Loading...
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