HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/9/2015 - RegularRoanoke County
Board of Supervisors
INVOCATION: Pastor Ken Nienke
Fellowship Community Church
June 9, 2015
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 1 of 5
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
Agenda
June 9, 2015
Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for June 9, 2015. 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
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 TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
D. BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the Roanoke County Pipeline
Advisory Committee (PAC) (Richard L. Caywood, Assistant County
Administrator; Roberta Bondurant, Vice -Chairman, Roanoke County Pipeline
Advisory Committee; Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, Senior Assistant County Attorney)
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution affirming the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee's
recommended comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) for the scoping process of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (Richard L.
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Roberta Bondurant, Vice
Chairman, Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee)
Page 2 of 5
2. Resolution approving the execution of a contract among the Counties of
Franklin, Henry and Roanoke and the Cities of Martinsville and Roanoke and
The Interstate 73 Coalition, LLC for pursuit of construction of Interstate 73 in
the Commonwealth of Virginia (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator)
3. Resolution encouraging the political parties to choose an alternative method
for selecting candidates for public office other than a primary election; waiving
Roanoke County fees for use of public facilities for such alternative method
(Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
F. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the Roanoke
County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the Code of Virginia (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
2. Ordinance to approve Amendment No. 1 to an intergovernmental agreement
for the Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Charter
Agreement (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Jake Gilmer, Director of
Partnerships and Development, Roanoke Valley -Allegheny Regional
Commission)
3. Ordinance authorizing the vacation of an existing twelve foot (12') public utility
easement located along the side property line on the property of James Barry
Echols (lot 29) and Richard G. and Shelia B. Huffman (lot 30), block 11,
section 3 of Beverly Heights North (plat book 8, page 16) tax map numbers
044.03-03-41.00-0000 and 044.03-03-42.00-0000), Catawba Magisterial
District (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development)
G. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia
providing for the Economic Development Authority of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia to issue Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds to refund outstanding
Lease Revenue Bonds (Public Facility Projects), Series 2008 (Rebecca
Owens, Director of Finance)
H. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
Resolution approving the Secondary Roads System Six -Year Improvement
Plan for fiscal years 2016 through 2021, and the Construction Priority List and
Estimated Allocations for fiscal year 2016 (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director
of Planning)
Page 3 of 5
I. APPOINTMENTS
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by
District)
2. Clean Valley Counsel (At Large)
3. Economic Development Authority (appointed by District)
4. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District)
J. 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 — May 12, 2015
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Linda Bolen, Records Technician II, upon her retirement
after more than thirty-three (33) years of service
3. Request to approve the Fiscal Agent Agreement with the Regional Center for
Animal Control and Protection
4. Confirmation of appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals (appointed by
District)
K. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
L. REPORTS
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Outstanding Debt
Page 4 of 5
M. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
1. Joseph B. "Butch" Church
2. Joseph P. McNamara
3. Charlotte A. Moore
4. Al Bedrosian
5. P. Jason Peters
N. WORK SESSIONS
Work session to discuss the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility
Authority Site Study Results (Beth Doughty, Executive Director, Roanoke
Regional Partnership)
2. Work session to discuss Roanoke County's Legislative Program and
preparation for the 2016 session of the Virginia General Assembly (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
O. ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 of 5
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:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
June 9, 2015
Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the Roanoke
County Pipeline Advisory Committee (PAC)
Richard L. Caywood
Assistant County Administrator
Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
Roberta Bondurant
Vice Chairman, Pipeline Advisory Committee
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Staff and representatives of the Pipeline Advisory Committee will brief the Board of
Supervisors regarding the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline project. Issues to be
covered include the following:
1. Activities since the April 28, 2015 Board briefing
2. Survey Access issues
3. Website / GIS Map demonstration
4. Blasting Plan
5. Upcoming FERC deadline for scoping comments and future opportunities for public
input
6. Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors from the Pipeline Advisory
Committee
7. A resolution affirming the Pipeline Advisory Committees' recommended comments
to the FERC for the scoping process will be considered after the briefing
Page 1 of 1
4--J
O
L
O
roO
m
O
4--J
Q
0
tZ0
Ln ^
L J
E
a --j Ca O
4-0 (n
O
.Ln>
Q) E
O
V
CSA bna--+
Q) • — C::3
0-0- O
i '� O O .�
Q) E U U
Lr) (1) • — ca
-0p� °
Q) o irq `� °°
LnE
0o w E -0
�`� O E
• — Ln— cn � O
• — cn ca
Ln U
cn
(� -0Q L �
O
a -j U �
O
UU ca-+ cn
•
' Ln O C:_0
Ln 0
4-0E E
_ Ln
• -
cn • —
CU -0
E _0 4-0 E Ln U U
Q U
0
tZ0
i
ro
L CD
O � �
Ln +� O
CD CTC
OO w C: Q >'
.-
_ bz W
U U
•� ,E -32��
• — `� o C:
C: -0 m
CU tw
Q •—
�= .�i
U �� �
o bD > •-
_ Q txo
U i •N •�
6— u— E O co
4-j -C •-
• _ � CSA
� � � U ca O U
U •� 75;.
Q
n
txo
.C:
.txo
E
0
a) >-
.0 _
a_ ca
ro_0
a� -0
.C:
0
tZ0
Ln
r—I
CD
N
1
rV
N
IrA
a�
ro
au
.ro
L
O
4-
U
�C
LU
LL
O
a
CL
•
���
C6
ate-+
ro
O
O
0
a)
O
a)
cn
E i
� U
a� C:
O
E U
a�
E =3
O
U
a
C6
O
vi l0
-0 N
C: >.
ca ca
2
+.j C:
cn O
•
ca
E
Ln
a
O
U
.O
Ln
U
Ln
K-11
�►I
m
cn
•
Ln
0
U
O
Q
O
a -j
Q
U
�
• —
0
Ca
Q).cnO
• —
a--�
Lf)
U
Q
U
IrA
a�
ro
au
.ro
L
O
4-
U
�C
LU
LL
O
a
CL
•
���
C6
ate-+
ro
O
O
0
a)
O
a)
cn
E i
� U
a� C:
O
E U
a�
E =3
O
U
a
C6
O
vi l0
-0 N
C: >.
ca ca
2
+.j C:
cn O
•
ca
E
Ln
a
O
U
.O
Ln
U
Ln
K-11
�►I
m
cn
•
Ln
0
U
O
Q)
D
C/1
C/1
C�
0
P!
AT
.
0 •
.
Om
0
tZ0
3',n +ia D< Bs+ti6�;
3m .Wgur'..
3�n Fmw 0.+9 lL.j
lig °01
rlL JLAN I
0
rn
0
tZ
0
L
O
E W
O
Q) 0
a --j • —
L
�
O
O O
N 0 00
E
2 , t�A O
0 i W
V =3
C� ca LQ
�--� V O cn
(� O r� -0 O
-I-- =3�
ukk
Lr) V)0
•- ao
Q) O
c/7 U 0 � O
O +,
=3O 00 ukk v
0=3 o O rl ca
V) U U rl M Lu Q
U0 0 0 0 0 0
C>
G
0
O
O
fu
E
0
0
tZ0
9
L
L
Q
0
U
0
rn
0
tZ0
0
tZ0
tw _0 �
UD E E
a� +
a --j
> O
bz
O O •— 4-j2U
`� Q cry �-' • — V)
E U
U • —,
Q) E .�� .—
� E — E O +� U
u � ca w ca
D p .c� `�
U +� SEE O 00
oC C0 O � k+-
LUQ O +,
cn O . _ � p v)H > •— + (1)> O =3
� •� w W `�
LO cn
Ez3V) E� Ln Ln >%
Up — � ca " =3Q u w w p 0 0
O p V) Z M LL LL co z U
U 0 0 0 0tZ
0
0
0
ELn
=3 O O �
i o C U V
0LU <
U- V
O 4a)
4) E +� ° a�
E 4-j
O V)
V cn
E v) a�
V
i
Ea)
0
O U
•— E C6 V O
Q) E O O
O m +�
V cn ,V =
O LL p O V2
000- E (a) u
0 Q) u E
Q) .p V) p O U
(4— 4--J V) O V i V)
4-j0
EV E V �,
Q�.� Q :-�3:
� E E
E E E
p p o O w
U
e
V)
V
oc
LU
LL
0
tZ0
. 0,
CD
•
_ i
C: =3
co O
C
O
co CD
a--+ =3
> U
•
E
U
•
•
O
V J
-
Q
.O
4-j
W
O
V
�
'—
U
LU
Q)
U-
E
O
a -j
O
4—
V
Q�
cn
E�
O
Q,
U
.
O
.
O
cn
.—
(�
O
E
>
O
oC
V
. 0,
CD
•
_ i
C: =3
co O
C
O
co CD
a--+ =3
> U
•
E
U
•
•
0
tZ0
O
�
V J
a -j
ro
W
a -j
W
V
L
O
V
W
�
O
a --j
Ln
ca
Ca
O
W
�
�
r1
Ca
L
C�
O
�
�
U
.�E
z�
�
U
C:O
0
tZ0
O
a -j
ro
a -j
L
O
Ln
E
L
.�E
C:O
.Q
U
E
E
E
.c:
O
U
M
.-
C6
.-
_
ca
c
0
tZ0
Q)
Q)
Q)
4--J
0-w
ro
.C:
E
ro
ro
>
O
E
L
m
Ln
O
O
tu0
.C:
tu0
tu0
i
ca
E
ca
tu0
E
C6
G
KA
O
.C:
Q
14,
14,
w
Q
txo
.�
L
Q +j
-0 O
C:
ca U
a� ca
E
= O
O =3
C6 �
C: M
O
DLO
i
tw Ca
� •U
ca �
m
ate-+
w
M M
0 m 0 0 0
� U °0
txo
O
.C:
V J
.=3
�
O
_
ro
tu0
-0
C
_O
O
ca
a)
0
tu0
_
•
O
},
ca
, cA
4-
0
Q)
C6
_0
.—
ca
C:
ca
CL
Om
• —
txo
�
Q)
W
O
.C:
�
C6
=3
w
C:M.-
O
u
-0
+�
4—j
E
W
cn
-0
4--J
W
C:
Q
=3
Fcn
En
Q
O
U
txo
.�
L
Q +j
-0 O
C:
ca U
a� ca
E
= O
O =3
C6 �
C: M
O
DLO
i
tw Ca
� •U
ca �
m
ate-+
w
M M
0 m 0 0 0
� U °0
0
tZ0
txo
.C:
.=3
tu0
-0
C
_O
O
ca
a)
O
tu0
_
•
},
ca
, cA
i
0
U
C6
ca
O
Om
O
O
=3
w
C:M.-
-0
m
2
0
tZ0
0
0
O
Q -0 _0 u� �N
C/1 ro p � O :
•— CL Co O
> 0 Ln,N U
CD
p N N p
a--+ • cn U 4-J (10
O
n Q t]A p QC: u 04— +0
aN
' —+-jcn >
. —roC:
O — ca O O
•c -0 •O- a�
+-+ > O N
C6 � b.0C b.0C6 �
x co
ca O ° o '� Q u
Q c:E •ago 4-
0 J�O N C:
C:
E 4-j Q) -J
• - w_
�E CO
•p N
ia) -o 0 Ln
cn 4-J
��—
uU ca JO —
� U
LL
0
tZ0
W
n—
W
Q)
a --J
a)
El
0
tZ0
a -j
O
�
�
Q
O
(n
._
Q
>
C6
C6
�
O
�
i`
o
C:
U
C6
a--+
C:
U
:
=3
O
=3
E
>�
•
cn
vi
>,
Q
—_
CO
+-0
.—
O
W
O
•—
>
_0—
•
Q
(n
•• _
-0
(n
(a
=
4-+
-C
+-'
=3
O
U
C:
C:H
.
t�A
0
tZ0
a)
V
0
a�
O
V
NO
LU
LL
0
tZ0
0
rn
0
tZ
0
Comments from the Pipeline Advisory Committee
Recommended for adoption by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
For submission to the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Scoping Comment Period
June 9, 2015
Potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife:
1. Percina rex, Roanoke Logperch is an Endangered species found in the Roanoke River
that will be impacted directly by disturbance during construction and chronically by
increased siltation following construction.
htlp://ecos.fws.gov/s/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E01 G
2. Noturus gilberti, Orangefin Madtom is a Threatened species found in the Roanoke River
that will be impacted directly by disturbance during construction and chronically by
increased siltation following construction.
http://www.d ig fvir ig nia.gov/wildlife/virginiatescspecies.pdf
3. Clemmys muhlenbergii, Bog Turtle is a Threatened species inhabiting the high elevation
wetlands of Bent Mountain in Floyd, Roanoke and Franklin Counties. It will be directly
impacted during construction and will continue to be impacted by the altered hydrology
of the wetlands after construction.
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfispeciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C048
4. Glaucomys sabrinus, Northern Flying Squirrel is an Endangered species inhabiting the
forests of Montgomery Co. and may be directly impacted during construction and
maintenance of the pipeline.
http://www.d ig f.vir ig nia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=050068
5. Myotis sodalis, Indiana Bat is an Endangered species inhabiting the forests of
Montgomery Co. and may be directly impacted during construction and maintenance of
the pipeline. htlp://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=050023
6. Buckleya distichophylla, Pirate Bush is an Endangered species inhabiting Poor Mountain
and will be directly impacted during construction of the pipeline. The Poor Mountain
population of the Pirate Bush is the largest known population of the species.
htlp://plants.usda.gov/core/Trofile?symbol=BUDI
Potential impacts to water resources and wetlands:
1. Spring Hollow Reservoir is the primary drinking water supply for residents of Roanoke
County.
http://www.westemvawater. org/8525 6a8 d0062af3 7/vwC ontentByKey/N2628RP63 74PL
ESEN The proposed pipeline route will pass within 500 feet of the reservoir and the
construction area will be well within the drainage are of the reservoir increasing silt loads
into the reservoir.
2. Poor Mountain, located in western Roanoke County, is the primary water source for
much of the Roanoke Region. Water flows from Poor Mountain in all directions through
surface run-off, creeks and small streams such as Bottom Creek, a Virginia Tier III
stream used for recreational purposes and home to endangered species, and through
underground aquifers throughout the mountain's karst topography. The Poor Mountain
watershed is critical to supplying clean water to Roanoke County, and the Cities of Salem
and Roanoke, and to rural areas of Montgomery and Henry Counties.
The entire 40 river miles reach of the Roanoke River downstream of crossing of proposed
pipeline and above Smith Mountain Lake is part of the Roanoke River Blueway.
http://rvarc.org/blueway Construction and maintenance of the pipeline will increase silt
loads into the river causing the water to be muddy creating hazards for canoeists,
kayakers, swimmers, tubers, and standup paddle boarders and making the river less
aesthetic for users.
4. Bottom Creek is a world class whitewater destination drawing paddlers from around the
United States and other countries. Disturbance during construction and maintenance will
increase turbidity compromising the safety of paddlers. Flows will be compromised by
altering the hydrology of the headwaters. In a recent study in nearby West Virginia,
whitewater recreation was found to contribute over $50 million annually to the economy
and provide over 1400 jobs within the state.
httn://www.americanwhitewater.oriz/content/Wiki/stewardshiD:recreation economics
5. Over 25 miles of Greenway are in the Roanoke Valley primarily along the Roanoke River
downstream of the Roanoke River crossing of the proposed pipeline.
http://roanokevalley.org_/pro rg ess/ Over $20 million have been spent constructing these
Greenways to enhance the quality of life for the residents of the Roanoke Valley.
Construction and maintenance of the pipeline will cause the water along these Greenways
to be muddy compromising the experience of Greenway users.
6. The proposed pipeline route traverses native Brook Trout streams on Bent Mountain and
crosses the Roanoke River just upstream of the VDGIF trout fishery in Salem and
Roanoke. http://www.d igif.vir iginia.gov/fishing/trout/area-maps/map3.pdf The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service estimates for 2006 indicated that trout fishing
contributed >$20 billion to the US economy, created 109,000 jobs, and created >$1.7
billion in tax revenue. htlp://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/52
Virginia has 800,000 anglers and fishing has contributed $1.3 billion dollars to the VA
economy. http://www.d ig f.vir ig nia.gov/fishing/benefits/
7. In total, outdoor recreation is responsible for 6.1 million American jobs with 138,000 of
those in Virginia, and contributes $646 billion to the American economy with $13.6
billion of that in Virginia. Almost 3 times as many Americans work in the outdoor
recreation industry as work in the oil and gas industry, and Americans spend more
annually on outdoor recreation than they do on all forms of energy combined.
htlp://outdoorindusla.org/advocacy/recreation/economy.html
8. Vegetation: The high and steep slopes of Poor Mountain are characterized by oaks,
hickories, table mountain pine and a unique stand of sugar maple reminiscent of New
England forests. The ericaceous understory consists of azaleas, mountain laurel,
doghobble and rhododendron. The cove hardwood community includes tulip poplars,
cucumbers and Fraser magnolias. The alder -leafed viburnum, common to northern
forests, inhabits the shrub layer. The Poor Mountain forest is a unique meeting place of
the Northern California hemlock and the southern Carolina hemlock, both of which host
the globally rare Piratebush. Poor Mountain hosts a remnant population of the American
Chestnut, comprised of saplings that have sprouted from adventitious buds on the old
roots of original trees whose trunks and limbs were killed in the early 20th century.
Scientists interested in restoring the chestnut to the Appalachians anticipate this
population may produce offspring with a natural resistance to the fungus that killed the
original population.
9. Airborne species: Migrating upon on the isolated ridgetop of Poor Mountain includes
12,000 raptors observed in the 2007 season, and 2700 raptors between September 22nd
and 23rd, 2009. Poor Mountain is recognized as a hawk migration site by the hawk
Migration Association of North America - the second best hawk migration site in
Virginia.
10. There are four tree bat species: the evening, silver -haired, red and hoary, which would
inhabit large tracts of Roanoke forest during the warmer months which would migrate
south in winter. because it is extremely difficult to do a census of tree bat populations,
scientific evaluation of these species requires undertaking before any environmental
stressors are introduced to populations already threatened (up to 95% of Vermont bats
has been lost to white nose syndrome).Both the Virginia Big `Eared bat and the Indiana
bat have been found in Highland and Botetourt County and those counties south of
Roanoke— as the migration from hibernacula to summer habitats can range to 320 miles,
scientists would conclude that they use the Blue Ridges and surrounding area as
migration routes., according to the Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries.
11. Other unique species include the Appalachian cottontail, woodland jumping mouse,
spotted skunk and the long-tailed shrew, because of its unique habitat, possible residents
include rock voles, Allegheny Woodrats, and Northern Flying Squirrels.
Potential impact to geology and soils:
Poor Mountain, located in western Roanoke County, is the primary water source for
much of the Roanoke Region. Water flows from Poor Mountain in all directions through
surface run-off, creeks and small streams such as Bottom Creek, a Virginia Tier III
stream used for recreational purposes and home to endangered species, and through
underground aquifers throughout the mountain's karst topography. The Poor Mountain
watershed is critical to supplying clean water to Roanoke County, and the Cities of Salem
and Roanoke, and to rural areas of Montgomery and Henry Counties.
2. Poor Mountain, at 2938 feet in elevation, is the highest mountain to Roanoke County, and
its peaks and ridges are easily visible from Salem, Roanoke, the Blue Ridge Parkway,
Montgomery County, Floyd County, Henry County, Botetourt County, and it is on the
ILS6 flight approach to Roanoke — Blacksburg Regional Airport.
Due to Poor Mountain's value as a primary watershed, its geography, vegetation and
wildlife, vistas and recreational activities, including but not limited to Bottom Creek
Gorge, and considering Poor Mountain's natural beauty, the cumulative negative impacts
of major construction as would occur with then building of the MVP over Poor Mountain
is of great concern to us.
4. Although MVP may view the construction of the pipeline as presenting low potential for
harm, the fact remains that we who live here perceive the potential for serious and long-
term negative impacts to Poor Mountain and the surrounding Roanoke Valley as
inevitable and unacceptable should construction proceed as planned.
5. Many sections of Poor Mountain exceed 50 degrees in slope. Environmental scientists
have told us that disturbed soils will not adhere to grades of 50 degrees or greater, which
could result in the long term sloughing off of disturbed soils and ground cover within the
MVP's large construction corridor. Since Spring Hollow Reservoir and the Roanoke
River are at the bottom of the north face of Poor Mountain, our water supply, and the
many recreational activities associated with the beautiful Roanoke River would be at
great risk.
6. Trenching and blasting across the Poor Mountain watershed could forever disrupt, block
and reroute underground aquifers which supply the hundreds of springs and wells which
are the only water sources for the many Roanoke citizens who live in the rural
communities surrounding Poor Mountain.
7. The cumulative negative and irreversible impacts created by MVP's construction of the
pipeline along the currently proposed route over Poor Mountain create conditions we
believe are so potentially damaging to Poor Mountain and our community, they are
unacceptable to us. We therefor urge MVP to develop an alternative route away from the
Poor Mountain watershed. Additionally, we urge the FERC to direct MVP to alter its
proposed route to avoid Poor Mountain in Roanoke County.
Potential impacts to cultural resources:
Potential Environmental Impact of the Mountain Valley Pipeline to Prehistoric Cultural
Resources in the Roanoke River Floodplain
:l
1. The southern portion of Virginia has been occupied for at least 11,500 years and the
Roanoke Valley and surrounding area are a rich source of prehistoric archaeological
resources especially along the Roanoke River.
2. The Buzzard Rock (44RN2), Thomas -Sawyer (44RN39), and Graham -White (44RN21)
sites are notable examples in the Roanoke River floodplain of Late Woodland settlements
(ca. A.D. 900 to 1700); with the latter two sites associated with European trade goods.
The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline corridor is located south of the Thomas -Sawyer
site, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has conducted no
archaeological surveys of the Roanoke River basin or its tributaries south of that site.
Therefore, as yet undiscovered sites are not in the State Database.
4. Salem DHR Archaeologist, Tom Klatka, estimates that there is a "high probability" of
unearthing further evidence of Native American settlements wherever a pipeline corridor
might intersect the floodplains of the Roanoke River or its forks.
5. Socially complex Mississippian sites (including temple mounds) have been identified in
Southwest Virginia in Lee and Scott Counties, and currently a Paleolithic site is being
excavated in the Smith Mountain Lake area. Investigating the extent and range of such
occupations could potentially be a focus of future archaeological exploration along the
Roanoke River as well as in the mountains (which were the source of lithic materials and
game for thousands of years).
6. Many will say that the pipeline excavation will be an opportunity to make new
discoveries, but this will be contingent upon careful, unrushed examination of the
evidence by experts in this area's prehistory and artifact assemblages not by private out-
of-state archaeological surveyors (hired by the pipeline company) who are unfamiliar
with Virginia's prehistory—and perhaps in a rush to return to their homes.
7. DHR will be involved, but only in the capacity of reviewing the private surveyor's
findings. "DHR will not make site visits," said Tom Klatka.
8. Due to the high likelihood of significant prehistoric sites, Phase III full-scale mitigation
(with excavation) should be the anticipated level of archaeological investigation of sites
along the Roanoke River – not just Phase I survey or Phase II test pits. Therefore,
pipeline engineers must factor this into their schedules and not be assuming one to two
year completion dates for the project. Information -rich archaeological features like
burials, trash pits, ceramic kilns, and roasting hearths can be lost in one swipe of a
bulldozer's blade.
9. The Roanoke River basin bears significant archeological resources that are both finite and
fragile. Once disturbed, the history and its lessons are lost if they are not thoroughly
investigated at the time that they are unearthed.
Potential impacts to socioeconomics:
In order to avoid steeper terrain and forest impacts, many sections of the corridor within
Roanoke County pass through working farms. Many of these farms have been in single
families for generations.
2. Temporary and permanent disruptions to these farming operations may have financial
impacts for these families and threaten the continued viability of individual farms.
3. This appears to be a disparate impact on a select group of individuals who are primarily
older and lower income than the community as a whole.
Potential impacts to air quality and noise:
If Alternate 110 is selected it is presumed that there is a high likelihood of a compressor
station being located in Roanoke County. If a compressor station is even considered for
Roanoke County we believe that the following issues would need to be carefully
analyzed:
a. A detailed noise analysis that takes into account both topography and tree cover
should be performed. This analysis should consider both occupied dwellings and
businesses as receptors as well as resource receptors such as the Appalachian
Trail, Camp Roanoke, and the Roanoke River etc. as appropriate based on the
location under consideration.
b. Light pollution needs to be considered and analyzed_
c. Emissions are a specific concern. The Roanoke Valley is essentially a bowl that
can trap pollutants. The Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Area is a marginal air
quality attainment area that was previously bordering on becoming a non -
attainment area. While regional cooperation has helped to maintain attainment
area status, additional emitters have the potential to change this.
2. Loss of gas either intentionally through "venting" or unintentionally through leakage is a
significant concern. While this concern is most pronounced relative to any potential
compressor station, leaking may also occur from the line itself, at valves, or other
mechanical connection.
Noise impacts during construction area a concern. We would recommend that FERC
apply Roanoke County's local noise ordinance to construction activities.
Potential impacts to cumulative impacts:
11
1. There are at least three, if not more similar pipeline projects crossing Western Virginia
under consideration today. They are the Mountain Valley Pipeline, The Atlantic Coast
Pipeline and the Appalachian Connector Project.
2. FERC should require that a comprehensive study be made of the cumulative impact, and
purpose and need of these three projects and any similar projects.
Potential impacts to public safety:
1. The proposed route of the MVP pipeline, especially alternate 110 is largely located in
portions of Roanoke County that are very remote from Fire and Rescue resources. While
there are small outlying fire stations that may have reasonable response times to the
pipeline, the bulk of the County's response resources are 30 — 45 minutes are farther from
much of the proposed alignment.
2. Additional training and equipment along with associated ongoing funding will likely be
required to prepare to respond to potential accidents and emergencies associated with the
pipeline project.
3. We recommend that the applicant study potential Fire and Rescue impacts and provide
required resources to mitigate these impacts.
4. Police resources are likely to be impacted during construction due to the presence of large
numbers of temporary workers many of whom, according to MVP's filings, will reside in
RVs or other temporary housing.
5. At the end of its useful or economic life, what is the plan for removal of the pipeline? A
42' pipe simply left in situ to rust will eventually create a sunken area 4-5 feet deep
where the pipe once existed. This is of particular concern in areas where blasting into
bedrock was used as an installation method. This would present both public safety and
water quality issues.
6. Several areas of the proposed pipeline are in flood plain areas. How will the pipeline be
protected from fast moving mountain streams and rivers? How is related erosion
controlled? What impact will construction have on existing water quality and quantity
issues?
Potential impacts to land use, recreation, and visual resources:
1. The original route crosses Camp Roanoke which is a 700 acre outdoor experience camp
operated by Roanoke County. This camp has been in operation since 1925 and elements
of the camp may also qualify as historic resources. Recent MVP filings to FERC
incorrectly state that the route does not pass through the camp. To the contrary the
originally proposed alignment is a few feet away from the manager's cabin. According
to MVP, the icon on a Google Earth map was used as the location of the camp which is at
the location of the entrance road. This overlooks the fact that the camp is a 700 acre site
with numerous features. The offset shown for the alternate alignment 135 is incorrect for
the same reason.
2. Alternate 110 directly impacts multiple parcels of the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority which owns and operates the regional landfill at this location off of Bradshaw
Road. Not only does alternate 110 cross future expansion area for the landfill, it also
crosses the rail yard that is up to 5 tracks in width where trash trains to / from downtown
Roanoke are assembled and disassembled.
3. The proposed crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway is located in an area with prime,
historical, farmland.
4. Both the pipeline route itself, and its associated above ground facilities and access
roadways will be built on land that within Roanoke County is largely covered by dense
forest. Permeant removal of these trees will create visual scars that in many cases are
visible for many miles. A comprehensive analysis of the impact of this tree removal
should be made with particular emphasis on the Blue Ridge Parkway,
E3
20150522-5420 FERC PDR (Unofficial) 5/22/2015 4:09:50 PM
1'rl Mountain Valley Draft Resource Report 6
•l PILI NI .
Geologic Resources
Docket No. PF15-3
6.6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
6.6.1 Construction Impacts and Mitigation
The proposed pipeline will be designed and installed in accordance with the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) standards found in 49 CFR Part 192. The proposed pipeline will be designed and
constructed to provide adequate protection from washouts, floods, unstable soils, landslides, or other
geological hazards that may cause the pipe to move or to sustain abnormal loads.
6.6.1.9 Blasting
Blasting may be required in certain areas of shallow bedrock. Where consolidated rock is encountered
during construction, MVP's preferred procedure will be to fracture and excavate the bedrock using standard
construction equipment. Blasting of bedrock may be required in areas where hard, massive bedrock is not
easily removed by conventional excavation methods.
An evaluation of shallow bedrock for rippability may be conducted at selected locations where blasting is
anticipated. Areas where blasting may be required will be surveyed for features such as structures and
utilities. The pre -construction condition of structures and utilities will be documented. If blasting is
conducted within 150 feet of an active water well or spring, as necessary, MVP will implement measw-es
to protect the water supply (see Resource Report 2). To ensure responsiveness to the concerns of affected
landowners, MVP will evaluate landowner complaints or damage associated with blasting to wells, homes,
or outbuildings. If damage is substantiated, MVP will negotiate a settlement with the landowner that may
include repair or replacement.
Where unrippable subsurface rock is encountered, approved alternative methods of excavation will be
explored including: rock trenching machines, rock saws, hydraulic rams, jack hammers, or blasting. The
alternative method to be used will be dependent on the proximity to: structures, pipelines, wells, utilities,
water resources, etc., and the capabilities of the alternative excavation method. Should blasting for ditch
excavation be necessary, care will be taken to prevent damage to underground structures (e.g., cables,
conduits, and pipelines) or to springs, water wells, or other water sources. Blasting mats or padding will
be used as necessary to prevent the scattering of fly rock. All blasting will be conducted during daylight
hours and will not begin until occupants of nearby buildings, stores, residences, places of business, and
farms have been notified. Where competent bedrock occurs in the stream bed, blasting may be used to
reduce bedrock so that the trench can be excavated. All blasting will be in accordance with the MVP
Blasting Plan. Pre- and post- blasting structural surveys will be conducted structures and water supply
wells within 150 -feet of the blasting as necessary.
The Contractor shall prepare a detailed Blasting Plan for each distinct blasting area and submit it to MVP
for approval prior to commencing any blasting activities. The contractor will also be required to apply for
and comply with any state or local permitting regulations. No blasting shall be done without prior approval
of MVP and proper permitting. In no event shall explosives be used where, in the opinion of MVP, such
use will endanger existing facilities.
If blasting is conducted within 150 feet of an active water well, as necessary, MVP will conduct a pre -
construction evaluation of the well. The well will be tested for yield and water quality. Upon request by a
landowner who had a pre -construction test, a post -construction test will be performed. Landowners will be
contacted by an MVP representative and a qualified independent contractor will conduct the testing.
6-27 May 2015
20150522--5420 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 5/22/2015 4:09:50 PM
1'1 Mountain Valley) Draft Resource Report 6
- PIPf LIHLl1(
Geologic Resources
Docket No. PF15-3
MVP will evaluate, on a timely basis, landowner complaints regarding damage resulting from blasting to
wells or structures. If the damage is substantiated, MVP will negotiate a settlement with the landowner that
may include repair or replacement.
6.6.1.2 Slope Failure, Landsliding, and Subsidence
The overall effects of construction and operation of the proposed Project facilities on topography and
geology will be minor. Primary impacts will be limited to construction activities and will include temporary
disturbance to slopes within the construction right-of-way resulting from grading and trenching operations.
MVP will minimize impacts by returning contours to pre -construction conditions to the maximum extent
practicable, in accordance withthe FERC's May 2013 version of the Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation,
and Maintenance Plan (Plan) and FERC's May 2013 version of the Wetland and Waterbody Construction
and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures). This may not be the case at the compressor stations and other
associated aboveground facilities, where grading and filling may be required to create a safe and stable land
surface to support the permanent aboveground facility.
The pipeline route has been sited to avoid steep sidehill slopes to the extent possible. Minor route
adjustments may also be made during final design if needed to further minimize sidehill construction, and
thereby minimize the likelihood of landslides. Where sidehill construction cannot be avoided, alternate
construction methods may be utilized. Measures could involve the use of drainage controls. Drainage
control can include, but is not limited to, frequent slope and trench breakers, subsurface gravel or cobble
drains, and culverts and drainage ditches to divert water away from the right-of-way. MVP will install
permanent trench breakers and permanent slope breakers in areas of steep slopes. Trench breakers are
designed to prevent preferential water flow along the pipeline trench by diverting subsurface water flow.
Used in combination with slope breakers, these structures prevent subsurface erosion of soils that can lead
to slope instability and failure. These techniques and other best management practices are outlined in the
typical construction drawings included in Appendix 1-D, Typical Construction Drawings, of Resource
Report 1.
It is possible that ground subsidence could occur as a result of underground mining. Measures are in place
in West Virginia and Virginia that are designed to protect the integrity and service of pipelines in areas
where mining takes place. Surface and strip mine operators are required by State and Federal regulations
to ensure protection of pipelines during mining activities via notification of activities planned to affected
pipeline operators. This notice shall include information such as the location of the mining operation, the
mining company contact information, including all relevant engineering and operations personnel and
proposed dates of operations. Each company may have a different method of notifying pipeline operators,
but all are required to file long-term plans with the appropriate government entity. WVDEP- Division of
Mining and Reclamation and Virginia DMME houses the information provided by mine operators for the
states of West Virginia and Virginia, respectively. In all cases, the best method of information gathering
and activity notification occurs when a relationship exists between the mining company and the pipeline
operator.
6.6.1.3 Earthquakes and Liquefaction
Overall, compared to more seismically active regions of the United States, the relative risk to pipeline
construction and operation presented by earthquake -induced ground motion in the Project area is moderate
to low. There is no practical avoidance method for the proposed Project alignment, and based on risk,
6-28 May 2015
20150522-5420 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 5/22/2015 4:09:50 PM
Page 49
Table 6-B-1
Depth to Bedrock, by Milepost, MVP Pipeline
Virginia
Montgome
225.2
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
225.3
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
225.4
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
225.5
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
225.6
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
225.7
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
225.8
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
225.9
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.0
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.1
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.2
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.3
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.4
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.5
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.6
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.7
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.8
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
226.9
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
227.0
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
227.1
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
227.2
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
227.3
33
2.8
Virginia
Montgome
227.4
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
227.5
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
227.6
38
3.2
Virginia
Montgome
227.7
38
3.2
Virginia
Montgome
227.8
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
227.9
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
228.0
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
228.1
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
228.2
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
2283
38
3.2
Virginia
Montgome
228.4
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
228.5
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
228.6
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
228.7
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
228.8
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
228.9
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Montgome
229.0
38
3.2
Virginia
Montgome
229.1
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
229.2
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
229.3
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
229.4
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
229.5
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
229.6
38
3.2
Virginia
lRoanoke
229.7
38 1
3.2
Virginia
IRoanoke 1
229.8 1
38 1
3.2
Page 49
20150522-5420 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 5/22/2015 4:09:50 PM
Page 50
Table 6-B-1
Depth to Bedrock, by Milepost, MVP Pipeline
Virginia
Roanoke
229.9
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.0
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.1
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.2
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.3
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.4
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.5
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.6
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.7
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.8
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
230.9
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
231.0
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
231.1
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
231.2
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
231.3
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
231.4
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
231.5 1
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
231.6
76
6.3
Virginia
Roanoke
231.7
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
231.8
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
231.9
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
232.0
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
232.1
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
232.2
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
232.3
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
232.4
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
232.5
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
232.6
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
232.7
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
232.8
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
232.9
38
3.2
Virginia
Roanoke
233.0 1
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
233.1
76
6.3
Virginia
Roanoke
233.2
76
6.3
Virginia
Roanoke
233.3
0
0
Virginia
Roanoke
233.4
76
6.3
Virginia
Roanoke
233.5
76
6.3
Virginia
Roanoke
233.6
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
233.7
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
233.8
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
233.9
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
234.0
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
234.1
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
234.2
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
234.3
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
lRoanoke
234.4
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
IRoanoke
234.5
More than 84"
More than 7'
Page 50
20150522--5420 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 5/22/2015 4:09:50 PM
Page 51
Table 6-B-1
Depth to Bedrock, by Milepost, MVP Pipeline
Virginia
Roanoke
234.6
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
234.7
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
234.8
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
234.9
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
235.0
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
235.1
76
6.3
Virginia
Roanoke
235.2
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
235.3
76
6.3
Virginia
Roanoke
235.4
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
235.5
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
235.6
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
235.7
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
235.8
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
235.9
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.0
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.1
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.2
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.3
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.4
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.5
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.6
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.7
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.8
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
236.9
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.0
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.1
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.2
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.3
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.4
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.5
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.6
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.7
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.8
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
237.9
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
238.0
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
238.1
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
238.2
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
238.3
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
238.4
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
238.5
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Roanoke
238.6
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
Franklin
238.7
66
5.5
Virginia
Franklin
238.8
66
5.5
Virginia
Franklin
238.9
66
5.5
Virginia
Franklin
1 239.0
66
5.5
Virginia
Franklin
1 239.1 1
More than 84"
More than 7'
Virginia
IFranklin
1 239.2 1
66
5.5
Page 51
20150522-5420 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 5/22/2015 4:09:50 PM
't• -� � �--.'�•N yr
tai •' f
R yj
=ryj tf '
r
4t
t�'k Ell •tfiS ; A t
_ •..� . `� �� ,may,-_ �.� ` 75
= _
- '�` -",i: �;��"� t Ski '�.. ''r_. •�-�. � _ ; I,�t- �k.
rA
410,
�'� ,. `yam �' � " `3' , - Y � , ,•'r`"'/. f � _ �*�''��F,•,�, , `F`
X� 8
r l�sc -........i
}
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project NAD 1993UTM IYN 1:72,000
M Mountain Valley Milepost
T rireiFN� —Proposed Route Nz
Appendix 6-B Bedrock Depth - Minimum 12. , x
Depth to Bedrock Surface to 2 feet
2to5feet
Page 13 of 16 5 feet or greater
14
May 2015
o3n so•:ca::fsn,, vaMy,llrtcs _ -1
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
q1 Mountain
ValleyPIPELINEuc
June 4, 2015
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re: Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
Docket No. PF15-3-000
Monthly Status Report — May 2015
Dear Ms. Bose:
625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700 1 Pittsburgh, PA 15222
844 -MVP -TALK I mail@mountainvalleypipeline.info
www.mountainvalleypipeline.info
Pursuant to Section 157.21(f) (6) of the Commission's rules and regulations, Mountain Valley
Pipeline, LLC is submitting for filing in the captioned proceeding its Monthly Status Report
for the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project covering the period through May 31, 2015. Note that
the tables attached to the report provide information for activities during May, with some
additional information for the month of April — previous reports should be consulted for
activities conducted in prior months.
A copy of this filing is also being provided to Paul Friedman, OEP and to Lavinia DiSanto,
Cardno. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the undersigned
by telephone at (412) 395-5540 or by e-mail at pdiehl@eqt.com.
Respectfully submitted,
Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC
Paul W. Diehl
Enclosures
cc: Paul Friedman (w/enclosures)
Lavinia M. DiSanto, Cardno, Inc. (w/enclosures)
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
FERC Docket No. PF15-3-000
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE PROJECT
Monthly Status Report Filed 6/4/2015
I. Pipeline
a. Land and Civil Surveys
i. 80% survey permissions obtained for proposed route
ii. 40% survey permissions obtained for alternative routes
iii. 75% centerline survey complete for proposed route
iv. 9.3% ROW acquired by length
v. 90% access roads identified to date, 0% acquired
vi. 90% ancillary sites identified to date, 0% acquired
b. Environmental
i. Stream and Wetland field surveys —65% of the proposed route complete overall
ii. Phase I Cultural surveys — 37% of the proposed route complete overall
iii. Bats -40% of the proposed route complete overall
■ Mist Net Surveys 15% complete
■ Portal Surveys 57% complete
• Three suitable portals located to date that will require fall surveys
■ Habitat Assessment 57% complete
iv. Mussels —0% complete
■ Due to weather, access, and protocol changes surveys will begin in June 2015
v. Plants —5% complete
■ Surveys began on Jefferson National Forest Property
vi. Aquatics — 0% complete
■ Due to weather and access issues surveys will begin in June 2015
c. Alternatives
i. Permission to survey alternative routes is ongoing. Civil and environmental surveys
have begun in areas where survey permission has been granted
d. Engineering
i. Preliminary mainline valve site selection is complete and setting design is on-going
ii. Preliminary hydrotest design complete
iii. Preliminary PIG Launcher/Receiver design is on-going
iv. Preliminary pipe stringing list complete with class locations, high consequence areas,
hydrotest requirements, and road/railroad crossings incorporated
v. Developing preliminary material lists
II. Compressor Stations
a. Bradshaw Station —Wetzel County, West Virginia, Harris Station -Braxton County, West Virginia,
Stallworth Station - Fayette County, West Virginia, Swann Station - Montgomery County, Virginia
(approximate mile post— 2.7, 77.9, 154.4, and 220.5, respectively)
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
FERC Docket No. PF15-3-000
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE PROJECT
Monthly Status Report Filed 6/4/2015
i. Land - Proposed sites have been identified and survey permission granted for Bradshaw, Harris,
and Stallworth Stations. A location for Swann Station is still under review.
ii. Environmental — Rare, threatened and endangered species surveys are ongoing.
iii. Engineering— Preliminary Compressor Station design on-going
■ Preliminary Compressor Station plot plans and process flow diagrams are complete for
Bradshaw
■ Preliminary Compressor Stations plot plans and process flow diagrams are underway for
Harris and Stallworth
■ Turbine/compression vendor firm quotes received and are being analyzed
■ Other long -lead equipment firm quotes received and are being analyzed:
• Suction separators
• Discharge separators
• Fuel gas heaters
■ Other long lead time material specifications being developed:
• Gas Coolers
• Compressor and Auxiliary Buildings
■ Preliminary Compressor station noise modeling study is complete for Bradshaw, Harris
and Stallworth , including pre -construction surveys. Noise models will be updated as
specific equipment is selected.
■ Preparation work for station geotechnical analyses is underway
■ Preliminary emissions evaluation for the sites has been completed to assist with turbine
evaluation.
iv. Construction — Bradshaw, Harris, and Stallworth Compressor Stations have been examined for
constructability and found acceptable. Site design work is ongoing. Geotechnical analysis for
Harris and Stallworth is scheduled for June.
111. Interconnect Facilities
a. Mobley Interconnect, Sherwood (MarkWest) Interconnect, WB (Columbia) Interconnect, and Transco
Interconnect
i. Land — Locations have been identified for Mobley, Sherwood, WB, and Transco
Interconnections. Survey permission has been requested.
ii. Environmental — Stream and wetland, rare, threatened and endangered species, and cultural
surveys are ongoing.
iii. Engineering— Preliminary Interconnect Station size and material sizing is on-going. Equipment
specs and quotes on-going.
■ Mobley site and footprint requirements identified. Start plot plan and process flow
diagrams in June.
■ Sherwood equipment selection and process flow diagrams complete. Plot plan under
development.
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE, LLC
FERC Docket No. PF15-3-000
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE PROJECT
Monthly Status Report Filed 6/4/2015
■ WB tap request being developed.
■ Transco tap request has been filed for and site location and footprint requirements
being developed.
iv. Construction - WB Interconnect site has been identified and examined for constructability and
found to be acceptable. Construction continues to work with land to acquire a site for the
Mobley Interconnect.
IV. Stakeholder Communications
a. Government —See attached Table 1 (For April updates and May Only)
b. Non -Government Officials - See attached Table 1 (For April updates and May Only)
c. Environmental non-government organizations — See attached Table 2 (For April updates and May Only)
V. In response to comments received during open houses, scoping meetings, and via the MVP project
website/email, a series of four advertorials have been produced and scheduled for rotation in eleven
different newspapers that serve the counties along the pipeline route. The advertorial topics and associated
run schedule is as follows:
a. Safety was published May 3, 2015 —May 19, 2015
b. Karst Topography was published May 20, 2015 —June 10, 2015
c. Ecological Resource Protection will be published from June 10 —June 30, 2015
d. Property Rights will be published from June 30 —July 15, 2015
A Agency Communications
a. Agency Meetings — See attached Table 3 (For April updates and May Only)
b. In response to the FERC Data Request received March 13, 2015, draft Resource Reports 5, 11, and 12
were submitted on April 10, 2015. Draft Resource Report 10 was submitted on April 14, 2015. Draft
Resource Reports 3 and 4 were submitted on April 24, 2015. Draft Resource Reports 2, 6 and 9 were
submitted on May 22, 2015 along with draft alignment sheets.
c. Bi -weekly phone calls with FERC started on 5/26/15. Calls will be held every other Tuesday at 10:00 am.
d. MVP attended FERC Scoping meetings held in West Virginia and Virginia:
i. May 4, 2015 —James
Monroe High School, Monroe County, WV
ii. May 5, 2015 —
Eastern Montgomery High School, Montgomery County, VA
iii. May 7, 2015 —
Chatham High School, Pittsylvania County, VA
iv. May 11, 2015
— Robert C. Byrd Center, Wetzel County, WV
v. May 12, 2015
— WVU Jackson's Mill, Lewis County, WV
vi. May 13, 2015
— Nicholas County High School, Nicholas County, WV
V11. Permitting Table
a. See attached Table 4 (For April updates and May Only)
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
Government and Non -Government
Stakeholder Communications
Table 1
Stakeholder Affiliation
Name
Title/Position
Details and Comments
Federal
U.S. Senate
Tim Kaine
U.S. Senator
May 1, 2015. Conference call with staff.
U.S. Senate
Mark Warner
U.S. Senator
May 1, 2015. Conference call with staff.
U.S. Congress
Shelley Moore
U.S.
May 1, 2015. Conference call with staff.
Ca ito
Congresswoman
U.S. Congress
Evan Jenkins
U.S. Congressman
May 1, 2015Spoke with Congressman
Jenkins regarding the project.
U.S. Congress
Alex Mooney
U.S. Congressman
May 1, 2015. Conference call with staff.
U.S. Congress
Robert "Bob"
U.S. Congressman
May 1, 2015. Conference call with staff.
Goodlatte
May 14, 2014. Met with Chief of Staff,
District Director and LD.
U.S. Congress
Robert Hurt
U.S. Congressman
May 1, 2015. Conference call with staff.
May 14, 2015. Met with Chief of Staff.
U.S. Congress
Morgan Griffith
U.S Congressman
May 1, 2015. Conference call with staff.
May 6, 2015. Met with Chief Counsel.
West Virginia
WV Chamber of Commerce
Steve Roberts
President
April 27, 2015. Provided information on
WV FERC Scoping Meetings
WV State Senate
Greg Boso
WV State Senator
May 21, 2015. Provided project
information.
West Virginia — Counties
Braxton County Commission
Gary Ellyson, II
President
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
Teresa Frame
Commissioner
FERC Scoping Meetings
Arlene Herndon
Commissioner
Doddridge County EDA
Herk Connor
Director
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Fayette County Delegate
Kayla Kessin er
Delegate
May 1, 2015. Provided project update.
Greenbrier County EDC
Steve Weir
April 27, 2015. Provided information on
WV FERC Scoping Meetings and provided
project information.
Harrison County Commission
Ron Watson
President
May 6, 2015. Provided information on WV
Bernie Fazzim
Commissioner
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Michael
Commissioner
Romano
Harrison County EDA
Jacqui Tennant
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Harrison County Administrator
William "Willy"
County
May 6, 2015. Provided information on WV
Parker
Administrator
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Harrison County Chamber of
Kathy Wagner
Executive Director
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
Commerce
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Greater Bluefield Chamber of
Marc Meachum,
April 28, 2015. Provided information on
Commerce
Jr.
upcoming WV FERC Scoping Meetings.
Lewis County EDA
Mike Herron
Director
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
FERC Scoping Meetings.
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
Stakeholder Affiliation
Name
Title/Position
Details and Comments
Nicholas County Commission
John Miller
President
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
Yancy Short
Commissioner
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Ken Altizer
Commissioner
Summcrsville Area Chamber
Mary Spencer
May 7, 2015. Provided information on WV
of Commerce
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Summers County Commission
Bill Lightner
President
Jack Woodrum
Commissioner
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
Tony Williams
Commissioner
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Webster County Commission
Bill Armentrout
President
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
Jerry Hamrick
Commissioner
FERC Scoping Meetimgs.
Daniel Dotson
Commissioner
Webster County EDA
Geary Weir
Director
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Wetzel County Commission
Don Mason
Commissioner
Robert Borby
Commissioner
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
Lawrence
Commissioner
FERC Scoping Meetings.
"Larry" Lemon
Wetzel County Region
Don T. Rigby
Executive Director
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
Economic Development
FERC Scoping Meetings.
Wetzel County Chamber of
Don Riggenbach
President
May 4, 2015. Provided information on WV
Commerce
FERC Scoping Meetings and information
on the project.
WV Manufacturers
April 27, 2015. Provided information on
Association
WV FERC Scoping Meetings.
Virginia
Virginia General Assembly
Senator Ralph
State Senator,
Meeting on May 1, 2015.
K. Smith
Senate District 19
Virginia General Assembly
Senator Frank
State Senator,
Meeting on May 5, 2015.
M. Ruff, Jr.
Senate District 15
Virginia General Assembly
Senator Steve
State Senator
Meeting on May 5, 2015.
Newman
Virginia - Counties
Roanoke County
Richard
Assistant County
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Caywood
Administrator
Committee Public Meeting on May 4, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee Public Meeting on May 18,
2015.
Western Virginia Water
Gary Robertson
Executive Director
Meeting on December 18, 2014.
Authority
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee meeting on March 16, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipelinc Advisory
Committee meeting on April 6, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee meeting on April 20, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee meeting on April 27, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee meeting on May 4, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee meeting on May 18, 2015.
{C3039962.1}
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
Stakeholder Affiliation
Name
Title/Position
Details and Comments
Roanoke Valley Resource
Dan Miles
Chief Executive
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Authority
Officer
Committee meeting on April 27, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee meeting on May 4, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee meeting on May 18, 2015.
Montgomery County
Craig Meadows
County
Phone call on May 18, 2015.
Administrator
Email on May 19, 2015.
Montgomery County
Board of
Public presentation to Board of Supervisors
Supervisors &
on May 27, 2015.
public
Non -Government Organizations
Roanoke County Pipeline
Advisory
Committee
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Advisory Committee
Committee
Member
Committee meeting on May 4, 2015.
Members &
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
General Public
Committee meeting on May 18, 2015.
Botetourt Kiwanis Club
General
Presentation to Botetourt Kiwanis Club
Membershi
members and guests on May 1, 2015.
Roanoke Regional Chamber of
Joyce Waugh
President & CEO
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Commerce
Committee meeting on April 27, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee meeting on May 4, 2015.
Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee meeting on May 18, 2015.
{C3039962.1}
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
Environmental Non -Government Organizations
Stakeholder Communications
Table 2
Stakeholder Affiliation Name Details and Comments
Virginia Outdoors Foundation
Martha Little
** Correspondence between MVP and VOF will
(VOF)
be reflected in Tables 3 and 4 as VOF is a state
Michael Hallock-
agency.
Solomon
{C3039962.1}
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
E
O
u ~
O bq
U by
o `�
O
-O
A-
N U
bA
/ on
y
nCd x
-� U c��
O Cd un
N `/
y
w
O i/�
O c� y
cd C �-/ w
to 8
+0 O
y
ajCaO
un
C.4
O
U
x
"O PLO O �'
bq
O�
y0
a •O
O �.y
�
EO
0
~
O
En
S:
10
N O
44 -0
a
O
z
N Cn
N
O
O
7
I-�
O'OO
OO
Q�
R �UY
C O
OO- O
>1--
Y U
O U Cz
>1
N
-- C
--
U
•"r
O
N
N
N
CIA
\
CC
N
N
N
N
CV
V
CV
U
�
44
N
�
Cd
_
C�
O
O
V
O
(4-� CZ sU• O
hN rN
OCn
✓//
L:
U
Cd Cd
0 "Cd Cd Cz "7, �^
V
y r" OO
O
N N G-
�
Vl
oW
�
� U
n
N
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
^O
Cd
�
�' � r+-�
� �
� y
U
O
� O
-� N
Sr
""
'�
N U O N O
Ste'
O
Cd S" -r
U b
a �
N N
cd
_N
a O
i/�
cd
Cd N y
O � v a y
C�
S" � O
P -I
0 � �
to
N
y
N
fy y
N
N
O
.5.+
s U -
O
N
+- =� cd
v�
O�C
y "�
5..�
C
T.
n
cd ti y Z cd
C.1S"„i 5
mo
0
~
U
N N bap—to
cd [�] �1.
S.r O
Q.
4�
Ss.•r O
O p'�
O
Ln r
C�d
S"
C�d
r
U
>
N N ..O v�
a y
cd
a Cn
N
cd S•.i
O S+
4�
C� O O , cd
�l Sy
O
U
'C
�'
cd
O
a
Cd
U
U
p
O
cd — O v
bA 0
:.,
'C O
O a O
O
O
O cn
O N a cd
. U
to
N O
-O
N y N U
n
Ln
O
O --
v
N
O
E� U ^O
^p y
Cid O
^� NCd
N O - 0O
U
,--i L" N
O
:� )
0
'= Ste"
-0
a
N
N
s cd
O �' O
--
O
by cd N O
v> O
��
U
o
0
0
o
kr)
W')
00
0
�
U
i.
O
cd
cd
cd
�
O
UHa
w
w
w
w
N En
U
o w C7
W
Cd
v E
V) --0 bq
cd r3
� cd
4
a.
O
00
b-0
N O
ti L)
Cn
i% ix/�
�.4
ti
x
O
y
Cn
P.
ry`
�a
V
d
O 0
waw•
�,'�,x
IM
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
FA
Ca
;—A
x
�.
A)CZ
by
U cd
cd
O O
Q
N a
.--i
a
�
C
S. Cd
bb
CC
N„�
'�
c --a
z
� O y �
� a �
O �
� • �
�
U
Fii
Q cd
N
N
S-
to
p
�.
O �
U
C�,
Q" �
•
Cd
N.0
x FN-
6
C�56
E Cd
U
W
'"
CD
V'1
V 1
Vl
'~
ice•`
.^r
"�
00
N
M
O
CC
^�
7
7
N
V
O
CL
O
U H
W
W
W
W
t
O
bb
U
r.
o
v
O
bUA
v
O
++
C0
O
'�''
Cr
O
p
OCz
Cd
N
Q
x
-0
U
U O
Cd
O 0
Q
d
W a
W
f� W
RA W
W
PC4)
P
N
•�
Q
Q `y �
Q�"-
N � Q.
vcd
U U
a3
10
rA
tox
Q
d
C)
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
w
0
y
V�
MIT bA O
O
•�'.
N
a
bb
v
.�
O N N
•_
bq
�
O cd
bq
Cd o •�
O
O
y
bA O ¢
0
U
bA
b3 U
O
N
.. O 0
0
y
OU
g
a)
CD
UC44)
U vii N ¢,$U,•
+rr.
U
O N
U N ,S'
Cd
N
x.
O
U
O
O
>
O
�
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vi
Vl
'^r
N
0
N
N
CD
N
CD
N
0
N
iTri
00
Ol
N
110
00
Ol
C -A
--
A �
Vl
Vi
Vl
Vl
V'1
V'1
V
4%
'a
0
-r
=It
U
—Cd
U
Cd
U
�
U
N
N --
03
�
O
O
O
�
un CnCd CJ
O
�.-
Cd r Cd
C.0
O a.
Q •� cd
y O N
y CIJ
v
a.
cd
cd �' U �'Cn
vn
b-0
Cd s U CdCdCdjp,
U Q
a.
O
p �O
O
O
Cd
ZS
O
_O
Cd
w
0
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
4
on
O
°
Cacoo
C
O
n
N
p
N ~ Ln
O
N
+,
'C
, +L
y7
`n
'C
Cd C)�
>
N
cN
� ¢' O
cN C8
m
CCZ
w
N Cd
x�
° °
ti on
Cd
tim Cd
Y
r.
U U fyj N
to bj) d Cd
+�
by
O=
Cd
Cn
O O
� �__
Cn
v
o� C6
Cd �CdOOw
-
-0
C
to
G-
toCn
o
a.Cn
C.4
o
to
o
bj)
°
0
V
0 �
� b�A
t.
�. '
b�A
y
y
�
60
y N y
N
Svyy �//��
C
�tmo
a
x�
Ces.J 4
CesJ 4
ti
44
U
V
Sir ^
y C�IS
��e!�Q
w"
�o�z
�C/)
U
�.
4
O y 4
to
O
yCd
aj
¢
��'' bq (�j
+•'
C�j
rA
Q •�
to
y
a
; a •y
5
Cz
a �
4
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
N
4
o00
U
CA
C UO "�Li
Cd CabAU
C6
�'
`i
C,3 :::sCA
y O
Y Cd
Sti
py Y
'�' '�I
:� "S""i
O
V]
N
Cd • Cd. N
S•"y Y N
N O N
55..,..,�
S•r =
x U
O
N �
=
"
N
�
to
C� O
aj O
Q
C%
4--I
bb
In
5 v
Sti 4S -i TZ U
O�
—• n
�>Cd00>
Cd
a a
-y„
bA N
N
rA
N Cd
V
Cn O+,n,
N
bA �C
Q
> O
N In
���•
U U "� r�S"y � �l Q
5'"i Cd Q
� �..i � �
� �1�
% U
N 'fl.i ,,N/
� Cd FSy
FA r.
'�
rArA
Cd
Cn
�• �--Y Cd Sti
CV Y
^
rAO
O G- *��' �, 'C
Cn rA
'C N_
-(3aj
bb > rAN
?
--
U Q
.�
��
Q O O
Cd N
Cd N Y N
Q
bub
•Y
N N
rz
SUr
I.CII a
V'1
.�'
�° °'��wv�
Cd
Cd
W O 2
r::q,
C�cqU
.
O
x
0
U
CA
y Cn
�
�, w C7 � W
� � • bA
°�
U CA
CA � bA Cd r3
p
� Lt
� • i.
CA
bA
N C
^
�
a
CO
�
=
; -
Cn to
to ...
Cd
o
° C
to U
°
�°
Cd
sem.°
0
Z
C5
aj Cz
y
�--i
O
..moi Q
O
•CdCn
r/
U
Cn
i.i
C13
Cn
bQ U]
N O �"
�,
r.
Cn L)N
N
4
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
M
4
bA
�
bq O
M
z
o
•�0
oo^h
4.4
+
O �
O N
00
N y
O C�j
N
U
O N
N a.tc
O Cd
Cd ttW
U O o4.4
7C 9,
.�. bq
Cd
Q. Cn " 7p
s0
b�A
m
'C
Cd Q N
N
N
m
U
C,Cr O
Frl 7�
Cd
Cd
QCn
.�-I
W
O
W0
O
C�
Q
N"p
Q
�C64SP.
btU
�
O
cd
.4
U
C O
OU
bq b
N O O
N
U
U
Cd
Cd
O
V
b-0 10
0
— Cd
U
a O
U O
p
�
O
.14
0.14
O
•�
U O
0
'x N
�
.O
b-0
7�
�
O
O O
C.0
..w
y
CdCJ
Cd
Ct
�?
p
O
toCd
C1
bD
00
0
�C��zo
i.
a)�.
aj
Cn y
S. 0
= N bDCn
to
%
4.
CA
O p C
U C
O N
U U
y0
p
O
U
S
M
4
20150604-5043 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 6/4/2015 8:24:39 AM
S,
a
C:
4
Y
0
aj by
O
v'
Spr �
N QI
y
�
O
00
N
N
U
� �
U
Q
O
N
U
bA
.R
O
O
O
C
Cn
U
C
Q
Z3
O
CC
Q
c`}
r.-
:."rte-'
Cd
Cn
Q"
Cn
N
0 Cd�.
CnCd
Q
�
x
O
Cd
Cn
O
CdN
W
Cd
UD
b-0
4]
O
C
o �
� �
o
o
� U
S,
a
C:
4
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E-1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution affirming the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee's recommended comments to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the scoping process of the
Mountain Valley Pipeline
SUBMITTED BY: Richard Caywood
Assistant County Administrator
Roberta Bondurant
Vice Chairman, Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee
APPROVED BY: Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This resolution affirms the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors acceptance of comments
developed by the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee (PAC) for submission to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission during the scoping comment period for the
Mountain Valley Pipeline project. These comments were developed by the PAC in
collaboration with County staff and County citizens with expertise in the relevant subject
areas.
The deadline for submission of scoping comments to the FERC is June 16, 2015. A copy
of the proposed comments is included in the Board packet. An informational presentation
will be made by Staff and the PAC to highlight areas of comment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action has no fiscal impact.
Page 1 of 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of this action.
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, JUNE 9, 2015
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE ROANOKE COUNTY PIPELINE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED COMMENTS TO THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC) FOR THE
SCOPING PROCESS OF THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE
WHEREAS, the pipeline known as the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is
expected to transport a natural gas supply from the Marcellus and Utica regions to
various Southeast United States markets; and
WHEREAS, the MVP is governed by the United States Natural Gas Act, which
requires a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has passed two (2) prior
resolutions regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline; and
WHEREAS, those resolutions are hereby incorporated by reference and are
known as "Resolution 120914-4 of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia opposing the Mountain Valley Pipeline" adopted December 9, 2014, and
"Resolution 042815-5 petitioning the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold an
additional scoping public hearing in Roanoke County and to extend the public comment
period during the scoping phase for the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project" adopted April
28,2015 -land
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors created the Pipeline
Advisory Committee ("the Committee") by Resolution 031015-1; and
WHEREAS, the Committee met on June 1, 2015, and voted to submit additional
comments to FERC on its behalf; and
Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, those comments are attached as Exhibit A and titled "Comments
from the Pipeline Advisory Committee Recommended for adoption by the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors For submission to the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission) Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Scoping Comment Period."; and
WHEREAS, the Committee seeks approval of those additional comments and
their subsequent submission as allowed during the scoping process.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Resolution 120914-4 dated December 9, 2014 is hereby
reaffirmed.
2. That the Resolution 042815-5 dated April 28, 2015 is hereby reaffirmed.
3. That the comments of the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee
which are attached as Exhibit A, known as "Comments from the Pipeline
Advisory Committee Recommended for adoption by the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors for submission to the FERC (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Scoping
Comment Period" are hereby affirmed.
4. That the County Administrator is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this Resolution along with the attached exhibits with the Federal Energy
Regulation Commission by the June 16, 2015 project scoping deadline.
Page 2 of 2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2014
RESOLUTION 120914-4 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA OPPOSING THE MOUNTAIN
VALLEY PIPELINE
WHEREAS, EQT Corporation and NextEra US Gas Assets, LLC
("EQT/NextEra") recently announced the construction of a potential pipeline project; and
WHEREAS, the pipeline shall be known as the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP)
and is expected to transport a natural gas supply from the Marcellus and Utica regions
to various Southeast United States markets; and
WHEREAS, the MVP is expected to be constructed between Wetzel, West
Virginia and Pittsylvania County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the MVP will be governed by the United States Natural Gas Act,
which requires a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); and
WHEREAS, as currently proposed, the pipeline will be up to forty-two (42) inches
in diameter and will require an approximate seventy-five (75) -foot wide permanent
easement (with an additional one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet of temporary
easement during construction); and
WHEREAS, upon information submitted by EQT/NextEra, a possible compressor
station or facility may also be located along the pipeline corridor in Roanoke County;
and
Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, MVP has initiated the Federal regulatory approval process to
construct the pipeline through the FERC's pre -filing review process with the pre -filing of
Docket No. PF 15-3-00; and
WHEREAS, MVP has presented statements that the engineering aspects will
include surveying and evaluating preliminary routing to help determine a final route with
the least impact to landowners, cultural resources and the environment; and
WHEREAS, MVP sent out letters on September 18, 2014, to affected landowners
in Roanoke County stating that the landowner will be contacted by a right-of-way agent
to request permission to survey and stake the proposed route; and
WHEREAS, the current proposed route includes property owned by Roanoke
County, more specifically the Camp Roanoke property (Tax Map No. 083.00-01-16.00-
0000), a longstanding County landmark facility serving our children and youth; and
WHEREAS, the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department of Roanoke County
completed an initial map analysis based upon MVP's own maps and determined that
the pipeline corridor would be "literally in the backyard of the Manager's Cabin" and all
the buildings would be within approximately a 1,200 -foot radius of the corridor'; and
WHEREAS, the current proposed route includes properties in the southwestern
portions of Roanoke County, within the Poor Mountain and Bent Mountain communities
crossing over the line into Franklin County; and
WHEREAS, the proposed route of the MVP would traverse the Bent Mountain
Community Planning Area and Glenvar Community Planning Area;
1 Quoting, Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the proposed route of the MVP would traverse near the Spring
Hollow Reservoir, while owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority, is a water
source for the region; and
WHEREAS, the County's Comprehensive Plan contains vision statements, goals,
objectives and implementation strategies on the protection of the County's natural,
cultural and scenic resources including the Blue Ridge Parkway and its view sheds, our
mountains and ridges, our rivers, streams, floodplains and groundwater, our historic
buildings and archaeological sites, and our agricultural, forestall, and rural areas
especially in the Bent Mountain and Glenvar Community Planning Areas2; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors opposes the construction of the proposed
Mountain Valley Gas Pipeline through Roanoke County, Virginia.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia hereby opposes the proposed route of the Mountain Valley
Gas Pipeline that is included in Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC's pre -filing request
Docket No. PF 15-3-00 with FERC due to the potential adverse impacts to Camp
Roanoke and to the Poor Mountain and Bent Mountain Communities, and the Board
further asserts that the adverse impacts to the citizens of County of Roanoke and the
public at large outweigh the economic benefit, if any, resulting from the burden placed
on public and private property by the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Roanoke, Virginia hereby directs the County Administrator, or his designee, to transmit
this resolution to FERC for inclusion in pre -filing Docket Number PF 15-3-00.
Z See, Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan (Revised 2005)
Page 3 of 4
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
A COPY TESTE:
Deborah C. Jacks '
Deputy Clerk to the Bb and of Supervisors
cc: Daniel R. O'Donnell, Interim County Administrator
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Page 4 of 4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2015
RESOLUTION 042815-5 PETITIONING THE FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION TO HOLD AN ADDITIONAL SCOPING
PUBLIC HEARING IN ROANOKE COUNTY AND TO EXTEND THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD DURING THE SCOPING PHASE FOR THE
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the pipeline known as the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) and is
expected to transport a natural gas supply from the Marcellus and Utica regions to various
Southeast United States markets, and
WHEREAS, the MVP is governed by the United States Natural Gas Act, which
requires a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); and
WHEREAS, the FERC process is our region's most viable avenue for influencing
the MVP project; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is the document that will
be the basis of the FERC's decision-making regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, FERC has provided four (4) public hearings in sparsely populated
areas of West Virginia, but only two in Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley and New River Valley have by far the greatest
population density along the MVP corridor at well over 300,000; yet our region has only
been provided one (1) hearing by FERC; and
WHEREAS, given that other FERC hearings in Virginia have ended before all
citizens have been able to speak; and
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, while the northern portion of the MVP corridor has been fixed for some
time, there has been and continues to be changes to the southern portion of the corridor
directly affecting our region; and
WHEREAS, the proposed locations for the compressor station in our region is not
well defined in Montgomery County and the potential Roanoke County locations have not
been defined at all other than vague mile marker locations; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee (PAC) on April 27,
2015, voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that an additional scoping public
hearing be held in Roanoke County and that the public comment period during the
scoping phase be extended.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board hereby petitions the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to hold an additional scoping public hearing in Roanoke County.
2. That the Board further requests a ninety (90) -day extension of the public
comment period during the scoping phase, which is due to expire on June 16, 2015, to
allow for additional public study and comment regarding the newly -identified alternative
routes along the southern portion of the corridor.
3. That the Clerk to the Board forthwith send a certified copy of this Resolution
to Senator Mark Warner, Senator Timothy Kaine, Representative Bob Goodlatte,
Representative Morgan Griffith and Norman C. Bay, Chairman of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
Page 2 of 3
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following
roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
h C. Jacks
Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
cc: Richard L. Caywood, Assistant County Administrator
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Senator Mark Warner
Senator Timothy Kaine
Representative Bob Goodlatte
Representative Morgan Griffith
Norman C. Bay, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Page 3of3
Comments from the Pipeline Advisory Committee
Recommended for adoption by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
For submission to the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Scoping Comment Period
June 9, 2015
Potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife:
1. Percina rex, Roanoke Logperch is an Endangered species found in the Roanoke River
that will be impacted directly by disturbance during construction and chronically by
increased siltation following construction.
htlp://ecos.fws.gov/s/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E01 G
2. Noturus gilberti, Orangefin Madtom is a Threatened species found in the Roanoke River
that will be impacted directly by disturbance during construction and chronically by
increased siltation following construction.
http://www.d ig fvir ig nia.gov/wildlife/virginiatescspecies.pdf
3. Clemmys muhlenbergii, Bog Turtle is a Threatened species inhabiting the high elevation
wetlands of Bent Mountain in Floyd, Roanoke and Franklin Counties. It will be directly
impacted during construction and will continue to be impacted by the altered hydrology
of the wetlands after construction.
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfispeciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C048
4. Glaucomys sabrinus, Northern Flying Squirrel is an Endangered species inhabiting the
forests of Montgomery Co. and may be directly impacted during construction and
maintenance of the pipeline.
http://www.d ig f.vir ig nia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=050068
5. Myotis sodalis, Indiana Bat is an Endangered species inhabiting the forests of
Montgomery Co. and may be directly impacted during construction and maintenance of
the pipeline. htlp://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=050023
6. Buckleya distichophylla, Pirate Bush is an Endangered species inhabiting Poor Mountain
and will be directly impacted during construction of the pipeline. The Poor Mountain
population of the Pirate Bush is the largest known population of the species.
htlp://plants.usda.gov/core/Trofile?symbol=BUDI
Potential impacts to water resources and wetlands:
1. Spring Hollow Reservoir is the primary drinking water supply for residents of Roanoke
County.
http://www.westemvawater. org/8525 6a8 d0062af3 7/vwC ontentByKey/N2628RP63 74PL
ESEN The proposed pipeline route will pass within 500 feet of the reservoir and the
construction area will be well within the drainage are of the reservoir increasing silt loads
into the reservoir.
2. Poor Mountain, located in western Roanoke County, is the primary water source for
much of the Roanoke Region. Water flows from Poor Mountain in all directions through
surface run-off, creeks and small streams such as Bottom Creek, a Virginia Tier III
stream used for recreational purposes and home to endangered species, and through
underground aquifers throughout the mountain's karst topography. The Poor Mountain
watershed is critical to supplying clean water to Roanoke County, and the Cities of Salem
and Roanoke, and to rural areas of Montgomery and Henry Counties.
The entire 40 river miles reach of the Roanoke River downstream of crossing of proposed
pipeline and above Smith Mountain Lake is part of the Roanoke River Blueway.
http://rvarc.org/blueway Construction and maintenance of the pipeline will increase silt
loads into the river causing the water to be muddy creating hazards for canoeists,
kayakers, swimmers, tubers, and standup paddle boarders and making the river less
aesthetic for users.
4. Bottom Creek is a world class whitewater destination drawing paddlers from around the
United States and other countries. Disturbance during construction and maintenance will
increase turbidity compromising the safety of paddlers. Flows will be compromised by
altering the hydrology of the headwaters. In a recent study in nearby West Virginia,
whitewater recreation was found to contribute over $50 million annually to the economy
and provide over 1400 jobs within the state.
httn://www.americanwhitewater.oriz/content/Wiki/stewardshiD:recreation economics
5. Over 25 miles of Greenway are in the Roanoke Valley primarily along the Roanoke River
downstream of the Roanoke River crossing of the proposed pipeline.
http://roanokevalley.org_/pro rg ess/ Over $20 million have been spent constructing these
Greenways to enhance the quality of life for the residents of the Roanoke Valley.
Construction and maintenance of the pipeline will cause the water along these Greenways
to be muddy compromising the experience of Greenway users.
6. The proposed pipeline route traverses native Brook Trout streams on Bent Mountain and
crosses the Roanoke River just upstream of the VDGIF trout fishery in Salem and
Roanoke. http://www.d igif.vir iginia.gov/fishing/trout/area-maps/map3.pdf The United
States Fish and Wildlife Service estimates for 2006 indicated that trout fishing
contributed >$20 billion to the US economy, created 109,000 jobs, and created >$1.7
billion in tax revenue. htlp://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/52
Virginia has 800,000 anglers and fishing has contributed $1.3 billion dollars to the VA
economy. http://www.d ig f.vir ig nia.gov/fishing/benefits/
7. In total, outdoor recreation is responsible for 6.1 million American jobs with 138,000 of
those in Virginia, and contributes $646 billion to the American economy with $13.6
billion of that in Virginia. Almost 3 times as many Americans work in the outdoor
recreation industry as work in the oil and gas industry, and Americans spend more
annually on outdoor recreation than they do on all forms of energy combined.
htlp://outdoorindusla.org/advocacy/recreation/economy.html
8. Vegetation: The high and steep slopes of Poor Mountain are characterized by oaks,
hickories, table mountain pine and a unique stand of sugar maple reminiscent of New
England forests. The ericaceous understory consists of azaleas, mountain laurel,
doghobble and rhododendron. The cove hardwood community includes tulip poplars,
cucumbers and Fraser magnolias. The alder -leafed viburnum, common to northern
forests, inhabits the shrub layer. The Poor Mountain forest is a unique meeting place of
the Northern California hemlock and the southern Carolina hemlock, both of which host
the globally rare Piratebush. Poor Mountain hosts a remnant population of the American
Chestnut, comprised of saplings that have sprouted from adventitious buds on the old
roots of original trees whose trunks and limbs were killed in the early 20th century.
Scientists interested in restoring the chestnut to the Appalachians anticipate this
population may produce offspring with a natural resistance to the fungus that killed the
original population.
9. Airborne species: Migrating upon on the isolated ridgetop of Poor Mountain includes
12,000 raptors observed in the 2007 season, and 2700 raptors between September 22nd
and 23rd, 2009. Poor Mountain is recognized as a hawk migration site by the hawk
Migration Association of North America - the second best hawk migration site in
Virginia.
10. There are four tree bat species: the evening, silver -haired, red and hoary, which would
inhabit large tracts of Roanoke forest during the warmer months which would migrate
south in winter. because it is extremely difficult to do a census of tree bat populations,
scientific evaluation of these species requires undertaking before any environmental
stressors are introduced to populations already threatened (up to 95% of Vermont bats
has been lost to white nose syndrome).Both the Virginia Big `Eared bat and the Indiana
bat have been found in Highland and Botetourt County and those counties south of
Roanoke— as the migration from hibernacula to summer habitats can range to 320 miles,
scientists would conclude that they use the Blue Ridges and surrounding area as
migration routes., according to the Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries.
11. Other unique species include the Appalachian cottontail, woodland jumping mouse,
spotted skunk and the long-tailed shrew, because of its unique habitat, possible residents
include rock voles, Allegheny Woodrats, and Northern Flying Squirrels.
Potential impact to geology and soils:
Poor Mountain, located in western Roanoke County, is the primary water source for
much of the Roanoke Region. Water flows from Poor Mountain in all directions through
surface run-off, creeks and small streams such as Bottom Creek, a Virginia Tier III
stream used for recreational purposes and home to endangered species, and through
underground aquifers throughout the mountain's karst topography. The Poor Mountain
watershed is critical to supplying clean water to Roanoke County, and the Cities of Salem
and Roanoke, and to rural areas of Montgomery and Henry Counties.
2. Poor Mountain, at 2938 feet in elevation, is the highest mountain to Roanoke County, and
its peaks and ridges are easily visible from Salem, Roanoke, the Blue Ridge Parkway,
Montgomery County, Floyd County, Henry County, Botetourt County, and it is on the
ILS6 flight approach to Roanoke — Blacksburg Regional Airport.
Due to Poor Mountain's value as a primary watershed, its geography, vegetation and
wildlife, vistas and recreational activities, including but not limited to Bottom Creek
Gorge, and considering Poor Mountain's natural beauty, the cumulative negative impacts
of major construction as would occur with then building of the MVP over Poor Mountain
is of great concern to us.
4. Although MVP may view the construction of the pipeline as presenting low potential for
harm, the fact remains that we who live here perceive the potential for serious and long-
term negative impacts to Poor Mountain and the surrounding Roanoke Valley as
inevitable and unacceptable should construction proceed as planned.
5. Many sections of Poor Mountain exceed 50 degrees in slope. Environmental scientists
have told us that disturbed soils will not adhere to grades of 50 degrees or greater, which
could result in the long term sloughing off of disturbed soils and ground cover within the
MVP's large construction corridor. Since Spring Hollow Reservoir and the Roanoke
River are at the bottom of the north face of Poor Mountain, our water supply, and the
many recreational activities associated with the beautiful Roanoke River would be at
great risk.
6. Trenching and blasting across the Poor Mountain watershed could forever disrupt, block
and reroute underground aquifers which supply the hundreds of springs and wells which
are the only water sources for the many Roanoke citizens who live in the rural
communities surrounding Poor Mountain.
7. The cumulative negative and irreversible impacts created by MVP's construction of the
pipeline along the currently proposed route over Poor Mountain create conditions we
believe are so potentially damaging to Poor Mountain and our community, they are
unacceptable to us. We therefor urge MVP to develop an alternative route away from the
Poor Mountain watershed. Additionally, we urge the FERC to direct MVP to alter its
proposed route to avoid Poor Mountain in Roanoke County.
Potential impacts to cultural resources:
Potential Environmental Impact of the Mountain Valley Pipeline to Prehistoric Cultural
Resources in the Roanoke River Floodplain
:l
1. The southern portion of Virginia has been occupied for at least 11,500 years and the
Roanoke Valley and surrounding area are a rich source of prehistoric archaeological
resources especially along the Roanoke River.
2. The Buzzard Rock (44RN2), Thomas -Sawyer (44RN39), and Graham -White (44RN21)
sites are notable examples in the Roanoke River floodplain of Late Woodland settlements
(ca. A.D. 900 to 1700); with the latter two sites associated with European trade goods.
The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline corridor is located south of the Thomas -Sawyer
site, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has conducted no
archaeological surveys of the Roanoke River basin or its tributaries south of that site.
Therefore, as yet undiscovered sites are not in the State Database.
4. Salem DHR Archaeologist, Tom Klatka, estimates that there is a "high probability" of
unearthing further evidence of Native American settlements wherever a pipeline corridor
might intersect the floodplains of the Roanoke River or its forks.
5. Socially complex Mississippian sites (including temple mounds) have been identified in
Southwest Virginia in Lee and Scott Counties, and currently a Paleolithic site is being
excavated in the Smith Mountain Lake area. Investigating the extent and range of such
occupations could potentially be a focus of future archaeological exploration along the
Roanoke River as well as in the mountains (which were the source of lithic materials and
game for thousands of years).
6. Many will say that the pipeline excavation will be an opportunity to make new
discoveries, but this will be contingent upon careful, unrushed examination of the
evidence by experts in this area's prehistory and artifact assemblages not by private out-
of-state archaeological surveyors (hired by the pipeline company) who are unfamiliar
with Virginia's prehistory—and perhaps in a rush to return to their homes.
7. DHR will be involved, but only in the capacity of reviewing the private surveyor's
findings. "DHR will not make site visits," said Tom Klatka.
8. Due to the high likelihood of significant prehistoric sites, Phase III full-scale mitigation
(with excavation) should be the anticipated level of archaeological investigation of sites
along the Roanoke River – not just Phase I survey or Phase II test pits. Therefore,
pipeline engineers must factor this into their schedules and not be assuming one to two
year completion dates for the project. Information -rich archaeological features like
burials, trash pits, ceramic kilns, and roasting hearths can be lost in one swipe of a
bulldozer's blade.
9. The Roanoke River basin bears significant archeological resources that are both finite and
fragile. Once disturbed, the history and its lessons are lost if they are not thoroughly
investigated at the time that they are unearthed.
Potential impacts to socioeconomics:
In order to avoid steeper terrain and forest impacts, many sections of the corridor within
Roanoke County pass through working farms. Many of these farms have been in single
families for generations.
2. Temporary and permanent disruptions to these farming operations may have financial
impacts for these families and threaten the continued viability of individual farms.
3. This appears to be a disparate impact on a select group of individuals who are primarily
older and lower income than the community as a whole.
Potential impacts to air quality and noise:
If Alternate 110 is selected it is presumed that there is a high likelihood of a compressor
station being located in Roanoke County. If a compressor station is even considered for
Roanoke County we believe that the following issues would need to be carefully
analyzed:
a. A detailed noise analysis that takes into account both topography and tree cover
should be performed. This analysis should consider both occupied dwellings and
businesses as receptors as well as resource receptors such as the Appalachian
Trail, Camp Roanoke, and the Roanoke River etc. as appropriate based on the
location under consideration.
b. Light pollution needs to be considered and analyzed_
c. Emissions are a specific concern. The Roanoke Valley is essentially a bowl that
can trap pollutants. The Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Area is a marginal air
quality attainment area that was previously bordering on becoming a non -
attainment area. While regional cooperation has helped to maintain attainment
area status, additional emitters have the potential to change this.
2. Loss of gas either intentionally through "venting" or unintentionally through leakage is a
significant concern. While this concern is most pronounced relative to any potential
compressor station, leaking may also occur from the line itself, at valves, or other
mechanical connection.
Noise impacts during construction area a concern. We would recommend that FERC
apply Roanoke County's local noise ordinance to construction activities.
Potential impacts to cumulative impacts:
11
1. There are at least three, if not more similar pipeline projects crossing Western Virginia
under consideration today. They are the Mountain Valley Pipeline, The Atlantic Coast
Pipeline and the Appalachian Connector Project.
2. FERC should require that a comprehensive study be made of the cumulative impact, and
purpose and need of these three projects and any similar projects.
Potential impacts to public safety:
1. The proposed route of the MVP pipeline, especially alternate 110 is largely located in
portions of Roanoke County that are very remote from Fire and Rescue resources. While
there are small outlying fire stations that may have reasonable response times to the
pipeline, the bulk of the County's response resources are 30 — 45 minutes are farther from
much of the proposed alignment.
2. Additional training and equipment along with associated ongoing funding will likely be
required to prepare to respond to potential accidents and emergencies associated with the
pipeline project.
3. We recommend that the applicant study potential Fire and Rescue impacts and provide
required resources to mitigate these impacts.
4. Police resources are likely to be impacted during construction due to the presence of large
numbers of temporary workers many of whom, according to MVP's filings, will reside in
RVs or other temporary housing.
5. At the end of its useful or economic life, what is the plan for removal of the pipeline? A
42' pipe simply left in situ to rust will eventually create a sunken area 4-5 feet deep
where the pipe once existed. This is of particular concern in areas where blasting into
bedrock was used as an installation method. This would present both public safety and
water quality issues.
6. Several areas of the proposed pipeline are in flood plain areas. How will the pipeline be
protected from fast moving mountain streams and rivers? How is related erosion
controlled? What impact will construction have on existing water quality and quantity
issues?
Potential impacts to land use, recreation, and visual resources:
1. The original route crosses Camp Roanoke which is a 700 acre outdoor experience camp
operated by Roanoke County. This camp has been in operation since 1925 and elements
of the camp may also qualify as historic resources. Recent MVP filings to FERC
incorrectly state that the route does not pass through the camp. To the contrary the
originally proposed alignment is a few feet away from the manager's cabin. According
to MVP, the icon on a Google Earth map was used as the location of the camp which is at
the location of the entrance road. This overlooks the fact that the camp is a 700 acre site
with numerous features. The offset shown for the alternate alignment 135 is incorrect for
the same reason.
2. Alternate 110 directly impacts multiple parcels of the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority which owns and operates the regional landfill at this location off of Bradshaw
Road. Not only does alternate 110 cross future expansion area for the landfill, it also
crosses the rail yard that is up to 5 tracks in width where trash trains to / from downtown
Roanoke are assembled and disassembled.
3. The proposed crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway is located in an area with prime,
historical, farmland.
4. Both the pipeline route itself, and its associated above ground facilities and access
roadways will be built on land that within Roanoke County is largely covered by dense
forest. Permeant removal of these trees will create visual scars that in many cases are
visible for many miles. A comprehensive analysis of the impact of this tree removal
should be made with particular emphasis on the Blue Ridge Parkway,
E3
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E-2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution approving the execution of a contract among the
Counties of Franklin, Henry and Roanoke and the Cities of
Martinsville and Roanoke and The Interstate 73 Coalition, LLC
for pursuit of construction of Interstate 73 in the
Commonwealth of Virginia
SUBMITTED BY:
Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
APPROVED BY: Thomas G. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This contract authorizes the hiring of a consultant to lobby for Federal and State legislation
and funding to construct Interstate 73. The cities of Martinsville and Roanoke and the
Counties of Franklin, Henry and Roanoke have negotiated a contract with The Interstate 73
Coalition, LLC to advocate for the construction of Interstate 73.
This contract shall be for a term from June 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016. Each of
the participating localities shall pay to the Interstate 73 Coalition, LLC a monthly fee for
these services.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Roanoke County's monthly fee shall be $2,000 for a total of $38,000, assuming the entire
term of the contract. Funding is available in existing Economic Development account.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the attached
resolution approving this contract.
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, JUNE 9, 2015
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT
AMONG THE COUNTIES OF FRANKLIN, HENRY AND ROANOKE AND
THE CITIES OF MARTINSVILLE AND ROANOKE AND THE
INTERSTATE 73 COALITION, LLC FOR PURSUIT OF CONSTRUCTION
OF INTERSTATE 73 IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, on October 12, 1993, November 22, 1994, and March 24, 1998, the
Board adopted resolutions in support of the construction of the proposed Interstate 73
(1-73) north -south interstate connecting Detroit, Michigan to Charleston, South Carolina
through the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 1998, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
adopted Resolution 090898-1 which reaffirmed its support of the Interstate 581 (1-581)
and Route 220 South corridor for the proposed 1-73; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2000, the Board adopted Resolution 120500-2,
which reaffirmed and amended Resolution 090898-1 supporting the 1-581 and Route
220 South corridor for 1-73 through the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has previously selected
alternative corridors, which generally follow Route 220, the proposed "Smart Highway,"
and Route 460 to the West Virginia state line west of Narrows as the location for the
proposed 1-73 north -south interstate connecting Detroit, Michigan to Charleston, South
Carolina; and
WHEREAS, 1-73 would link the nation's regions and support economic growth
while also addressing safety concerns in south-western Virginia while providing an
economic advantage to the Roanoke Valley; and
Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, the Cities of Martinsville and Roanoke and Counties of Franklin,
Henry and Roanoke have joined together to hire a consultant to assist them in
advocating for Federal and State legislation and funding to construct 1-73.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the contract among the Counties of Franklin, Henry and Roanoke
and the Cities of Martinsville and Roanoke and The Interstate 73 Coalition, LLC for
pursuit of construction of Interstate 73 in the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and hereby
is, approved for execution; and
2. That the County Administrator or his designee is hereby authorized to
execute this contract on behalf of Roanoke County, upon such form as approved by the
County Attorney.
Page 2 of 2
CONTRACT AMONG COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF HENRY, VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, CITY OF MARTINSVILLE, CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, AND THE INTERSTATE 73
COALITION, LLC FOR
PURSUIT OF CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE 73 IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this I" day of June, 2015, among THE INTERSTATE 73
COALITION, LLC, of 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, a Virginia Limited Liability Company,
hereinafter referred to as "Consultant", and COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF HENRY,
VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
and CITY OF MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA, CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, municipal corporations of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Localities";
RECITALS:
THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the undertakings of the parties to this Contract, the
Consultant and the Localities covenant and agree, each with the other, as follows:
Engagement and Retention of Consultant.
The Localities agree to engage and obtain the Consultant and the Consultant hereby
agrees to perform the services set forth herein.
Scope of Services.
The Consultant agrees to perform and carry out in a good and professional manner those
services outlined in Appendix A.
3. Compensation.
(a) The Consultant shall be paid by the Localities for its service, upon completion of the services,
on the basis established by this section.
(b) Consultant shall be paid a monthly fee from each of the individual Localities, based on the
monthly amount indicated below for each of the respective Localities, for the term of this Contract, and
which amount shall include all reimbursable services provided for in this Contract. in consideration for
such fee, Consultant shall pursue the items described in the Scope of Services.
Locality Monthly fee
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
$2,000.00
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
$2,000.00
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, VIRGINIA
$1,500.00
COUNTY OF HENRY, VIRGINIA
$1,500.00
CITY OF MARTINSVILLE, VIRGINIA
$1,000.00
(c) The Localities agree to pay Contractor for the Contractor's complete and satisfactory
performance of the Work. Payment will only be made for work actually performed, services actually
supplied, and/or materials or goods furnished to the Localities, all of which need to be approved and
accepted by the Localities prior to such payment, unless otherwise provided for in the Contract
documents. Once a payment request has been received by the Localities, the Localities will process such
payment request. If there are any objections or problems with the payment request, the Localities will
notify the Contractor of such matters. If the payment request is approved and accepted by the
Localities, payment will be made by the Localities to the Contractor not more than 20 days after such
request has been approved. Each of the Localities will be solely responsible for the specific amount
allocated to such Locality.
4. Time Period.
The services to be performed hereunder by Consultant shall be undertaken and completed in a
timely and expeditious fashion so as to best carry out the objectives of the Localities.
Accomplishment of_Prgiect.
Consultant shall commence, carry on and complete the required services with all practicable
dispatch, in a sound, economical and efficient manner, in accordance with the provisions hereof and all
applicable laws. In accomplishing the services, Consultant shall take such steps as are appropriate to
insure that the work involved is properly coordinated with related work being carried on by the
Localities. The County and City Administrators will meet from time to time to discuss the progress of the
project. The Localities agree to act, at all times on a consensus basis and, in the absence of a consensus,
the Localities shall abide by the recommendations of a majority of the Localities, unless action by
unanimous consent of the Localities is required under this Contract.
6. Assignment.
Consultant shall not assign, sublet or transfer interest in this Contract without the written
consent of the Localities, which consent shall require the consent of all Localities and may be withheld at
the sole discretion of any of the Localities.
7. Personnel.
Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in
performing the services under this Contract. All the services required hereunder shall be performed by
Consultant or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified to
perform such services.
8. Changes.
The Localities may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of services of Consultant to
be performed hereunder. Such changes, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the Localities
and Consultant, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Contract.
9. Nondiscrimination.
In the performance of this Contract, Consultant shall not discriminate against any contractor,
subcontractor, sub lessee, employee, applicant for employment or invitee because of race, religion,
color, sex or national origin except where race, religion, color, sex or national origin is a bona fide
occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of Consultant.
10. Drug -f=ree Workplace.
(a) During the performance of this Contract, Consultant agrees to (i) provide a drug-free
workplace for Consultant's employees; (ii) post in conspicuous places, available to employees and
applicants for employment, a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, sale,
distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance or marijuana is prohibited in the
workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such
prohibition; and (iii) state in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of
Consultant that Consultant maintains a drug-free workplace.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "drug-free workplace" means a site for the performance of
work done in connection with a specific contract awarded to a contractor, the employees of whom are
prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession or
use of any controlled substance or marijuana during the performance of the contract.
11. Faith Based Organizations.
Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-4343.1, be advised that the localities do not discriminate
against faith -based organizations.
12. Term.
(a) The term of this Contract shall be for from June 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016, at
which time it will terminate, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of the Contract or by law
or unless extended as set forth herein at the option of the Localities.
(b) At the Localities' option, the contract may be renewed for additional periods. The Localities
shall give written notice to Consultant of their joint intent to extend this Contract at least sixty (60) days
prior to the expiration of the original term or any renewal term of the Contract.
(c) All terms and conditions shall remain in force for the term of this Contract and for any
renewal period unless modified by mutual agreement of all parties.
13. Termination.
The Localities reserves the right to immediately terminate this Contract, with or without cause,
upon written notice to Consultant, In the event of termination by the Localities, Consultant shall be
compensated in accordance with the terms of this Contract to the date of such termination.
14. Completeness of Contract.
This Contract, and Appendix A, being incorporated by reference herein, constitute the entire
agreement between the Localities and the Consultant and supersede all prior negotiations,
representations or agreements, either oral or written. To the extent of any inconsistency between this
3
Contract and the documents incorporated by reference, this Contract shall take precedence and prevail.
This Contract may be amended only by written instrument signed by Consultant and the Localities.
15. Laws of Virginia.
This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, both as to
interpretation and performance.
SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW.
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Contract by their authorized representatives.
WITNESS:
Printed Name and Title
THE INTERSTATE 73 COALITION, LLC
Printed Name and Title
WITNESS:
Printed Name and Title
Approved as to form:
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, VIRGINIA
By
County Administrator or Authorized
Representative
Printed Name and Title
Appropriation and Funds Required
for this Contract Certified:
County Attorney/Assistant County Attorney Director of Finance
Account #
Approved as to Execution:
County Attorney/Assistant County Attorney
M.
WITNESS:
Printed Name and Title
Approved as to form:
County Attorney/Assistant County Attorney
Approved as to Execution:
County Attorney/Assistant County Attorney
COUNTY OF HENRY, VIRGINIA
County Administrator or Authorized
Representative
Printed Name and Title
Appropriation and Funds Required
for this Contract Certified:
Director of Finance
Account #
WITNESS:
Printed Name and Title
Approved as to form:
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
By
County Administrator or Authorized
Representative
Printed Name and Title
Appropriation and Funds Required
for this Contract Certified:
County Attorney/Assistant County Attorney Director of Finance
Account
Approved as to Execution:
County Attorney/Assistant County Attorney
0
WITNESS:
Printed Name and Title
Approved as to form:
City Attorney/Assistant City Attorney
Approved as to execution:
City Attorney/Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF MARTI NSVI LLE, VIRGINIA
By
City Manager or Authorized Representative
Printed Name and Title
Appropriation and Funds Required
for this Contract Certified:
Director of Finance
Account #
CT#
R]
WITNESS:
Printed Name and Title
Approved as to form:
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Fey
City Manager or Authorized Representative
Printed Name and Title
Appropriation and Funds Required
for this Contract Certified:
City Attorney/Assistant City Attorney Director of Finance
Account #
CT#
Approved as to execution:
City Attorney/Assistant City Attorney
10
Appendix A
Scope of Services
The mission of the Interstate 73 Coalition, LLC is to pursue federal and/or state legislative language
and/or funding to construct Interstate 73. The following items are included in the contractual Scope of
Services with the Localities:
1. Organize and lead an advocacy effort of interested parties, such as Chambers of Commerce,
business and citizen groups, local governments, elected officials and others interested in the
construction of Interstate 73.
2. Develop a strategy to pursue to win legislative language and/or funding for the construction of
Interstate 73.
3. Outreach and advocacy with Virginia's Congressional Delegation and other important Members
of Congress to obtain the support necessary to secure legislative language and/or funding to
assist with the construction of Interstate 73,
4. Outreach and advocacy with Members of the Virginia General Assembly to obtain the support
necessary to secure legislative language and/or funding to assist with the construction of
Interstate 73.
5. Outreach and advocacy with the Office of the Governor and the Commonwealth Transportation
Board to obtain the support necessary to secure language and/or funding in Virginia's Six Year
Improvement Plan (SYIP) to assist with the construction of Interstate 73.
6. Keep members of the Interstate 73 Coalition informed about the progress of the Coalition;
solicit their views, advice and ideas for how to achieve the Coalition's objectives; work to
enlarge the size of the Coalition in neighboring states so that the Coalition's objectives can be
achieved.
7. Any other task necessary to win legislative language and/or funding necessary for the
construction of Interstate 73.
11
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. E-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution encouraging the political parties to choose an
alternative method for selecting candidates for public office
other than a primary election; waiving county fees for use of
public facilities for such alternative method
SUBMITTED BY: Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This item is placed on the agenda at the request of Supervisor Joseph P. McNamara.
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, JUNE 9, 2015
RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE POLITICAL PARTIES TO
CHOOSE AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR SELECTING
CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE OTHER THAN A PRIMARY
ELECTION; WAIVING COUNTY FEES FOR USE OF PUBLIC
FACILITIES FOR SUCH ALTERNATIVE METHOD
WHEREAS, primary elections impose significant local costs and expenses upon
the County's taxpayers since Section 24.2-518 of the Code of Virginia requires the
Treasurer of the County in which primary elections are held to pay the costs of primary
elections; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors was required to transfer
funds in the amount of $18,910 to pay for the Republican primary for the 17th House
District; and
WHEREAS, primary elections for local candidates from Democrat and
Republican political parties are sparsely attended; and
WHEREAS, encouraging the political parties to avoid holding primary elections
would save public funds; and
WHEREAS, Section 24.2-509 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the duly
constituted authorities of the state political party shall have the right to determine the
method by which a party nomination for an elected office shall be made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Roanoke County would waive the fees that are imposed upon the
political parties for the use of public facilities if all of the political parties agree to select
Page 1 of 2
their candidates through methods other than a local primary election. In addition, no
State or Federal primary election would be held for this fee waiver to be applicable.
2. That Roanoke County would reimburse the local political parties for fees
imposed upon the political parties for the use of Roanoke County public school facilities
if all of the political parties agree to select their candidates through methods other than
a local primary election. In addition, no State or Federal primary election would be held
for this fee reimbursement to be applicable. This reimbursement shall be at the same
facility rental charge applied uniformly to other rentals.
3. That the Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors shall send a certified
copy of this resolution to the Chairman of the Roanoke County Democrat and
Republican parties.
Page 2 of 2
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: June 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section
3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3
of the Code of Virginia
SUBMITTED BY: Paul Mahoney
County Attorney
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
In June of 2014, the Board adopted an ordinance to increase its salaries pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. This section
of the State Code and Section 3.07 of the County Charter requires that any increase in
Supervisors' salaries be accomplished by ordinance after public hearing between May 1
and June 30. Any increase is limited to an annual five (5%) percent inflation factor.
The Board has adopted a budget which grants a two point five percent (2.5%) salary
increase to County employees. In the past, the Board has increased its salary by the same
percentage increase awarded to County employees. This ordinance increases the Board
member's salaries by two point five percent (2.5%).
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The first reading of this proposed ordinance was held on June 9, 2015; the second reading
and public hearing will be held on June 23, 2014. The current salary for Board members is
$17,425.20. This ordinance would increase the salary effective July 1, 2015, for Board
members to $17,860.83 for an increase of $435.63 each. There is an additional annual
compensation for the Chairman of the Board at $1,800, and for the Vice -Chairman at
$1,200.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
A two point five percent (2.5%) increase would cost $2,178.15 ($435.63 each).
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, JUNE 9, 2015
ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY PURSUANT
TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CHARTER AND
SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for
the compensation of members of the Board of Supervisors and the procedure for
increasing their salaries; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain
population brackets; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has
heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members at $17,425.20 by
Ordinance 062414-11 and further has established the additional annual compensation
for the Chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the Vice -Chairman of the Board to
be $1,200; and
WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein
provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five percent
(5%); and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on June 9, 2015; the
second reading and public hearing will be held on June 23, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members of the Board of
Page 1 of 2
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of
two point five percent (2.5%) pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke
County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
The new annual salaries shall be $17,860.83 for members of the Board. In addition, the
Chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the Vice -
Chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200.
This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2015.
Page 2 of 2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. F-2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance to approve Amendment No. 1 to an
intergovernmental agreement for the Workforce Investment
Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Charter Agreement
SUBMITTED BY: Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
APPROVED BY: Thomas G. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Workforce Area #3 Chief Local Elected Officials (CLEO) Consortium was formed in a
Charter Agreement in 2003 by the cities and counties in the Roanoke -Valley Alleghany
Region. The Consortium agreed to work cooperatively to promote programs to support
employment opportunities within the region. The Agreement was developed in a manner
consistent with the provisions of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The CLEO has
responsibility for appointing the members of the Western Virginia Workforce Development
Board (WDB) and is the designated Grant Recipient and Fiscal Agent for WIA funds.
In July 2014, the United States Congress enacted the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA), which repealed and replaced WIA. In light of this change and a
proposed partnership between the WDB and the Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional
Commission (RVARC), the CLEO voted to amend its Charter Agreement. Amendment No.
1 updates the Agreement to be consistent with the provisions of WIOA, re -designates the
City of Roanoke as the Consortium Grant Recipient, and changes the Fiscal Agent to be
the Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional Commission. This change was made to provide
greater organizational and fiscal capacity to support the mission of the WDB. It should also
result in better coordination of economic and workforce development efforts, and create a
stronger focus on serving the needs of key industry sectors.
Page 1 of 2
The Amendment confirms that the Charter Agreement is an exercise of joint powers as
permitted by Section 15.2-1300 of the Code of Virginia, which provides the Member
Jurisdictions more options to cooperatively address workforce development in the future.
Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached ordinance approving
Amendment No. 1 to the CLEO Charter Agreement. Upon approval of the Ordinance, the
County Administrator will be authorized to sign the Amendment and other requisite
documents related to the Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached ordinance approving the first reading of Amendment No. 1 and
scheduling the second reading for June 23, 2015.
2. Deny the ordinance to approve Amendment No. 1.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached ordinance for first reading and scheduling the
second reading for June 23, 2015.
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, JUNE 9, 2015
ORDINANCE TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE WORKFORCE
INVESTMENT AREA III CHIEF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
CHARTER AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem, and the counties of
Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin, and Roanoke agreed to create a consortium to
work together in accordance with the provisions of the federal Workforce Investment Act
within the Western Virginia Workforce Development Area III; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors authorized the execution of the Workforce
Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Charter Agreement dated July 21, 2003
(Charter Agreement), by Action No. A-051303-6 adopted May 13, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Mayors of the cities of Covington, Roanoke and Salem, and the
Chairmen of the Board of Supervisors of the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig,
Franklin, and Roanoke (collectively, the Member Jurisdictions) executed the Charter
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to amend the Charter Agreement to
improve the operations and implementation of the Workforce Development Plan,
acknowledge, confirm, and agree that the Charter Agreement is an exercise of joint
powers as permitted by Section 15.2-1300, et sec., Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, and address changes that may be required as the result of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (29 U.S.C. §§ 3011, et sec.); and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 9, 2015 and the
second reading was held on June 23, 2015; and
Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, Section 13 of the Charter Agreement allows for amendments to the
Charter Agreement with the concurrence of the governing bodies of the Member
Jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows:
1. That Amendment No. 1 to the Charter Agreement is hereby approved to
improve the operations and implementation of the Workforce Development Plan and to
address changes that may be required as the result of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act of 2014 (29 U.S.C. §§ 3011, et seg.)
2. The Charter Agreement, as authorized and approved by Action No. A-
051303-6 and as amended by Amendment No. 1 is ratified and approved.
3. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
authorized and directed to execute this Amendment No. 1 to the Charter Agreement,
and any other documents related to Amendment No. 1, which shall be in a form
approved by the County Attorney's office.
Page 2 of 2
DRAFT: 05.14.2015
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREA III
CHIEF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
This Amendment No. 1 to the Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local Elected
Officials Charter Agreement is made this day of , 2015, by and among City of
Covington, the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, and the County of Alleghany, the County of
Botetourt, the County of Craig, the County of Franklin, and the County of Roanoke (the
"Member Jurisdictions").
RECITALS
A. The Member Jurisdictions, via action through their respective mayors and
chairmen of the board of supervisors, formed the Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local
Elected Officials Consortium (the "Consortium") by the execution of the Workforce Investment
Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Charter Agreement dated July 21, 2003 (the "Charter
Agreement")
B. Pursuant to the terms of the Charter Agreement, the Consortium agreed to work
cooperatively to promote programs to support employment opportunities within Workforce
Development Area III, as designated by the Commonwealth of Virginia ("Area IIP'), in a manner
consistent with the provisions of the Workforce Investment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2801, et SeMc .
("WIA") and the rules and regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Labor
(the "Department").
C. In July 2014, the United States Congress enacted the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 3101, et seq. ("WIOA") that repealed and replaced WIA.
1
DRAFT: 05.14.2015
D. Pursuant to Section 13 of the Charter Agreement, the Member Jurisdictions may
amend the Charter Agreement with the authorization and concurrence of the governing bodies of
each of the Member Jurisdictions.
E. The Member Jurisdictions have the authority to enter into joint agreements
pursuant to Section 15.2-1300, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and the Charter
Agreement constitutes an agreement for the joint exercise of powers by participating political
subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
F. Based upon a review of the Charter Agreement, and the recent enactment of
WIOA, the Member Jurisdictions desire to amend the Charter Agreement in accordance with this
Amendment No. 1 to Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Charter
Agreement ("Amendment No. 1").
G. The governing body of each of the Member Jurisdictions has adopted a resolution
approving of, and concurring with this Amendment No. 1, and has authorized its respective
mayor or chairman of its board of supervisors to execute this Amendment No. 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the recitals set forth above, which recitals are a material
part of this Amendment No. 1, and for other good and valuable consideration, the Member
Jurisdictions agree and hereby amend the Charter Agreement as follows:
1. Amendment to Purpose of the Agreement.
The preamble section of the Charter Agreement entitled "PURPOSE OF THE
AGREEMENT" is amended to provide at the end of the section as follows:
The Consortium acknowledges the enactment of the Workforce Investment and
Opportunity Act of 2014, 29 U.S.C. §§ 3101, et SeMC . ("WIOA") and agrees that the
Consortium, in cooperation with the WDB, a Virginia non -stock corporation, will operate
in accordance with the provisions of the WIOA and the regulations and rules
2
DRAFT: 05.14.2015
promulgated and adopted by the United States Department of Labor to insure success of
the programs operated under the WIOA comply with all applicable federal and state laws,
rules, regulations, and guidelines, and with the terms of the local plan developed for Area
The Member Jurisdictions, through the CLEO, acknowledge, affirm, and agree that the
Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Charter Agreement dated
July 21, 2003, as amended, constitutes an agreement authorized by Section 15.2-1300,
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, for the joint exercise of powers by participating
political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
2. Amend Section 8 of the Charter Agreement by deleting Section 8 in its entirety and
replacing Section 8 with the following:
SECTION 8 Administration.
8.1 Grant Recipient.
The Consortium designates from its membership the local government jurisdiction of the
City of Roanoke as the grant recipient for all grants funds appropriated to the Consortium
for Area III pursuant to the Act of the WIOA. The City shall ensure compliance with the
terms and conditions of such grants.
8.2 Fiscal Agent.
In order to facilitate and expedite the implementation and operation of the workforce
development plan for Area III, the Consortium appoints the Roanoke Valley -Alleghany
Regional Commission as the initial fiscal agent for the Consortium and WDB. The
Consortium, with the advice and consent of the WDB and the Member Jurisdiction
designated as the grant recipient, shall appoint any future fiscal agent pursuant to this
Section 8.2.
3
DRAFT: 05.14.2015
The terms, conditions, duties, and responsibilities of fiscal agent shall be set forth in an
agreement among the Consortium, WDB, the grant recipient designated by the
Consortium, and the party designated by the Consortium as fiscal agent.
3. Amend the Charter Agreement by adding a new Section 14 to follow Section 13 and to
read and provide as follows:
SECTION 14. Changes in the Act.
The Member Jurisdictions acknowledge and agree that the WIOA repeals and replaces
the Act. For purposes of this Charter Agreement, the Member Jurisdictions agree that references
to "the Act" or sections of "the Act," and regulations and rules adopted pursuant thereto,
contained in this Charter Agreement shall hereafter include or refer to the WIOA, relevant and
corresponding sections of the WIOA, and the rules, regulations, and guidelines adopted pursuant
to the WIOA, as they currently exist or may be amended.
4. Effect.
Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, the Charter Agreement remains in full
force and effect in accordance with its original terms. The Member Jurisdictions acknowledge,
agree, and ratify that the Charter Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 1, constitutes
the entire charter for the establishment of the Consortium. Capitalized terms not defined in this
Amendment No. 1 shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms as set forth in the Charter
Agreement. This Amendment No. 1 shall take effect as the latest date on which the governing
bodies of the Member Jurisdictions have approved and concurred to this Amendment No. 1.
SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES
.19
DRAFT: 05.14.2015
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the chief local elected officials of the respective Member
Jurisdictions have executed this Amendment No.l on behalf of their respective Member
Jurisdictions.
Name:
Title: Mayor, City of Covington, Virginia
Name: David A. Bowers
Title: Mayor, City of Roanoke, Virginia
Name:
Title: Mayor, City of Salem, Virginia
Name:
Title: Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Alleghany, Virginia
Name:
Title: Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Botetourt, Virginia
Name:
Title: Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Craig, Virginia
Name:
Title: Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Franklin, Virginia
Name: Thomas C. Gates
Title: County Administrator
5
Date:
2015
Date: , 2015
Date: , 2015
Date:
2015
Date: , 2015
Date:
Date:
Date:
2015
2015
2015
DRAFT: 05.14.2015
County of Roanoke, Virginia
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Name:
City of Covington Alleghany, Virginia
Name: Daniel J. Callaghan, City Attorney
City of Roanoke, Virginia
Name: Steven Yost, City Attorney
City of Salem, Virginia
Name:
County of Alleghany, Virginia
Name:
County of Botetourt, Virginia
Name:
County of Craig, Virginia
Name:
County of Franklin, Virginia
Name: , County Attorney's Office
County of Roanoke, Virginia
rol
Date: , 2015
Date:
2015
Date: , 2015
Date:
2015
Date: , 2015
Date:
2015
Date: , 2015
Date:
2015
ur"oRKforce
NETWORK
Workforce Investment Area III
Chief Local Elected Officials Charter Agreement
PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT:
In accordance with the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), herein referred to as the ACT, the
mayors of the cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem, the Chairmen of the Board of
Supervisors of the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin, and Roanoke, hereafter
referred to as the Chief Local Elected Officials (CLEO), enter into this agreement to continue to
work together through a consortium to be called the Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local
Elected Officials Consortium (hereinafter, the Consortium). The purpose of the Consortium is to
implement activities pursuant to the Act [Section 117 (c)(1)(B)(i)(ii)] in the Western Virginia
Workforce Development Area III by executing an agreement that specifies the role of the
individual Chief Local Elected Officials, appointing the Western Virginia Workforce
Development Board (WDB), and carrying out any other responsibilities assigned to such
officials under this subtitle.
The Consortium hereby agree to work together according to the provisions of the WIA and the
Federal Regulations (Regulations) as issued by the United States Secretary of Labor for the
implementation of terms of this agreement certifying by their signatures that they posses full
legal authority, as provided by state and local authority, as provided by state and local statutes or
ordinances, to enter into this agreement.
In cooperation with the WDB, the Consortium shall work to ensure success of the programs
operated under the ACT and that all programs, procedures, and activities comply with all
regulations and the local plan.
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of - , 2003, by and between
the jurisdictions of-
The
f
The City of Covington
The County of Botetourt
The City of Roanoke
The County of Craig
The City of Salem
The County of Franklin
The County of Alleghany
The County of Roanoke
In the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter, the Jurisdictions):
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors/City Council of the aforementioned jurisdictions
did previously adopt resolutions authorizing the County Board Chairperson/City Mayor to sign a
charter creating the Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Consortium in
order to administer the provisions of Public Law 105-220, the Federal Workforce Investment
Act, and
WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors/City Council of each of the aforementioned
jurisdictions has adopted a resolution authorizing the County Board Chairperson or City Mayor
to sign this Charter of the Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials
Consortium under the Workforce Investment Act (P.L. 105-220) (hereinafter, the "Charter"):
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the mutual covenants of the
parties hereinafter set forth, the receipt and each party acknowledges sufficiency of which for
itself, the Jurisdictions do hereby agree to the following Charter:
AGREEMENT
SECTION 1: That the Jurisdictions of
The City of Covington
The City of Roanoke
The City of Salem
The County of Alleghany
The County of Botetourt
The County of Craig
The County of Franklin
The County of Roanoke
Do hereby constitute themselves to be a "Consortium" for the purposes of Section 117 (c)(1)(B)
of Public Law 105-220, the Workforce Investment Act.
SECTION 2: The chief local elected officials (the chairpersons of the County Board of
Supervisors or City Mayor) or the designees of said officials of the jurisdictions shall constitute t
the Workforce Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Consortium, which shall
appoint the Local Workforce Investment Board under Section 117 (c) (1) (B) of the Act.
SECTION 3: The Consortium shall elect from its membership a Chairperson, a Vice -
Chairperson, and such other officers as may be provided for in the bylaws to serve for a term of
one year or until a successor is elected and qualified. Vacancies shall be filled by election for the
remainder of the unexpired term. The Chairperson may appoint a staff person to serve as a board
clerk.
SECTION 4: Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall govern the procedures of the
Consortium insofar as they do not conflict with applicable law, or administrative rules and/or
bylaws duly adopted by the Consortium.
SECTION 5: The Consortium may adopt operational and procedural bylaws consistent with
this Charter, applicable federal and state laws, and rules or regulations pursuant thereto. Bylaws
or amendments thereto may be adopted by a simple majority vote of members present at any
regular meeting called for that purpose, provided that written copies thereof are delivered to each
member fifteen days prior to consideration.
SECTION 6: The Consortium shall perform all functions for local elected officials contained in
P.L. 105-220, the Federal Workforce Investment Act as described in Section 117. The
Consortium's responsibilities shall include, but are not limited to:
1. Appointment of all members to the Western Virginia Workforce Development
Board.
2. Initial development of Bylaws for the Western Virginia Workforce Development
Board operations.
3. Through designation of a Grant Recipient and Fiscal Agent will:
a. Receive funding;
b. Account for funding;
c. Function as the program administrative entity; and
d. Provide for staffing of both the CLEO Consortium and the Workforce
Development Board.
4. Will insure appropriate auditing of program funds.
5. Will approve the Workforce Investment Act and other appropriate funding source
budget(s) of the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board.
6. In cooperation with the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board, the
CLEO Consortium will perform the following partner functions:
a. Develop the local 5 -year plan;
b. Negotiate local performance standards with the Governor;
c. Appoint the Youth Council;
d. Designate or certify local One -Stop Operators
e. Provide agreement for Memorandums of Understanding with One -Stop
Partners; and
f. Conduct oversight of the One -Stop Delivery System
SECTION 7: The Consortium will approve a budget for the Western Virginia Workforce
Development Board and shall support the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board in
the performance of the partner functions as defined in the agreement between the Consortium
and the WDB.
SECTION 8: The Consortium designates from its membership the local government
jurisdiction of the City of Roanoke to serve as the grant recipient and the WDB to serve as the
fiscal agent for Title I funds of the WIA.
SECTION 9: The parties acknowledge that they are accountable to the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the Acts of the CLEO Consortium and the WVWDB and for the
performance of any subcontractors. The parties acknowledge the authority of the CLEO
Consortium to monitor, evaluate and take corrective action concerning performance specified in
the Job Training Plan and contracts or agreements negotiated pursuant thereto. The parties to
this Agreement, to the extent consistent with applicable law, certify acceptance of the
responsibility for the total management, operation and compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations. Any financial or legal liability of the CLEO Consortium shall be shared on the same
pro rata basis as the population, per the most recent United States Census.
Ci EO Consoniurn Chl ii €4r ,P Lige 2 5'2,2003
i SECTION 10: The Consortium shall appoint the Local Workforce Investment Board (Western
Virginia Workforce Investment Board) Area,III, under Section 117 (c) (1) (A) of P.L. 105-220
and applicable rules thereunder. The Consortium will comply with local Workforce Investment
Board requirements as contained in Virginia Employment Commission Policy Number 99-2,
"Establishment of Local Workforce Investment Boards" effective November 19, 1999.
SECTION 11: The Consortium shall execute an agreement with the Western Virginia
Workforce Development Board for the operation and functions of the Board under Section 117
of the Workforce Investment Act, and shall approve all Local Plans under Section 118 of the
Act.
SECTION 12: This Charter agreement shall be effective when approved by Resolutions
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors/City Council of each jurisdiction party hereto and
executed by the chief elected official thereof pursuant to said resolution. This serves to repeal
and supersede any and all prior written or oral consortium agreements under P.L. 102-357, the
Job Training Partnership Act, effective 7/1/2000.
SECTION 13: Amendments to the Charter agreement may be adopted with the concurrence of
the Board of Supervisors/City Council of each jurisdiction party hereto. The Consortium may be
dissolved and this agreement may be rescinded only with the consent of all the Boards of
Supervisors/City Councils of each jurisdiction party hereto and the Governor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Charter Agreement to be
executed by the Chairperson of the County Board of Supervisors or the City Mayor of the
aforementioned jurisdictions.
Temple L. Kessinger, Jr.; Mayor, The City of Covington
Ralph Smith, Mayor, The City of Roanoke
Carl E. Tarpley, Jr., Mayor The City of Salem
Rickey May, Chair, Board of Supervisors, The County of Alleghany
Date
Stephen P. Clinton, Chair, Board of Supervisors, The County of Botetourt
Lyndell Keffer, Chair,Board of Supervisors, The County of Craig
Date
W. Wayne Angell, Chair, Board of Supervisors, The County of Franklin
Date
Joseph McNamara, Chair, Board of Supervisors, The County of Roanoke
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. F-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the vacation of an existing twelve foot
(12') public utility easement located along the side property line
on the property of James Barry Echols (lot 29) and Richard G.
and Shelia B. Huffman (lot 30), block 11, section 3 of Beverly
Heights North (plat book 8, page 16) tax map numbers 044.03-
03-41.00-0000 and 044.03-03-42.00-0000), Catawba
Magisterial District
SUBMITTED BY: Tarek Moneir
Deputy Director of Development
APPROVED BY: Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Mr. James Barry Echols of 2835 Silver Leaf Drive wishes to build a garage on his property
shown as Lot 29 in the attached map. The area which he would like to build is
encumbered by a portion of the 12' public utility easement located between his property
and the property of Mr. and Mrs. Richard G. and Sheila B. Huffman (Lot 30). Therefore,
they each have requested that the twelve foot (12') public utility easement be vacated as
shown on the attached plat to remove the encumbrance on their properties.
Mr. Echols property is located within Beverly Heights North subdivision, which was
established March 23, 1970. The public utility easement was established in anticipation of
providing underground infrastructure to serve the community. Currently, the subdivision is
served by local utility companies including Western Virginia WaterAuthority, Verizon, AEP,
Comcast Cable and Roanoke Gas. County departments and local utility companies were
contacted concerning this vacation request and there were no objections.
Page 1 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
The costs and expenses associated herewith include the ad for the public hearing, costs
for permits from utilities companies and recordation fees shall be the responsibility of Mr.
Echols.
ALTERNATIVES:
That the Board approve the first reading of this ordinance to vacate the described
easement and schedule the second reading and public hearing for June 23, 2015.
2. That the Board denies the vacation of the described easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1.
Page 2 of 2
G-0VERAL /VOTES.'
1. OWNER OF RECORD: JAMES BARRY ECHOLS & RICHARD G. & SHEILA B. HUFFMAN
2. LEGAL REFERENCES: D.B. 964, PG. 738 & D.B. 957, PG, 386
J. THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A T177 -E REPORT AND IS \��QO'
SUBJECT THERETO. THEREFORE, 7HERE MAY EXIST ENCUMBRANCES WHICH AFFECT THE Rot
PROPERTY NOT SHOWN HEREON.
4. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS W17HIN THE LIMITS OF FLOOD ,ZONE X" AS SHOWN ON Q�
7HI= FEMA F.I.R.M. i5161COI36 G W774 AN EFFEC77VE DATE OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2007.
THIS DETERMINATION IS BASED ON SAID MAP AND HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY ACTUAL
FIELD ELEVATIONS
SIL VER LEAFER/t/E
VA SEC RTF 7733 — 50' WIDE N6603.430"E
G9 G2 99.50'
24'
29'
19'
24'
H
,? LOT29 hl LOT 30
BLOCK 99 ^I BLOCK I9
LOT 28 SECTION 3 i SECTION 3 a�
0.237ACRE W i 0.243 ACRE *� LOT 31
12' PUE TO
BE VACA TED tyM
O DEEDED CORNER
PUE PUBLIC 'UTILITY EASEMENT
DE DRAINAGE EASEMENT _ _
r23 86 7.�4y'T
/ 6;"—
s
s42aa'40" w
S 9609345" W
4.68'
LOT 6 4 LOT 5
BLOCK 8 SEC77ON 2 BEVERLY HEIGHTS NORTH P.B. 7, PG. 65
s
r
" ALAN CLEMONS
Lic. No. 002823
TAX I. 044.03-03-41 & —42
DRAWN PEC
CALL . REC CHK'D MAC
CLOSED: REC
FROM RECORDS FOR
.TAMES BARRY ECHOC S AND
RICHARD G. & SHEILA B. HUFFMAN
SHOWING THE PROPOSED VACATION OF
A 12' PUBLIC UTILITY CASEMENT SITUATE ON
LOTS 29 & 3O, BLOCK 11, SECTION 3
BEVERLY HEIGHTS NORTH — P.B. 8, PG. 16
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE. 1"--30'
816 Boulevard
Salem, Virginia 24153 DATE, •'_ HAY,
Phone: S40-387-1 1 53 D— 54751
parker Fax: S40-389-5767 N. R. NIA
DESIGN
Es ssLEI0.:0rtuavaPANNPns+ ssC"H Kc TCIS 15-005
CURVE TABLE
CUR!/ES LE=NGTH RADIUS TANGENT DELTA CHORDDIRECTION CHORDIENGTH
G9 100.87' 225.00' 51.29' 25°411.77" 1V31°40'59'E 100.02'
C2 85.58' 225.00' 4384' 220257" N55"33'11'E= 88.05'
SIL VER LEAFER/t/E
VA SEC RTF 7733 — 50' WIDE N6603.430"E
G9 G2 99.50'
24'
29'
19'
24'
H
,? LOT29 hl LOT 30
BLOCK 99 ^I BLOCK I9
LOT 28 SECTION 3 i SECTION 3 a�
0.237ACRE W i 0.243 ACRE *� LOT 31
12' PUE TO
BE VACA TED tyM
O DEEDED CORNER
PUE PUBLIC 'UTILITY EASEMENT
DE DRAINAGE EASEMENT _ _
r23 86 7.�4y'T
/ 6;"—
s
s42aa'40" w
S 9609345" W
4.68'
LOT 6 4 LOT 5
BLOCK 8 SEC77ON 2 BEVERLY HEIGHTS NORTH P.B. 7, PG. 65
s
r
" ALAN CLEMONS
Lic. No. 002823
TAX I. 044.03-03-41 & —42
DRAWN PEC
CALL . REC CHK'D MAC
CLOSED: REC
FROM RECORDS FOR
.TAMES BARRY ECHOC S AND
RICHARD G. & SHEILA B. HUFFMAN
SHOWING THE PROPOSED VACATION OF
A 12' PUBLIC UTILITY CASEMENT SITUATE ON
LOTS 29 & 3O, BLOCK 11, SECTION 3
BEVERLY HEIGHTS NORTH — P.B. 8, PG. 16
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE. 1"--30'
816 Boulevard
Salem, Virginia 24153 DATE, •'_ HAY,
Phone: S40-387-1 1 53 D— 54751
parker Fax: S40-389-5767 N. R. NIA
DESIGN
Es ssLEI0.:0rtuavaPANNPns+ ssC"H Kc TCIS 15-005
Easement and Right -of -Way
Vacation/Quitclaim Request Application
Date: Z7"- l `1 �� Application Deadline:
015-
Name:,���
Address:��, �tr�
Phone #: 4/0 3� � 6 2
Type of
vacation/quitclaim
Sanitary
Water
Public
Drainage
Right -of-
Sewer
Easement
utility
basement
Easement
Alley
Way
Other;
Easement
LOCatIOi"i O. vacation quitclaim: Y, Lo f/
Z'IR-4— t1A e /", / V
Depict the area to be vacated or attach a plat to the application
We, the undersigned, are the owners and/or adjoiners of the property referenced above. We request
that the vacation/quitclaim noted above be processed for presentation to the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors. A check for $625 is enclosed for the vacation fee, advertising fee and the ordinance
recor ation fee.
From: "Orr, Pete" <Pete_Orr@RoanokeGas.com>
To: "'Denise Sowder"' �dsowder@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date: 03/12/15 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: 2835 Silver Leaf Dr
Denise,
I met with Mr. Echols this afternoon. Based on the location of the gas line, Roanoke Gas would not
oppose vacating the P.U.E.
Let me know if you need more specific information.
Thanks,
Pete Orr
Director - Operations
Roanoke Gas Company
540-777-3874 (office)
-----Original Message -----
From: Denise Sowder [mai!to:dsowder@roanokecountyva.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:42 AM
To: Orr, Pete
Subject: 2835 Silver Leaf Dr
Pete,
Here is a piece of the plat. Hope it helps!
NOTICE: This message, including any attachment, is intended as a confidential and privileged
communication. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please
immediately notify the sender and delete this message.
Verizon Virginia Inc. Outside Plant Engineering
Allen Asbury
4843 Oakland Blvd. NE
Roanoke, Va. 24012
(540) 265-7574
Fax:(540) 563-8431
March 18th, 2015
Mrs. Denise Sowder
Roanoke County
Subject: Public Utility Easement for Verizon Lines
Dear Mrs. Sowder:
Verizon does not oppose the closure of the public utility easement on the
property at 2835 Silver Leaf Dr in Salem, Virginia.
Verizon does not have any current conflicts with the closure of the public utility
easement. Any cables at the rear of the property nor any service drops currently
in place will be affected by this closure.
Sincerely,
Allen Asbury
Verizon OSP Engineering
4843 Oakland Blvd
Roanoke, VA 24012
Appalachian Power Company
80 River Road
Fieldale, VR 24089
l..APPALACHMM
A unit ofArnerlean ElecUfc Power
March 20, 2015
Mr. James Echols
2835 Silver Leaf Dr,
Salem, VA 24153
RE: Proposed encroachment Appalachian Power Company easement
2835 Silver Leaf Dr, Salem, VA
Easement 19, Map 3780-250
Mr. Echols:
This correspondence is in response to your request to vacate a portion of the
public utility easement (PUE) on the above-mentioned property. Appalachian has
an easement to occupy the subject PUE, granted to us by Fralin and Waldron,
Inc. The easement is of record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's
Office in Deed Book 943 at Page 344.
A review of our facilities indicates we do not currently occupy the PUE and have
no plans to utilize it in the future. Therefore, Appalachian has no objection to the
proposed vacation of the subject PUE.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 276-627-1225
Sincerely,
d.&_ L., L
Robert E. Wilson
Right of Way Lead
Email copy: Denise Sowder, Roanoke County Planning
Amy Rasnake, Appalachian Power Company
11"P. . llne17C,1 5 I.-F70P, 1, )77tlIN
r
R
,LF-AFpIJvr
00 Isis
\0
:'�, !' .�� 4, t_ yi" .4• Iie.F. e. }. t` ,i � - 0.� t � •� .��Z,y its
'•..t+j.,,r��._ ,'��in. '� `•►. X11.•, 111 7•' _ +' 11 ? - Y
�.►" �,e�10.3+T�+s` 5 Al /y1, � r°�
rr ....• i'r.w�•r• - ,..'i•'�E �., .. - Y 1• .'�.•.-'-..1'•.•
i
V Y
LOT -28 LOT -50
p LOT 2 91-
°r 6LOCK
t ,�- i � Ter, ��, � �• �'
l 1W + k".�
N
fRom
IG`�13'4f:. _.tEtaKZ3•b, .
MON
�4c
BLOCK -8, �SkC,7- 1
f'sEVEs2L`� r•1r=1GW5 NO%,',J 1
S'.PS,`T, FG.CoS
SURVEY FOR
JA, ME5 a, aG LINDA' P ECHOLS
OF LOT- 29, f5V 41, 5EVF_R_LY HEIGHT5 MORTIA
p.51 45, PG.IG ROAISOI�1 CO
i
VIRG1N(A
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
PLAT 5 VE S C RRECT. SY T. P. PARKER &SON sGAhE: "
DATE., t4Q\/- I97F
BY: ENGINEERS &SURVEYORS
N. S. BxN -1D• 1'.2 5 1
CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR
1
E �
,
,LF-AFpIJvr
00 Isis
\0
:'�, !' .�� 4, t_ yi" .4• Iie.F. e. }. t` ,i � - 0.� t � •� .��Z,y its
'•..t+j.,,r��._ ,'��in. '� `•►. X11.•, 111 7•' _ +' 11 ? - Y
�.►" �,e�10.3+T�+s` 5 Al /y1, � r°�
rr ....• i'r.w�•r• - ,..'i•'�E �., .. - Y 1• .'�.•.-'-..1'•.•
i
V Y
LOT -28 LOT -50
p LOT 2 91-
°r 6LOCK
t ,�- i � Ter, ��, � �• �'
l 1W + k".�
N
fRom
IG`�13'4f:. _.tEtaKZ3•b, .
MON
�4c
BLOCK -8, �SkC,7- 1
f'sEVEs2L`� r•1r=1GW5 NO%,',J 1
S'.PS,`T, FG.CoS
SURVEY FOR
JA, ME5 a, aG LINDA' P ECHOLS
OF LOT- 29, f5V 41, 5EVF_R_LY HEIGHT5 MORTIA
p.51 45, PG.IG ROAISOI�1 CO
i
VIRG1N(A
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
PLAT 5 VE S C RRECT. SY T. P. PARKER &SON sGAhE: "
DATE., t4Q\/- I97F
BY: ENGINEERS &SURVEYORS
N. S. BxN -1D• 1'.2 5 1
CERTIFIED LAND SURVEYOR
Page 1 of 1
Denise Sowder - 2835 Siler Leaf Drive, Salem PUE
From: "Esteves, Noel"<Noel_Esteves@cable.comcast.com>
To: "dsowdcr@roanokecountyva.gov" <dsowder@roanokecountyva.gov>
Date: 03/26/15 9:08 AM
Subject: 2835 Siler Leaf Drive, Salem PUE
Attachments: 2535 Siler Leaf Drive PUE.pdf
Mrs. Sowder,
Comcast Cable does not currently or have any future plans to enter the PUE highlighted in yellow in the
attach map at 2835 Silver Leaf Drive, Salem or the adjacent properties.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact.
Thank You
Noel Esteves
Construction Coordinator
1.415 South Main Street
Blacl;sbu€g, VA 24060
5401378-1178
file:/IIC:/Usersldsowder/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/553F4790P41_... 5/29/2015
W
�E-
CL CO
O
�
oIT
O m N
Uo-2¢
LU _ m >
O
�-�e
z Em or_
a
E m
ll uC)
U)
J
O
T-
C)
LLJ
€L
ED
0)
ui
E
z
C
Q
CL
a
a
ar
U
r
0 0 0
3 O 6 6
LO T Lo
Er It
a
U.
Lo LO LO
a o 0
N N N
tt J
Cl O O O
Y
V d d d
T
UO O O
-gyp U U U
F U U U
F-
J J J
O O O
2 S S
U U U
w w w
m m m
U) U)
w w w
¢ ¢ ¢
N O
m U
L
a°'i c •�
LL
o
LO LO W)
M
0
03
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2015
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF AN EXISTING TWELVE
FOOT (12') PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE SIDE
PROPERTY LINE ON PROPERTY OF JAMES BARRY ECHOLS (LOT 29)
AND RICHARD G. AND SHELIA B. HUFFMAN (LOT 30), BLOCK 11,
SECTION 3 OF BEVERLY HEIGHTS NORTH (PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 16)
TAX MAP NUMBERS 044.03-03-41.00-0000 AND 044.03-03-42.00-0000),
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, a plat entitled "Plat of Section No. 3. Beverly Heights North Property of
Fralin and Waldron, Incorporated" dated Oct. 25, 1971, and recorded in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, (Plat Book 8, Page 16) dedicated a twelve
foot (12') wide public utility easement across parcels identified as Lots 29 and 30 (Tax Map
Nos. 044.03-03-41.00-0000 and 044.03-03-42.00-0000); and
WHEREAS, the current owner of the property, James Barry Echols (Lot 29) and
Richard G. and Sheila B. Huffman (Lot 30), have requested that the twelve foot (12') wide
public utility easement located along the side property line be vacated in order to remove
that encumbrance on their property to allow Mr. Echols to build a garage on Lot 29; and
WHEREAS, County staff has reviewed and approved the vacation this twelve foot
(12') public utility easement as shown on the exhibit (Exhibit "A") attached hereto and
entitled "James Barry Echols and Richard G. and Sheila B. Huffman Showing the Proposed
Vacation of a twelve foot (12') Public Utility Easement Situate on Lots 29 & 30, Block 11,
Section 3, Beverly Heights North — P.B. 8, PG. 16, Catawba Magisterial District" prepared
by Parker Design Group, Inc. dated 4 May 2015; and
Page 1 of 3
WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of this public
utility easements, and this vacation will not involve any cost to the County, and the affected
County departments and public utilities have raised no objection; and
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, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance.
A first reading of this ordinance was held on June 9, 2015, and a second reading and
public hearing of this ordinance was held on June 23, 2015.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the subject real estate, a twelve foot (12') wide public utility easement, which was
dedicated by plat of Beverly Heights North (Plat Book 8, Page 16) is hereby declared to be
surplus and the nature of the interests in real estate renders it unavailable for other public
use.
3. That the subject real estate, a twelve foot (12") wide public utility easement,
located along the side property lines of Lots 29 and 30, which was dedicated by plat of
Beverly Heights North (Plat Book 8, Page 16) be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to
Section 15.2-2270 of the Code of Virginia 1950, 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.
Page 2 of 3
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.
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 15.2-2270 of the Code of
Virginia (1950, as amended).
Page 3 of 3
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: June 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Roanoke, Virginia providing for the Economic Development
Authority of the County of Roanoke, Virginia to issue Lease
Revenue Refunding Bonds to Refund Outstanding Lease
Revenue Bonds (Public Facility Projects), Series 2008
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This ordinance authorizes the County of Roanoke to refund previously issued 2008
revenue bonds and provide for annual debt service savings. The ordinance provides that
the bonds shall result in net debt service savings as a percentage of the principal amount
of the refunded bonds of at least 3% on a present value basis.
On May 12, 2015, staff reviewed at work session with the Board several options for
refunding the 2008 Lease Revenue Bonds. The Board indicated a preference for
refunding via lease revenue bonds, the same instrument used for the initial debt issuance.
The Board requested staff to explore using the savings generated from a refunding of the
2008 bonds to accelerate retirement of the outstanding 2008 debt. This report goes into
extensive analysis regarding this request as well as provides three additional options the
Board may wish to consider for utilizing savings realized through the bond refunding.
Page 1 of 5
These include:
• Deferred Savings -an option to delay the savings until the last year of maturity
• Level Savings- an option that provide savings that are of an equal amount annually
• Accelerated Savings Option -an option to take the savings upfront over several years
Staff recommends structuring the 2008 Lease Revenue Refunding with accelerated
savings that will provide approximately $1.4 million upfront over several years and allow for
the payoff of outstanding debt obligations in 2016-2021.
Background:
On March 27, 2008 bonds in the amount of $58.6 million were issued through the
Economic Development Authority to finance the following projects:
o Garage
o South County Library
o Green Ridge Recreational Center
o 800 MHZ Radios
o North County Fire Station
$ 6,525,000 (30 years)
16,495,000 (30 years)
28,220,000 (30 years)
3,870,000 (10 years)
3,485,000 (20 years)
As noted, the terms of the bonds issued in 2008 vary according to the specific purpose for
issue. Approximately $51 million of the $58.6 million bonds issued carried a term of 30
years with interest rates ranging from 3.5% to 5.1 %. The current outstanding principal for
2008 bonds is $48.5 million.
Analysis
The County of Roanoke works with our financial advisors to annually review the County's
outstanding debt to identify potential refunding opportunities. A refunding occurs when the
proceeds of a new debt issue are used to retire previously issued debt. The purposes of a
refunding may include achieving savings through lower interest rates, restructuring
payments to provide budgetary relief, changing the mode or structure of a bond, and/or
changing bond covenants or other contractual terms.
Based on a review of current bond obligations and current market conditions, the staff has
identified an opportunity to refund certain 2008 revenue bonds through a stand-alone
issuance. The refunding will provide the opportunity for debt service savings in excess of
the 3% present value yield standard.
Page 2 of 5
On May 12, 2015, staff reviewed at work session with the Board several options for
refunding the 2008 Lease Revenue Bonds. At the meeting, the Board expressed an
interest in the refunding and asked staff to explore using the savings generated from a
refunding of the 2008 bonds to accelerate retirement of the outstanding 2008 debt. The
Board also indicated a preference for refunding via lease revenue bonds, the same
instrument used for the initial debt issuance.
Staff has explored the request of the Board to apply all savings realized through a
refunding to a reduction in principal of the 2008 bonds as a means to more quickly retire
outstanding debt. In order to accomplish this, a new bond issue would have to occur with
the proceeds of that issue used exclusively to retire the 2008 obligations. The County
would have the ability to designate a shorter period for repayment of any new bonds issued
and consequently reduce long term indebtedness.
Currently debt service for the 2008 bonds continues through fiscal year 2038. A refunding
to shorten the life of the debt can be accomplished. However, the anticipated savings of
the refunding proposed would not alone be sufficient to reduce the term. To reduce the
term, the County would be required to commit proceeds from the refunding plus and an
additional $175,000 in annual debt service payments. The detail of this calculation is
provided in Attachment A.
Alternative Options
Detailed below are three additional scenarios the Board may wish consider for utilizing
savings realized through bond refunding.
1. Deferred Savings Option
A deferred savings option would assume existing debt service requirements are
unchanged but bond pay off occurs one year earlier than scheduled. This method
would generate a total bond life savings of $3,503,355, and present value savings of
$1,729,191.
This approach offers the greatest overall fiscal advantage, and accomplishes the
objective of reducing the term of the bond. However, this approach makes a future
refunding implausible. Because refunding savings are deferred in this arrangement, a
future refunding would essentially negate the benefit of this refunding. Further, the
longer term bonds of the 2008 issuance carry the higher interest rate, making them
particularly attractive for future refunding.
2. Level Savings Option
A level savings option whereby the refunding yields the same amount of money to the
County each year for the remaining life of the bonds, would return approximately
$87,000 per year. This method would generate a total bond life savings of $2,014,272,
or present value savings of $1,409,454. The County could permanently reduce the
Page 3 of 5
level of debt service and funds could be used to address other long term budgetary
needs. This option would not reduce long term indebtedness or shorten the term of the
debt.
3. Accelerated Savings Option
An accelerated savings approach would structure the refunding to return the bulk of the
savings realized within the first several years, of the refunded bond term. Annual
returns in the initial years would range from $112,313 to $662,179. In subsequent
years, annual savings would range from $63 to $4,950. This method would generate a
total bond life savings of $1,462,917, or present value savings of $1,338,925. This
approach would produce budget savings of approximately $1.4 million in the first seven
years after the refinancing. Given the high return in the initial years of the refunding,
funds realized could be used to pay off other outstanding higher interest debt thereby
reducing the County's outstanding long term debt obligations.
Attachment B shows these options in more detail.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The callable bonds refunded total $31.5 million and are projected to yield a present value
savings of 4.25% based on current market conditions.
The accelerated savings approach would provide approximately $1,462,917 million in
refunding proceeds as shown on Attachment B and allow for the payoff of $1.4 million in
outstanding debt obligations in years 2016-2021.
Issuance costs associated with the refunding are estimated at $250,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance authorizing the refunding of the 2008 Lease
Revenue Bonds and structuring the refunding as an accelerated savings to yield savings
that will be used to pay off existing debt.
The outstanding debt of the County and Schools as of May 26, 2015 was $189.9 million.
Of this amount, there are several debts that are callable at any time and can be paid off.
They are as follows:
Page 4 of 5
Issue Holder Interest Rates Final Maturity Outstanding
2011 EDA Lease Revenue Ref Bonds (Rate Reset on 2001A
Bonds) SunTrust 2.63% 4/15/2016 $251,338
Literary Loans (Fort Lewis Elementary, William Byrd H.S.,
Northside High, Cave Spring J.H.)
Capital Lease Obligation (Energy Projects)
DOE 3.00% 9/15/2020 $1,825,775
Capital One 3.99% 9/17/2020 $741,516
Since the Capital Lease Obligation has the highest interest rate, staff recommends using
refunding savings to pay off this debt obligation as first priority. The remaining savings
from the refunding would be applied to the Literary Loans outstanding in the years the
savings are available.
Since the purpose of the refunding would be to utilize proceeds for retirement of other debt
obligations the County would view these funds as part of the County/School Joint capital
funding plan. Refunded savings would not be considered revenue to the County and
consequently refunding proceeds would not be apportioned to the Schools.
Staff will provide an information report after the sale of the bonds. Information contained in
this board report is based on projections from May 2015 and will change based on market
conditions at the time of the bond sale.
The Economic Development Authority approved a resolution forthe 2008 Lease Revenue
Refunding at their meeting on May 20, 2015.
Page 5 of 5
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2015
ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORSOF THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PROVIDING FOR THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA TO ISSUE LEASE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS TO
REFUND OUTSTANDING LEASE REVENUE BONDS (PUBLIC
FACILITY PROJECTS), SERIES 2008
The Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the
"County") has determined that it is advisable (i) to refund all or a portion of the
Economic Development Authority of the County of Roanoke, Virginia's $58,595,000
Lease Revenue Bonds (Public Facility Projects), Series 2008, issued on March 27,
2008 (the "Series 2008 Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain facilities for the
County consisting of the acquisition, construction, furnishing and equipping of various
capital projects including a library, a recreation center, a fire -station, a fleet maintenance
facility and radio equipment and (ii) to obtain financing to refund all or a portion of the
Series 2008 Bonds through lease revenue refunding bonds (the "Bonds") to be issued
by the Economic Development Authority of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the
"Authority"). The Bonds will be payable solely from the revenues derived from the
Financing Lease dated as of March 1, 2008 (the "Financing Lease"), as amended by
the First Amendment to Financing Lease, between the Authority to the County (the
"Amendment to Financing Lease") pursuant to which the County will agree to make
rental payments, subject to annual appropriation, sufficient to pay the principal of and
interest on the outstanding Series 2008 Bonds and the Bonds.
The Bonds will be issued pursuant to the following documents: (i) a First
Supplemental Indenture of Trust between the Authority and U.S. Bank National
Page 1 of 8
Association, as successor trustee (the "Trustee"), with the form of the Bonds attached
thereto, supplementing an Indenture of Trust dated as of March 1, 2008 between the
Authority and the Trustee; (ii) the First Amendment to Lease between the County and
the Authority amending the Lease dated as of March 1, 2008, between the County and
the Authority; (iii) the Amendment to Financing Lease; (iv) a Modification Agreement
among the Authority, the Trustee and certain substitute deed of trust trustees amending
(1) the Leasehold Deed of Trust and Security Agreement dated as of March 1, 2008,
between the Authority and certain deed of trust trustees and (2) the Assignment of
Rents and Leases dated as of March 1, 2008, between the Authority and the Trustee,
both securing the Series 2008 Bonds; (v) a Preliminary Official Statement (the
"Preliminary Official Statement") and an Official Statement (the "Official Statement")
with respect to the issuance and sale of the Bonds; (vi) a Bond Purchase Agreement
(the "Bond Purchase Agreement"), among the County, the Authority and an
underwriter or a group of underwriters selected by the County as described below; and
(vii) an Escrow Agreement between the Authority, the County and the Trustee, as
escrow agent. All of the documents listed above, except the Bonds, the Preliminary
Official Statement and the Official Statement are referred to in this Ordinance as the
"Basic Documents."
The first reading of this ordinance was held on May 26, 2015 and the second
reading of this ordinance was held on June 9, 2015.
Page 2 of 8
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. Issuance of Bonds. The County requests the Authority to issue its Bonds
in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $45,000,000 in one or more series at
one time or from time to time as may be requested by the County's Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator or the Director of Finance (each, an
"Authorized Representative") for the purpose of refunding all or a portion of the Series
2008 Bonds and financing costs of issuing the Bonds. The principal of, premium, if any,
and interest on the Bonds shall be paid from revenues derived from payments made by
the County pursuant to the Financing Lease, as amended by the Amendment to
Financing Lease.
2. Authorization of Basic Documents. The execution and delivery of and the
performance by the County of its obligations under the Basic Documents to which the
County is a party are authorized. The Basic Documents to which the County is a party
shall be in such forms and contain such provisions as the County Administrator or the
Director of Finance, or his or her designee, shall approve, such approval to be
evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Basic Documents to which
the County is a party.
3. Execution of Basic Documents. The Authorized Representatives, or any
of them, are authorized to execute on behalf of the County the Basic Documents to
which the County is a party, and, if required, the County Administrator and the Clerk of
the County Board are authorized and directed to affix or to cause to be affixed the seal
of the County to the Basic Documents and to attest such seal. Such officers or their
Page 3 of 8
designees are authorized to execute and deliver on behalf of the County such
instruments, documents or certificates, and to do and perform such things and acts, as
they shall deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the transactions authorized by
this Ordinance or contemplated by the Basic Documents; and all of the foregoing,
previously done or performed by such officers or agents of the County, are in all
respects approved, ratified and confirmed.
4. Sale of Bonds. The Authorized Representatives are hereby authorized
and directed to (i) select an underwriter or group of underwriters to underwrite (the
"Underwriter") the sale of the Bonds, (ii) consent to the terms of the sale of the Bonds
by the Authority to the Underwriter and (iii) execute and deliver the Bond Purchase
Agreement, provided that (1) the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not
exceed the amount set forth in paragraph 1, (2) the refunding achieves an aggregate
net present value debt service savings of not less than 3% of the refunded principal
amount, (3) the sale price of the Bonds to the Underwriter shall not be less than 98% of
the aggregate principal amount thereof (not taking into account any original issue
discount) and (4) the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than the final fiscal
year in which the Refunded Bonds (as hereinafter defined ) mature. The approval of
such Authorized Representatives shall be evidenced conclusively by the executive and
delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement.
5. Refunded Bonds. The Authorized Representatives are hereby authorized
and directed to select the Series 2008 Bonds to be refunded (the "Refunded Bonds")
and to cause the refunding of the Refunded Bonds pursuant to the terms of the Series
2008 Bonds and the documents securing the Series 2008 Bonds.
Page 4 of 8
6. Disclosure Documents. The Authorized Representatives and such other
officers and agents either Authorized Representative may designate are hereby
authorized and directed to prepare, execute, if required, and deliver an appropriate
Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement or such other offering or disclosure
documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Bonds. The Preliminary
Official Statement, Official Statement or other documents shall be published in such
publications and distributed in such manner, including by electronic distribution, and at
such times as the Authorized Representatives shall determine. The Authorized
Representatives and such other officer or agent either Authorized Representative may
designate, are hereby authorized to deem the Preliminary Official Statement "final" for
purposes of Securities Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12.
7. Costs and Expenses. All costs and expenses in connection with the
undertaking of the refinancing of the County's obligations under the Financing Lease,
the refunding of the Refunded Bonds and the issuance of the Bonds, including the
Authority's fees and expenses and the fees and expenses of bond counsel and counsel
for the Authority, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds, or other legally available
funds of the County. If for any reason the Bonds are not issued, it is understood that all
such expenses shall be paid by the County from its legally available funds and that the
Authority shall have no responsibility therefor.
8. Nature of Obligations. Nothing in this Ordinance, the Bonds or the Basic
Documents shall constitute a debt of the County and the Authority shall not be obligated
to make any payments under the Bonds or the Basic Documents except from payments
made by or on behalf of the County under the Financing Lease, as amended by the
Page 5 of 8
Amendment to Financing Lease. The County Administrator is directed to submit for
each fiscal year a request to the Board of Supervisors for an appropriation to the
Authority for an amount equal to the rental payments coming due under the Financing
Lease, as amended by the Amendment to Financing Lease for the next fiscal year. The
County's obligations to make payments to the Authority pursuant to this Ordinance shall
be subject to and dependent upon annual appropriations being made from time to time
by the Board of Supervisors for such purpose. Nothing in this Ordinance, the Bonds,
the Financing Lease or the Amendment to Financing Lease shall constitute a pledge of
the full faith and credit of the County.
9. Tax Covenants. The Authorized Representatives are hereby authorized
and directed to execute and deliver simultaneously with the issuance of any series of
Bonds the interest on which is intended to be excludable from gross income for federal
income tax purposes a tax certificate or agreement, or both (collectively, the "Tax
Agreement") setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the
Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Tax Code"),
including the provisions of Section 148 of the Tax Code and applicable regulations
relating to "arbitrage bonds." The proceeds from the issuance and sale of any such
series of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in the Tax Agreement
and that the County will comply with the other covenants and representations contained
in it.
10. Further Actions. (a) The Authorized Representatives and such other
officers and agents either Authorized Representative may designate are hereby
Page 6 of 8
authorized and directed to take further action as each deems necessary or appropriate
regarding the issuance, credit enhancement and sale of the Bonds and the refunding of
the Refunded Bonds, including, without limitation, (i) purchasing of one or more credit
enhancements for any series of Bonds if market or other conditions so warrant, (ii)
entering into supply arrangements relating to the investment of the proceeds of any
series of Bonds, (iii) applying for CUSIP identification numbers and the execution and
delivery of replacement bonds in connection with any partial refunding of the Series
2008 Bonds, and (iv) selecting a verification agent and escrow agent in connection with
any series of Bonds.
(b) All actions taken by officers and agents of the County in connection with the
issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. The officers and
agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to take such further actions as
each deems necessary regarding the issuance and sale of any series of Bonds and all
actions taken by such officers and agents in connection with the issuance and sale of
any series of Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed.
11. Exercise of Discretion and Authorizations. Any authorization of an officer
of the County under this Ordinance entitles such officer to exercise his or her discretion
in taking action on behalf of the County, unless expressly provided otherwise. For any
authorization of the Authorized Representatives, it shall be sufficient that either
Authorized Representative act in order to bind the County. The authorizations granted
in this Ordinance to the County Administrator, the Director of Finance or the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors, or any combination of the foregoing, may be carried out by any
Acting or Assistant County Administrator (with respect to authorizations granted to the
Page 7 of 8
County Administrator), Acting or Assistant Director of Finance (with respect to
authorizations granted to the Director of Finance) and any Deputy or Assistant Clerk
(with respect to authorizations granted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors), in the
absence of the primary officer.
12. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
Page 8 of 8
AFF.... L. w....�.i A
Roanoke County EDA
Refunding of 2008 Lease Revenue Bonds
Current 2008 New 2015
Fisal year Existing Debt Reissue Debt Increase/
Ending 6/30 Schedule Schedule (Decrease)
2016
$ 4,032,681 $
4,202,509
$ 169,828
2017
4,044,231
4,213,575
169,344
2018
4,042,231
4,216,325
174,094
2019
3,569,231
3,737,775
168,544
2020
3,567,231
3,740,225
172,994
2021
3,572,031
3,744,175
172,144
2022
3,576,550
3,750,694
174,144
2023
3,575,800
3,749,444
173,644
2024
3,586,050
3,758,694
172,644
2025
3,586,550
3,757,694
171,144
2026
3,587,550
3,766,694
179,144
2027
3,593,800
3,769,944
176,144
2028
3,594,800
3,772,444
177,644
2029
3,320,550
3,493,944
173,394
2030
3,329,550
3,508,194
178,644
2031
3,333,050
3,506,850
173,800
2032
3,331,050
3,509,450
178,400
2033
3,333,550
3,510,200
176,650
2034
3,340,050
3,519,200
179,150
2035
3,346,800
3,522,450
175,650
2036
3,346,375
3,522,775
176,400
2037
3,244,800
-
(3,244,800)
2038
3,244,800
-
(3,244,800)
Total $ 81,099,311 $ 78,273,255 $ (2,826,056)
Attachment B
Roanoke County EDA
Refunding of 2008 Lease Revenue Bonds
Fisal year
Deferred
Level
Accelerated
Ending 6/30
Savings
Savings
Savings
2015
$ 3,300
$ 3,189
$ 2,788
2016
4,474
87,876
662,179
2017
1,313
87,013
112,313
2018
738
88,663
112,313
2019
313
85,388
112,313
2020
4,963
87,188
112,313
2021
4,488
88,288
307,313
2022
938
851113
4,813
2023
4,563
88,363
63
2024
3,563
86,738
688
2025
3,063
85,363
1,563
2026
3,063
89,113
2,688
2027
3,563
87,988
4,063
2028
4,563
87,113
813
2029
1,188
86,488
2,938
2030
813
89,863
3,625
2031
3,006
86,956
2,631
2032
1,200
881300
1,575
2033
700
89,050
700
2034
700
89,800
4,950
2035
1,200
85,675
4,325
2036
4,475
85,075
1,975
2037
175,431
86,331
1,331
2038
3,271,737
89,338
2,644
Total bond life savings
$ 3,503,355
$ 2,014,272
$ 1,462,917
Present Value Savings
$ 1,729,191
$ 1,409,454
$ 1,338,925
ACTION NUMBER
ITEM NUMBER H-1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY. VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution approving the Secondary Roads System Six -Year
Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2016 through 2021, and the
Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal
year 2016
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
David Holladay
Planning Administrator
Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following summarizes the changes made to this year's Secondary Roads Six -Year
Improvement Plan.
Roanoke County received approximately $250,087 in VDOT allocations during this current
fiscal year (fiscal year 2015) for secondary road improvement projects. Roanoke County's
budget for the first fiscal year in the fiscal year 2016-2021 plan is estimated to be $261,572
(an increase of $11,485). Those funds will be divided into two funding categories in the six-
year plan: County -Wide Incidental Improvements and Numbered Projects, which are both
briefly explained below.
Countywide Incidental Improvements ($45,000) includes any operation, usually
constructed within one year, which changes the type, width, length, location, or gradient of
a road, facility, or structure. Funds may also provide for the addition of features not
originally provided for a road, facility or structure. Some of the services included under this
category include subdivision plan review, right-of-way engineering, preliminary engineering
and surveys, traffic services, safety projects, minor drainage improvements, fertilization
and seeding. Another item that has historically been included in this category is the Rural
Page 1 of 2
Addition Program. VDOT is not allocating any funds to the County for the program. The
Rural Addition Program has a balance of $186,126, and will fund the construction of
Harmony Lane, located in the 6500 block of Bent Mountain Road.
Numbered Projects (approximately $217,000) account forthe bulk of Roanoke County's
allocation of funds. Of the seven numbered projects in this year's plan, Cotton Hill Road
and Moncap Trail are scheduled to receive funding this year. Construction is complete on
Colonial Avenue and Catawba Creek Road. Rocky Road is fully funded and under
construction. McVitty Road and Old Cave Spring Road will not receive additional funding
this year, as construction funds from both projects were transferred to Cotton Hill Road.
Moncap Trail will begin receiving unpaved roads funds in fiscal year 2016.
In accordance with Section 33.1-70.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, the Board of
Supervisors is required to conduct a public hearing on the Secondary Roads System Six -
Year Improvement Plan to receive public comments.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the resolution approving the Secondary Roads System Six -Year Improvement
Plan for fiscal years 2016-2021 and the construction priority list and estimated
allocations for fiscal year 2016.
2. Take no action at this time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1.
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 JUNE 9, 2015
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECONDARY SIX-YEAR ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2016 THROUGH 2021 AND
THE CONSTRUCTION PRIORITY LIST AND ESTIMATED
ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
WHEREAS, Sections 33.2-331 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended)
provides the opportunity for Roanoke County to work with the Virginia Department of
Transportation in developing a Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, this Board had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of the
Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement Plan, in accordance with Virginia Department
of Transportation policies and procedures; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing which was duly advertised on the proposed
Secondary Six -Year Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2016-2021 and Construction
Priority List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal year 2016 was held on June 9, 2015, to
receive comments and recommendations on Roanoke County's Secondary Six -Year
Road Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2016-2021 as well as the Construction Priority
List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal year 2016;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does
hereby approve the Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement Plan for Roanoke County
for fiscal years 2016-2021;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does also hereby
approve the Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal year 2016;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be
forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency
Page 1 of 2
Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Roanoke County Secondary Six -
Year Road Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2016-2021 by the Deputy Clerk to the
I=M 0.1
Page 2 of 2
01
6
0
O
Q
Q
Q
-6
m
O
m
`o
.E
E
Q
U
a)
N
a)
af
v
0
a)
rn
m
IL
I
In
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
M_
ER
M
V
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER ER
O
~I
�
�
I
ER
I
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
N
ER
ER
I�
N
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3
V3 V3
o1
LL I
N
_
O 1
N
O
�
O
6%
N
N
O
6%
O
6%
O
6%
O
6%
O
6%
6%
O
ER
O O
6% 6%
01
N
N
�
N
LL
I
1
(O
NER
�
O
N
IQ
N
O
V3
O
V3
O
V3
O
V3
O
V3
O
V3
O
V3
O O
V3 V3
1
co
S_
u)
}
It
6%
N
o
(LI
0
I
O
L
U
o
1
V
O
V>
N0
V>
O
V>
O
V>
O
V>
O
V>
O
V>
O
V>
O O
V> V>
U
—
Q
LQ
L
<
O 1
o
0
EIt
N
� I
70
o
0
(1)
C
C
D
—I
o
m
m
1
0�♦
0
u)
1=
y/
0
V
r
O
6%
N
r
O
6%
O
6%
O
6%
O
6%
O
6%
O
6%
O
6%
O O
6% 6%
C/)0
U)
LQ
LQ
U
uJ
N I
M(�
LL
1
1
(p 1
ON
6%
r
N
O
6%
O
(R
O
(R
O
(R
O
(R
O
(R
O
(R
O O
(R (R
01
6%
N
LL
1
1
a)
U)
m
O
m
1
>
`6E
Q
>
p
O
U
Q
N
m
N
i
d
CL
m
m
Ul d
E
a>
(n
m
a)
a)
m
E
E
3
1�
O
-O
a)
p
U
m
`p
p
m
-01
m
v
u,
a
a)
E
'�
a) a)
(D
�
LL 1
U
U)
H
W-
U)
(i
(i
2
m
O
U (i
01
6
0
O
Q
Q
Q
-6
m
O
m
`o
.E
E
Q
U
a)
N
a)
af
v
0
a)
rn
m
IL
T
O N
U m
Y �
E o o
o m 'o
(n 0
fr a
U T ¢
6
0 U m
O
N
0)
IL
Q
LL
Q
�
LL
Q
6
N
a
N
a
¢
N
a
o
N
i
0
a°
N
i
O
3
U
a°
N
i
o
° o
O
l
° o
O
3
`o
Y
¢
E
o
UN
¢
U
>
O
Ul
6I
3
O
O
3
O
'T
N.
3
N
O O
O
O
O
OE
tF O
E
N
O
O
N x
O
O
U
O
O
O0
aQOO
O
N
UOO
O
0
U)
U
aM
U)
m U
U) LL
O
a'
O
m Q U
O
r
W
N
U O
N
O
m E
O
m U
O
O O
O O
O
O
O O
O O O
N
O N
L
N
N
O
N
y
O
N
O
O O
O O
O
O
O O
O O O
N
O N
O
L
LQ
O
�
N
�
N
Q
Z
O
N
fA
fA
O
p
o 0 0
0 0 o
r
o r
o 0 o
in
o in
cc
J
J
O
O
M
M
QO
W
J
¢
o
0
0 0
o
r
o r
o 0 o
m
o m
U
0
W
O
UAk
W
Q
O
O O
O O
O
N
O N
O O O
O
O O
O
N
N
o
N
O
O O
O O
O
N
O N
O O O
O
O O
O
(O
(O
N
N
N
O
�
�
N
m 6
r
n
ci
n
O
o
in N
c
n
v m
in v m
r
� ro
M
fA M
O
r
M
(O M
M r
(O (O N
N r
r
0
OD
M N
p
G
N
N
r
N WW
M N N
m
r (O
O
N (O
(O O
G
>
r
r
w
(O (O
N
V
N (OV
fAOD
C'!
fA
UL
,(0
UL O
fA
fA
fA(6
L6fA
a
LL
w
co
O
O
N O
(O
O
r
I�
N r
N N N
N
N
I� V
O
EA
O
W r
(O
I�
N (O
O
V
O
O
W
(O O
OV
O M
V �_
O
M
O
0
N
V M
N
V
V
0
O N
O
N r
O
N w
N
O
O
O N W
N M O
0
m
m
N
O N
O N O
UN
N
O
co
ON
(O
M W
O
NO
co
m V
O
N
Q
N
N�
fA fA
fA N
N
fA
fA
fA fA
N
N
fA fA
N
fA
fA
fA
fA N
E
p
N
0
�
E
¢
v
N
W
W
Z m
W
Z
m
W
Z m
W
Z m
W
Z m
o
z
z
o
O
OF
N
O
m
LL
050
O O
m
U
U j
F
7
U
m
W
F
U x
F
x
U
m
W
W
x>
(n 0
0
Ir
0
tr 0
0
0
x U
F, F
Ir p
0 0
w
F
p
�
U Z
p x
U w m rn
=
O
7
Z
Z x
x
Y
¢ tr Y
Ir �
Z C7 co
v
¢z
Z
O
F
0
F
O>>
F
W
O m w
F
0
00
F
w
I
OU
OU
w
� w
F
Q� w w
0
0
D
Q
Q
w
w
U
CO- w U
Q
O
ir m Y
E
O
O
m
Ir F
O w
J
W
W
x
O
W
W
¢
p ¢>¢
Q
W
W U O O
Q Y
Z
tIr
O
O J
¢
z
O O
J
Z
M
J_
2
J_
2
M
W W
N
N a' a'
I o
b
Y
o
��
F
o
F
O
o
m
o O/
F
o
a J O O
O
N a'
O N
U
7
N
O
O
O O
F 0
a' a
D LL
F J
O
O
F 0
a' (n a'
O (O
a' O O
O
U
F
O a'
O O (O
O a' O
O
U
O
F O
a' O
r
O O
¢
U
F a' ¢
O a' m U
N
O O O
U
F F N
a' 4S' Z Z O
W
W
W
W
F
Ir
F
Z Z
O (D
F
Z Z
O (cD�
F
Z Z
O (cD�
F Z Z
O (cD
0ZJ
¢
¢T
¢T
¢f¢
Ir
I
F LU
iO
o
w
op
O
op
O
op
Oo
O
O
Z O
U
Z O
Z�
Oa
0
N
E O
O
U)
ONW
O
aO
O
a
Z
O O
W
Z
O O
N
Z
a tr O 0
Or¢FN
O
O
¢
U¢ 0
W
¢
¢ 0
¢
¢ 0
m
¢ ¢O0
Oa
T
T
¢
O¢
O
¢WW
O
¢WW
O
¢ a
WW
¢'LU
OO
aU
F
F
0n
a
n
n
nx o¢
O
N
0)
IL
0)
(U
IL
T
T
T
T
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
M
pn
W
Q U
�WZ
JZW
U
a
a
a
a
U)
Zx
¢
¢
¢
¢
UOIr
U) LU
WUiQ
0
3N
0
3
0
3
0
3
O»
w
CiQ7
_
F--
UU
O
O
O
O
0 W
Q
LU Ir D Ir
>YU
3
3
O
U¢ F¢3
Ir trQ
U0
U
>¢>
O
.
O
O
O
O
LLOWOE
E
O
p
Up
OO
p0-
0 ¢ U W Up
F
U
x O
U
p
LL
O
M
N
Ir
�O
NN
LL
N
r
7NW
LL' CO
O
6
U
LLW LL WpN
(O
F U 0 0
N
N
O
O
r
O
W
c
N
O
V
M
N
�
m
O
U
O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
O
fA
fA fA
N
fA N
fA
fA fA
fA
fA fA
00
fA 00
N
N
N
N
N
U
Z
O
N
O
U
o 0 o
m
o m
o 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0
O
f»
f» f»
f»
f»
f» f»
f»
f» f»
oo
f» o0
J
�
J
LL'
¢
O
N
W
¢
o
o
a
o v
o
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
U)
LL
m m
o
0
W
U
O
W
p
o
0 o
v
o v
o
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
N
O
O O
O
O
O O
O
O O
O
O O
fA
fA fA
V
d3 V
fA
fA fA
fA
fA fA
O
O
fA O
O
N
of
H
of
H
o
N
N �
O
N
r
a
N
�
Ul
c
-
0
�
a
s
�
�»
ro
n
uODi
m
ro
ro
n n
a
LL
U-
a
LL
a
ti
s
CO
co
0
N
V
O w
O
O
O O
m O
r O
O O
O O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
EA
O O
O O
W
M M
O O
O O
EA
EA
O O
O O
N
O m
O
O O
06
O
O O
O O
NO
O
N
N
M
O N
O OD
N
EA
O
N
p
N
EA
W N
V N
N N
N N
N N
N N
U
N
EA
EA
N N
O
EA fA
N
EA fA
O
EA fA
EA fA
E9 (p
O
E
E
p
N
N
W
W
m
W
m
W
m
W
m
W
m
a�
0
�
a�
0
�
a�
0
�
a�
0
�
a
g
0
o
x
05
U
a
a
Z
Z
O
U
U
Q
¢
W
u
O
Z Z
U Z Z
LL' Ir
F Co
N
NU)
LL' Z ¢
F O O
4
0
Lu N
Z
6IN
F
¢ z z
LL z z
Z
J
Z U
F c�Oo
zz�
¢
F^
O O
D
¢ O O
Ir
Ir
O>
U Ir
>
O W
J
OFQ
U¢ W
N
'-
�
� F F
¢ ¢
F F
¢ ¢
LL
W F Y
� F
¢
W LU U
W
F
E
N N
O J
O �
W U U
W U U
�wy
�W�
Q
Cl
QU O O
QU O O
E
xt
W
>
rn
O
0 Utr
Z O
LL
m
O
N
U 7
F
0
O
E
3 Q
3 Q
0 r 0 r
W 0 r 0 r
Z
fl-
L
¢
(m0
(O ¢-
Z J
x LL
¢¢
0 W
LL
D
S
N
(O O
N U
N U
M
p
0
F- Q F Q F
r
O
F U Q F Q F
O
p
U
o
Q
F O
U
Z
o
W
LL Q F
o
E
o
E
E
o
z� O z O z
o
z 5 Oz Oz
O
N
O N
Q
N
�°
W¢
7 F
W 7
Q
N
�O
W Q
E
0
7 Q Z Z
OU Q OU OU
p
Z ED ED
OU OU OU
O
a' Q
? o
a' U x a'
W O
ii
a'
c� U
"? U o
> >
u > >
W
U
O C7
Q
U
> W
IrF
F
F
Z
Q Q
= Z
Z
Q
LL
dO
O
Q CD
U W
O
O
O
m
O Ir OryW
M
U
M ONd
Wrn
0o
WE
O
�2n
o
0
m
o
mwwo
o
a
'O
¢F
o
FOd
o
¢wM
¢ F
F d
Ir
ULL W
z
0 Ir
z
UO rn
rnfrLL
U
0)
(U
IL
L
0
C�
C
a
0
a
z
O_
F-
F -
U) rN
z
0
CU
C
LW
r
N
N�N
I.f.
a
0
z
0
U
W
N
V
O
N
0)
IL
OZ
m
w aIr
T
¢ W
F
U
0 U
m
OFLL
�C7F
ON,
U
Oj¢
W Co
¢ W
N
w
tr m Z
F}
U Z
-o
N
W
N
D
Z U U
~ 0( j
¢
05 0
¢W
<O
O
m
W U U
a'
Z O¢¢
3
Y
Z
O
Z
O
j
T
O
T
Q
Z U O
U
O
y
tk
U W¢
0
Nw0
TSW W�
2
U
N
¢ E
N Z U Y
O
N F W
d
O > O D
0
= o
�
z w
�
W Z
6I U) a d
0
F
U
LL U
O
CL
>o
W F>
O LL
LL O
O
I 7¢¢
fr
O
N
ro
o
n
ro
a
U
o
O
ai
O
r
N
o
N
m
E
�
O
CO
U
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
N
O
N
O
N
O
O O
O
O O
O O O
O
O O
O
d)
U
Z
O
N
O
U
o 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
J
�
J
QO
W
¢
O
O
O
O O
O O O
O
O O
U
LL
W
U
o
W
p
O
O O
O
O O
O O O
O
O O
0
N
O
O O
O
O O
O O O
O
O O
O
00
fA 00
fA
fA fA
fA fA fA
fA
fA fA
N
N
�
N
�
O
N
N
O
S
N
N
-6
LL
N
ro
o m
in
o in
r o r
m
o'
3
S
O
�
a
LL
LL
a`
LL
a
ti
s
�
o
O
O
O O
O O
O O
O
O O O
o
m
e�
e�
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
co
O m
co at
O O
O O
O O
N
V
U
N N
EA fA
N N
EA fA
N N
EA fA
N N
EA fA
N
6
N
6
O
O
O
NN
O
6
E
p
M
N
W
W
Z m
W
Z m
W
Z m
W
Z m
Z
O
>
¢
J
Z
W Z Z
N Z Z
LL Z Z
Z U U
J U U
U U
U
Z Z
F Z Z
= Z Z
C7 O O
Ir O O
U O O
O
�
W U U
W U U
W U U
o
o
O O
WUiUi
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. 1.1-4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
June 9, 2015
Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards
Deborah C. Jacks
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by District):
The following one-year term expired on August 31, 2012:
a) Becky Walter, representing the Hollins Magisterial District; Ms. Walter has
served three consecutive terms and therefore cannot be reappointed.
The following one-year terms expired on August 31, 2014:
a) Jason B. Moretz, representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; Mr.
Moretz is eligible for reappointment
2. Clean Valley Counsel (At Large)
Adam Cohen has resigned his appointment to the Clean Valley Counsel. His three-
year term expires June 30, 2015.
3. Economic Development Authority (appointed by District)
The following four-year term expired on September 26, 2014:
a) Paul Henkel, representing the Hollins Magisterial District; Mr. Henkel is
eligible for reappointment
Page 1 of 2
4. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District)
The following three-year terms will expire on June 30, 2015:
a) Atul Patel, representing the Windsor Hills Magisterial District has resigned his
appointment effective August 27, 2014.
b) Max Beyer, representing the Hollins Magisterial District; Mr. Beyer is eligible
for reappointment.
c) Larry Peterson, representing the Catawba Magisterial District; Mr. Peterson
is eligible for reappointment.
d) Donna Wooldridge, representing the Catawba Magisterial District; Ms.
Wooldridge is eligible for reappointment.
e) Richard W. Tomlinson, representing the Vinton Magisterial District; Mr.
Tomlinson is eligible for reappointment.
Page 2 of 2
J
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2015
RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET
FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE
DESIGNATED AS ITEM J- 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 June 9, 2015,
designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as
to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4 inclusive, as
follows..
1. Approval of minutes — May 12, 2015
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County to Linda Bolen, Records Technician II, upon her retirement after more
than thirty-three (33) years of service
3. Request to approve the Fiscal Agent Agreement with the Regional Center for
Animal Control and Protection
4. Confirmation of appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals (appointed by
District)
Page 1 of 1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. J-2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to Linda Bolen, Records
Technician II, upon her retirement after more than thirty-three
(33) years of service
SUBMITTED BY: Deborah C. Jacks
Deputy Clerk to the Board
APPROVED BY: Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Ms. Linda Bolen, Records Technician II, retired on June 1, 2015, after more than thirty-
three years and six (6) months of service with the Roanoke County Police Department.
Ms. Bolen is unable to attend the meeting and her resolution and quilt will be mailed to her
home.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution.
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, JUNE 9, 2015
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO LINDA BOLEN, RECORDS
TECHNICIAN II, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN THIRTY-
THREE (33) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Linda Bolen was employed by Roanoke County on November 23, 1981
and has served as Data Entry Operator, Police Records Clerk, Records Technician I and
Records Technician II during her tenure; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Bolen retired on June 1, 2015, after thirty-three (33) years and six
(6) months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Bolen throughout her employment with Roanoke County, has been
instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, throughout Ms. Bolen's careerwith Roanoke County, she was an active
party and witness to the expansion and growth of the Police Department. Ms. Bolen
experienced the transition from Sheriff's Office to Police Department. With the expansion
and progression of the Department, she also experienced the technology changes
throughout the years that greatly affected her duties as a Records Technician. Ms. Bolen
was able to adapt to the changes in technology as well as the increase in the number of
officers. Ms. Bolen was widely respected by her co-workers in the Records Unit as well as
by officers and supervisors of the Department. Ms. Bolen, while maintaining a high level of
professionalism and job knowledge, was always quick witted and humorous in her
interactions. This attitude made her easily approachable for all Department personnel.
Ms. Bolen's personality, attitude, job knowledge and never ceasing smile will be missed in
Page 1 of 2
the Roanoke County Police Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke
County to LINDA BOLEN for more than thirty-three (33) years of capable, loyal and
dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and
productive retirement.
2
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. J-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
June 9, 2015
Request to approve the Fiscal Agent Agreement with the
Regional Center for Animal Control and Protection
Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The County of Roanoke currently serves as fiscal agent for Regional Center for Animal
Control and Protection (RCACP). This arrangement will expire June 30, 2015.
The attached fiscal agent agreement outlines the services provided by Roanoke County
and renews the contract. The agreement assumes no increase in fiscal agent fees for
2015-2016. A three percent (3%) increase in fees yielding $51,912 for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2017, is assumed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The RCACP will pay the County of Roanoke $50,400 in fiscal year 2015-2016 to provide
fiscal agent services. This cost was included in the RCACP's approved 2015-2016 fiscal
year budget, although fiscal agent fees will increase to $51,912 for fiscal year 2016-2017
The revenue of the fiscal agent fees was included in the County appropriation ordinance
approved by the Board on May 26, 2015.
Page 1 of 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached fiscal agent agreement with the Regional
Center for Animal Control and Protection, and authorization of the County Administrator to
sign the agreement.
Page 2 of 2
Fiscal Agent Agreement
Between
The County of Roanoke,
And
The Regional Center for Animal Care and Protection
This agreement is made the 9t" day of June, 2015, by and between the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County ("County"), a political subdivision and county of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and The Regional Center for Animal Care and Protection,
an intergovernmental agreement between the County of Roanoke, City of Roanoke,
Town of Vinton, and Botetourt County.
RECITALS
1. The Regional Center for Animal Care and Protection (Regional Pound) was
created by an intergovernmental agreement dated December 11, 2012 between the
charter members of the City of Roanoke, County of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, and
Botetourt County pursuant to code section 3.26546 of the Code of Virginia which requires
the governing body of each county, town, or city to maintain or cause a "pound" to be
maintained and allows one or more local governing bodies to operate a single "pound" in
conjunction with one another.
2. Section 3.2 of the intergovernmental agreement designates the County of
Roanoke to be the fiscal agent until otherwise agreed to by a unanimous vote of the
Executive Committee, and the fiscal agent is required to maintain a program account for
the receipt of funds paid by the Participating Localities and fees paid by the general
public, and for payment expenses for the operation, maintenance, repairs, and capital
improvements to the Regional Pound.
AGREEMENT
The County is hereby authorized to serve as Fiscal Agent for the Regional Pound as
set forth herein. As such, the Regional Pound and the County agree to the provisions
outlined below:
1. Maintenance of Books. The County will establish a separate fund(s) on the
County financial system to maintain the financial records of the Regional Pound.
2. Pooled Cash. As part of the overall pooled cash concept that is used by the
County, the cash of the Regional Pound will be accounted for separately but may be
pooled with the cash of the County and other agencies that the County serves as fiscal
agent. As such, the Treasurer of the County is authorized to make investments for the
pooled cash in accordance with applicable law, including, without limitation, the
Investment of Public Funds Act, 2.2-4500 et seq., Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
1
and the Virginia Security for Public Deposits Act, 2.2-4400 et seq., Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended .
3. Negative Cash. As a participant in the pooled cash concept of the County, the
Regional Pound may have a negative cash balance from time to time. The Regional
Pound agrees to minimize the negative cash to the extent possible. The cash balance
must be positive at the end of the fiscal year.
4. Interest Income. At the end of each month, the County allocates interest income
earned during that month to all of the funds based upon the percentage participation on
the pooled cash. If the net interest income is negative at the end of a month, then
negative interest will be allocated to the fund.
5. Loss on Investments. In the unlikely event that the County pooled cash has a
loss on an investment through default, market decline, or other reason except for
negligence, theft, or legal violations by the County and/or its agents, the Regional Pound
will share in the loss using the methodology described in paragraph 4.
6. Revenues. All revenues of the Regional Pound will be deposited with the County
Treasurer.
7. Payment of Vendors. The County will make vendor payments for the Regional
Pound. These payments will be made in a manner consistent with County procedures.
These payments will be combined into the normal County vendor payment process, and
as such the check stock used will be the County of Roanoke, and will be signed
electronically with the signatures that appear on County checks. Reference to the
Regional Pound may be made on the description line of the check.
8. Payment of Payroll. The County will process the payroll for the Regional Pound.
These payments will be made in a manner consistent with County procedures and follow
the County payroll cycle.
9. Processing of Payroll Taxes. The County will file all payroll taxes for the
Regional Pound.
10. Procurement. The County is available for consulting on Procurement activities
as requested by the Regional Pound.
11. Risk Management. The County is available for consulting on insurance
coverage as requested by the Regional Pound. The Regional Pound will be charged
directly for the costs associated with worker's compensation, insurance for property and
equipment, and the cost of health insurance not covered by premiums.
12. Financial Reports. The County will work with the Regional Pound staff and
Executive Committee to provide meaningful financial reports, as needed, for the Regional
Pound on a mutually convenient schedule. This will include monthly and annual financial
reports prepared for the Regional Pound's scheduled Executive meetings.
13. Systems. The County will provide access to the County's Financial System.
14. Audit. The County will assemble a review team that will include staff of the
Regional Pound and the County. This team will procure an audit firm to conduct the
Regional Pound's annual audit. The County will work with the auditors selected to
prepare the audit of the Regional Pound. The Regional Pound will maintain overall
responsibility for the integrity of the Regional Pound's financial records that are provided
to the County and the auditor. The Regional Pound will be charged for the cost of the
audit.
15. Errors and Omissions. It is the responsibility of the Regional Pound to ensure
that all of the Regional Pound's financial information which shall be provided to the
County and\or any audit firm procured by the County on behalf of the Regional Pound is
correct, accurate, and complete.
16. Ownership. All funds and obligations of the Regional Pound are the property of
the Regional Pound. Upon termination of this Agreement, all funds and obligations will
be remitted to the Regional Pound, or its new fiscal agent.
17. Cost. The fiscal agent services outlined above will be provided to the Regional
Pound for a fee of $4,200.00 a month ($50,400.00 annually) for fiscal year ending June
30, 2016 and a fee of $4,326.00 a month ($51,912.00 annually) for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2017. The County has permission to transfer funds from the Regional Pound
funds to the County funds by journal entry to pay for this service.
18. Term. This agreement shall begin on July 1, 2015 and shall terminate on June
30, 2017. Further, either the County or the Regional Pound may terminate at any time
with one year written notice to the other.
In witness whereof, the parties have caused this Fiscal Agent Agreement to be
executed by their authorized officers.
By:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
Its: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
3
Its: COUNTY ATTORNEY
REGIONAL CENTER FOR ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION
in
Its: Chief Executive Officer
Approved as to form:
Its: General COUNSEL
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. J-4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
June 9, 2015
Confirmation of appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals
(appointed by District)
Deborah C. Jacks
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Board of Zoning Appeals (appointed by District):
Supervisor Peters has recommended the reappointment of W. Eric Thomas for an
additional five-year term. This appointment, if approved, will expire June 30, 2020.
Page 1 of 1
GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Amount
Audited balance at June 30, 2014 $ 21,266,557
Addition of 2013-14 operations
532,638
L-1
% of General
Fund Revenue
11.00% *
Balance at June 9, 2015 $ 21,799,195 11.00% **
Note: On December 21, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted a policy to increase the General
Fund Unappropriated Balance incrementally over several years.
* 2013-14 - Goal of 11 % of General Fund Revenues
2013-14 General Fund Revenues
11 % of General Fund Revenues
** 2014-15 - Goal of 11 % of General Fund Revenues
2014-15 General Fund Revenues
11 % of General Fund Revenues
$193,332,334
$21,266,557
$198,174,499
$21,799,195
The Unappropriated Fund Balance of the County is currently maintained at the goal of 11.00%.
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
CAPITAL RESERVES
Minor County Capital Reserve
(Projects not in the CIP, architectural/engineering services, and other one-time expenditures.)
Audited balance at June 30, 2014
Addition of 2013-14 operations
Fire Truck Loan Repayment for 2014-15
July 8, 2014 Appropriation for replacement of Financial System
August 12, 2014 Appropriation for construction of Water Spheroid Water Tower Design
March 24, 2015 Appropriation for the purchase of four automated solid waste vehicles
Balance at June 9, 2015
L-2
Amount
$ 3,407,630
605,096
300,000
(1,500,000)
(200,000)
($1,000,000)
$ 1,612,726
Major County Capital Reserve
(Projects in the CIP, debt payments to expedite projects identified in CIP, and land purchase opportunities.)
Audited balance at June 30, 2014 $ 1,295,364
Addition of 2013-14 operations 1,305,748
Balance at June 9, 2015
Technoloav Caoital Reserve
$ 2,601,112
(Projects identified and prioritized by the Technology Governance Committee and approved by the County Administrator.)
Audited balance at June 30, 2014 $ 121,137
Addition of 2013-14 operations 192,921
Balance at June 9, 2015 $ 314,058
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
L-3
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Balance at June 9, 2015
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
$ 41,464
Amount
From 2014-2015 Original Budget
$ 100,000
Addition from 2013-14 operations
28,231
June 10, 2014
Transfer funds for Special Assistant for Legislative Relations
(33,080)
October 14, 2014
Transfer funds to Hidden Valley High School for repairs to track
(28,231)
May 12, 2015
Transfer funds for the June 9, 2015 Republican Primary Election
$ (18,910)
May 12, 2015
Transfer funds for the Appalachian Power Company negotiations
$ (6,546)
Balance at June 9, 2015
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
$ 41,464
L-4
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
CHANGES IN OUTSTANDING DEBT
Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
Outstanding
Outstanding
June 30, 2014
Additions Deletions
June 9, 2015
General Obligation Bonds
$ 6,150,390
$ - $ 818,154
$ 5,332,236
VPSA School Bonds
92,638,652
19,973,906 8,301,435
104,311,123
State Literary Loans
2,273,592
- 447,817
1,825,775
Lease Revenue Bonds
79,182,582
- 2,213,212
76,969,370
Capital Lease obligation
849,437
- 107,921
741,516
$ 181, 094, 653
$ 19, 973, 906 $ 11, 888, 539
- $ 189,180, 020
Submitted By Rebecca E. Owens
Director of Finance
Approved By Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. N-1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
June 9, 2015
Work session to discuss the Western Virginia Regional
Industrial Facility Authority Site Study Results
Deborah C. Jacks
Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Thomas C. Gates
County Administrator
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
This time has been set aside for Beth Doughty, Executive Director of the Roanoke
Regional Partnership to review with the Board of Supervisors the Western Virginia
Regional Industrial Facility Authority Site Study results.
Page 1 of 1
L
Irm
if
CO3
CO3
W
r..1
CD
om
Z
CD
IME
Ca
W
r
W
COD
W
CO3
CL
LL
U
Ln
DC
Q
N
L
U
a�
o
t
CL
U
M
CL
rl
�
._
u
ca
C6
+-+
U
a_+
U
O
�
O
O
Q
i
O
U
,0
'CL
ro
O
cu
0
Ln
_
Mo
�
Q
C:
�
O
•�
L
-0•—
t�A
—
C
._
CL
LL
U
Ln
DC
Q
N
L
u
CL
a�
o
CL
U
M
CL
rl
�
O
ca
�
U
a_+
O
�
O
u
CL
CTY
z=
34A
W IX
Ck W
Z
0 N
p4
�a
Cl
si
0
4-
rl
Ln
12
z
OX
7m (A
Lu W
Ix LL,
LLI
� Z
0
z
as
E
>
(A
m
O
ul
ul
O
ul
i
m
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
07
ca
m
i
M
N
M
Lr)
LQ LQ
Lr)U
N
O
CL C)
Fowl
om
N
O
O LU
Ln
00��-I
Ln
l�
90
a>--+
O
m
N
a-=+
CA
w
U cr
1■1■1
CC
�,
cn
�
cn
�
cn
�
O
z
O
z
cn
�
O
z
cn
�
}'
°
s
•N
o a�
Q
O
Dim
o
CL
CO3�
O1
W0
C:°
O
O ca
�
�
� N
z
=
_
•�
a--+
C)
o?S
cz$a-J
ca
(6
W
-
O
Ix W
ca >
L61 Z
L7
•�
N
v
O
O
�
o
4
�
N O
N
oQ
i
Q
•N
s
�0 U
}'
U
U
DC
O
=5N
f6
OO
v
O
+�+
O
v
a
0
Jm
cl:�
cl:�
LL
U
>
z=
WWIM
ix W
LU
Z
z
oa
I= CL
cn
0)
O
U
a)
0
m
O
cm
a)
U
A,
0
O
00
I�--
CY)
CO
Ln
CA
LO
O
N
M
(D
u
CO3
(D
a
N
a)
:OmN
O
m
=3
O
M
4-J
C�
N
J
L
a
V
MO4-
O
CD
CD
coo
(1)
W
-0
O
0-
0-
O
N
O
lq-
(D
0
cn
0)
O
U
a)
0
m
O
cm
a)
U
A,
0
O
00
I�--
CY)
CO
Ln
I,%-
`Ln
LO
O
N
M
M
O
(D
N
a)
N
M
L
V
CD
N
N
CY)
lq-
(D
O
CO
V--
CY)
CY)
N
M
N
lq-
14-
Ln
I-
W)
IN
O
CO
lq-
O
M
Lf)
N
qq-
qq-
q
Cfl
a
•-
O
O
C
N
O
L
TUU
o
o
0�
m
(D
a
J
=3�
O
O
C:O
4-
�
O
-
N
C13
O
O
cn
0)
O
U
a)
0
m
O
cm
a)
U
A,
0
O
Z=
7m (A
W W
Ix W
� Z
O�
a�
�a
a
Z
CD
PM
Ca
W
r
W
fA
W
1�
CA
0
no
a
old
Ln
m
Fo
4n
eA
PENw
4 -
cc
2
n
4-
uo
+
a
�
r
CL
vi
as
a
>-
>6,
�
ro
f
Q
ry
F
5
E
E
E
+,
2
cu 4E
_0
Q��y
2
C
�
LU
G
Qj
C
M
C
f
m
m>L
M
LM
m
m
Rr
r
-LAO
m q�
4- LM
4
+.
4w
r-
4-
� r�
v1
9J
yl
41
(U41
vi
Ga
Q
rg 6
vi
41
w
v1
w
yr
0
—
4
LA Ln
aj >+
J Q
Rr ID
n- LL_
M
rL 6d
rg C
CL M ry
m
r
=
Rr
C
Rr
a- z
m
a_
m
a-
R
fl
0000
�
En
m
rn
0
no
a
old
Ln
m
Fo
4n
eA
PENw
4 -
cc
2
n
4-
uo
z=
(WI
ix W W
�Z
z�
oa
I= CL
0
4-
0
0-
u
m
O
00
E
O
4 -
RM
O
.N
E
a-
x
m
2
0
Ln
V
V
C�
C�
MO
MO
O
V
CL
000 -WA%,
L
C�
!OE. -
0
0-
.
N
..
E
=5
z
CA
�-D
W
PM
w
CO3
4a
z=
(D W I
W M
ix W
LU
�e Z
o-
zj=
oa
IXa
E
=5
z
cD
�-D
r,4
w
toN
+_
LA
COD,
W
W
C
Z
CD
PM
N
Q)}'
},
DowOca
O
N
U
C:0
N
00
0
U
I-_
N
.�
O 0)m
0r
-_
lfl r-_ Lli
r -I
Lr)00
N
00 Lfl -tn
-tn
m
r -I
00 qt
C6
4-1
COD,
W
W
C
Z
CD
PM
Q)}'
O
0r
-_
U
00
0
LCL_
C6
4-1
Ln
_0
C:ca
O
O
O
ca
U
lfl
N
ca
Lli
m
N
N
lfl
O
-0
r -I
r -I
-Ln
c6
r -I
N
},
ca
N
O
O
00
C6
U
Lr)
.
ro
al
O
O
ro
_0
Lli
al
00
qt
00
00
ro
m
r -I
r -I
N
N
r -I
r -I
r -I
-tn
-tn
00
r -I
00
r -I
0
'oro
4
o_
U
co
i
Q
a--+
N
N
ca
LU
N
>
=
fu
O
O
Q
_
n
�
bn
O
U
ca
+�
Ln
i
53
53
C:
a)
CL
4
�m
4
Ln
O_
O
Q
0
F- Q
ro
CL
U
_0
U
a_
CA
omPMW
CO3
-jIWp
► --.odd
Tr
i
7::
V
MO
o �
V .�
> N
._
L �
a -J
N V
� V
buO
•� •O
.
Q a
�
z=
o
O
E
Wwl
W
Ix W
MO
LLI
�Z•EZ
oa
LL
�a
V
MO
o �
V .�
> N
._
L �
a -J
N V
� V
buO
•� •O
.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. N-2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBMITTED BY:
June 9, 2015
Work session to discuss Roanoke County's Legislative
Program and preparation for the 2016 session of the Virginia
General Assembly
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Eldon James, Roanoke County's Legislative Liaison, will review the results of the
County's legislative proposals in the 2015 session of the Virginia General Assembly,
and the Legislative Liaison and County Attorney will discuss legislative initiatives for the
2016 session. Based upon the Board's direction, Mr. James and County staff will
attempt to schedule meetings with local legislators to begin discussing these initiatives.
On November 18, 2014, the Board adopted a resolution for its 2015 legislative program.
The County enjoyed mixed success with respect to these legislative initiatives. Set out
below are the topics identified in this resolution.
(1) Oppose the elimination of the authority of local governments to adopt business,
professional and occupation license taxes (BPOL) and Machinery & Tools taxes
(M&T). These local taxes comprise approximately six percent (6%) of Roanoke
County's local tax revenues or $8,000,000 annually.
(2) Support various public highway issues, including:
a. Restoring Secondary Road Funding (VDOT) from the Commonwealth to
localities/counties, so that local governments have a source of funds to
address local road projects (as they did previously).
b. Supporting Commonwealth Transportation Board funding for specific
highway projects: widening 1-81, improvements to S.R. 419, and
improvements to S.R. 220 and/or funding for 1-73.
c. Supporting legislative direction to VDOT to maintain primary roads and
urbanized entry corridors in Metropolitan Planning Organizations to the
same standard required by local ordinances for the cutting of grass and
Page 1 of 3
weeds. This initiative would promote urban development areas for
economic development and growth
(3) Support legislation placing the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS)
under the Administrative Process Act (Sec. 2.2-4000, et seq.) of the Code of
Virginia.
VDSS is not currently subject to the procedural due process protections found in
the Administrative Process Act like other state agencies. This would provide the
County with an opportunity to address changes in rules and regulations
developed by VDSS.
(4) Eliminate the requirement for publishing legal notices in newspapers. Roanoke
County spent over $18,000 in legal notice publication costs last year. Paid
circulation of newspapers is dropping. More citizens are getting their
information from the internet.
(5) Amend Sec. 15.2-901.0 and D of the Code of Virginia to increase the authority
of local governments to impose civil penalties for violations of local ordinances
requiring the removal of trash or cutting of grass and weeds or prohibiting
littering. Currently the civil penalty is limited to $50 for the first violation and
$200 for subsequent violations within a 12 month period.
(6) Workforce Training. State funding — in the form of performance incentives for
the completion of industry recognized credentials — should be invested to lower
the cost of training and instruction for students and enable community colleges
to expand their capacity to meet this vital need of business, industry, and
Virginia's economy. Using a performance-based funding model, community
colleges should receive state funds for each student who successfully
completes training at a community college through noncredit workforce training
and then obtains — through a third -party validation process — an industry
recognized -credential identified regionally as high demand by business and
industry.
(7) Board Member Salaries. Repeal all of the provisions in Article 1.1 of Chapter
15 of Title15.2 relating to salaries of members of local governing bodies, and
require that any salary increase be approved at referendum.
Page 2 of 3
2015 Legislative Issues
The following items have been identified as possible legislative initiatives for the 2015
General Assembly.
(a) The Board continues to be concerned about funding for public highways,
including:
a. Restoring funds for the Revenue Sharing Program, so that local
governments have a source of funds to address local road projects (as
they did previously) in partnership with VDOT. The Commonwealth
Transportation Board has adopted a policy to reduce this funding source
from $185 Million in fiscal year 2016 to $50 Million in fiscal year 2020.
b. Supporting Commonwealth Transportation Board funding for specific
highway projects: widening 1-81, improvements to S.R. 419, and
improvements to S.R. 220 and/or funding for 1-73.
c. Supporting legislative direction to VDOT to maintain primary roads and
urbanized entry corridors in Metropolitan Planning Organizations to the
same standard required by local ordinances for the cutting of grass and
weeds. This initiative would promote urban development areas for
economic development and growth
(b) Funding for replacing WINvote touchscreen voting machines. The State Board
of Elections decertified these voting machines after the 2015 General
Assembly session adjourned. This action compelled Roanoke County to
appropriate $400,000 to replace 136 voting machines. Request State funding
to assist localities in acquiring new, certified voting machines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board discuss its initiatives, key topics and concerns for the
2016 session of the Virginia General Assembly. Mr. James and County staff will begin
discussing these legislative initiatives with members of the Roanoke Valley legislative
delegation in preparation for the 2016 session.
Page 3 of 3