-timeposition; duties will be transferred to the new Economic and Community Development Department. Subtotal –Eliminated Positions($116,788)(2.0) FY 2020 Budget Development 22 Employee Total Compensation Proposed FY 2020 Position Changes – Frozen Positions Proposed Frozen Positions Net Cost/ DepartmentPosition(Reduction)FTE Count Volunteer Coordinator – Position will not be filled in FY 2020.Duties will be distributed to Fire& Rescue($61,214)- other Fire & Rescue staff and on-going need for position will be analyzed. Human Resources Consultant/ Training – Human Resources($78,928)- Position will not be filled in FY 2020. Training opportunities will be limited; some training will be handled by outside consultants. Planner II, CombinationCode Inspector, and Economic Development Specialist – Economic & Community ($193,195)- Positions will not be filled in FY 2020 but may be refilled in FY Development 2021 based on the needs of the new Economic and Community Development Department. Subtotal–Frozen Positions ($333,337)- FY 2020 Budget Development 23 Employee Total Compensation Proposed FY 2020 Position Changes – Added/New Positions Proposed Added/New Positons DepartmentPositionNet CostFTE Count Director of Economic & Community Development – Economic & Community $154,1541.0 Add position to oversee the reorganized economic and Development community development functions. CORTRAN Program Coordinator – Add position inSocial Services to actively manage the CORTRAN Social Services$23,9091.0 program and contract with RADAR. Position costs are offset by a reduction in part-time funding. Treasurer Clerk II – Treasurer($81,127)1.0 Add position to assist with delinquent tax collections; offset by new revenue ($125,000) through additional collections. Transfer of Town of Vinton Fire Personnel – Fire & Rescue$791,00011.0 Add11 positions to Fire & Rescue Department. Subtotal –Added/New Positons $887,93614.0 TotalProposed FY 2020 Positon Changes $437,81112.0 FY 2020 Budget Development 24 Employee Total Compensation Proposed FY 2020 Position Changes – Other Position Changes ProposedOther Position Changes Net Cost/ DepartmentPosition(Reduction)FTE Count Regional Center for Animal Veterinarian– $94,9661.0 Convert part-time Veterinarian position to full-time. Control &Protection Subtotal –Other PositionChanges$94,9661.0 •No increase to the General Government budget but increases the County FTE count. FY 2020 Budget Development 25 Employee Total Compensation Fiscal Year 2020 Proposed Health Insurance Fund FY 2020 Budget Development 26 Employee Total Compensation Proposed FY 2020 Health Insurance Fund Overview •Total costs related to health insurance premiums for fiscal year 2020 increase by approximately 15% due to the following factors: •Increase in claims, cost of claims, and cost of administration •Need to address fund balance issues to be in compliance with Board of Supervisors adopted fund balance policies •Include a 2% claims margin due to fluctuation in claims costs •Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) now captured in the health insurance fund as they are related to health benefits at retirement •Rebid in FY 2019 –did not yield significant savings or plan changes •Keeps one plan –Key Care 1000 with Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) for employees enrolled in the Wellness program for FY 2020 •FY 2020 health insurance plan benefits do not change FY 2020 Budget Development 27 Employee Total Compensation Health Insurance FY 2020 Total Costs Total Health Insurance Fund ExpendituresFY2020 Estimated Costs Claims & Prescriptions$9,268,886 Fixed Costs$1,411,948 2.0% Claims Margin$189,936 HRA Costs$525,000 Marathon Clinic$450,000 Fund Balance Contribution$475,000 Flexible BenefitsAdministration$66,000 Miscellaneous/Consulting$50,000 Total Expenditures$12,436,770 FY 2019 Budget$11,192,391 FY 2020 EstimatedBudget$12,436,770 TotalFund Increase$1,244,379 FY 2020 Budget Development 28 Employee Total Compensation Health Insurance Employee/Employer Rate Structure Employee %Share of Total •Wellness –Employee Only Plan Cost increases employee share from PlanFY 2019FY 2020 12.5% to 15.0% of plan Wellness –Employee Only12.5%15.0% Wellness –Employee + Child27.5%27.5% •Non-Wellness employee share of Wellness –Employee + Spouse35.0%35.0% all premiums increase 5.0% over Wellness –Family35.0%35.0% FY 2019 Wellness –County Couple x 124.2%28.4% •FY 2020 is Year 4 of 5 year phase- Wellness –County Couple x 221.1%26.7% out of the County Couple Rate No Wellness –Employee Only22.5%27.5% •Will provide information from No Wellness –Employee + Child37.5%42.5% Comparative Jurisdictions April 23 No Wellness –Employee + Spouse45.0%50.0% No Wellness –Family45.0%50.0% FY 2020 Budget Development 29 Employee Total Compensation Health Insurance Employee/Employer Rate Structure: Monthly Rates Current Employees with Wellness Employee Share *With WellnessFY 2019 Monthly RatesFY 2020 Monthly RatesDifference TotalCounty Employee Total County EmployeeFY 20 -FY 19 KC1000 Employee Only$ 546.30$ 478.00$ 68.30$ 626.54$ 532.56 $ 93.98 $ 25.68 KC1000 Employee + Child$ 793.83 $ 575.53 $ 218.30 $ 906.80 $ 657.44 $ 249.36 $ 31.06 KC1000 Employee + Spouse$ 1,092.62 $ 710.20 $ 382.42 $ 1,253.10 $ 814.52 $ 438.58 $ 56.16 KC1000 Employee + Family$ 1,369,27 $ 890.01$ 479.26 $ 1,573.74 $ 1,022.94 $ 550.80 $ 71.54 County Couple X 1$ 1,327.61 $ 1,006.91 $ 320.70 $ 1,532.08 $ 1,096.32$ 435.76 $ 115.06 County Couple X 2$ 1,369,27 $ 1,080.57$ 288.70$ 1,573.74 $ 1,153.98 $ 419.76 $ 131.06 *Employee eligible for HRA if enrolled in Wellness; spouse HRA contingent on enrolling in Wellness Current Employees without Wellness Employee Share *Without WellnessFY 2019 Monthly RatesFY 2020 Monthly RatesDifference TotalCounty Employee Total County EmployeeFY 20 -FY 19 KC1000 Employee Only$ 656.01 $ 508.41 $ 147.60 $ 760.33 $ 551.25 $ 209.08 $ 61.48 KC1000 Employee + Child$ 923.65 $ 577.27 $ 346.38 $ 1,070.52 $ 615.56 $ 454.96 $ 108.58 KC1000 Employee + Spouse$ 1,312.07 $ 721.63 $ 590.44 $ 1,520.70 $ 760.36 $ 760.34 $ 169.90 KC1000 Employee + Family$ 1,671.71 $ 919.43 $ 752.28 $ 1,937.53 $ 968.77 $ 968.76 $ 216.48 *Ineligible for HRA if employee not enrolled in Wellness FY 2020 Budget Development 30 Employee Total Compensation Retiree Health Insurance Monthly Rate Structure & Retiree Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) Retirees (20 + Years of Service) Retiree Share *Without WellnessFY 2019 Monthly RatesFY 2020 Monthly RatesDifference TotalCounty Retiree Total County RetireeFY 20 -FY 19 KC1000 Retiree Only$ 754.41$ 500.00 $ 254.41 $ 874.36 $ 500.00 $ 374.36 $ 119.95 KC1000 Retiree + Child$ 1,062.19 $ 612.44 $ 449.75 $ 1,231.08 $ 609.66$ 621.42 $ 171.67 KC1000 Retiree + Spouse$ 1,508.87$701.77$ 807.10 $ 1,748.78 $ 687.32 $ 1,061.46 $ 254.36 KC1000 Retiree + Family$ 1,922.47 $ 784.49 $ 1,137.98 $ 2,228.14 $ 759.22 $ 1,468.92 $ 330.94 *Eligible for HRA if completing "3 steps to Wellness"; Retirees do not get Wellness rate Retiree Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) Information •Retirees and spouses are eligible for HRA with enrollment in “3-steps to Wellness”; but not eligible for Wellness premium. •Minimal number of retirees living outside the Roanoke Valley. Marathon Health Clinic will continue to work with these retirees to provide information to enroll in “3-steps to Wellness.” FY 2020 Budget Development 31 Employee Total Compensation Dental Insurance Overview •Benefits changes enacted January 1, 2018 and communicated to employees by Human Resources include: •Deductible increasing from $25/$75 to $50/$150 •Added coverage for dental implants •Minimal increase in monthly rates, no changes to benefits Proposed FY 2020 Dental Insurance Rates FY 2020FY2020 FY 2020 FY 2019 $ Increase Total Dental PlanCounty Employee Employee % Employee FY 2019to Premium PortionRateof PremiumRateFY 2020 Subscriber$31.88$23.78$8.1025.4%$7.70$0.40 Subscriber + 1$51.89$30.38$21.5141.5%$20.86$0.65 Family$89.76$45.08$44.6849.8%$43.56$1.12 FY 2020 Budget Development 32 Employee Total Compensation FY 2020 Other Benefits •Continues 40 hours per year flexible leave payout to eligible employees •Continued contribution of $25 per pay check to employee’s deferred compensation (with employee match) •Employee tuition reimbursement at up to $1,000 per year per full-time employee •Discounted membership at County owned recreation facilities •Continues funding to provide regular part-time employees with limited leave pay FY 2020 Budget Development 33 Employee Total Compensation Proposed FY 2020 Operating Budget Compensation and Benefits Future Outlook •Conduct an employee engagement / satisfaction survey •Continue to promote County’s wellness program as a way to control increasing claims costs •Address increases in inflation as relates to employee compensation •Continue to evaluate total compensation to remain an employer of choice FY 2020 Budget Development 31 Employee Total Compensation County of Roanoke Transportation (CORTRAN) FY 2020 Budget Development 35 CORTRAN CORTRAN Overview Why does the County Administrator’s Proposed Budget include changes to the CORTRAN program? •Costs to the County have increased from $425K in FY 2016 to a projected $900K in FY 2019 •FY 2018 data revealed almost 1,700 “no-shows” for which the County pays the entire cost of the trip •Close to 40% of new applicants were not permanent County residents •Increased use by businesses to provide transportation for clients to and from their facilities FY 2020 Budget Development 36 CORTRAN CORTRAN Current Program Overview Program ElementDescription Program eligibility•Current residence in Roanoke County and - •Over 60 years old or •Proof of disability at any age •Eligibility verified by Department of Social Services Transportationavailability•Monday –Friday, 7:00 AM –6:00 PM with some exceptions for holidays and inclement weather •Will take eligible riders to and from Roanoke County, City of Roanoke, City of Salem, or Town of Vinton •Reservations may be made between one day and two weeks prior to the trip •Ride scheduling is coordinated by RADAR dispatch Cost of trip•Rider pays $4.00 per trip (one-way) –cash or ticket •RADAR bills County at $39.00 / hour •RADAR applies for grants independently of the County and applies against cost of trip FY 2020 Budget Development 37 CORTRAN CORTRAN Current Program Overview Program ElementDescription Legal requirementto provide service•County has no legal requirement to provide service •CORTRAN is not paratransit, which is generally required to accompany fixed route bus services Grant funding•RADAR receives grants based on operating like an ADA paratransit service •RADAR has indicated if program changes are made, they may not be able to receive grant funding FY 2020 Budget Development 38 CORTRAN CORTRAN Current Program Overview •CORTRAN program changes already implemented include: New application Transitioned program from Parks, Recreation, and Tourism to Social Services County outreach to clients who “no-show” Increased County oversight of monthly data received from RADAR •CORTRAN program changes being developed: Preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for transportation services FY 2020 Budget Development 39 CORTRAN CORTRAN County Staff Observations •Observations from County staff and Department of Social Services: •Ridership has been increasing rapidly over the last several years •Need for adequate staff oversight and resources to efficiently manage program •Need for compliance oversight regarding contract administration •Need for better ridership data on regular basis •A new full-time CORTRAN program coordinator is recommended to address the concerns identified by Social Services to ensure effective and efficient service delivery FY 2020 Budget Development 40 CORTRAN CORTRAN County Staff Recommendations Q1: Should Roanoke County continue to offer this transportation service? Staff Response: Yes Q2: If yes, what is the Mission/Vision for providing the service? Staff Response: “To provide demand response transportation services to eligible County of Roanoke citizens to and from their primary residence to facilitate independent living and continued involvement in the community.” Q3: What changes, if any, should be made to make the program more efficient? Staff Response: Discussed on Next Slides FY 2020 Budget Development 41 CORTRAN CORTRAN Recommended Program Changes RecommendedProgram ChangePotential Impact / OtherItems Servicing onlypermanent Roanoke •In December 2018,it was found as part of the new application County residents process that close to 40% of new applicants were not permanent County residents. •All of these applications were received from nursing/rehabilitation facilities. •Restricting the use of CORTRAN to only permanent County residents could result in RADAR losing grant funding, which could then increase the cost of trips to the County. •Department of Social Services has criteria for determining permanent County residency. FY 2020 Budget Development 42 CORTRAN CORTRAN Recommended Program Changes RecommendedProgram ChangePotential Impact / OtherItems Providing transportationservices •Currently, if a clientis deemed to be eligible for CORTRAN, they can only to and from a client’s permanent be picked up and dropped off at any location in the County, City of residence Roanoke, City of Salem, or Town of Vinton. •County does not control dispatch services; servicing only a client’s permanent residence allows for more efficient program monitoring. •Instances documented of a rider moving from the County to the City and still using CORTRAN as the primary transportation service. •County has the ability with the current scheduling software to indicate a trip must begin or end at the client’s primary residence. FY 2020 Budget Development 43 CORTRAN CORTRAN Recommended Program Changes RecommendedProgram ChangePotential Impact / OtherItems Providing transportationservices only •Businesses and non-profits who utilize CORTRAN to transport clients to and from a client’s permanent to and from locations other than the client’s primary residence residence (continued)would need to find alternative transportation. •Exceptions can be made for route efficiencies. •Restricting the use of CORTRAN to and from the rider’s primary residence could result in RADAR losing grant funding, which could then increase the cost of trips to the County. FY 2020 Budget Development 44 CORTRAN CORTRAN Recommended Program Changes RecommendedProgram ChangePotential Impact / Other Items Increase minimum age only •Data indicatesminimal usage by citizens who are riders only based requirementfrom 60 to 70 years old on the minimum age requirement. •Important to note the requirement is over the age of 70 orbased on a disability. Increasefare from $4.00 to $5.00 a •Last fare increase was approximatelyten years ago. trip•Impact would be to low income citizens who rely and CORTRAN for frequent transportation services. •Even with increase, County could still subsidize up to 87% of the cost of the ride. Develop andenforce a formal “no-•Riders orbusinesses scheduling trips and not showing up without show” policy canceling may experience periods of time that the service would be unavailable to them. Rebidcontract for transportation •County staff currentlyworking on re-bidding contract. services FY 2020 Budget Development 45 CORTRAN CORTRAN Next Steps •Even with service level changes, FY 2020 budget for services provided by RADAR increases $160,000 to $675,000 •CORTRAN program coordinator position recommended to be added as part of the FY 2020 budget •Service level changes not recommended to be implemented until September 1, 2019 •Staff will conduct extensive outreach to ensure stakeholders are aware of service level changes FY 2020 Budget Development 46 CORTRAN Outside Agency Funding FY 2020 Budget Development 47 Outside Agency Funding FY 2020 Outside Agency Funding Typeof Outside Agency / (budget document page)FY 19 AmountFY 20 AmountDifference Contractual (page206)$1,792,372$1,833,652$41,280 Discretionary (page 202 –page 205)$347,475$347,475- Dues and Memberships (page 207)$38,003$38,003- Total$2,177,850$2,219,130$41,280 •Contractual increases primarily due to: •Visit Virginia’s Blue Ridge ($11,688) •Roanoke Valley Television –RVTV ($6,991) •Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission ($4,218) •Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare ($20,000) FY 2020 Budget Development 48 Outside Agency Funding Next Steps FY 2020 Budget Development 49 Next Steps Proposed FY 2020 Operating Budget Next Steps –Work Sessions Work SessionTopic2019 Date FY 2018-2019 Mid-Year Revenue/ExpenditureUpdateJanuary 22 FY 2019-2020 Revenue ProjectionsFebruary 12 CapitalImprovement ProgramFebruary26 Total Compensation; CORTRANMarch 26 Departmental Budgets; OutsideAgencies; Other General Funds; Fees & ChargesApril 9 Follow-Up Itemsif NecessaryApril 23 Note: Additional work sessions may be added if necessary FY 2020 Budget Development 50 Next Steps Proposed FY 2020 Operating Budget Next Steps –Tax Rate and Budget Items TaxRate/Budget Item2019 Date County Administrator’s Recommended FY 2020 OperatingBudgetMarch 12 Budget Public Hearing & Resolution to Establish the Maximum Tax Rate;Public Hearing March 26 on Effective Tax Rate Operating and Capital Budget Public Hearing; Public Hearing on Tax Rates; Resolution April9 to Establish a Tax Rate First Readingof Ordinance to Appropriate Funds for the FY 2020 Operating & Capital May 14 Budgets; Final Public Hearing Resolution to Adopt FY 2020 Operating& Capital Budget & Second Reading to May 28 AppropriateFunds for the FY 2020 Operating & Capital Budgets FY 2020 Budget Development 51 Next Steps Questions and Comments FY 2020 Budget Development 52 Question and Comments AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies;and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. Page 1of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. O.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Proclamation declaring March 2019 as Girl Scout Month SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: This time has been set aside to proclaim Girl Scout Month. The Girl Scouts of the Roanoke Valley service area will be in attendance to accept the proclamation. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. P.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing for citizen comments on the Real Estate Effective Tax Rate for calendar year 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Christopher R. Bever Director of Management and Budget APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Conduct a public hearing for citizen comment on the effective Real Estate tax rate for calendar year 2019. BACKGROUND: Per the Code of Virginia, 58.1-3321, when any annual reassessment (in the County of Roanoke) of real property would result " ... in an increase of one percent or more in the total real property tax levies..." excluding new construction, a calculation known as the "effective tax rate increase" is required to be completed. The County of Roanoke's real property assessments, excluding new construction, increased by 2.47% over the previous year. Therefore, per State Code, the County must calculate the effective tax rate increase, advertise the effective tax rate increase, and conduct a public hearing pertaining to the effective tax rate increase. The Code of Virginia requires specific language to be included in the advertisement of the effective tax rate. The advertisement, published in the Roanoke Times on March 5, 2019, contained the following language: "The County of Roanoke, Virginia proposes to increase property tax levies. 1. Assessment Increase: Total assessed value of real property, excluding additional assessments due to new construction or improvements to property, exceeds last Page 1 of 3 2. Lowered Rate Necessary to Offset Increased Assessment: The tax rate which would levy the same amount of real estate tax as last year, when multiplied by the new total assessed value of real estate with the exclusions mentioned above would be $1.064 per $100 of assessed value. This rate will be known as the 3. Effective Rate Increase: The County of Roanoke proposes to adopt a tax rate of $1.09 per $100 of assessed value, which is no change over the current tax rate. The difference between the lowered tax rate and the proposed rate would be approximately $0.026 per $100, or 2.4 percent. This difference will be known as Individual property taxes may, however, increase at a percentage greater than or less than the above percentage. 4. Proposed General Government Total Budget Increase: Based on the proposed real property tax rate and changes in other revenue, the total General by 3.2 percent. th A public hearing on the increase will be held on the 26 day of March 2019 at the Roanoke County Administration Center located at 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24018, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard." After conducting this public hearing, the Board of Supervisors, should it choose, may elect to keep the Real Estate Tax rate the same as the prior year or make adjustments to the Real Estate tax rate. DISCUSSION: The public hearing scheduled for March 26, 2019, is to receive written and oral comments on the Real Estate effective tax rate as defined by the Code of Virginia for calendar year 2019. The public hearing was advertised in the Roanoke Times on March 5, 2019, thereby satisfying State code requirements for public notice. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conducting the public hearing to receive citizen comments on the Page 2 of 3 Real Estate effective tax rate for calendar year 2019. Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. Q.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing for citizen comments on the maximum 2019 calendar year tax rates for Real Estate, Personal Property and Machinery and Tools Taxes SUBMITTED BY: Christopher R. Bever Director of Management and Budget APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Conduct a public hearing for citizen comment on the maximum 2019 calendar year tax rates. BACKGROUND: In advance of considering resolutions to set maximum 2019 calendar year tax rates, the Board of Supervisors holds a public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding the maximum tax rates. DISCUSSION: The public hearing scheduled for March 26, 2019, is to receive written and oral comments on setting the maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 to support the fiscal year 2019-2020 operating budget. The public hearing was advertised in the Roanoke Times on March 13, 2019 and March 20, 2019, thereby satisfying State code requirements for public notice. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this public hearing. Page 1 of 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conducting the public hearing to receive citizen comments on the maximum 2019 calendar year tax rates. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. Q.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Resolutions to set the following maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 to support this fiscal year 2019-2020 operating budget: (a) Resolution to set the Real Estate maximum tax rate for calendar year 2019; (b) Resolution to set the Personal Property maximum tax rate for calendar year 2019; and (c) Resolution to set the Machinery and Tools maximum tax rate for calendar year 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Christopher R. Bever Director of Management and Budget APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Request for the Board of Supervisors to approve resolutions setting maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 in support of the fiscal year 2019-2020 operating budget. BACKGROUND: Approval of these resolutions represents a change in setting tax rates that began as part of the fiscal year 2016-2017 operating budget development process. Prior to fiscal year 2016-2017, maximum tax rates were adopted by the Board of Supervisors simultaneous to final adoption of tax rates. Beginning with the fiscal year 2016-2017 budget development process, maximum tax rates were set by resolution at the meeting preceding the adoption of the tax rates. DISCUSSION: These resolutions will set maximum tax rates for Real Estate, Personal Property and Machinery and Tools Taxes in advance of formal adoption of calendar year 2019 tax rates. Formal adoption of the tax rates is scheduled on April 9, 2019, and will be preceded by a public hearing. Page 1 of 2 The fiscal year 2019-2020 proposed operating budget assumes the same tax rates as the current year operating budget. For reference, the adopted tax rates for calendar year 2018 along with the value of a penny change on each of the tax rates are as follows: Tax Rate Description 2018 Calendar Year Tax Rate Value of a Penny on Tax Rate Real Estate Tax Rate $1.09 per $100 Assessed Value $875,000 Personal Property Tax Rate $3.50 per $100 Assessed Value $88,300 including Business Personal Property Tax Machinery and Tools Tax $2.85 per $100 Assessed Value $9,300 The adoption of these resolutions was preceded by a public hearing on March 26, 2019, to receive written and oral comments on setting the maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019. The public hearing on the maximum tax rates was advertised on March 13 and March 20, 2019, in the Roanoke Times, thereby satisfying State code requirements for public notice. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no immediate fiscal impact with setting the maximum calendar year 2019 tax rates. Any potential fiscal impact will be determined when the Board of Supervisors adopts calendar year 2019 tax rates on April 9, 2019. If the Board of Supervisors were to set maximum tax rates lower than current rates, there would be a loss of revenue in the current fiscal year and next fiscal year. For example, a penny change in the Real Estate tax rate would yield approximately $437,500 less in current year tax revenues in the County's General Government Fund. There would be no immediate impact to Roanoke County Public Schools (RCPS) revenue. In fiscal year 2019-2020, a penny change in the tax rate would impact both County and RCPS available revenue. As the County Administrator's proposed budget is balanced on maintaining the current Real Estate tax rate at $1.09 per $100 of assessed value, a reduction in the Real Estate Tax rate would also require a reduction in General Government expenditures as detailed in the County Administrator's proposed fiscal year 2019-2020 operating budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019, with adoption of calendar year 2019 tax rates scheduled for April 9, 2019. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019 RESOLUTION TO SET THE REAL ESTATE MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 to support the fiscal year 2019-2020 operating budget; and WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates was held on March 26, 2019, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2019 calendar year tax rates on April 9, 2019, following a public hearing for citizen comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, set the following Real Estate maximum tax rate for calendar year 2019: (A) The Real Estate Tax for calendar year 2019 is set at a rate of not more than $____ per $100 of assessed valuation. Page 1 of 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019 RESOLUTION TO SET THE PERSONAL PROPERTY MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 to support the fiscal year 2019-2020 operating budget; and WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates was held on March 26, 2019, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2019 calendar year tax rates on April 9, 2019, following a public hearing for citizen comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, set the following Personal Property maximum tax rate for calendar year 2019: (B) The Personal Property Tax for calendar year 2019 is set at a rate of not more than $____ per $100 of assessed valuation. Page 1 of 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019 RESOLUTION TO SET THE MACHINERY AND TOOLS MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2019 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia will set maximum tax rates for calendar year 2019 to support the fiscal year 2019-2020 operating budget; and WHEREAS, a public hearing for citizen comments on setting maximum tax rates was held on March 26, 2019, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will adopt final 2019 calendar year tax rates on April 9, 2019, following a public hearing for citizen comments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, set the following Machinery and Tools maximum tax rate for calendar year 2019: (C) The Machinery and Tools Tax for calendar year 2019 is set at a rate of not more than $____ per $100 of assessed valuation. Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. R.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: March 26, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: The petition of Skyway Towers to obtain a Special Use Permit for a broadcasting tower (cell tower) approximately 199 feet in height in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District on approximately 4.00 acres, located near the 6700 block of Split Oak Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District SUBMITTED BY: Philip Thompson Acting Director of Planning APPROVED BY: County Administrator ISSUE: Agenda item for public hearing and second reading of ordinances for a special use permit for a 199-foot cell tower. BACKGROUND: · Broadcasting tower is not a permitted use in the AR, Agricultural/Residential, Ordinance includes use and design standards for various uses including broadcasting tower. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on March 5, 2019. Four citizens spoke on this item during the public hearing. Their concerns included construction impacts to Split Oak Road (a private road) and future maintenance, co- location possibilities, and the negative health effects of cell towers. The Planning Commission discussed the applicant's carrier and its coverage objectives, co-location possibilities, the Blue Ridge Parkway's lack of response, the federal Page 1 of 2 approval process, the maintenance of and impact to Split Oak Road, the comprehensive plan designation and zoning issues. The applicant stated that it would work with the residents along Split Oak Road regarding road maintenance. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit with one condition: 1. The maximum height of the broadcasting tower shall be 199 feet. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the second reading of the ordinance approving a 199-foot broadcasting tower with one condition: 1. The maximum height of the broadcasting tower shall be 199 feet. Page 2 of 2 STAFF REPORT Petitioner: Skyway Towers Request: To obtain a Special Use Permit to construct a Broadcast Tower on property zoned AR, Agricultural/Residential District and that is 4.0 acres in size Location: Terminus of Split Oak Road Magisterial District: Cave Spring Suggested 1. The maximum height of the broadcasting tower shall be 199 feet. Conditions: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Skyway Towers is requesting a special use permit to construct a 199-foot high (195-foot tower and 4-foot lighting rod) monopole broadcasting tower. The proposed tower is to be constructed wi compound area at the terminus of Split Oak Road. The parcel is zoned AR, Agricultural/Residential, District and is 4.0 acres in size. The site is designated as Development on the Future Land Use map of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project does conform to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and Development Future Land Use guidelines. 1. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A Broadcast Tower is defined as any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one (1) or more antennas. The term includes but need not be limited to radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carrier towers, and cellular telephone and wireless communication towers. Broadcasting tower types include, but are not limited to monopoles, lattice towers, wooden poles, and guyed towers. Excluded from this definition are amateur radio towers, which are A Broadcast Tower is permitted in the AR, zoning district with a special use permit. Section 30-87-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance provides the use and design standards for a Broadcast Tower. A copy of this section is attached. Roanoke County building permit review will be required. Skyway Towers has completed the review required by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) report, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements. All conclusions and copies of required reports are submitted as an attachment. To summarize, there are no adverse environmental effects to the construction of this proposal. The FAA determined that the proposed tower would not be a hazard to air navigation. Finally, no adverse effects on historic properties were found in the preservation area. In addition, Skyway Towers has also included a letter of intent to collocate between Skyway Towers and T- Mobile dated September 20, 2018. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Background The applicant reports that no available structures exist within the search ring that are tall enough to meet T-. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc.s (ATC) report requested additional data to support this claim as well as recommended specific structures for co-location options. The applicant has responded to the recommendations from ATC in regards to co-locating options on existing structures. The AEP transmission tower referred to in ATCs report was not considered by Skyway Towers due to the low elevation and the low transmission tower height. If T-Mobile did co-locate on this AEP tower, a second tower would still be needed to cover the Blue Ridge Parkway. The coverage goals of both Bent Mountain Road and the Blue Ridge Parkway can be achieved with this proposed request. In addition, Skyway Towers has submitted propagation maps showing the need for this tower. See email attachments regarding co-locating on the existing AEP transmission tower. Topography/Vegetation The proposed site is relatively uneven and mostly wooded. The tower and associated ground level equipment will be screened on all sides by existing mature trees. Very little land disturbance will be required. Surrounding Neighborhood The proposed property, the terminus of Split Oak Road, is 4.0 acres in size. There is an existing foundation from a residential structure that burned down on the property that is not part of the proposed 10,000 square feet leased area. All adjacent properties are zoned AR, Agricultural/Residential, District. The surrounding properties contain either large rural home sites or vacant land. The closest single-family residence is approximately 300 feet from the proposed broadcasting tower. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture The submitted building plans indicate a 199-foot high new monopole broadcasting tower within a gated, six-foot chain linked fence, compound. The total land area that Skyway Towers is proposing to lease is 10,000 square feet. Within the leased area, the proposed tower, required ground level equipment, and future lease areas for future wireless communications carriers are proposed. T-Mobile antennas are proposed at the 195-foot height location. Co-location options will be made available. The facility will be accessed by an existing private road (Split Oak Road) extending from Poage Valley Road Extension. A new 20-foot wide ingress/egress easement and utility right-of-way is also proposed. The proposed tower will be 110 feet from Spilt Oak road and 50 feet from the nearest adjacent property line. Existing, mature trees will serve as existing screening for the proposed facility on all sides. Very few trees will be removed for the construction of the facility and broadcast tower. The proposed project is required to meet all federal, state and local building codes and regulations. Complete building plans have been submitted with this application. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Technical Review George Condyles communications consultant with Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc., has reviewed the submitted request and has submitted a technical report, which is attached. Mr. Condyles recommends disapproval of this from the proposed free standing monopole Fire & Rescue/Economic Development/Office of Building Safety The Roanoke County Building Commissioner requires the 2012 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building and Roanoke County Economic 2 Development do not object to the submitted application. Communications and Information Technology The Communications Coordinator did agree with Atlantic Technolog-location option on existing AEP transmission towers, however if this is request is approved, Roanoke County would like a reserved spot at or above the 100-feet height for future locations of Roanoke County communications equipment. Community Meeting A community meeting was held at the Back Creek Fire Station on February 21, 2019, between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Over 199 notices were mailed to property owners in close proximity to the proposed site. Fifteen citizens attended the meeting. Representatives from Skyway Towers were also in attendance. The main concerns expressed during the community meeting were visibility of the tower, coverage questions, who was the service provider, the use and location of other nearby towers and AEP transmission towers, the role of local government in permitting the tower and environmental concerns. A balloon test was done on July 18, 2018, to illustrate the height of the proposed tower and to show the visibility from adjacent properties. Results indicating the mapping and photographs were available at the Community Meeting and are also included as part of the application. In addition, a second balloon test is scheduled for March 1, 2019. Results will be made available at the March 5, 2019 Planning Commission Public Hearing. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH THE ROANOKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Development, a future land use area where new neighborhood development will occur, including large-scale planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses. Innovation in housing design and environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objection. Clustered developments are encouraged as is the use of greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. Suitable land use types includes conventional residential, cluster residential, multi-family, planned community development and community activity centers. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS Skyway Towers is requesting a special use permit to construct a 199-foot high monopole broadcasting Tower. The proposed tower is to be constructed within a 50 by 50compound area at the terminus of Split Oak Road. The total lease area, which includes the fenced compound, is 10,000 square feet. This area also includes future lease areas for future wireless communications carriers. The parcel is zoned AR, Agricultural/Residential, District and is 4.0 acres in size. The proposed project is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Development Future Land Use Designation. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. has provided a technical review of the proposed request and has recommended disapproval of the request due to the potential of other co- location options. Skyway Towers has responded to the technical review restating the need for the tower and providing additional documentation regarding the height and location of co-location opportunities. If approved, staff recommends placing a condition on the special use permit limiting the broadcasting tower to 199 feet in height. CASE NUMBER: 1-7/2019 PREPARED BY: Rebecca James 3 HEARING DATES: PC: 3/5/2019 BOS: 3/26/2019 ATTACHMENTS: Application Aerial Map Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Section 30-34 AR District Regulations Section 30-87-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Development Future Land Use Designation Technical Review, submitted by Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc., dated January 31, 2019 Emails from Applicant regarding existing AEP Transmission Tower National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) report Section 106 SHPO Concurrence Email 4 IN A T N U O M T N E B Neighborhood View AERIAL: 0 Split Oak Road Skyway Towers Existing Zoning: AR Agricultural/ Residential Proposed Use: Telecommunications Tower Tax Map Numbers: SPLIT OAK 096.01-02-25.00-0000 Area: 4.01 acres Magisterial District: Cave Spring Roanoke County 00.0750.150.30.45 Roanoke Co. Planning (540)772-2068 Miles January 29, 2019 5204 Bernard Dr. Roanoke, VA 24018 ´ IN A T N U O M T N E B Neighborhood View ZONING: 0 Split Oak Road Skyway Towers Existing Zoning: AR Agricultural/ Residential Proposed Use: Telecommunications Tower Tax Map Numbers: SPLIT OAK 096.01-02-25.00-0000 Area: 4.01 acres Magisterial District: Cave Spring Zoning AG3 AG1 AR C2 R1 00.0750.150.30.45 Roanoke Co. Planning (540)772-2068 Miles January 29, 2019 5204 Bernard Dr. Roanoke, VA 24018 ´ IN A T N U O M T N E B Neighborhood View ND USE: FUTURE LA 0 Split Oak Road Skyway Towers Existing Zoning: AR Agricultural/ Residential Proposed Use: Telecommunications Tower Tax Map Numbers: SPLIT OAK 096.01-02-25.00-0000 Area: 4.01 acres Magisterial District: Cave Spring Conservation Rural Preserve Rural Village Development Suburban Village 00.0750.150.30.45 Roanoke Co. Planning (540)772-2068 Miles January 29, 2019 5204 Bernard Dr. Roanoke, VA 24018 ´ BS!Ejtusjdu!Sfhvmbujpot! SEC. 30-34. AR AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-34-1. Purpose. (A) These areas are generally characterized by very low density residential and institutional uses mixed with smaller parcels that have historically contained agricultural uses, forest land and open space outside the urban service area. These areas provide an opportunity for rural living in convenient proximity to urban services and employment. Agricultural uses should be encouraged to be maintained. Over time, however, these areas are expected to become increasingly residential in character, with residential development becoming the dominant use over agricultural and more rural type uses. The purpose of this district, consistent with the Rural Village land use category in the comprehensive plan, is to maintain these areas essentially in their rural state, consistent with the level of services anticipated by the county. These areas are generally suitable for low density residential development and other compatible land uses. (Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1f., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4- 22-08) Sec. 30-34-2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Bhsjdvmuvsbm!boe!Gpsftusz!Vtft! Agriculture * Forestry Operations * Stable, Commercial * Stable, Private * Wayside Stand * 2. Sftjefoujbm!Vtft Accessory Apartment * Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type II * 1 BS!Ejtusjdu!Sfhvmbujpot! Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Emergency * Multiple Dog Permit * Residential Human Care Facility Single Family Dwelling, Detached Single Family Dwelling, Detached (Zero Lot Line Option) * 3. Djwjd!Vtft Community Recreation * Family Day Care Home * Park and Ride Facility * Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Religious Assembly * Utility Services, Minor 4. Dpnnfsdjbm!Vtft Bed and Breakfast * Veterinary Hospital/Clinic 5. Njtdfmmbofpvt!Vtft Amateur Radio Tower * Wind Energy System, Small * (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Sftjefoujbm!Vtft Alternative Discharging Sewage Systems * 2 BS!Ejtusjdu!Sfhvmbujpot! 2. Djwjd!Vtft Camps * Cemetery * Crisis Center Day Care Center * Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Safety Services * Utility Services, Major * 3. Dpnnfsdjbm!Vtft! Antique Shops * Golf Course * Kennel, Commercial * Studio, Fine Arts 4. Joevtusjbm!Vtft! Custom Manufacturing * Resource Extraction * 5. Njtdfmmbofpvt!Vtft Broadcasting Tower * Outdoor Gatherings * (Ord. No. 42793-20, § II, 4-27-93; Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 42694-12, § 7, 4- 26-94; Ord. No. 62795-10, 6-27-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 072605-7, § 1, 7-26-05; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08; Ord. No. 052609-22, § 1, 5-26-09; Ord. No. 030811- 1, § 1, 3-8-11, Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13, Ord. No. 062816-4, § 1, 6-28-16) Sec. 30-34-3. Site Development Regulations. 3 BS!Ejtusjdu!Sfhvmbujpot! General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (A) Minimum lot requirements 1. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system: a. Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet) b. Frontage: 110 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 2. Lots served by either public sewer or water: a. Area: 30,000 square feet b. Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 3. Lots served by both public sewer and water: a. Area: 25,000 square feet b. Frontage: 90 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. (B) Minimum setback requirements. 1. Front yard: a. Principal structures: 30 feet. b. Accessory structures: Behind the front building line. 2. Side yard: a. Principal structures: 15 feet b. Accessory structures: 15 feet behind front building line or 10 feet behind rear building line. 3. Rear yard: a. Principal structures: 25 feet b. Accessory structures: 10 feet 4. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets. 4 BS!Ejtusjdu!Sfhvmbujpot! 5. Where the principal structure is more than 150 feet from the street, accessory buildings may be located 150 feet from the street and 20 feet from any side property line. (C) Maximum height of structures. 1. All structures: 45 feet (D) Maximum coverage. 1. Building coverage: 25 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93, Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13) 5 Vtf!'!Eftjho!Tuboebset!!Njtdfmmbofpvt!Vtft! Sec. 30-87-2. Broadcasting Tower. (A) Intent: The intent of these provisions is to regulate the placement of new and replacement broadcasting towers within Roanoke County. These provisions provide broadcasting tower applicants, property owners, and all other Roanoke County citizens clear guidance on the official policies and standards of the County. These policies and standards shall be used by applicants as a guide when selecting alternative broadcasting tower sites and broadcasting tower designs within the county. In addition, the county staff, planning commission and board of supervisors shall use these policies and standards, the Roanoke County community plan and the general special use permit criteria found in section 30-19 as a guide for evaluating any future requests for broadcasting towers. In the interest of preserving and enhancing the scenic and natural beauty of Roanoke County it is the goal of the county to achieve a long term reduction in the number of broadcasting towers within the county, and where possible, to achieve a reduction in the height of existing broadcasting towers throughout the county, with special emphasis on towers located along or near the ridgetops of major mountains and land forms. In addition, it is the goal of the county, where possible, to achieve the relocation of existing broadcasting towers and associated utility and access corridors which have a high visual impact on scenic resources. To this end, the county will work cooperatively with broadcasting tower owners and applicants and land owners to achieve these goals. It is the official policy of the county to encourage and promote the collocation of antennas on existing public and private structures within the county. To achieve this end, the county encourages all wireless communication providers to locate new antennas on existing structures. Permits for new broadcasting towers should only be requested when no other reasonable alternative exists for locating needed antennas. When new broadcasting towers are proposed as a last alternative, the requested broadcasting tower location, height and design should be chosen to protect and enhance the scenic and natural beauty of Roanoke County. Broadcasting tower locations at elevations lower than surrounding ridge lines are preferred. The use of stealth designs should be considered for any new broadcasting tower. It is the intent of the county to fully comply with all of the applicable provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other applicable federal and state laws as said laws address and preserve Roanoke County's zoning authority and provide to the communication industry the right and responsibility to provide communication services within their service areas. (B) Applicability: 1. These standards shall apply to all new and replacement broadcasting towers within Roanoke County with the exception that new and replacement 1 Vtf!'!Eftjho!Tuboebset!!Njtdfmmbofpvt!Vtft! broadcasting towers and associated antenna not exceeding thirty (30) feet in height and located within any commercial or industrial zoning district shall be permitted by right provided: a. The proposed tower is a monopole type design; b. The general area of the proposed tower is currently served by above ground utilities including electric power and telephone poles; and c. All other use and design standards for the construction of the broadcasting tower and associated facilities are met. 2. No modification to increase the height, size, type or location of any existing broadcasting tower or associated facilities, excluding antennas, shall be made unless such modification results in the full compliance of the broadcasting tower and facilities with all of the requirements of this ordinance. 3. Antennas may be installed on any existing structure within the county, without the necessity of obtaining a special use permit, provided said antenna does not meet the definition of a broadcasting tower, does not increase the height of the existing structure more than ten (10) feet, and does not result in the structure and antenna exceeding the maximum structure height for that zoning district. 4. These provisions shall not apply to any temporary broadcasting tower erected for the purpose of system design or testing provided the temporary broadcasting tower is erected for a period not to exceed twenty-one (21) days. In addition, in declared local emergency situations, the county administrator shall be authorized to allow the temporary installation of a broadcasting tower for the duration of the local emergency. A zoning permit pursuant to section 30-9 of this ordinance shall be applied for and approved prior to erecting any temporary or emergency tower. (C) Application requirements: 1. All potential applicants for broadcasting towers shall consult with county planning staff at least thirty (30) days prior to submitting an application for a proposed broadcasting tower. During this consultation the applicant shall present information to the staff on system objectives, proposed coverage areas, and alternative sites considered and rejected. The staff shall provide the potential applicant information on Roanoke County policies and standards for broadcasting towers, and shall discuss with the applicant possible alternatives to broadcasting tower construction. 2. In addition to the application requirements contained in section 30-19-2 of this ordinance, all applicants for broadcasting towers shall provide the following at the time of application: 2 Vtf!'!Eftjho!Tuboebset!!Njtdfmmbofpvt!Vtft! a. The location of all other proposed broadcasting tower sites considered and rejected, and the specific technical, legal or other reasons for the rejection. b. The location of all other possible collocation sites considered and rejected, and the specific technical, legal or other reasons for the rejection. c. Accurate, to scale, photographic simulations showing the relationship of the proposed broadcasting tower and associated antenna to the surroundings. Photographic simulations shall also be prepared showing the relationship of any new or modified road, access or utility corridors constructed or modified to serve the proposed broadcasting tower site. The number of simulations and the perspectives from which they are prepared, shall be established with the staff at the consultation required in section C.1. above. d. A computerized terrain analysis showing the visibility of the proposed broadcasting tower and antenna at the requested height and location. If new or modified road, access or utility corridors are proposed, the terrain analysis shall also show the visibility of these new or modified features. e. Information on how the proposed site relates to the applicants existing communication system, including number of other sites within the Roanoke Valley, and the location of the antenna at each site. f. All broadcasting tower applicants shall be required, at their expense to conduct an on-site "balloon" or comparable test prior to the planning commission and board of supervisors hearings on the special use permit. The purpose of this test shall be to demonstrate the potential visual impact of the proposed tower. The dates and periods of these tests shall be established with the applicant at the pre-application consultation. g. Written verification that all required submittals to the FAA as required by section 30-87-2(D)6 of this ordinance have been submitted. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the filing of the application including the reasonable cost of any independent analysis deemed necessary by the county to verify the need for the new broadcasting tower. The board of supervisors shall establish these fees, which shall be discussed with the applicant at the pre-application conference. (D) General standards: 1. The maximum height of any proposed broadcasting tower and associated antenna shall be made as a condition of the special use permit, but in no case shall any broadcasting tower and antenna exceed one hundred ninety-nine (199) feet in 3 Vtf!'!Eftjho!Tuboebset!!Njtdfmmbofpvt!Vtft! height. Applicants shall request the lowest broadcasting tower and antenna height necessary to accomplish their specific communication objectives. 2. The setback for any proposed broadcasting tower shall, at a minimum, conform to the requirements for principal structures for the proposed zoning district. However, in no case shall the minimum setback from the base of the broadcasting tower to any residential structure on an adjoining lot be less than forty (40) percent of the height of the tower, measured from the closest structural member of the broadcasting tower (excluding guy lines). Guy lines shall be exempt from the minimum setback requirements in side and rear yards for the respective zoning district, but shall comply with the setback requirements for the front yard. 3. The minimum setback from any property line abutting a road right-of-way for any other building or structure associated with a broadcasting tower shall be fifty (50) feet. Such buildings or structures shall be located a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet from any other property line. 4. More than one (1) broadcasting tower shall be permitted on a lot provided all applicable requirements have been met including setback requirements. 5. Broadcasting towers shall not be illuminated with any type of lighting apparatus, unless such lighting is a requirement of the FAA or FCC. When lighting is proposed to conform to federal requirement, the county shall contact the federal agency to verify the necessity of lighting, and to determine the minimal amount and type of lighting necessary to comply with federal guidelines. Security lighting, or a "down lighting" design may be installed on buildings and structures associated with a broadcasting tower. In no case shall any lighting violate section 30-94 of this ordinance. 6. Any proposed broadcasting tower within two (2) miles from any general or commercial airport or located at a ground elevation at or above two thousand (2,000) feet, average mean sea level, shall be referred to the appropriate regional office of the FAA for review and comment prior to filing an application for a special use permit. 7. All broadcasting towers shall comply with any additional requirements established in the airport overlay district in section 30-72 of this ordinance, and the emergency communications overlay district in section 30-73 8. Any broadcasting tower approved shall be structurally designed to carry sufficient loading, and the site approved shall be sized to accommodate the additional equipment necessary for at least three (3) other vendors/providers of communications services in order to minimize the proliferation of new broadcasting towers in the vicinity of the requested site. In addition, by applying and being granted the special use permit, the applicant and the owner of the land agree to make the broadcasting tower and tower site available for additional leases 4 Vtf!'!Eftjho!Tuboebset!!Njtdfmmbofpvt!Vtft! within the structural capacity of the broadcasting tower and at reasonable costs adequate to recover the capital, operating and maintenance costs of the broadcasting tower location required for the additional capacity. 9. A monopole broadcasting tower design is recommended. The board may approve an alternative broadcasting tower design if it finds that an alternative type of structure has less of a visual impact on the surrounding community and Roanoke County, and/or based upon accepted technical and engineering data a monopole design is not technically feasible. Cost shall not be a criteria for determining broadcasting tower design. 10. No broadcasting towers shall be permitted within the critical viewsheds of the Blue Ridge Parkway or Appalachian Trail as shown on any official map designating these viewsheds and pre-approved by the board of supervisors. In addition, no towers shall be proposed within any other designated area of local scenic, historical, ecological and cultural importance as designated and approved by the board of supervisors prior to the filing of a tower application. 11. By applying and being granted the special use permit, the applicant and the owner of the land agree to dismantle and remove the broadcasting tower and associated facilities from the site within ninety days of the broadcasting tower no longer being use for wireless communications. Dismantling and removal from the site shall only be required after notice by the County. If antennas on any approved tower are relocated to a lower elevation, the tower shall be shortened to the height of the highest antenna. A bond or similar performance guarantee may be required as part of the special use permit approval. Said guarantee will be in an amount sufficient to ensure removal of the tower and all associated facilities and the reclamation of the property and road, access and utility corridors to a condition that existed prior to tower construction. 12. All broadcasting tower structures and associated hardware, antennas, and facilities shall be a flat matted finish so as to reduce visibility and light reflection unless otherwise required by the FCC or FAA. 13. No business signs shall be allowed on the property identifying the name of, or services offered by, any business associated with the broadcasting tower. (E) General review policies: All special use permit requests for new broadcasting towers, including the replacement or modification of existing broadcasting towers shall be reviewed by the staff, planning commission and board of supervisors on the basis of the following criteria: 1. The extent to which the broadcasting tower proposal conforms to the general special use permit criteria in section 30-19 of this ordinance, and the intent, application requirements, and general standards for broadcasting towers found in 5 Vtf!'!Eftjho!Tuboebset!!Njtdfmmbofpvt!Vtft! these provisions. 2. The demonstrated willingness of the applicant to evaluate collocation opportunities within the proposed communication service area, and the demonstrated history of the applicant choosing collocation sites within the Roanoke Valley. 3. The base and top elevation of the proposed broadcasting tower relative to surrounding natural land forms. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, broadcasting tower locations below surrounding ridge lines are preferred. 4. Broadcasting tower locations already served by existing roads and utilities are preferred due to the potential detrimental environmental and visual impacts resulting from the construction of new road and utility corridors. 5. Within the needed service area, the availability of other existing structures that are, based upon independent analysis, of suitable height, design, and location for the needed antenna. 6. The visibility of the broadcasting tower from the surrounding community and neighborhood compatibility of the tower as determined by the submitted computer simulations, terrain analysis and balloon or comparable test. 7. The degree to which the proposed tower location, site design and facilities including fencing, buildings and other ground mounted equipment and new or modified road, access or utility corridors are located, designed and constructed to be compatible with the neighborhood. (Ord. No. 82493-8, § 4, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 102798-12, § 1, 10-27-98) 6 Development: A future land use area where most new neighborhood development will occur, including large-scale planned developments which mix residential with retail and office uses. Innovation in housing design and environmental sensitivity in site development is a key objective. Clustered developments are encouraged as is the use of greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. Land Use Types: Conventional Residential - Single-family developments in conventional lots. Includes attached, detached and zero-lot line housing options. Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged. Cluster Residential - Single family developments with similar gross density of conventional subdivisions but individual lot sizes may be reduced to accommodate the clustering of housing while allocating common open space. Includes attached, detached and zero-lot line housing options. Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged. Multi-family - Developments of 6-12 units per acre. Clustering is encouraged as are greenways and bike and pedestrian trails. Planned Residential Development - Mixed housing types at a gross density range of 4-8 units per acre. Includes conventional housing, cluster housing, zero lot-line housing, townhouses and garden apartments. Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged. Planned Community Development - Planned residential development mixed with office parks, neighborhood shopping centers and supporting retail development. The majority of the development is residential with a maximum limit set on the retail land. Greenways and bike and pedestrian trails are encouraged. Community Activity Centers - Facilities which serve the neighboring residents including parks, schools, religious assembly facilities, parks and recreational facilities and community clubs and meeting areas. These activity centers should be linked to residential areas by greenways, bike and pedestrian trails. Land Use Determinants: PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY - Locations where public facilities are adequate to handle the increased population concentration. This includes schools, parks and recreation facilities and fire and rescue facilities. UTILITY AVAILABILITY - Locations where water and sewer services exist or are scheduled to serve the area. ENVIRONMENTAL CAPACITY - Locations where natural land features, including topography, provide optimum opportunity for urban residential development. ACCESS - Locations which have or can provide direct access to a major street. URBAN SECTOR - Locations served by urban services. TECHNICAL REVIEW SPECIAL USE PERMIT 10-11/2018 PROPOSED 199-ft WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY SKYWAY TOWERS Site Name: Roanoke At Split Oak Road Roanoke, VA 24018 Submitted by: ATLANTIC TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS, INC. A Member of The Atlantic Group of Companies, Inc. ATC PROJECT #: 1100-16 January 31, 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Skyway Towers (Wireless Communications Facility Provider) as agent for T- Mobile has made application to the County for the issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow construction of a new 199-ft monopole telecommunications tower at the terminus of Split Oak Road, Roanoke, VA 24018. T-Mobile is an FCC Licensed provider of wireless communications services in the Roanoke County area and beyond. The property is owned by Barbara A. Garst, Irrevocable Living Trust. The property is located at the terminus of Split Oak Road, Roanoke, VA 24018 at Deed Book #201805767 parcel #096.01-02-25.00-0000. The property is Zoned AR (Agricultural-Residential District). The parcel is 4.0 acres. RECOMMENDATION This consultant recommends disapproval of construction of this a 199-ft (195-ft tower + 4-ft lightning rod) monopole tower as proposed. The Applicant has not thoroughly researched the availability of an AEP Power Transmissio monopole tower. Data and justification shall follow in this report. This report outlines the specific areas of evaluation with respect to this proposal, and details this consultanregarding the site plans and proposal as presented. Supporting and clarifying evidence regarding the unsuitability of the proposed design. ______________________________ George N. Condyles, IV President and COO Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 2 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA 1.0 TECHNICAL 1.1 Siting The proposed tower site is a 10,000 s.f. lease area of Industrial property situated within a 4.00 Acre parent parcel owned by Barbara A. Garst, Irrevocable Living Trust. The property is located at the terminus of Split Oak Road, Roanoke, VA 24018 at Deed Book 201805767 parcel 096.01-02-25.00-0000. The property is Zoned AR (Agricultural-Residential District). Site Plan: Access Road and location of leased area on parcel The proposed project Site Plans were prepared by the firm of Causeway Consultants, P.C. Chesapeake Virginia. Causeway Consultants, P.C. has provided accurate and precise Site Plans and Engineering advice for many years. The diagrams, maps, drawings and specifications are a product of Mr. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 3 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA Robert T. Williams, Jr., Land Surveyor, who is the Project Site Engineer. The Site Plans submitted by Causeway Consultants, P.C. are professional and accurate and will be used in this report. The proposed tower is a 199-ft monopole tower placed within a 50 50 fenced compound. The site will be accessed from Split Oak Road. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 4 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA Compound Plan The center of the proposed tower is located at coordinates 37° 11 39.69 N and 80° 0246.12 W (NAD 83). 1.2 Topography The topography of this site is relatively uneven. The ground elevation for the proposed tower is 1407 The tower is proposed at 195 Lightning Rod for an overall height of 199ning the Ground elevation of 140799would give an Average Mean above Sea Level of 1606 Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 5 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA The Consultant has reviewed the information supplied by the Applicant of the tower as conditions relative to the topography. Site placement is adjacent to an existing burned residential structure and will be surrounded by 40 trees. The site has a natural tree buffer around it and will cause very little land disturbance. The site (as for the topography) is well suited and will serve many residences with advanced wireless broadband services. Technology Background: Enhanced Wireless Services will provide from this site Generically, the wireless broadband is the two-way reception and transmission from an antenna support facility (tower, power line transmission tower, or elevated structure/rooftop) signaled through a home antenna with a series of router equipment to home computers, laptops and tablets. (See generic diagram below) Wireless In Home Broadband Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 6 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA A service that provides high-speed in-home Internet access leveraging the power and speed of one of the /5G LTE network will be available throughout this site. Wireless Broadband offers customers a reliable alternative for residential broadband, especially in areas with limited broadband choices. It provides connectivity for a wide range of devices, including computers and gaming consoles, using the 4G/5G LTE network, which is now available in 230 markets covering more than two-thirds of the population in the United States. 1.3 Setbacks The proposed site is approximately 110mary road, Split Oak Road. All property line setbacks required for this area have been observed in the drawing (Page EE-1) of the enclosed site plans, including those with respect to adjacent property lines. As noted in the application package the proposed tower is approximately 50 feet from the nearest adjacent property line which is in compliance with the . setback requirements. In addition, the closest residential structure is over feet from the base of the tower thus meeting this requirement. The proposed tower meets the Setback requirements for structural failure. 1.4 Co-Location The Application does not meet the County Ordinance. Roanoke County Broadcast Tower Ordinance Sec. 30-87-2 - Broadcasting Tower (A) Intent: The intent of these provisions is to regulate the placement of new and replacement broadcasting towers within Roanoke County. These provisions provide broadcasting tower applicants, property owners, and all other Roanoke County citizens clear guidance on the official policies and standards of the County. These policies and standards shall be used by applicants as a guide when selecting alternative broadcasting tower sites and broadcasting tower designs within the county. In addition, Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 7 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA the county staff, planning commission and board of supervisors shall use these policies and standards, the Roanoke County community plan and the general special use permit criteria found in section 30-19 as a guide for evaluating any future requests for broadcasting towers. In the interest of preserving and enhancing the scenic and natural beauty of Roanoke County it is the goal of the county to achieve a long term reduction in the number of broadcasting towers within the county, and where possible, to achieve a reduction in the height of existing broadcasting towers throughout the county, with special emphasis on towers located along or near the ridgetops of major mountains and land forms. In addition, it is the goal of the county, where possible, to achieve the relocation of existing broadcasting towers and associated utility and access corridors which have a high visual impact on scenic resources. To this end, the county will work cooperatively with broadcasting tower owners and applicants and land owners to achieve these goals. It is the official policy of the county to encourage and promote the collocation of antennas on existing public and private structures within the county. To achieve this end, the county encourages all wireless communication providers to locate new antennas on existing structures. Permits for new broadcasting towers should only be requested when no other reasonable alternative exists for locating needed antennas. When new broadcasting towers are proposed as a last alternative, the requested broadcasting tower location, height and design should be chosen to protect and enhance the scenic and natural beauty of Roanoke County. Broadcasting tower locations at elevations lower than surrounding ridge lines are preferred. The use of stealth designs should be considered for any new broadcasting tower. It is the intent of the county to fully comply with all of the applicable provisions of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other applicable federal and state laws as said laws address and preserve Roanoke County's zoning authority and provide to the communication industry the right and responsibility to provide communication services within their service areas. U.Bqqmjdbout!Qspkfdu!Tvcnjttjpo!Obssbujwf!! 2. In addition to the application requirements contained in section 30-19-2 of this ordinance, all applicants for broadcasting towers shall provide the following at the time of application: 1. The location of all other proposed broadcasting tower sites considered and rejected, and the specific technical, legal or other reasons for the rejection. In building out its network, T-Mobile first looks to collocate on existing structures (telecommunications towers, usbotnjttjpo!qpxfs!upxfst, rooftops, etc.) within a search ring. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 8 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA T-Mobile places a strong emphasis on collocation for two reasons: 1) it is the desire of most local governments and 2) it is typically much cheaper than building a new site. Collocation was not an option for the following reasons: There are no existing towers within the search ring; The closest existing tower is approximately 2.4 miles southwest of the proposed site, which is far outside of the needed search area; The surrounding area is relatively rural with significant topography and there are no existing structures tall enough to meet the coverage objective. 2. The location of all other possible collocation sites considered and rejected, and the specific technical, legal or other reasons for the rejection. There are no other existing structures within the search ring that are tall enough to meet the coverage objective. : The Application submitted by T-Mobile is complete by general principal. However, the option of co-locating on the Vacant Structure #2 and #3 has not been evaluated as a potential co-location structure. (See Page #20) If this site is evaluated, the consultant would like to see this data and why it would be different than other wireless service providers. While co-location is preferable to construction of a new site, with such co- location minimizing visual impact of telecommunications equipment on the surrounding area, additional sites are available in the area which would meet the s. (Vacant Power Structure #2 & #3) The Applicant did not submit a map of existing tower sites within a 5-mile radius of the proposed tower site. The service provider, T-Mobile, is seeking to fill in a hole in their digital coverage of the Poage Valley Road corridor. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 9 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA Alternative Co-location Sites The proposed tower site is approximately .35 of a mile from The Blue Ridge Parkway. This is a National Park and is administrated by The National Park Service of The Department of Interior. Because there is a federal requirement that a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study be performed on ALL communications towers as part of CFR 47, this has been the guiding philosophy for this area along with Roanoke County Community Development Policy and Regulations. In past years, the NEPA reports for two previous wireless carriers (US Cell and Verizon) required that a new tower would of the area. Hence, Verizon and US Cell could only co-locate on the AEP Power Transmission structures if they choose to cover this area. Both US Cell and Verizon have co-located on two separate structures in the area. Roanoke County Communications Tower Ordinance No broadcasting towers shall be permitted within the critical view sheds of the Blue Ridge Parkway or Appalachian Trail as shown on any official map designating these view sheds and pre-approved by the board of supervisors. In addition, no towers shall be proposed within any other designated area of local scenic, historical, ecological and cultural importance as designated and approved AEP Alternative Structures These structures are known as Structure #1 and Structure #4 in a nearby area. (See map page 20.). Between Structure #1 and #4, there are two power line transmission structures that could accept this co-location from T-Mobile. The structure co-location would have minimum impact on the T-Mobile Network. This structure is over 150(AGL) Above Ground Level. Depending on the mounting of what is could be achieved. In summary, this Applicant should consider this location prior to requesting a new standalone tower in this area. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 10 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA 1.5 Structural The proposed 199monopole tower design is of high strength steel, and represents a highly stable structural design not known by this consultant to have failed at any installation in this region. This structure, as proposed, is well within compliance of EIA/TIA-222-G guidelines for structures mandated ability to withstand the structural loading of all appurtenances, plus additional wind and ice loading. This tower structure, as proposed, would allow room for future co-location of at least three (3) additional wireless Land Mobile Radio carriers at the same site, minimizing the number of towers needed for all wireless telecommunications carriers to eventually optimize service in this area. The total design for the wireless land mobile radio carriers is four (4). T- Mobile at the top with other carriers at slots #2, #3 and #4. Furthermore, in conformance with the County, work at this site will remain in compliance with ALL federal, state, and local building codes and regulations if site plans representing a soundly engineered design conforming to industry standards. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 11 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA 1.6 RF Exposure FCC bulletin OET-65 provides guidance for a licensee proposing to construct a telecommunications support structure in calculation of RF exposure limitations, including analysis of the cumulative effect of all transmitters on the structure. Appropriate steps, including warning signage at the site, will be taken to protect both the general public and site workers from unsafe RF exposure in accordance with federal guidelines. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 12 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA T-Mobile has agreed in writing to be in compliance with all FCC requirements. The consultant sees no evidence of unsafe RF exposure levels being generated at this site if it were to proceed as proposed. RF site exposure warning signage placement is appropriately planned for this site. ! 1.7 Grounding Grounding of all structures and equipment at an RF site is critically important to the safety of both personnel and equipment at the site Even a single component not meeting this standard places all other site components at risk for substantial damage. All structures and equipment at the site should maintain a ground potential difference of less than 5 ohms. If construction proceeds as proposed, all structures and equipment shall be appropriately grounded and any obvious grounding deficiencies rectified for safety purposes and minimizing the potential for a situation to occur requiring mitigation. These concerns will be addressed in the building Permit Phase. 1.8 General Safety This site compound will be surrounded by suitable 6-ft high chain link fence with three strand barbed wire to prevent unauthorized access to the tower site, as clearly indicated in the proposed site plans. Additional safety measures to be placed at this site should include: - RF exposure warning signage - Site identification information - Routine and Emergency contact information - No Trespassing signs Furthermore, OSHA-approved style of fall prevention cable and an anti-climbing device shall be installed. 1.9 Interference The consultant sees no evidence of interference by or with this site after a general evaluation of the surrounding transmitter sites. ! Should any interference issues be posed with respect to this site, mitigation would nevertheless remain the responsibility of the FCC License Owner and affected carrier(s), and would be regulated by the Federal Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 13 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA Communication Commission and/or the Federal Aviation Administration, having no effect or burden on the County. 2.0 PROCEDUREAL 2.1 FAA Study A full FAA Study to determine potential Air Hazard requirements for this tower was submitted with this Application by T-Mobile. 2.2 FCC Antenna Site Registration This tower is not required to be registered. Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 14 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA 2.3 Environmental Impacts The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), delineated in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Subpart I, sections 1.1301-1.1319, requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations into their decision-making process when evaluating new construction proposals. As a licensing agency, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) requires all licensees to consider the potential environmental effects from their construction of antenna support structures, and to disclose those effects in an Environmental Assessment (EA) that must be filed with the FCC for review. This Application may have 2.4 Historic Impacts Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires that State Historic Preservation Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on all undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties. Prior to construction, the licensee is required to submit to the SHPO a detailed description of the project, a listing of local historic resources, and a discussion of any measures being undertaken to mitigate impacts (if any) on historic resources. Upon receipt, the SHPO has thirty (30) days to review and respond to those submissions. All agencies with authority to permit construction are required to consider the SHPO response in its decision making process with respect to new construction applications. This Application may have placement. 2.5 Radio Frequency Coverage Analysis T-Mobile is proposing to co-199-ft monopole tower. This tower will address the lack of 4-G/5-G coverage along Poage Valley Road. V-Mobile networking naming of their transceiver sites. The T-Mobile - North: VA343764 - Northeast: VA34346A Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 15 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA The Observer can see how significant the hole is and how this area of the county is underserved. (See page 17.) This site fills in the underserved areas of marginal to weak service for data. presented concerning filling in this underserved area for data service. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The consultant recommends disapproval of construction of this 199-ft (195-ft tower + 4-ft lightning rod) monopole tower as proposed. The Application has not thoroughly researched the availability of an AEP Power Transmission Lin proposed free standing monopole tower. Data and justification shall follow in this report. This report outlines the specific areas of evaluation with respect to this proposal, analysis regarding the site plans and proposal as presented. Supporting and clarifying evidence regarding the unsuitability of the proposed design. In closing, this consultant remains available to address any comments or questions which may arise following review of this report. Any interested party with such comments or questions may feel free to contact this firm, which remains committed to delivering independent, objective, unbiased, and thorough consulting services. Respectfully submitted, George N. Condyles, IV, CPM President & COO Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 16 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA T-Mobile Coverage Map Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 17 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA With Roanoke VA74488A Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 18 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA Consultants Coverage map of Alternating to Vacant AEP Structure #2 Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 19 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA #2 V A C #4 A E N X T I #3 S V T A I C N A G N Proposed T #1 E X I S T I N G AEP Power Line Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 20 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA #1 E X I S T I N G Site #1: West AEP with Commercial Wireless carrier Co-located Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 21 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA #2 V A C A N T Site #2: AEP Power Transmission Line Available for Co-location Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 22 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA #2 V A C A N T Proposed Proposed Site in Relationship to AEP Site #2 Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 23 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA #3 V A C A N T Site #3 AEP Vacant with Co-location Opportunity Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 24 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA #4 E X I S T I N Site #4: AEP Power Transmission Line with Existing Commercial Carrier Co-located Atlantic Technology Consultants, Inc. Page 25 of 25 Mechanicsville, VA George N. Condyles, IV GDD!Fowjsponfoubm!Dpnqmjbodf!Difdlmjtu Cfou!Npvoubjo-!WB Jg!jobewfsufou!ejtdpwfsjft!pg!Obujwf!Bnfsjdbo!dvmuvsbm!nbufsjbmt!ps!ivnbo!sfnbjot!bsf!nbef! evsjoh!dpotusvdujpo-bmm!xpsl!tipvme!dfbtf!boe!qpufoujbmmz!bggfdufe!Usjcft-!bt!xfmm!bt!uif!Tubuf! Ijtupsjd!Qsftfswbujpo!Pggjdf!tipvme!cf!opujgjfe!jnnfejbufmz/!FDB!sfdpnnfoet!uibu!b!tubufnfou! up!uijt!fggfdu!cf!jodpsqpsbufe!joup!uif!dpotusvdujpo!qmbot-!esbxjoht-!boe!epdvnfout!gps!uif! gbdjmjuz/! N SpeciesConclusionsTable Project Name: Roanoke Date: 11/8/2018 Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination Notes / Documentation Nzpujt!tfqufousjpobmjt Nzpujt!tpebmjt Qfsdjob!sfy Efqvuz!Ejsfdups!pg! Benjojtusbujpo!boe!Gjobodf Tfdsfubsz!pg!Obuvsbm!Sftpvsdft Efqvuz!Ejsfdups!pg! Ejsfdups Ebn!Tbgfuz!'!Gmppeqmbjo! Nbobhfnfou!boe!Tpjm!'!Xbufs! Dpotfswbujpo Efqvuz!Ejsfdups!pg!Pqfsbujpot N D A O R K A O T I PL S NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL D A O R K A O T I PL S NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL !!!! Cmvf!Sjehf!Qbslxbz!Ijtupsjd!Ejtusjdu 191.13:7-!191.142:-!191.1431-! 191.143:-!191.1635-!191.1418-!191.6352-!191.635:-!boe!191.6362 Cmvf!Sjehf!Qbslxbz! Ijtupsjd!Ejtusjdu Cmvf!Sjehf!Qbslxbz!Ijtupsjd! EjtusjduCmvf!Sjehf!Qbslxbz! Ijtupsjd!Ejtusjdu- 55SO1345- 55SO139:-!55SO13:1-!55SO1416-!55SO1417-!55SO1418-!55SO1431-!55SO1432-!boe! 55SO1482 Dpotvmubou!Jogpsnbujpo! Tjuf!Jogpsnbujpo Cmvf!Sjehf!Qbslxbz!Ijtupsjd!Ejtusjdu Cmvf!Sjehf!Qbslxbz!Ijtupsjd!Ejtusjdu Cmvf!Sjehf!Qbslxbz!Ijtupsjd!Ejtusjdu N N D A O R K A O T I PL S NB+C ENGINEERING SERVICES, LLC. Efufsnjobujpo!pg!Fggfdu! Usjcbm!boe!OIP!Jowpmwfnfou! Ijtupsjd!Qspqfsujft! !Ijtupsjd!Qspqfsujft! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! Bsdibfpmphjdbm!Bttfttnfou Ijtupsjd!Qspqfsujft Dvmuvsbm!Sftpvsdf! Sfqpsu Ijtupsjd!Qspqfsujft Bsdibfpmphjdbm!Bttfttnfou Fyfdvujwf!Tvnnbsz! 55SO1345-!55SO139:-!55SO13:1-!55SO1416-!55SO1417-!55SO1418-! 55SO1431-!55SO1432-!boe!55SO1482 Bo!Bsdibfpmphjdbm!Bttfttnfou!pg!b!Qspqptfe! Npopqpmf!Ufmfdpnnvojdbujpot!Gbdjmjuz! Spboplf-!Spboplf!Dpvouz-!Wjshjojb! Cbdlhspvoe Cfou!Npvoubjo-!WB! Mjufsbuvsf!boe!Epdvnfout!Tfbsdi! Gjfme!Dpoejujpot! Gjfme!Nfuipet! Gjfme!Tvswfz!Sftvmut! Mbcpsbupsz!Nfuipet!boe!Dpmmfdujpo!Dvsbujpo! Tvnnbsz!pg!Gjoejoht!boe!Sfdpnnfoebujpot! Dmptvsf Mpdbm!Hpwfsonfou!Jowpmwfnfou! Mpdbm!Hpwfsonfou Uijt!opujdf!jt!opu!joufoefe!up!tvqqmbou! boz!mpdbm!{pojoh!ps!qfsnjuujoh!sfrvjsfnfout!cvu!jt!ofdfttbsz!cfgpsf!xf!dbo!sfrvftu!sfwjfx!pg! uif!bdujpo!cz!uif!Tubuf!Ijtupsjd!Qsftfswbujpo!Pggjdf/!! Dpotvmujoh!Qbsujft! Spboplf!Ujnft Uijt!opujdf!jt!opu!joufoefe!up!tvqqmbou! boz!mpdbm!{pojoh!ps!qfsnjuujoh!sfrvjsfnfout!cvu!jt!ofdfttbsz!cfgpsf!xf!dbo!sfrvftu!sfwjfx!pg! uif!bdujpo!cz!uif!Tubuf!Ijtupsjd!Qsftfswbujpo!Pggjdf/!! Eftjhobujpo!pg!TIQP0UIQP! EJTDMBJNFS;Sfdpset!pg!uif!Wjshjojb!Efqbsunfou!pg!Ijtupsjd!Sftpvsdft!)EIS*!ibwf!cffo!hbuifsfe!pwfs!nboz!zfbst!gspn!b!wbsjfuz!pg!tpvsdft!boe!uif!sfqsftfoubujpo efqjdufe!jt!b!dvnvmbujwf!wjfx!pg!gjfme!pctfswbujpot!pwfs!ujnf!boe!nbz!opu!sfgmfdu!dvssfou!hspvoe!dpoejujpot/Uif!nbq!jt!gps!hfofsbm!jogpsnbujpo!qvsqptft!boe!jt!opu joufoefe!gps!fohjoffsjoh-!mfhbm!ps!puifs!tjuf.tqfdjgjd!vtft/!!Nbq!nbz!dpoubjo!fsspst!boe!jt!qspwjefe!#bt.jt#/!!Npsf!jogpsnbujpo!jt!bwbjmbcmf!jo!uif!EIS!Bsdijwft!mpdbufe!bu EISt!Sjdinpoe!pggjdf/ Opujdf!jg!BF!tjuft;Mpdbujpot!pg!bsdibfpmphjdbm!tjuft!nbz!cf!tfotjujwf!uif!Obujpobm!Ijtupsjd!Qsftfswbujpo!Bdu!)OIQB*-!boe!uif!Bsdibfpmphjdbm!Sftpvsdft!Qspufdujpo!Bdu )BSQB*!boe!Dpef!pg!Wjshjojb!¨3/3.4816/8!)21*/!!Sfmfbtf!pg!qsfdjtf!mpdbujpot!nbz!uisfbufo!bsdibfpmphjdbm!tjuft!boe!ijtupsjd!sftpvsdft/ Eric Johnson From:John Anderson <j_david_anderson@nps.gov> Sent:Wednesday, July 25, 2018 10:29 AM To:Drew Patterson Cc:RJAMES@roanokecountyva.gov; Dawn Leonard Subject: Re: \[EXTERNAL\] Proposed tower photosims - Split Oak Road Attachments:image001.png I do not agree with the assessment that " The balloon was not visible from any point along the Blue Ridge Parkway" The balloon was visible to the naked eye from several locations on the Blue Ridge Parkway including Lost Mountain Overlook and several roadside vistas. The balloon test was completed during leaf-on conditions it was impossible to determine the actual visibility of the cell tower during leaf off months. Where the cell tower was the closest to the parkway motor road I would agree that it did not extend above the treeline from either the parkway motor road or Masons Knob Overlook but it may be visible during leaf off conditions. One issue with locating the balloon during the test was the size of the balloon being utilized. The balloon that was flown was 36 inches in diameter and the balloons at 175' and 150' were 18" in diameter. Larger balloons make finding the tower and having it show up on photographs much easier. The visibility of a cell tower is also dependent on time of day and season. Sun angle and intensity is the most significant factor in how visible a cell tower will be a particular location. Having preformed this test during leaf-on it is impossible to determine how visible the tower will be at it closest point to the parkway. For a true determination of No Adverse Effect to the view shed of the Blue Ridge Parkway another balloon test should be carried out after the leaves have fallen. The test completed last week was inconclusive at any height. Sincerely, David Anderson j_david_anderson@nps.gov Resident Landscape Architect/GIS & GPS Coordinator National Park Service Blue Ridge Parkway 199 Hemphill Knob Road Asheville NC 28803 828-348-3435 On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:51 PM Drew Patterson <dpatterson@nbcllc.com> wrote: Becky, The balloon test results showed the following: ! ЊВВ ƷƚǞĻƩ Ǟźƌƌ ƚƓƌǤ ĬĻ ǝźƭźĬƌĻ ŅƩƚƒ Ћ ƚǒƷ ƚŅ ЊЏ ƌƚĭğƷźƚƓƭ ΛƭĻĻ ğƷƷğĭŷĻķ ƒğƦ ğƓķ ƦŷƚƷƚƭźƒƭΜ͵ ŷĻ ǝźƭźĬźƌźƷǤ ƩĻƭǒƌƷƭ ğƩĻ ƷŷĻ ƭğƒĻ ƩĻŭğƩķƌĻƭƭ ƚŅ ŷĻźŭŷƷ Λź͵Ļ͵ ƷŷĻ Ћ ƌƚĭğƷźƚƓƭ ǞĻƩĻ ƭƷźƌƌ ǝźƭźĬƌĻ ğƷ ЊАЎ ğƓķ ЊЎЉΜ The balloon was not visible from any point along the Blue Ridge Parkway John, Prior to submitting a zoning application to the County, we would like your sign off. Can you please provide your input on the request so that we can proceed with zoning? Thanks, Drew C. Patterson tƩƚƆĻĭƷ ağƓğŭĻƩ N E T W O R K B U I L D I N G + C O N S U L T I N G 4435 Waterfront Drive | Suite 100 | Glen Allen, VA | 23060 804-363-0891 | networkbuilding.com FwbseTfsjft !Gfefsbm!Dpnnvojdbujpot!Dpnnjttjpo!Gfefsbm!Sfhjtufs-!58!DGS!Qbsu!2-!Obujpoxjef! Qsphsbnnbujd!Bhsffnfou!gps!Sfwjfx!Voefs!uif!Obujpobm!Ijtupsjd!Qsftfswbujpo!Bdu<!Gjobm!Svmf Cfou!Npvoubjo-!WB-!Rvbesbohmf!Nbq-! Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL RE: Deployments of Antennas, Small Boxes and Macro Towers Dear Applicant: Please be advised that the failure to pay our review fees will result in litigation being filed against your ¢®¬¯ ¸ ¨ ³§¤ ³±¨¡ « ¢®´±³ ³§ ³ § ² ©´±¨²£¨¢³¨® ®µ¤± ®´± ¢«¨¤³²Ȍ ¨³¤±¤²³² £ ¸®´± ¥ ¨«´±¤ ³® ¯ ¸ ¥®± ®´± ¢«¨¤³²Ȍ ¶®±ª ¯±®£´¢³ȁ This includes your deployment on this TCNS project which was reviewed by our client today. Any questions, please contact Mr. Gary Montana, Senior Attorney, Montana & Associates, LLC. Office 1- 715-597-6464 Fax 1-715-597-3508 Sincerely, Montana & Associates, LLC Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL Alpharetta, GA / Asheville, NC / Ashland, OR / Chicago, IL / Nashville, TN / West Palm Beach, FL AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2019 ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN AN AR (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A BROADCASTING TOWER, ON AN APPROXIMATELY 4.00-ACRE PARCEL (TAX MAP NO. 096.01- 02-25.00-0000), LOCATED NEAR THE 6700 BLOCK OF SPLIT OAK ROAD, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, a broadcasting tower is not a permitted use in the AR (Agricultural/ Residential) zoning district, but is allowed as a special use; and WHEREAS, Skyway Towers has requested a special use permit for the construction and operation of a broadcasting tower, on an approximately 4.00 acre-parcel (Tax Map No. 096.01-02-25.00-0000), located near the 6700 block of Split Oak Road, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on March 5, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit with one condition: that the maximum height of the broadcasting tower shall be 199 feet; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 26, 2019, and the second reading and public hearing were held on March 26, 2019; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement have been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: Page 1 of 2 1. The Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to allow construction and operation of a broadcasting tower on an approximately 4.00 acre-parcel (Tax Map No. 096.01-02-25.00-0000), located near the 6700 block of Split Oak Road, in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is in conformance with the requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code, and further with official County policies adopted in relation thereto. Further, the Board finds that the proposed use will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. In considering impacts, the Board has given due regard to operation, site design, access, screening, and other matters which might be regulated to mitigate impact. 2. The Board grants this special use permit subject to the following conditions: a. The maximum height of the broadcasting tower shall be 199 feet. 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its final passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. Page 2 of 2