HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/12/2014 - Regular
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
August 12, 2014
INVOCATION:Reverend Mathew Ricks
Rocky Mount Christian Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG
Disclaimer:
“Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Board meeting
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
the Board.”
Page 1of 5
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
August 12,2014
Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for August 12, 2014.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 schedulewill 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
Supervisors meetings can also be viewed online through Roanoke County’s website at
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 (3:00 p.m.)
1. Roll Call
B.REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TOOR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
C.PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1.Recognition of Roanoke County receiving a Special Achievement in GIS
(SAG) Award(Bill Hunter, Director of Communications and Information
Technology)
2.Recognition of Roanoke County Police Department Detectives Dan Walters
and Andrea Morris for a Public Safety Award received from the Office of the
US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in April 2014(Howard Hall,
Chief of Police)
D.BRIEFINGS
1.Roanoke City Council Member Sherman P. Lea-Domestic Violence
Taskforce Forum Invitation
Page 2of 5
E.NEW BUSINESS
F.FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1.Ordinance authorizing the vacation of an existing fifteen foot (15’) public utility
easement located on the rear and side property line on property of David
Kilbane, Lot 75, Section 3, The Highlands (Plat Book 24, Page 38; tax map
number 044.03-09-12.00-0000) located in the Catawba Magisterial District
(Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of DevelopmentServices)
G.SECONDREADING OF ORDINANCES
1.Ordinance appropriating up to $200,000 for the construction of the water
spheroid design for the tower to be located at the Green Ridge Recreation
Center from the Minor Capital Account (Richard L. Caywood, Assistant
County Administrator)
H.APPOINTMENTS
1.Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by
District)
I.CONSENT AGENDA
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDAARE 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 –June 24, 2014; July 1, 2014
2.Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
RoanokeCounty to Kenneth C. Hall, Senior Appraiser, upon his retirement
after more than twenty-seven (27) years of service
3.Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to George Warner, Television Producer, upon his retirement
after more than seventeen (17) years of service
4.Request for appointment of representative to the Roanoke County
Community Policy Management Team (CPMT)
Page 3of 5
5.Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $14,183 from the
Office of Justice Assistance to the Roanoke County Police Department for the
fiscal year 2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Program
6.Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $210,476 to Fire and
Rescue for grant from the Virginia Department of Health (GRANT #WV-
C05/06-14) for the purchase of seven(7) heart monitors
J.CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
K.REPORTS
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2.Capital Reserves
3.Reserve for Board Contingency
4.Quarterly Report –Community Development
5.Treasurer’s Statement of Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy
as of July 31, 2014
L.REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
1. Al Bedrosian
2. Joseph B. “Butch” Church
3. P. Jason Peters
4.Charlotte A. Moore
5. Joseph P. McNamara
M.WORK SESSIONS
1.Work session to discuss highway funding strategy (Richard Caywood,
Assistant County Administrator)
2.Work session on proposed Broadband Project by the Roanoke Valley
Regional Broadband Authority(Daniel R. O’Donnell, Interim County
Administrator)
N.CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows:
1.Section 2.2-3711.A.1.To discuss and consider the employment,
performance, demotion, disciplining or resignation of specific public officers,
appointees, or employees
Page 4of 5
2.Section 2.2.3711.A.5 namely discussion concerning a prospective business
or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no
previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest
in locating or expanding its facilities in the County
O.CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
P.ADJOURNMENT
Page 5of 5
T A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
A
COUNTY,VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTERON TUESDAY,AUGUST 12, 2014
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF AN EXISTING FIFTEEN
(15’) FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATEDON THE REAR AND
SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTY OF DAVID KILBANE,LOT 75,
SECTION 3, THE HIGHLANDS(PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 38) TAX MAP
#044.03-09-12.00-0000), CATAWBAMAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, a platentitled “Plat showing Section No. 3 of The Highlands property of
Al M. Cooper Construction, Incorporated” dated February 20, 2001, andrecorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, (Plat Book 24, Page 38)
dedicated a fifteen foot (15’) wide public utilityeasement across a parcel identified asLot
75(Tax Map #044.03-09-12.00-0000); and
WHEREAS, the current owner of the property, David Kilbane, has requested that
the fifteen foot (15’) wide public utility easementlocated along the rear and side property
linesbe vacated in order to remove that encumbrance on his property for the purpose of
building a garage in the north corner of the property; and
WHEREAS, County staff has reviewed and approved the vacationthis fifteen foot
(15’) public utility easementas shown on the exhibit (Exhibit “A”) attached hereto and
entitled “Easement plat for David Kilbaneshowing hereon an existing 15’ public utility
easement to be vacated (Tax Map#044.03-09-12.00-0000” prepared by Balzer and
Associates, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of thispublic
utility easements, andthis vacation will not involve any cost to the County, and the affected
County departmentsand public utilities have raised no objection; and
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of
Virginia (1950, as amended); and
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1.That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, theacquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance.
A first reading of this ordinance was held on August 12, 2014, and a second readingand
public hearingof this ordinance was held on August 26, 2014.
2.That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the subject real estate, a fifteen foot (15’) wide public utilityeasement, which was
dedicated by plat of The Highlands(Plat Book 24, Page 38) is hereby declared to be
surplus and the nature ofthe interestsin real estate renders it unavailable for other public
use.
3.That the subject real estate,a fifteen foot (15’) wide public utility easement,
located along the rear and side property line, which was dedicated by plat of The Highlands
(Plat Book 24, Page 38) be, and herebyis, vacated pursuant toSection 15.2-2270 of the
Code of Virginia1950, as amended.
4.That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to
publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner.
5.That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby
authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to
accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
Page 2 of 3
6.That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and a
certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2270of the Code of Virginia
(1950, as amended).
Page 3 of 3
The Water Authority will be the owner of the tank and any support equipment. A potential
source of revenue to help offset costs associated with the water tower would be the
utilization of the tower as a cell site. The County and Authority will split any net sub-lease
revenue (cell) 50 / 50 should this occur.
When presented on December 10, 2013, a Board Member requested that staff present
design choices to the Board before any selections were made. Staff indicated that this
would be done at such time as there was better cost information available from the Water
Authority.
New Information and Current Issues(July 22, 2014):
The Water Authority has developed estimates for the water spheroid design as well as the
cylindrical design. The water spheroid is estimated to cost at least $300,000more than the
cylindrical design. Through negotiation with the County, the Water Authority has agreed to
split any additional costs for this design with the County 50 / 50 in order to be cooperative
to the County’s potential desire to select this design. To be conservative, Roanoke County
would need to be prepared to appropriate $150,000 to $200,000to the Water Authority if
the water spheroid design is selected.
The County’s Cellular consultant has indicated that the Green Ridge water tower is a
potential prime cell site. Information relating to potentialvaluation for leasing was
presentedto the Board in closed session during the July 8, 2014, Board meeting.
According to the County’s cellular consultant, the water spheroid design is a better cell
platform than the cylindrical design. Steps can be taken in design to improve the
functionality and aesthetics of a water spheroid as a cell tower. These costs are unknown
at this time and would also be split with the Water Authority on a 50 / 50 basis.
Any additional costs for specialpaint colors or logos would be at one hundred percent
(100%) County cost. If the tower is to be used as a cell platform, this may limit the ability to
have a logo or the desirability of a logo.
The concurrence of the Board is needed to enable the CountyAdministrator to select the
desired tank design. Any additional appropriations, if the water spheroid design is chosen,
would be made by ordinance.
The current lease envisions the Water Authority as being the leasing agent for any
potential cellular providers. However, the County is in discussions with the Authority to
modify the lease to let the County have this authority since we are better positioned to
market the site and develop the leases. If this course of action is taken, the Board would
approve future cell provider leases.
The project will require review by the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA). The County
has hired a consultant who performed an engineering study and indicated that the
proposed tower would not be a hazard to air operations at Roanoke Regional Airportbased
on FAA regulations at the time of the review. The Western Virginia Water Authority would
be responsible for all permitting associated with the site and anyformalreview by the FAA.
Page 2 of 12
The FAA recently received comments on potential revisions to its regulations under which
the County’s review was performed. The potential impactsof these regulatory changes,
which are not yet in place, areunknown at this time.
The proposed changes are described in the Federal Register as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 77
\[Docket No. FAA–2014–0134\]
RIN 2120–AF90
Proposal toConsider the Impact of One Engine Inoperative Procedures in Obstruction
Evaluation Aeronautical Studies.
NewInformation and Current Issues (August 12, 2014):
The following questions were received from Board Member Bedrosian after the first reading
at the July 22, 2014 Board Meeting. These questions were answered and shared with the
full Board via email. Thisinformation is presented below in a more formalized fashion for
this Board Report. We also received a document from the Western Virginia Water
Authority detailing their current cellular lease arrangements.
Question #1) Do we currently have any cell providers that have committedto putting
towers on either of the water tower designs?
Answer: No. An RFP to solicit interest among cell providers for the site was released on
Sunday August 2, 2014 with responses due back August 27, 2014. Given the complexity
of the site it is possible that this date may need to be extended based on feedback from
interested proposers. This RFP indicated that Roanoke County would consider cell sites
on the tower itself and / or on a separate free-standing tower located on a different portion
of the Green Ridge parcel.
Question #2) What is the maximum amount of cell providers that could fit on the
spherical design and how many could fit on the cylinder design?How many cell
providers are there - are there 5 or 20? or somewherein between?
Answer: We received the following answer from our Cellular Consultant George Condyles.
Note: LMR stands for Land Mobile Radio
It is presented exactly as he sent it to us.
System.
A Cell provider is considered to be a LMR.
The second part of the question is easier to give.
1.LMR: There are 5 major carriers in the Roanoke Market
Verizon/GTE
AT&T/Cingular
Sprint/NexTel
Page 3 of 12
NTELOS
US Cell
2.Wireless Broad Band
a.Several : B2X
b.ValleyNet
c.Independent Small providers (Can Google: “Roanoke
WiFi”)
3.Microwave : Several not familiar with names
Next the question of the 2 types of tanks:
1.Spherical : 5….. LMR + 1 Wireless Broadband+ 1 Microwave (warning: it
will be ugly!!)
2.Cylindrical : 2….LMR + 1 Wireless Broadband + 1 Microwave
Question #3) Will we be splitting revenues from the cell providers? For example if we
receive $30,000 per provider would the County then receive $15,000 and Water
Authority receive $15,000. Is the amount of revenue a NET number or a gross
revenue number --I would assume any maintenance on the cell towers would be
handled by County and Water Authority. Any ideas?
Answer: Our lease indicates that we will evenly split any net revenue.The cell sites
themselves would be maintained by the cell provider. Since the tower will already be there
for water it is difficult to envision any additional direct cost so gross and net are likely to be
the same. The lease indicates net on the off chance that there were any costs. The net
number is net of the lease amount or rent.
Question #4) Does Roanoke County currently have any water towersthat have cell
towers on them. If so, what revenues are we receiving and what design shapes are
they on.
Answer: Roanoke County does not own any water towers. Several of the Western Virginia
Water Authority water towers do have cell providers located within Roanoke County but we
do not receive anything from these leases.Most of the towers in Roanoke County are
either the cylinder (standpipe) type design or the lower more boxy shaped water storage
tanks that look like this:
Page 4 of 12
The Water Authority also has several tanks similar in design to the image below. This
“tank on legs” design was not considered at the Green Ridge site.
Below is a link that describes the Westlake Tower. The Westlaketank is similar in height
but substantially smaller in capacity to the one proposed at Green Ridge. The anticipated
capacity at Green Ridge is to be over 300,000 gallons whereas the Westlake Tower is
100,000 gallons. Therefore, this tower is much smaller in diameter than the one
proposedat Green Ridge.
http://www.smithmountainlake.com/business/lakerWeekly/wb/304640
Page 5 of 12
Question #5) Supervisor Church stated that he wanted Roanoke County to have all
"legal" authority over this and not split the Water Authority --has that been put in
writing?
Answer: We have the authority in the lease todeny anything that affectsthe aesthetics of
the tower which would include cell antennas. Currently the leaseenvisions the Authority
being the lessor. We are discussing modifying the lease to have the County be the lessor.
In either case this would not alter the 50 / 50 revenuesplit as this is what was approved by
both our Board and the Water Authority Board when the lease was executed. A copy of the
proposed lease modification has been sent to the Western Virginia Water Authority’s
attorney for review.
The Pages that follow contain images of several nearby Western Virginia Water
Towers and the revenue generated from cellular leases. The revenue amounts are
stated in terms of monthly rents.
Page 6 of 12
T-Mobile NortheastEugene Drive Tank $ 2,289.00
TTMEugene Drive Tank $ 401.63
EugeneDrive Tank$2,851.60
U.S.Cellular
Page 7 of 12
Cingular,NewCingular Wireless PCSWashington HeightsTank $ 2,369.00
NTELOS, Virginia PCS AllianceWashington HeightsTank $ 2,369.00
Verizon, DBA CellcoWashington HeightsTank $ 2,690.92
Page 8 of 12
Cingular,NewCingular Wireless PCSSummit Tank $ 2,369.00
NTELOS, Virginia PCS AllianceSummit Tank $ 2,369.00
Summit Tank $ 2,289.00
T-Mobile Northeast
SummitTank$401.63
TTM
Verizon, DBA Cellco (proposed)Summit Tank$ 2,369.00
Page 9 of 12
Cingular,NewCingular Wireless PCSGrandin Court Tank $ 2,369.00
NTELOS, Virginia PCS AllianceGrandin Court Tank $ 2,369.00
Grandin Court Tank $ 2,690.92
U.S.Cellular
Verizon, DBA CellcoGrandin Court Tank $ 2,369.00
Page 10of 12
Cingular,NewCingular Wireless PCSMount Pleasant Tank $ 2,369.00
Verizon, DBA CellcoMountPleasantTank$2,369.00
FISCAL IMPACT:
Selection of the water spheroid design would require the appropriation of between
$150,000 and $200,000based on final design and detailed cost estimates. The
recommend source for these funds would be the Minor Capital Account, which currently
has a balance of $1,607,630.This would leave a balance of approximately $1,407,630
based on the final estimate of the tank’s cost.
Page 11of 12
ALTERNATIVES:
1.Appropriate up to $200,000from Minor Capital to be utilized by the Western Virginia
Water Authority to construct the Water Spheroid Water Tower Designdue to its
superior ability to serve as a communications platform to both provide enhanced
communication services for citizens and revenue for the County.
2.Directthe County Administrator to move forward with the more traditional Cylindrical
(standpipe) design at no cost to Roanoke County other than for any special paint or
logo designs that the board can consider once design work on the tower is
complete.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommendsapproval of the ordinance, appropriation of funds outlined in alternative
one.
If the board does not intend to utilize the tower for cellular communication equipment, both
alternatives are equivalentfrom a functional perspective and the staff recommendation
would then be neutral between the two designs.
Page 12of 12
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING UP TO $200,000 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER SPHEROID DESIGN FOR THE
TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT THE GREEN RIDGE RECREATION
CENTER FROM THE MINOR CAPITAL ACCOUNT
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the County approved the execution of a
lease between Roanoke County and the Western Virginia Water Authority for the
construction of a water tower on the Green Ridge Recreation Center site; and
WHEREAS, this water tower is needed to address significant water pressure
issues in this area of North County as well as adjacent areas of the City of Roanoke;
and
WHEREAS, design concepts and estimated costs of the cylindrical type and
spherical design were presented to the Board of Supervisorsduring a work session on
July 8, 2014; and
WHEREAS, through negotiation the Water Authority has agreed to split any
additional costs for the spherical design with the County 50/50; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost to the County for the spherical design is
approximately $200,000;and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on July 22, 2014, and the
second reading was held on August 12, 2014.
Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1.That the sum of up to $200,000is hereby appropriated from the Minor
Capital Account to construct the Water Spheroid Water Tower Designto
be paid to the Western Virginia Water Authority.
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
Page 2 of 2
I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
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 August 12,
2014, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred
in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6
inclusive, as follows:
1.Approval of Minutes – June 24, 2014; July 1, 2014
2.Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Boardof Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Kenneth C. Hall, Senior Appraiser, upon his retirement
after more than twenty-seven (27) years of service
3.Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to George Warner, Television Producer, upon his retirement
after more than seventeen (17) years of service
4.Request for appointment of representative to the Roanoke County Community
Policy Management Team (CPMT)
5.Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $14,183 from the Office
of Justice Assistance to the Roanoke County Police Department for the fiscal
year 2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program
6.Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $210,476 to Fire and
Rescue for grant from the Virginia Department of Health (GRANT #WV-
C05/06-14) for the purchase of seven (7) heart monitors
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, AUGUST 12, 2014
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TOKENNETH C. HALL, SENIOR
APPRAISER, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWENTY-
SEVEN (27)YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS,Kenneth C. Hall was hired on December 1, 1986, and has served as an
Appraiser and Senior Appraiser in the Real Estate Valuation department during his tenure
with Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hallretired on August1, 2014, after twenty-seven (27) years and
eight (8) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS,Mr. Hall,through his employment with Roanoke County, has been
instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County.
WHEREAS, during histime serving Roanoke County, Mr. Hallretired as a Senior
Appraiser with the Real Estate Valuation Office. It is extremely rarein our society today
that you see an employee dedicate his professional life to one workplace for this period of
time.Ken spent his first years within the appraisal fieldworking forWingate Appraisal
Company, working general reassessments for localitiesthroughout the State of Virginia.
His knowledge and professionalism within the appraisal field has included Ken earning his
Certified Residential License, taking and passing numerous IAAO classes, participating in
education seminars, being aVAAO member, and spendingmany hours mentoring new
appraisers, within the assessment field. During Ken’stenure with the VAAO, he held the
positions of Flag Bearer/Sergeant at Arms and Chaplain. At the July VAAO Board meeting
his dedication and service was noted duringthe meeting. Ken was one of the foundations
Page 1 of 2
of the Real Estate Valuation Office and he deserves much credit for his involvement with
the many general reassessments he has completedduring his tenure with Roanoke
County. May your retirement be as great asthe time we had with you in this office;and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginiaexpresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of
KENNETH C. HALL,
Roanoke County to for twenty-seven (27) years and eight (8)
months of capable, loyaland dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER,the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and
productive retirement.
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, AUGUST 12, 2014
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TOGEORGE WARNER,
TELEVISION PRODUCER, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN
SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS,George Warner was hired on September 9, 1996, and has served as a
Television Producer during his tenure with Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Warner retired on August1, 2014, after seventeen (17) years and
eleven (11) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS,Mr. Warner,through his employment with Roanoke County, has been
instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County.
WHEREAS, during histime serving Roanoke County, Mr. Warner served as a
videographer and editor for“Roanoke County Business Partners” & “Inside Roanoke.” Mr.
Warner directed LIVE government meetings, andpossessed a friendly and helpfulattitude
toward the RVTV-3 Team and video clients;and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginiaexpresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of
GEORGE WARNER,
Roanoke County to for seventeen (17) years and eleven (11)
months of capable, loyaland dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER,the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and
productive retirement.
Page 1 of 1
ACTION NO. _______________
ITEM NO. _______I-4________
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
August 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM:
Request for appointment of representative to theRoanoke
County Community Policy andManagement Team (CPMT)
SUBMITTED BY:
Deborah C. Jacks
Deputy Clerk to the Board
APPROVED BY:
Daniel R. O’Donnell
Interim County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
In accordance with the Bylaws of the CPMT, all designees shall be ratified by the Board of
Supervisors.
Staff has advised the designee of the Director of Finance, Judy Quesenberry, is no longer
employedwithRoanoke County and has recommended the appointment of Brian Carter,
Finance Manageras the new designee from Finance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the appointment of Brian Carter.
Page 1 of 1
grass/weeds.domestic
day
for
day
plans
home,
Vehicle,
RV/Boat/Trailer,
working
were
permit
project
days
reviews
same
days
review days
and
all
days
days
builtdays
and
from
time;
working
days
s
on
reviewedworking
Inoperable
first
zoning
perworking
staff
average
da
workingHigh
some roadside
y
working
business
as
working
working
reviews
the
g
review
all
workin
for
and
5
no
while
performed
10
plans:
time;
Trash,
15
were
projects
and
10
and
required include:
Vehicles,
Plans:
at
11
Subdivisions:
6operating
one
requests
2Plans:5
Built:
5
Concept:
materials
time;C:
concerns,
is
Plats:
revisions
Residential
on
concerns
of
withinquarter
E&S
reviewed
Revised inspections
two
Accumulation
Complaints
As
Times
Site
Commercial
on
following
as
for
Notes:
approved
reviewed
fields
Bulk
first
animals
setback
Such
except
were
All
***
the
All
**
*
year's
Monthly
Average
2014
21/day
1109
190830101698111
NA
381731151213
2912158614572242
59211228
June
Last
May
FY
April
2012/13
for
13313
103222849956121283764667
1326
451351146104206366179140185167158685266505
5823251998
Board
971
Total
to
Report
months
Monthly
Average
average)
17/day
1233
2638220
115876103272
1235
262213161214151523972938
Quarterly
38211218
(12
2013/2014
Permit
FY
2013/14
for
85810510
14799
137911611604395
12383267
6271
31026515810114641518914916718314177347457
0601595
1601
3452110112
Total
Department and
Activities
Reports\\Inspections
Report
forquarter
Compliance
Monthly
Development
Average
Quarterly
1276
211111279356
30271512421814169513251339
8
this
Zoning
Inforcement
Fourth
Community
this
and
quarter
for
884845845257413301256124238283543501069
125284 632 334836Complaints*NANANA348116
Development 908244254551437544347391815942177539
314830000320000
and
Total
Reports\\Inspection
2013/14
June
Issued213213206
performedNANANAROWNANANAIssues**NANANA
Performed263133Approved2627296514Accessories142317month131123ReceivedNANANAConcerns***NANANA
Plats101222Construction141211Alter/Additions444041Alter/Additions131614989789161211463535
Construction120
Commercial120CO101
of
C:\\Users\\tmoneir\\Desktop\\Board
Quarter
rilMa
y
365
Third
p
A
Residential
Inspections
Inspections
PlansLicensesServices
Activity
SubdivisionPlan
CO
Commercial
Residential
Small
Site
E&S
from
Permits
reviewed/
p
Appeals
for
Concerns
Business
Complaints
Reviews
Inspections
Reviews
Removed
E&S
Building
in
Code
NewNew
Total Walk
Temp
Temp
Zoning
Projects
Residential
Zoning
Other
Residential
Categories
Counter
Signs
Zoning
Zoning
of
Other
Illegal
Board
and
Service
Res.)
Res.)
Totalof
Occupancies
Total
Number
Code
&
&
Customer
(Comm
Permits
(Comm
Permits
Total
Issued
of
Permits
Permits
Inspections
Commercial
Residential
Certificate
Reviews
Permits
Misc.
Trade
Overview
Overview
Overview
How do we maximize our piece of the
construction pie?
First we have to understand who makes the
decisions.
In the past: The Formula
In the past: The Formula
In the past: The Formula
In the past: The Formula
Today
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
How can we become more competitive?
How can we become more competitive
How can we become more competitive
How can we become more competitive
How can we become more competitive
How can we become more competitive
What Steps Should Roanoke County Take Now?
o how do all these big projects benefit us
locally?
S
What can we do about our local roads?
Potential Change on the Horizon:
House Bill 2 and VTrans2040
Questions?
Roanoke Valley Broadband Data Summary
from the
National Broadband Map
Compiled for the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority
by the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission
July 2014
Table of Contents
Data Summary ................................................................................................ 1
Data Tables ...................................................................................................... 2
National Broadband Map Background ........................................................ 6
Roanoke Valley MSA Data Profile ................................................................ 7
Botetourt County Data Profile ....................................................................... 8
City of Roanoke Data Profile ......................................................................... 11
Roanoke County Data Profile ........................................................................ 13
City of Salem Data Profile .............................................................................. 15
Comcast Corporation Data Profile ................................................................ 17
Cox Communications Data Profile ................................................................ 19
Verizon Communications Data Profile ......................................................... 21
Regional Fiber Coverage Map ....................................................................... 23
Roanoke Valley Fiber Coverage Map ........................................................... 24
Data Summary
The following data is a product of the National Broadband Map (see page xx for a complete
description). In some cases, peer communities, as identified by the Roanoke Regional
Partnership are used for comparison.
About 8% of the population in the Roanoke MSA has access to fiber. Nationally, this
number is 24%. Roanoke is well behind peer areas such as Fort Wayne, Indiana,
Washington DC and Chattanooga. Nationally, this gives Roanoke a rank of 198 of 429
metro areas. In Virginia, Roanoke ranks 7 out 11 metro areas in access to fiber.
The Roanoke Valley has about a half dozen private companies with fiber networks. In
some cases these are duplicative networks. Providerscooperate and compete at the same
time,and offer desirable services to customers.Some networks are only for large users,
but most existing fiber networks focus only on business customers. Some providers will
not publically share the location of the networks. Even with these duplicative private
. This is because most fiber does
not serve the residential market, there are few last mile solutions,and costs are
prohibitive. This leaves access to fiber nationally is
three times greater.
th
In basic access to the Internet, Roanoke ranks 409among 429 metro areas. While the
ranking sounds low, it still means almost all people can access the Internet, even if at a
low speed such as DSL. In Virginia, Roanoke ranks 10 out of 11 metro areas.
The Roanoke MSA has better than average access to speeds greater than 100Mbps (fast
cable modems). The Roanoke Valley has improved in this area over that past few years
as Cox and Comcast have updated their networks.
Roanoke does not have good access to very high speeds (1Gbps). About 4.5% of the
population has potential access to these speeds in the Roanoke Valley,which is below the
national average of 6.7%. Peer metro areas like Fort Wayne and Chattanooga are at more
than 50% because they have made significant investments in broadband.
Provider choice is limited in the Roanoke Valley. Eighty-nine percent of Roanoke MSA
residents have two or less providers to choose from. Nationally, this number is 45%. In
other words, 55% of the nation has more than two providers to choose from,while only
11% of the Roanoke Valley has more than two providers to choose from. Lack of
competition adversely affects price and service.
Botetourt County seems to have high access to fiber (33.9% of the population), but
whether it is actually utilized,affordable,or actually accessible to residents is unknown.
Over 5,000 people work from home in the Roanoke Valley according to the 2010 Census,
and telework has increased 80% since 2005.
Other details can be found in the following tables and attached reports.
1
Select Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Technology Wireline Optical Carrier Fiber To The End User
Percent Access to Fiber
MSA Area
Fort Wayne77.9%
Washington DC-NOVA-MD72.8%
Chattanooga66.6%
National Average24.3%
Winston Salem15.6%
Charlotte13.8%
Roanoke8.0%
Spartanburg7.8%
Lynchburg3.0%
Asheville2.7%
Danville2.0%
Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford1.2%
Source: National Broadband Map (NTIA & FCC) 2013
Selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas in USA
Access to Wireline Optical Carrier Fiber to End User
MSA AreaNational Rank
Fort Wayne20
Washington DC-NOVA29
Chattanooga47
Winston-Salem150
Charlotte161
Roanoke198
Spartanburg202
Lynchburg263
Asheville269
Danville295
Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford330
Rank within 429 Metro Areas
Source: National Broadband Map (NTIA & FCC) 2013
2
Metropolitan Statistical Area Within Virginia
Technology Wireline Optical Carrier Fiber To The End User
RankMSA AreaPercent Access to Fiber
1Washington Arlington Alexandria DC VA MD WV Metro Area72.8%
2Richmond VA Metro Area54.0%
3Virginia Beach Norfolk Newport News VA NC Metro Area43.1%
4Kingsport Bristol Bristol TN VA Metro Area35.2%
5Charlottesville VA Metro Area11.8%
6Winchester VA WV Metro Area9.2%
7Roanoke VA Metro Area8.0%
8Harrisonburg VA Metro Area3.3%
9Lynchburg VA Metro Area3.0%
10Danville VA Metro Area2.0%
11Blacksburg Christiansburg Radford VA Metro Area1.2%
Note: Measure of Access to Fiber Cable
Source: National Broadband Map (NTIA & FCC) 2013
Selected Metropolitan Statistical Areas in USA
Speed Download Greater Than 3 Mbps Upload Greater Than 0.768 Mbps
MSA AreaNational Rank
Fort Wayne26
Spartanburg98
Washington DC-NOVA-MD133
Charlotte216
Winston-Salem226
Chattanooga319
Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford371
Asheville397
Lynchburg401
Danville405
Roanoke409
Notes: A measure of basic internet access
Rank within 429 Metro Areas
Source: National Broadband Map (NTIA & FCC) 2013
3
Metropolitan Statistical Area Within Virginia
Speed Download Greater Than 3 Mbps Upload Greater Than 0.768 Mbps
RankGeographySpeed Combo DL>3 UL>0.7
1Washington Arlington Alexandria DC VA MD WV Metro Area100.0%
2Virginia Beach Norfolk Newport News VA NC Metro Area99.8%
3Richmond VA Metro Area99.5%
4Harrisonburg VA Metro Area98.9%
5Blacksburg Christiansburg Radford VA Metro Area98.7%
6Kingsport Bristol Bristol TN VA Metro Area97.9%
7Lynchburg VA Metro Area97.4%
8Danville VA Metro Area97.1%
9Charlottesville VA Metro Area97.0%
10Roanoke VA Metro Area96.9%
11Winchester VA WV Metro Area96.2%
Note: Measure of basic Internet speeds.
Source: National Broadband Map (NTIA & FCC) 2013
4
Select Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Population with Access to Speeds Greater than 1Gbps
Download Greater than 1Gbps
MSA Area
Chattanooga61.0%
Fort Wayne50.8%
Charlotte10.2%
Spartanburg7.7%
National Average6.7%
Winston-Salem5.8%
Washington DC-NOVA-MD4.8%
Roanoke4.5%
Lynchburg2.6%
Asheville2.1%
Danville2.0%
Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford1.2%
Notes: A measure of very fast Internet.
10-25Mbps=Movie download takes 33 minutes
25-50Mbps=Movie download takes 16 minutes
50-100Mbps=Movie download takes 8 minutes
100Mbps-1Gbps=Movie download takes 1 minute
Source: National Broadband Map (NTIA & FCC) 2013
5
National Broadband Map Data
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( NTIA) created and
maintainstheNational Broadband Map, an unprecedented, searchable, public database of
information on broadband Internet availability in the United States. NTIA created the National
Broadband Map in collaboration with the Federal Communications Commission, using data that
each state, territory and the District of Columbia (or their designees) collected from broadband
providers or other data sources. (Source: NTIA, 2014)
The website resulting from this Federal-state partnership includes more than 25 million
searchable records showing where broadband Internet service is available, the technology used to
provide the service, the maximum advertised speeds of the service, and the names of the service
providers. The data, to be updated every six months, will support efforts to expand broadband
access in communities at risk of being left behind in the 21st century economy and help
businesses and consumers seeking information on their high-speed Internet options. (Source:
NTIA, 2014)
Data may be 6-12 months old, and some data may be missing if not shared by private providers.
Coverage may be also being over-estimated based on data collection methodology. Data does not
take into account actual usage (it measures potential usage), nor the cost or affordability of the
service.
Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission staff prepared the following tables. Peer
cities, used by the Regional Partnership were included in some of the Metro Area comparisons.
A few of these metro areas have hadlarge investments in fiber infrastructure. The Roanoke
Metropolitan Statistical Area includes the Counties of Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and Roanoke
and the Cities of Salem and Roanoke. Other MSAs in the nation are defined by the same
population density and commuting standards and are comparable according to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Known Fiber-Optic Coverage
Source: wired.virginia.gov, 2014
23
Known Fiber-Optic Coverage
Source: wired.virginia.gov, 2014
24
O
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
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