Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/27/2016 - Regular September 27, 2016 405 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of September 2016. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES Before the meeting was called to order a moment of silence was observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman P. Jason Peters,Supervisors George G. Assaid, Al Bedrosian, Martha B. Hooker and Joseph P. McNamara MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Daniel R. O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County Attorney asked if the order of New Business items could be switched for continuity. There were no objections. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation from the Town of Vinton(Town Council of Vinton) September 27, 2016 406 Mayor Grose, Council member Keith Liles, and Town Manager Barry Thompson were in attendance to present the Proclamation to Chairman Peters. Mr. Thompson introduced the Town staff what was in attendance. 2.Proclamation commending the Blue Ridge Conservancy upon its 20th anniversaryRichard L. Caywood, Assistant County ( Administrator; David C. Perry, Executive Director, Blue Ridge Land Conservancy) Mr. Perry was in attendance to receive the Proclamation, which was read into the record by the Chief Deputy Clerk. 3. Proclamation declaring the month of October as Fire Prevention Month in Roanoke County (Stephen G. Simon, Chief of Fire and Rescue) Chief Simon was in attendance to receive the Proclamation, which was read into the record by the Chief Deputy Clerk. Also in attendance were Brian Simmons, Fire Marshall and Scott Jones, Fire Inspector. 4. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to James M. Skinner, Building Maintenance Technician II, upon his retirement after more than eighteen years of service (Rob Light, Director of General Services) Mr. Skinner was in attendance to receive his resolution and quilt. The resolution was read into the minutes by the Chief Deputy Clerk. RESOLUTION 092716-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO JAMES M. SKINNER, BUILDING MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN II, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN EIGHTEEN YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, James M. Skinner was employed by Roanoke County on June 1, 1998; and WHEREAS, Mr. Skinner retired on September 1, 2016, after eighteen years and three months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Skinner served as a Building Maintenance Technician II, during his tenure with Roanoke County and has served with professionalism and dedication in providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and September 27, 2016 407 WHEREAS, during Mr. Skinner’s time serving the citizens of Roanoke County, he provided a critical role in the maintenance of facilities and ensured that citizens and staff have access to safe and efficient buildings. WHEREAS, most notably, Mr. Skinner was the Maintenance Technician responsible for the Public Safety Building since construction. WHEREAS, Mr. Skinner was innovative and cost conscious and was meticulous in his documentation of systems and processes related to his facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of JAMES M. SKINNER Roanoke County to for more than eighteen 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. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters NAYS: None IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing to provide an update to the Board of Supervisors on police activity in Roanoke County (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police) Chief Hall provided a PowerPoint presentation for his briefing. 2. Briefing to provide an update to the Board of Supervisors on the Mountain (Richard L. Caywood, Assistant County Administrator) Mr. Caywood provided a PowerPoint presentation for his briefing. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement between Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke relocating portions of the boundary line between said governmental entities and authorizing certain other actions relating to such boundary line adjustment be taken as provided by law (Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney) Mr. Lubeck outlined the request for the resolution. He noted that the Roanoke City action was approved on September 19, 2016. There was no discussion. September 27, 2016 408 RESOLUTION 092716-2 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROANOKE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ROANOKE RELOCATING PORTIONS OF THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN SAID GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THAT CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS RELATING TO SUCH BOUNDARY LINE BE TAKEN AS PROVIDED BY LAW WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, Chapter 31, Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the governing bodies of Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke wish to petition the Circuit Court for approval to relocate portions of the boundary line between the two jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the relocation the boundary line of such governmental entities in the areas proposed will permit more effective and efficient delivery of municipal services and promote the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke have agreed to the boundary relocation by action of their respective governing bodies. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that: 1. The County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute two agreements between Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke, on forms approved by the County Attorney, establishing a new boundary line at certain points between said jurisdictions as follows: (A) The first agreement (the “Williamson Road Agreement”) proposes a boundary line adjustment as follows: (1) A parcel of real estate owned by CFS-4 III, LLC, and containing 1.0736 acres, being located along Williamson Road, U.S. Route 11 and 220 (being a part of Tax Map #38.14-01-77.00) and currently located in Roanoke County, will be included within the corporate boundary of the City of Roanoke. (2) A parcel of real estate owned by Williamson Road Plaza, LLC, and containing 0.0225 acre, being located along Williamson Road, U.S. Route 11 and 220 (being part of Tax Map #38.14-01-76.00) and currently located in Roanoke County will be included within the corporate boundary of the City of Roanoke. The proposed boundary line adjustment proposed by the proposed Williamson Road Agreement is depicted in a plat entitled “Plat from Records for Roanoke County, Virginia and the City of Roanoke, Virginia, Showing 1.0736 Acres (46,766 Sq. Ft.) and 0.0225 Acre (979 Sq. Ft.) Being Transferred from Roanoke County Corporate Limits to the City of Roanoke Corporate Limits” dated August 4, 2016, and prepared and sealed by Frank B. Caldwell, III on August 16, 2016 (the “Williamson Road Plat”) (Exhibit A). (B) The second agreement (the “Blue Hills Village Drive Agreement”) proposes a boundary line adjustment as follows: (1) A parcel of real estate owned by the National Bank of Blacksburg, and containing 0.7185 acre, being located between Challenger Avenue and Blue Hills September 27, 2016 409 Village Drive (Tax Map #050.05-01-26.00) and currently located in Roanoke County will be included within the corporate boundary of the City of Roanoke. (2) A parcel of real estate owned by the National Bank of Blacksburg and containing 0.4904 acre, being located between Challenger Avenue and Blue Hills Village Drive (Tax Map #050.05-01-26.01) and currently located in Roanoke County will be included within the corporate boundary of the City of Roanoke. (3) A public right-of-way containing 0.4070 acre, that is located between the above-mentioned parcels (A) and (B) and currently located in Roanoke County will be included within the corporate boundary of the City of Roanoke. The proposed boundary line adjustment proposed by the proposed Blue Hills Drive Agreement is depicted in a plat entitled “Plat from Records for Roanoke County, Virginia and the City of Roanoke, Virginia, Lot 1 (0.7185 Acre), Common Area (0.4904 Acre), and Public Right of Way (0.4070 Acre) Plat Showing a Resubdivision of Parcel 1C- 2 11.0679 Acres (Instrument No. 200713164 – Rke Co) Showing 1.6159 Acres being Transferred from Roanoke County Corporate Limits to the City of Roanoke Corporate Limits,” dated August 4, 2016 and prepared and sealed by Frank B. Caldwell, III on August 16, 2016. (the "Blue Hills Village Plat")(Exhibit B). 2. The boundary line adjustments set forth above were described in a Notice of Public Hearing (Exhibit C), which was published as required by Section 15.2-3107 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 3. Upon approval of the execution of the agreements between the governing bodies, the County Attorney is authorized to petition the Roanoke County Circuit Court to relocate the boundary line in accordance with the agreements and plats. 4. Upon entry of an order by the Circuit Court establishing the new boundary line, a certified copy of such order will be forwarded to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. 5. The County Administrator and County Attorney are authorized to take, or cause to be taken, such other actions, and to execute other documents as may be required by law to effect the change in the boundary line as set forth herein. 6. The Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to the Clerk to the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters NAYS: None 2. Resolution approving a "Participation Agreement" as allowed under the Amended and Restated Agreement creating the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Authority (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) September 27, 2016 410 Mr. Gates introduced Beth Doughty, Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Partnership and also serves as the Director of the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Authority. Mr. Gates gave a brief history of the WVRIA and provided an overview of the agreement. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he knew nothing about this until about a week ago and we were called into a Friday meeting with two Board members. We did not have a closed session like we normally do. First question, in general, why was this not done in closed session in terms of discussion? Mr. Gates responded that the Board was briefed on the site analysis many months ago and then a discussion was held in Closed Session about the options. The first time was over a year ago. Mr. Bedrosian stated he was in agreement. Mr. Gates stated we did not have a closed session partly because of convenience in order to accommodate people’s schedules sometimes it is difficult to hold closed sessions. Supervisor Bedrosian stated the reason he asked is that he has been on the Board for three years and has never had a meeting like we had on Friday. Mr. Gates responded that often times we will have what we call 2 x 2 meetings of Board Members, just to brief them on issues. This is a fairly common practice and can think of probably several issues that we have done this in the past. Supervisor Bedrosian stated just for the record he does not remember ever having a meeting where there is just two of us, then another two and then another one. He just wanted to understand why we did it that way. To bring up a general point, he thinks cooperation with the different Counties and Cities is a great thing because he finds that we all fight each other and we are all trying to do the same exact thing when we have companies coming in, try to outbid each other, tax incentives, etc. He understands that piece. The reason he is going to vote against this is that he is adamantly opposed to us doing this is he sees the role of government more like a referee in a game and now we are coming these participants. We should be there to make sure that it is an even playing field. People that may want to come in and vest or buy the land, develop it. We have rules, everybody has to follow the same rules, it has to be zoned a certain way. Now we have skirted that and we are buying the land now and we are going to sell it and we are going to develop it the way we want to do it versus a community doing it the way they want to do it. Everyone on the Board has their own views and maybe it has never been like this, maybe he is dreaming. In a prior time governments did not get so involved all the time and the private sector did it. They bought the land and they developed it and they sold it and they made the profit. This is what concerns him and that is why he is very uneasy. It goes against his free market ideal. We are basically taking this property off the market so that someone else could buy it, we are holding it in an Authority, there is no customer yet and we are holding it and using his money, tax payer dollars to buy the property and go into debt. We don’t have the money so we are going into debt. We are speculating. September 27, 2016 411 Mr. Gates advised we do not have an economic development business or other entity that is interested in buying the property immediately. We are, in fact, through the three jurisdictions and the partnership acquiring this property, determining what would be an appropriate use for this gateway site and we will actively market and recruit a business of high quality, high investment to our area for the purpose of economic development. Supervisor Bedrosian stated this is what he disagrees with. He thinks the community should come up with what they want. Mr. Gates stated he would like to remind Supervisor Bedrosian that we will engage the community in the discussion. We will ask them what it is they would like to see there. We will have those conversations with the community and the neighborhoods close to that site in particular because it is important that they do in fact weigh in. In fact, our land use processes provide for that. This is not exactly the case that we, as the partners of this agreement, would dictate what happens here. It will be a community engaged process. All of this is oriented to our collective desire to economically grow our region. Supervisor Bedrosian stated a lot of the time when someone has a piece of property and want to build something, they go to the Planning Commission and get approval and then it comes to the Board for final approval; they are private citizens, private entrepreneurs, etc. When we take the piece of property, the government owns it, do we get any leniency. For example, if you want to put something there and it is not zoned for that, since we own it, does it make it any easier to give ourselves all those approvals than if it were a private citizen. Mr. Gates responded in this particular case, there is some complications to this issue. In this case, the Western Virginia Regional Facilities Authority will be the owner of the property and therefore the applicant for potential land use changes. They will be the ones asking for what the land use change will be. Functionally, it will of course be influenced by the three partnership jurisdictions and be a matter of course because the property is located with in Roanoke County, the Planning Commission and the Board will make determinations as to what kind of land use language will be on the site. So, we have a history of abiding by our own rules; we will continue to do that in this process. Supervisor Hooker stated she thought she heard over 200,000 sites were reviewed in this process for a site selection. Ms. Doughty advised they started with about 200,000 went down to 165,000 that actually got more serious consideration. When you look at 200,000 parcels that means this was for example was five different parcels. Each one of those was not a minimum of 100 acres. Supervisor Hooker then asked so this came back in what place from the overall site selection with Ms. Doughty responding it was the number one choice. Supervisor Hooker then stated to Ms. Doughty’s point regarding the citizens and how important it is to have their involvement, this property was seriously considered several years ago for a trucking terminal and she thinks the neighbors were pretty concerned about that and think we would all agree that is probably not the highest, best use for this type of property. When she was doing a little bit of research on the residential side and she was adding up the R-1 and the AR properties, it looks like potentially that there could be 367 homes developed on that residential property and she is pretty sure September 27, 2016 412 that the citizens are not excited about that prospect either. So, Supervisor Bedrosian to your point, she would say that we are trying to do exactly what the neighbors are concerned about that we feel that this is a process that could deliver a better product for this parcel and we are looking at how to control this gateway that is going to announce to everyone that comes through our area what kind of development we intend; what kind of industries we are looking for. So, it is a high stakes situation and thinks we are up for this game, we are ready to be engaging the citizens and getting their feedback. She has already been talking to quite a few citizens and hearing some of their concerns and for many of them, they understand, they understand the process and they are willing to talk about this just to help mitigate the process. Change is always concerning and she guesses what is to be duly noted is that the likeliness of this staying as it is, is very slight. Change will happen and it would be to our best interest to try to help control that future for the County and for our partners in this prospect. This is about regional cooperation and this is about job creation and she is looking forward to working with our neighbors and working with our partner jurisdictions with Roanoke City and Salem that have agreed to partner with us and we are going to establish quality standards for this parcel and she really believes that it is possible to have a well-designed property that is worthy of this site. Supervisor McNamara congratulated everyone. It is extremely difficult to find a negative in this process, extremely difficult. When he looks at all the sites we have available, generally small and when you have a large site, guess what it is a big site, but it is going to cost about $8 million and we don’t have $8 million. Salem is hurting for sites too. Roanoke City is hurting for sites too. Let’s get together and we can come up with some amount of money so that we can develop this site into a real moneymaker. He would like to congratulate the Chamber, County staff from the perspective of keeping the various governments involved while not letting all the information out of the bag and impacting the acquisition costs. He stated he thinks they did an excellent job with that. When you look at how these sites are ranked, one is suitability but two is return on investment. This is not adding to debt. This is an investment that has a very significant return on investment if things pan out. He thinks it is wonderful opportunity that we have created. We still have a few more weeds to go through to work out access issues a couple little spots to round out the property, but it is a very, very positive thing. He does not want there to be any discussion that the two on two meetings are somehow secret, unusual, which is what he thinks he heard from the gentleman from Hollins that two on two meetings are unusual. It happened on Friday, no one knew anything about it. Just glancing through his calendar, he has been involved in six two on two meetings in a sixty- thth day period (July 29, Fire and Rescue, Supervisor from Cave Spring, August 12, Social nd Services, Supervisor from Catawba, August 22, General Services, Supervisor from st Cave Spring, a meeting with Franklin County on September 1, Supervisor from Vinton, stth September 21, legislative lunch, Supervisor from Vinton, September 28 tomorrow he has a two on two meeting with the Supervisor from Vinton again) He is not counting September 27, 2016 413 thinks like the 419 Visioning effort that had more than two supervisors. Two on Two meetings is how we do business. So, he would encourage you to participate in those. Supervisor Bedrosian responded those meetings are a little different, but it is very rarely that he has been involved when we have all five of us meeting on a topic, but it is broken up into smaller groups. Your meetings are different. On page 24, regarding “The Authority agrees it will not lease, use, sell, encumber, transfer or dispose of any real or personal property comprising part or all of the Project or take any action or perform any function related to the Project or any portion thereof without the unanimous consent of all of the Participants as reflected by action of the Committee. We say we are going to get the citizens involved, but the final say is the Committee or is it the Board of Supervisors? If you are going to build something is it the Industrial Authority’s final say or does is come back to the Board of Supervisors? Mr. Gates deferred the legal response to the County Attorney and for land use matters, Roanoke County controls the land use issues because the site is located in Roanoke County. He stated he thinks the language that Supervisor Bedrosian is referring to is unanimous consent amongst the partners i.e do we accept this particular prospect as a prospect that would develop on that site, which would require a unanimous vote of three partners of the agreement. Supervisor Bedrosian responded so it has nothing to do with the Board of Supervisors; if you find somebody and that is who you want, it would have nothing to do with the people that are elected by the citizens of Roanoke County to say, “We agree.” It is three individuals that are not elected with Mr. Gates responding in the affirmative. County Attorney Kuhnel clarified that those three individuals are acting in their capacity for the Authority. Supervisor Bedrosian stated that is the whole point. If we are going to be taken out of the realm of when a person is going to come to Roanoke County and build on a certain piece of property it goes to the Planning Commission and the Board approves it at the end. We are the final authority. We are elected by the people and they will come in and comment. Now that we have taken it out of our hands and put it into the Authority, the three of them negotiate, it does not come to us as elected officials. Ms. Kuhnel responded he is correct. This has come up with citizens calling in. Your authority as the Board still has the land use control and your process would be just like any other third- party coming in the community and you have full authority over the zoning parts; it is not corroded at all. The prospect and the financing part of the deal would go to the Authority. Supervisor Peters clarified that we have no control over that today. For example, the Chick-fil-A in Hollins. If that property had already been zoned on Rt. 460, Challenger Avenue. They would have gone in and purchased that property and do what they had to do. Zoning the property is where we have our last say. Supervisor Bedrosian inquired if some of the property was still zoned residential. Mr. Gates responded that is correct. September 27, 2016 414 On page 26, should we talk about the money, the initial project debt? He heard that we are not going into debt for this and wanted to clarify if we are not going into debt. It says, the principal amount is not to exceed $10 million in initial project debt. As he reads further down, it says the maximum amount not to exceed $20 million maximum project debt. His questions is so this project is starting off with a $10 million tag that could go to $20 million. Mr. Gates responding that staff is estimating that the cost of the acquisition of the property and some very limited site work will be between $8.5 million and $10 million. The participation agreement addresses what may happen subsequent to acquisition, which may be an additional $10 million for infrastructure improvements. We would hope that $10 million would not be borrowed by the local jurisdictions, but would get participation from the State and others. In the financing agreements and in the ordinance on the agenda item to come, it limits the authorization in of the bonding to $10 million. So anything beyond that initial $10 million would have to come back to all the jurisdictions. The only actual authorization of financing would be the $10 million for acquisition and some very limited site improvements. Ms. Doughty advised that is a total number and Roanoke County’s portion would be 44.2%. Supervisor Bedrosian said up to $10 million. Mr. Gates clarified that today the Board is being asked to authorize the County’s portion of 44.2% of $10 million. Beyond that it would require other action. Supervisor Bedrosian stated we borrowed money with the Broadband Authority, $3.5 million, not on the debt books because it is really the Authority borrowing money. As he reads this, it seems like it is the same way. We don’t count this on the debt ratio because we say that this Authority is borrowing it, even though we have to make the principal and interest payments it is not counting toward debt. Is that correct? Mr. Gates responded in the affirmative stating the financing of this at least at the $10 million level will perform exactly like we did with the Broadband Authority bonds. The Authority would borrow the money, the County would pledge its moral obligation to pay the principal and interest payments for what is borrowed by the Authority. We do record the expense in our financial reports; it is part of our comprehensive annual financial report. It is audited as all other financial transactions of the County, but it does not technically hit against our debt limitations. So, if you will look at the document provided, it will show you what the impacts are against our debt limits and against our debt ratios (our policies) assuming not only our ordinary debt, that debt obligation does count toward our debt obligations of the County but also assuming the debt that has been incurred for Broadband and this project. So, you can see what the impact is. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he was looking at our debt and it has gone down to $167 million, but with have $3.5 million and now $4.5 million off the books. He hates these games. One day we wake up and we keep creating these Authorities that have the ability to borrow money, we make the payments and take it off the books. September 27, 2016 415 Mr. Gates responded that his comment that we take it off the books is not particularly accurate. These are financial transactions that are recorded as part of the County’s financial record. Supervisor Bedrosian responded when he says off the books, he is talking about Roanoke County’s debt ratio. We are taking it off the debt ratio sheet for the County, which he thinks we shouldn’t because we should always know what our debt ratio is. We have limits, but we don’t count. We always say it is insignificant. If it is so insignificant, make it part of it. Let’s know all the obligations. Mr. Gates responded that is the purpose for staff showing you what the implications of this additional debt would be on our debt ratios and our debt limitations and as you can see from the document, obviously we are still well below even with the addition of this debt. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he agrees and stated it should be on there. Next Supervisor Bedrosian commented regarding this building being the collateral with Mr. Gates responding in the affirmative. It is the moral obligation. Unlike the City, who is issuing General Obligation debt to secure their portion of the financing. They put their full faith and credit behind the principal and interest payments that they have to make because we issue a moral obligation, we do not do that and so the bank in this case who is lending the money has asked for collateral, which is a fairly normal request for a bank when borrowing a significant amount of money and we would collateralize an asset that is sufficient to meet their 80% test. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if they would ever take the building. Mr. Gates responded the only way that would happen in the event that the County would default on its debt or loan obligations. Supervisor Bedrosian asked on our portion or the Authority’s with Mr. Gates responding ours. Supervisor Peters inquired how many Authorities is Roanoke County a part of with Mr. Gates responding the Resource Authority, the Water Authority, the Broadband Authority, the Regional Industrial Facilities Authority, and the Roanoke Regional Jail Authority. Supervisor Bedrosian inquired if we had any debt with the others. Mr. Gates responded we have debt in the Regional Jail Authority, Water Authority, Resource Authority, and Broadband Authority. Every one of those Authorities incur some measure of debt for their capital improvements. In one way or another, we are contractually obligated to pay portions of the expense of these operations. Supervisor Peters inquired when these Authorities are created, he has seen that they seem to be much better managed because they have to run more like a business. They have to make sure their money is there, make sure they are able to make their payment. Nothing that has come back on us. He stated he was going to take a little different tone because this Board in January set forth a process called a Strategic Plan. We went out into our communities and talked to as many citizens that would come out and talk with us, many by phone. They said their number one concern was jobs. Our number one concern is economic development to the point that they are asking for help. This is not going to happen on its own. This land is not going to be acquired on its own. We had to step in to make that happen. September 27, 2016 416 First, he commends Mike Altizer for the vision, but he would also would say that we can look at other parts of the State where regional efforts have come together and flourished. We want to be an area that flourishes and that means we have to come together as three localities in this case and can be as much as six to make that happen. So, he feels like we are complying with what our citizens asked us to do. A document that was brought before this Board and was passed. At the end of the day, we want to have a great school system, educate our kids, town centers, activity centers for them to live and play. We need quality jobs and this is an avenue to do that. He thinks it is a great economic driver. It is going to be right there on Interstate 81 corridor. He thinks that there has been a lot of vision put into this. Our efforts to acquire the property, he commends them for that. He thinks it is something we definitely look forward to. Again, our citizens have asked us to do this and they want us to look for opportunities to bring jobs here and to facilitate that. When he thinks the conversation is a little be skewered is that we are not in this long term. We purchased a piece of property to design what we would like for it to look like. We are going to sell this property. We are not going to be holding it for the next 50 years. Is he correct? Mr. Gates responded that is our intention. So, in an area that is growing with Carillion and everything that is going on downtown, VA Tech, he thinks it is a great fit and he is very happy to support. RESOLUTION 092716-3 ADOPTING THE PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WESTERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AUTHORITY, AND THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, THE CITY OF ROANOKE, AND THE CITY OF SALEM WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority (“the Authority”) was created to promote economic development by its member localities under the provisions of Chapter 64 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and WHEREAS, three member localities, being the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke and the City of Salem (the “Participants”), and the Authority desire to enter into a Participation Agreement for the Authority to acquire and develop real property (“Real Property”) located in Roanoke County to be used for an industrial park or other economic development purposes (the “Project”) as an important project for the region to promote the purposes for which the Authority was formed; and WHEREAS, the Participants and the Authority desire to establish the scope of the development of the Project, describing the contributions of the Localities and the Authority toward development of the Project, and providing for the sharing of certain revenue from the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in order to carry out the purposes for which the Authority was formed, the Board of Supervisors approves the Participation Agreement and authorizes the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute and endorse the Participation Agreement in substantially the form presented to this meeting September 27, 2016 417 between the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority and the Localities, named as the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke, and the City of Salem. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, McNamara, Peters NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1.Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia in relation to approving Roanoke County support of financing by the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) Mr. Gates outlined the request for the ordinance; financing agreements. Term is for 20 years, first 5 years interest only, beyond are required. $200,000 in first year and will be brought forward in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and he will bring this back to the Board with the balance of the CIP projects in the capital budget process in January. Obviously, it is our hope that we will not own this property for 20 years, but instead will convey the land to a high-quality business for development to facilitate the marketing of the site, he and his colleagues with the Cities will be asking our Economic Development staff and Economic Development partners to develop a site specific marketing strategy. Once we have clearly identified the appropriate uses for the property and engage the community in that discussion. Supervisor Bedrosian inquired we are only paying interest on the first five years. Is there a reason for that, he guesses that lowers the payments for the first five years with Mr. Gates confirmed. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if there was a penalty for doing that with Mr. Gates responding in the negative. Supervisor Peters advised he had one other comment. Economic Development is something that we keep pushing. He is constantly after his Economic Development Director and pushing for more and more, but at the same time he has to realize two things. He sees Max Beyer here who serves on our Economic Development Authority. Sometimes you have to give them the tools to work with and he thinks this would definitely do that. We know it is the number one ranked site in this area for this kind of activity. Again, he thinks it is a win-win for everybody. He understands the five- year plan because his hope is not to have it in five years. September 27, 2016 418 Supervisor Bedrosian stated the other two things he had were first we brought up the Strategic Plan. One of the things and he brought this up when we did the plan was that he was so concerned about was that it would be used first of all by the citizens who would say we want everything and that we would use it to say it, they wanted it so we have to give it to them. He did not vote for it, in fact, he was not here that day. He would have voted against it just for those reasons. He thinks the people want jobs, but does not think people are saying County go out and put us into more debt, speculate. He just does not see it. He knows people want high paying jobs, but that is the free enterprise system and whole different thing than government going out and buying land, taking the land off the market, holding it and then doing something. The other thing is the CRT. Is that our property with Mr. Gates responding in the affirmative. How long has that property been there? Mr. Gates advised since 1997. How many sites are not occupied? Ms. Jill Loope, Director of Economic Development advised four parcels and 150 acres left. So that is a site that we have had for twenty years and he knows when we had the Broadband discussion, ten years or so it was wired by Cox. Ms. Loope advised both Cox and Verizon are in the Park. So, his comment is that just because you have land does not mean they will come. He would think that is a very strategic piece between Roanoke and Virginia Tech. Mr. Gates responded he feels he could make a very easy distinguish between that site, which is attractive, and we continue to promote and market or any number of reasons and the 581/81 site, which is a gateway site into the region. This is a site that actually communicate what the Roanoke Valley is if the appropriate, high-quality, high-value development occurs on that site. It is a different piece of property. We will continue to market both. To him, it is a little bit apples and oranges to compare the site in Dixie Caverns with the gateway site. Chairman Peters commented, “Let’s be honest.” We have had this discussion over the last three years and he has heard it longer that that from the Planning Commission as well as the lady from Catawba. If this Board wants to authorize $4 to $5 million for site prep, we could probably get another business there. There is a lot of terrain issues there. It is nowhere near site ready. We know that companies are not ready to wait 18 months or longer for us to get a site ready. This is why this site is much more conducive to marketing, not only as a gateway site, but it is a much more developable piece of property. Mr. Gates responded it is true that are additional work needs to be done to the CRT property in order to provide a pad-ready site. The investment we believe is better made at this site. September 27, 2016 419 Supervisor McNamara wanted to comment since they are talking about debt. There is not anyone on this Board that does not agree with the general principle the gentleman from Hollins is purporting. The County needs to be very, very, very cautious with our investments. We need to be cognizant of our total debt loads. This Board is doing that. It is easy to get wrapped around debt spirally out of control because we read about in the National marketplace. He stated he thinks is the $19-20 trillion, national debt and four to five years ago it was $17. We added $3 trillion as a Country. What does that have to do with Roanoke County? Guess what, our debt was $195 million and now it is $167 million. The way he learned math, debt is dropping and dropping pretty precipitously. It is roughly 15% in the last four years or so. You may recall that this Board took a vote and withheld capital financing for two years. So, now we are making a strategic investment. We are not added debt per se. We are making an investment that has a return on investment. A lot of businesses do that. If you want to run it more like a business; that is what businesses do. There are very few people making money in business without putting money in to start. So, he just wants to clarify that there is solid agreement on this Board about being fiscally conservative and watching our debt. Chairman Peters commented we are very cautious on this Board about our debt and our taxes. As we have discussed before, when it comes to taxes everybody wants to lower taxes. You can do that versus raising revenue. He prefers to raise revenue and thinks that he speaks for the majority of the Board. Supervisor Peters’s motion to approve first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for October 11, 2016, was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and approved by the following vote: AYES: Supervisor Assaid, Hooker, McNamara, Peters NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1.Ordinances authorizing the granting of two, public, variable-width, drainage easements by John F. Daugherty, Norma K Goff (Tax Map No. 076.20-05-41) and Barbara R. Hanby (Tax Map No. 076.20-05-40) to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for the purpose of facilitating storm water management in the vicinity of Luwana Drive, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development Services) Mr. Moneir advised there were no changes from the first reading held on September 13, 2016, on either ordinance. There was no discussion. Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this issue. September 27, 2016 420 ORDINANCE 092716-4 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF A NEW PUBLIC VARIABLE-WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY JOHN F. DAUGHERTY AND NORMA K. GOFF TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ON PROPERTY OWNED BY JOHN F. DAUGHERTY AND NORMA K. GOFF (TAX MAP NO. 076.20-05-41) FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Roanoke County has requested that John F. Daugherty and Norma K. Goff (“Owners”) grant the County a new variable-width public drainage easement measuring 498 square feet across Owner’s County property (Tax Map No. 076.20-05-41) said new drainage easement to adjoin an culvert easement currently located on the same parcel; and WHEREAS, the new public variable-width drainage easement will facilitate storm water management along Luwana Drive in the Nottingham Hills development, which is a residential area; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2016, and the second reading and public hearing was held on September 27, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County shall acquire a new variable-width public drainage easement across property belonging to Owners, adjacent to Luwana Drive, more specifically identified on Tax Map No. 076.20-05-41, containing 498 square feet and shown on the attached plat prepared by Caldwell White Associates, dated July 8, 2016, and such conveyance is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrators, either of whom may act, are authorized to execute, deliver and record the deeds, and any other documents on behalf of the County and to take all such further action as any of them may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project. The form of the deed is hereby approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as the County Administrator may approve, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters NAYS: None September 27, 2016 421 ORDINANCE 092716-5 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF A NEW PUBLIC VARIABLE-WIDTH DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY BARBARA R. HANBY TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ON PROPERTY OWNED BY BARBARA R. HANBY (TAX MAP NO. 076.20-05-40) FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Roanoke County has requested that Barbara R. Hanby (“Hanby”) grant the County a new variable-width public drainage easement measuring 242 square feet across Owner’s County property (Tax Map No. 076.20-05-40) said new drainage easement to adjoin an culvert easement currently located on the same parcel; and WHEREAS, the new public variable-width drainage easement will facilitate storm water management along Luwana Drive in the Nottingham Hills development, which is a residential area; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2016, and the second reading and public hearing was held on September 27, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the County shall acquire a new variable-width public drainage easement across property belonging to Hanby, adjacent to Luwana Drive, more specifically identified on Tax Map No. 076.20-05-40, containing 242 square feet and shown on the attached plat prepared by Caldwell White Associates, dated July 7, 2016, and such conveyance is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrators, either of whom may act, are authorized to execute, deliver and record the deeds, and any other documents on behalf of the County and to take all such further action as any of them may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project. The form of the deed is hereby approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as the County Administrator may approve, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters NAYS: None September 27, 2016 422 2. The petition of Roanoke H&R RE, LLLP and Fralin & Waldron Commercial Rental Limited Partnership to rezone approximately 23.01 acres from PTD with conditions, Planned Technology Development, District and R-1, Low Density Residential, District to PTD, Planned Technology Development, District with proffered conditions on property located in the 1300 block of Electric Road and 4000 block of Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. The proposed proffered conditions include conformance to the Concept Plan and Elevation Plan, limiting uses, signage, lighting, and buffers. (WITHDRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) 3. The petition of IYS XXII, L.C. to rezone approximately 8.46 acres from I-1S, Low Intensity Industrial, District with special use permit to C-2, High Intensity Commercial, District for the operation of guidance services and general office, located at 5673 Airport Road, Hollins Magisterial District (POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 092716-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September 27, 2016, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 3 inclusive, as follows: 1. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Steven R. Martin, Deputy Sheriff (Civil Division-Sheriff's Office), upon his retirement after more than 29 years of service 2. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $278,950 from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the design and construction of the Murray Run Stream Restoration Project 3. Request to accept and appropriate three (3) Division of Motor Vehicle Grants in the amount of $127,375 On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: September 27, 2016 423 AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters NAYS: None RESOLUTION 092716-6.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO STEVEN R. MARTIN, DEPUTY SHERIFF, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWENTY-NINE YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Steven R. Martin was employed by Roanoke County on December 13, 1986; and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin retired on September 1, 2016, after twenty-nine years and nine months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin served as a deputy sheriff, during his tenure with Roanoke County and has served with professionalism and dedication in providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Martin’s time serving the citizens of Roanoke County, he did so with exceptional dedication and determination to ensure that he provided the highest level of service possible. Mr. Martin was known for his pleasant nature towards the public as he worked as a bailiff in the Roanoke County General District Court. It was not uncommon for him to purchase Special Olympics candy bars for children entering the courthouse or obtaining a bus pass for a citizen in need of a ride. He was extremely devoted to his family and neighbors alike, frequently completing chores like mowing their lawns or snow blowing their driveways and sidewalks. Mr. Martin had a way to bring a smile to the public’s face with just his everyday pleasant attitude and genuine concern for their well-being. Mr. Martin will be missed by his colleagues and leaves behind a magnificent legacy of well-deserved respect and outstanding service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of STEVE R. MARTIN Roanoke County to for more than twenty-nine 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. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, McNamara, Peters NAYS: None A-092716-6.b A-092716-6.c September 27, 2016 424 IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Peters moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McNamara carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters NAYS: None 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt 3. Proclamation signed by the Chairman declaring October 2 through 8, 2016, as Mental Illness Awareness Week in the County of Roanoke IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Bedrosian invited everyone to an event called the Lifechain, th which is done every first Sunday of October and this year is the 29 annual one at the intersection of Williamson Road and Orange Avenue, just celebrating the gift that God has given us of life; a wonderful thing. Also, he strongly urges everybody in a kind way to tell your local United Way to stop funding Planned Parenthood. Supervisor Peters thanked the employees for all that they do and the School Board as well. School is back in session and they are having a blast from what he hears. He would bring up William Byrd’s record, but won’t do that today. Chairman Peters then recessed the meeting to the South County Library at 6:00 p.m. at 5:11 p.m. At 6:05 p.m., Chairman Peters called the meeting back into session and clarified the date of October 11, 2016, for the second reading of the financing documents. Additionally, the order off the work sessions was reversed. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review the preliminary budget and financial results for fiscal year ending June 30, 2016, for the County of Roanoke (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance; Christopher Bever, Director of Management and Budget) Mr. Bever and Ms. Owens provided a PowerPoint presentation to the Board to review the preliminary results. September 27, 2016 425 Supervisor Peters inquired with regard to the Unappropriated Balance showing a 10.95%, with a target of 11%, why would staff not bring this percentage up to 11%. Ms. Owens responded that can be done. Supervisor McNamara explained the reason is they budgeted upfront instead of after the fact. Mr. Gates, County Administrator, advised that number can be changed. Supervisor McNamara stated he wants to self-fund the life insurance so please take a look at. He thinks there should be significant savings; but will need enabling legislation. He reiterated that he prefers the 11% and noted something will need to be done with CSA. The work session was held from 6:06 pm until 6:50 pm 2. Work session to discuss issues of importance regarding the Regional and Local Behavioral Health System (Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) In attendance for this work session: Diane Kelly, Mental Health America of the Roanoke Valley, Debbie Bonniwell, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare; Marlene Bryant, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare; Mitch Mitchell, Catawba Hospital Mr. O'Donnell gave a brief overview and turned the meeting over to the others, who each spoke concerning their areas of expertise. Mr. O'Donnell gave a brief wrap up reiterating the significant impact on the service provided by Roanoke County due to State changes. He advised staff would stay involved in the State conversation. The work session was held from 6:51 pm until 7:56 pm IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m. • itted by: Approved by: Air•/40/ De•orah C. Fs P. Jason Peters Chief Deputrk to the Board Chairman September 27, 2016 426 PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY