6/8/2021 - Regular - DRAFT
June 8, 2021
373
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the first regularly scheduled meeting
of the month of June 2021. 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 Martha B. Hooker,
Phil C. North and David F. Radford. Supervisor Paul M.
Mahoney attended by electronic means.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck, County
Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and
Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution supporting installation of Locality Identification signs
with accompanying recognition signs for Hidden Valley High
School athletic achievement, located on Brambleton Avenue
(Route 221) and Electric Road (Route 419), Windsor Hills
Magisterial District (Isaac Henry, Transportation Planner)
Mr. Henry outlined the request for resolution. Mr. Henry introduced Mark
Robertson from the Hidden Valley High School Booster Club. There was no discussion.
June 8, 2021
374
RESOLUTION 060821-1 SUPPORTING INSTALLATION OF
LOCALITY INDENTIFICATION SIGNS WITH ACCOMPANYING
RECOGNITION SIGNS FOR HIDDEN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
ATHLETIC ACHIEVEMENT, LOCATED ON BRAMBLETON
AVENUE (ROUTE 221) AND ELECTRIC ROAD (ROUTE 419),
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors supports the installation of
signs in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) right-of-way recognizing Hidden
Valley High School athletic state championships; and
WHEREAS, VDOT permits such signs as accompaniment to Locality Identification
signs at entrances to the County; and
WHEREAS, a VDOT Land Use Permit is required for installation of Locality
Identification signs; and
WHEREAS, the signs must be in accordance with VDOT Land Use Permit Manual
Regulations Guidance Manual; and
WHEREAS, the installation and maintenance is the responsibility of Hidden Valley
Athletic Booster Club; and
WHEREAS, a resolution is required from the Board of Supervisors in support of the
Locality Identification signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests permits for the
following Locality Identification signs, pursuant to Section 24VAC30-151-570, VDOT Land
Use Permit Regulation Guidance Manual:
Sign location: 40’ West of Red Rock Rd SW (City of Roanoke) on Brambleton
Avenue Rte. 221
Sign location: 70’ South of Keagy Road Rte. 685 on Electric Road Rte. 419
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded
to the Salem Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Resolution establishing reasonable charges for costs incurred by
the County in responding to Virginia Freedom of Information Act
requests for public records (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck outlined the request for resolution.
June 8, 2021
375
Supervisor Radford stated he has to get public septic information for his
business and a lot of the localities charge a minimum of $10 for one page. Are we
doing that with our Health Department? Mr. Lubeck stated he does not know what the
Health Department charges, but typically for one page that is not something we would
be charging for. He was just letting everyone know what other localities are doing.
Supervisor Peters asked if that was a FOIA request, with Supervisor
Radford responding in the affirmative. There was no further discussion.
RESOLUTION 060821-2 ESTABLISHING REASONABLE
CHARGES FOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNTY IN
RESPONDING TO VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS
WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guarantees citizens
of the Commonwealth and representatives of the media access to public records held
by public bodies, public officials, and public employees; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3704 of FOIA authorizes a public body to establish
reasonable charges, not to exceed its actual costs incurred, for accessing, duplicating,
supplying or searching for requested records; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 1983, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County adopted Resolution 83-181 which established fees for responding to requests
for documents under FOIA; and
WHEREAS, said Resolution was updated on January 10, 2012, by Resolution
011012-4, but has not been revised or updated since that time; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County intends to update its
resolution regarding FOIA to establish a schedule for recovering its actual costs
incurred in accessing, duplicating, supplying or searching for public records requested
by citizens; and
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows:
1. Resolution 011012-4 is hereby rescinded.
2. The following schedule of reasonable charges for accessing, duplicating,
supplying or searching for public records requested by citizens under the
Freedom of Information Act is hereby established:
a. Generally, when minimum search time is required, there will be no
charge for the viewing only of an official document. When extensive
search time is required to provide the document(s) for viewing, or when
copies of such documents are requested, charges are based on
reimbursement to the County for the cost of searching for and
reproducing such documents. If the charges to search for and
reproduce the documents are expected to exceed $200, the County
may require payment of the estimated costs in advance by the
June 8, 2021
376
requestor. If such advance payment is required, the time allowed for
response stops running until the requestor responds.
b. Charges for costs incurred in copying and printing County records are
as follows:
Copying and printing $0.10 per one-sided black and white page
$0.20 per double-sided black and white page
$0.16 per one-sided color page
$0.32 per double-sided color page
USB flash drive $15 per flash drive
Audio or video CDs $5 per CD
Maps $7 per 24 x 36 inch map
$10 per 36 x 48 inch map
c. In addition to copying and printing costs, the County will charge an
hourly rate for the staff person(s) searching, retrieving, copying or
otherwise preparing the records requested.
d. Roanoke County waives all charges for requests that total $5.00 or
less.
e. For documents or other requests not specifically listed in this section,
the County Administrator shall calculate the charge based on the
actual cost to the County of searching for and providing the document,
including but not limited to any associated labor or administrative
costs.
f. Charges may be paid in cash or by check made payable to the
Treasurer, Roanoke County. A receipt (receipts may be obtained
through the appropriate department or the Treasurer’s Office) will be
provided to the requestor.
3. This resolution is effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution approving the Secondary Six-Year Improvement Plan
for Fiscal Years 2022 through 2027 and the Construction Priority
List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022 (Megan G.
Cronise, Transportation Planning Administrator)
Ms. Cronise outlined the request for resolution.
June 8, 2021
377
Supervisor North asked with regard to the Fallowater extension $4.3
million; how much was Roanoke County dollars. Ms. Cronise responded with 33%.
There was no discussion.
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting from 3:17 p.m. until 3:27 p.m. to
allow for ecomments. There were no comments under this public hearing.
RESOLUTION 060821-3 APPROVING THE SECONDARY ROAD
SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022
THROUGH 2027 AND THE CONSTRUCTION PRIORITY LIST
AND ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022
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 Road Six-Year Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, this Board had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of the
Secondary Road Six-Year 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 Road Six-Year Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2027 and
Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022 was held on
June 8, 2021, to receive comments and recommendations on Roanoke County’s
Secondary Road Six-Year Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2027 as well as the
Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does
hereby approve the Secondary Road Six-Year Improvement Plan for Roanoke County
for Fiscal Years 2022-2027;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does also hereby
approve the Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2022;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be
forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency
Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Roanoke County Secondary
Road Six-Year Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2022-2027 by the Clerk to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
June 8, 2021
378
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Zye and Gaven Reinhardt to obtain a special use
permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District for a special
events facility on approximately 31.32 acres, located at 2875
Timberview Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson provided a brief overview.
Supervisor Hooker indicated she had heard from many citizens by phone,
by text, by email and there are a number of concerns that she would like to discuss.
She noticed on the recommendations for conditions that there is no mention of buses
even though there have been some dialog about the guests being picked up. Why is
that? Are buses enforceable for staff to really regulate or to insure that they will be
used? What is the reasoning? Mr. Thompson advised he would give his interpretation.
A lot of times when you deal with proffers or conditions you are trying to identify a
property and the transportation to the site is not on the property. It is an offsite
condition. In addition to the Planning Commissions two conditions, we recommended
two other conditions for consideration. One, is to limit parking on Timberview Road and
we tried to limit the number of parking spaces on site. The intent is by limiting the
parking on site, you in essence are trying to limit and enforce that shuttle service. The
second condition deals with hours of operation and limiting it to three days a weeks,
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The intent is to limit the number per day and the number
of days as well.
Supervisor Hooker stated at one point there were prior conversations
about 25 versus 40 and the other question is on the site plan, they have a certain
number of parking spaces, but that does not necessarily more people parking there. Is
that correct? Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative, enforcement is a key issue.
So the intent would be that with this use, if it was approved, there are further
developments that need to take place. One would be submittal of a site plan that would
need to be reviewed and prepared by and engineer and it would be reviewed and
approved. On that plan you could show were the parking spaces were. Another way
would be to put the conditions on the site plan. They would also have to building plan
review for the gym and racquetball court. There would be change of use from the
building code. Supervisor Mahoney had submitted an email prior to the previous public
hearing concerning the sprinkling of the building. In Mr. Yates email back to the Board,
he indicated it would have to be sprinkled because of the assembly use of that portion
of the home.
Supervisor Hooker asked if it was redundant to mention that again in your
conditions or does it make it easier as it is clearly stated. Mr. Thompson advised you
could make that condition.
June 8, 2021
379
Peter Lubeck, County Attorney, indicated that he had discussed
Supervisor Hooker and prepared a substitute ordinance in sample motions and the
ordinance is a preliminary recital, but since it is the Code that controls it does not
necessary have to be a condition.
Supervisor Hooker stated when talking about a designated number of
parking spaces on the property, it shows what is on the site plan and what should be
used, but unless there is a complaint, the County would never know. Mr. Thompson
stated we always have the right to go onsite and do inspections if needed, if there is
something going on. Mr. Thompson added that having it as a condition and then
placing it on the site plan gives it a little more credence. If they are in violation of their
special use permit, the Board has the right to come back and remove the special use
permit from the property.
Supervisor Hooker then asked if, under the new bicycling regulations that
allows two (2) bikes to be riding side by side, allowed on Timberview Road. Mr.
Thompson responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Hooker then asked what constitutes a special event. Is any
event a special event? There was some discussion early on about business meetings
and other things. So, if we are talking about the weekends, help her clarify what is
allowed. Mr. Thompson responded the applicants had indicated that the primary use is
a wedding venue. They also want to be able to offer business parties, holiday season.
In a special events facility so that is considered an event. Supervisor Hooker stated so
anytime that it is rented it would be considered a special event and limited to those
hours and times. Mr. Lubeck stated Mr. Thompson is correct. Whenever there is a
leasing it would be an event. If it was a private, family party then none of these
conditions would apply.
Supervisor North asked Mr. Thompson about the search for an alternate
route into the property off Lock Haven. Mr. Thompson provided a map and gave
overview of the alternates. No feedback has been given on these alternates.
Supervisor Peters asked if a special use permit is denied, it cannot come
back for a year, is that correct. Mr. Lubeck responded in the affirmative. If something is
postponed indefinitely, for example, if the Board wanted to postponed until access is
granted on Lock Haven, is that an option of the Board. Mr. Lubeck responded in the
affirmative. If this is still the request of the Board, he would not want to be put into a
position if the petitioner came back three-months from now it would be a year. Mr.
Lubeck responded that if there is a postponement, there could be yet another
postponement. Mr. Thompson advised both rezoning and special use permits that
come before the Board is a year-long process for the Board to take action. With a
rezoning, he thinks if you do not take action it is automatically denied. Mr. Thompson
stated you could make it part of the conditions, i.e. access must be from Lock Haven
Road.
June 8, 2021
380
Supervisor Hooker asked if that is considered an off-site proffer, which Mr.
Thompson responding it probably is. There is some period of time that you have to take
rd
action and thinks it is a year, the February 3 date. Mr. Lubeck stated he agrees with
Mr. Thompson, but if the Board desires to postpone within that time period the Board
could take that action. Supervisor Hooker stated so they would have the remaining time
to see if something else could come available. Mr. Thompson responded affirmatively.
Supervisor Radford stated he went on Timberview today and it is a quaint,
little curvy road. He did see where VDOT had made enhancements or maintenance
with asphalt on the sides to help the shoulders. He is building a house right down the
road on Bradshaw and to him, Bradshaw would be an appropriate type of road that
would accommodate what the Reinharts want to do. It is unfortunate that the road has
us pinned in to limitation. He asked Mr. Thompson if they could do a bed and breakfast,
which they can by right and also a reception. Mr. Thompson responded a lot of times
that would come down to what is the reception, what are the facilities and the intensity
of it and frequency would also pay a role in that. The number of people would pay a
role in that. Supervisor Hooker stated but if it is something that is not regulated and is
by right, how would we ever know. Mr. Thompson said we would know. Also, for
example, with a bed and breakfast there is a maximum of five (5) rooms that you could
rent out. It deals with what is the primary use of the property. It is the intent of what the
primary use of the property.
Supervisor Radford stated that was the purpose of him bringing it up. We
made the change in the ordinance to allow bed and breakfasts because AR is less
intense and now we are going way overboard with the SUP in terms of intensity. You
don’t see 250 people at a bed and breakfast. He does not see anything that is on the
books for that road. We have impacted that road with more recreation in the last five (5)
years.
Mr. Lubeck stated one other point for clarification, he has looked in the
Roanoke County Code and the Board must act within 12 months, however if the
applicant desired additional time beyond 12 months, they could agree in writing. So, if
this was again postponed by the Board to allow the applicant additional time, and you
are coming up on 12 months and want additional time could be agreed to in writing.
Mr. Thompson stated another issue may be whether they own it or not. If it
is coming across another property, readvertising of that property for the special use as
well. Supervisor Hooker reiterated that would become part of the special use as well.
Mr. Thompson stated typically a special events facility is commercial use and therefore
going across another piece of property would need to be considered.
Ms. Hooker stated she wanted to reiterate and mention a couple of things
briefly before she makes a motion. What a beautiful property and she thinks there could
be a lot of good after hearing from many residents and citizens from that area. It is
extremely concerning and she thinks the concerns really focus around the safety of the
citizenry. She does not think it is something that we can ignore. She appreciates
Supervisor Peters alternative and she would like to pursue that.
June 8, 2021
381
Supervisor Hooker motioned to postpone this special use permit for one
year from their submission of a completed application, which would be December and
they have an option to appeal for additional time if there is something in works or need a
little more time and the option to bring it back sooner if they have a solution. The motion
was seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
Supervisor Peters stated he wanted to be clear in his intensions. He
would like to see it move forward and for us to find a way to make it happen because he
thinks business is good in Roanoke County and anything that we can do as a Board to
facility that we need to do. Also, we need to take into account our citizens and the
people that are most impacted by this.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 060821-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM G- 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 8,
2021, designated as Item G - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – April 27, 2021
2. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $96,310.24 from
the Virginia Office of Emergency Medical Services for the "Four-For-Life"
distribution
3. Resolution approving the County Attorney's employment contract
4. Resolution approving the County Administrator's employment contract
5. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Debra R. Hartman, Deputy Chief Treasurer, upon her
retirement after twenty-three (23) years of service
6. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional
Commission (At-Large) and to Visit Virginia’s Blue Ridge
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
June 8, 2021
382
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
A-060821-4.a
RESOLUTION 060821-4.b APPROVING THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
approved and executed an employment agreement with Peter S. Lubeck, for Mr.
Lubeck to serve as the County Attorney; and
WHEREAS, the Board and the County Attorney desire to approve a new
contract; and
WHEREAS, a new employment agreement between the County Attorney and the
Board of Supervisors has been negotiated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That a new employment agreement is hereby approved, and the Chairman of
the Board is hereby authorized to execute this agreement of behalf the Board.
2. This resolution shall take effect effective June 8, 2021.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 060821-4.c APPROVING THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
approved and executed an employment agreement with Daniel R. O’Donnell, for Mr.
O’Donnell to serve as the Roanoke County Administrator; and
WHEREAS, the Board and the County Administrator desire to approve a new
agreement; and
WHEREAS, a new employment agreement between the County Administrator
and the Board of Supervisors has been negotiated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That a new employment agreement is hereby approved, and the Chairman of
the Board is hereby authorized to execute this agreement of behalf the Board.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
June 8, 2021
383
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 060821-4.d EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO DEBRA R. HARTMAN, DEPUTY CHIEF TREASURER, UPON
HER RETIREMENT AFTER TWENTY-THREE (23) YEARS OF
SERVICE
WHEREAS, Debra R. Hartman was employed by Roanoke County on November
10, 1997; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hartman retired on November 1, 2020, after twenty-three (23)
years of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hartman, through 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, Mrs. Hartman began her career as a Treasurer Clerk II with
Roanoke County after first developing her skills serving in many different roles within
the banking industry prior to the financial mergers and acquisitions which occurred
during the early 1990’s; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hartman was appointed as Chief Deputy Treasurer on June 4,
2005, a position which required the application of those developed multi diverse skills
for professional treasury management, and premium customer service for the citizens of
Roanoke County as well as the intergovernmental employee workforce, and
professional collections management; and
WHEREAS, throughout Ms. Hartman’s tenure with Roanoke County, she chose
to advance her education and professionalism by participating in the Master
governmental Deputy Treasurers program with the Treasurers Association of Virginia as
adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in 2004; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hartman achieved, and was awarded her designation as
Master Governmental Deputy Treasurer on November 15, 2008, by the Treasurers’
Association of Virginia in conjunction with the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service
at the University of Virginia, subsequently recertifying on three (3) separate occasions in
2012, 2016 and 2020; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hartman went above and beyond her duties by participating in
several key County and Treasury specific software projects, including Accounts
Receivable conversion from the AS400 to Tyler Munis taxation platform, initialization of
State of Virginia Debt Set-Off data exchange for collection pursuit, and the bankruptcy
integration with the Western District of Virginia Bankruptcy upgrade, which aided in the
June 8, 2021
384
advancement of production efficiencies in Treasury management, collections and
customer service; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hartman was the epitome of an integral and reliable employee
for the County of Roanoke demonstrating the personal empathy and caring for all of our
citizens and employee’s, with personal thoughtfulness in regards to the service
rendered.
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 DEBRA R. HARTMAN for twenty-three (23) 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 Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
A-060821-4.d
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Radford moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisor Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Hooker thanked the Board for trying to be creative in this
situation; it was difficult process for this petition, but thinks is was reasonable. She also
thanked Supervisor North for the invitation to visit the technical center in Harrisonburg
and gets some ideas of how creative Arnold R. Burton in another locality operates and it
was very enlightening and appreciate Supervisor North’s good work. She thinks there
are some things we can take to the School Board and offer as recommendations as an
education for what other people are doing and she would encourage the rest of the
Board if you have the opportunity and time to go look at some other creative ways to
offer this type of education to our students. It was very enlightening. There were some
June 8, 2021
385
profit-making opportunities set inside that educational facility that were really
encouraging and made it seem much more doable financially. Food for thought.
Supervisor North advised he shares some notes that he and Supervisor
Hooker developed with staff and the Board; who knows. David Goode, who was
Chairman of Norfolk Southern from this area from Vinton used to say before he moved
Norfolk Southern to Norfolk, “We have to look beyond the mountains that surround us
here in the Roanoke Valley.” There is a world out there and has different views and
different ways of looking at things and sometimes it is good to recognize what they are
and ask ourselves should we do better or maybe there is something we can share with
the municipality. He attend the Fire Academy graduation #28, where 24 graduates of
firefighters and EMS were bestowed the honor and twelve (12) were from Roanoke
County and he welcomed them to Roanoke County employment. Also, Ms. North and
he volunteered for the IRONMAN event on Saturday, registering over 1,000 runners
from all over the United States and foreign countries. It was a great event and thinks it
will only get better in years to come and he cannot wait to hear what the economic
impact was because he is sure they will be working on that in the next few weeks. A
70.3 mile course, there were people his age signed up to run; there were relay teams
and there was one gentleman that was 81 years old and he was most impressive. Most
of these folks have all done this at one time or another and there were a few folks from
the Hollins District that did it for the first time and completed the race. It was a festive
event, never mind the heat. Also, last Thursday, he listed in on the school commission
on school construction modernization that was authorized by the General Assembly for
their second meeting and they have two (2) meetings to go. He shared some things
that he did not know, but does now. In the 1930’s the Byrd machine decided to
eliminate funding counties in school construction because they favored transportation
and roads. No more funding was provided to localities for school construction until the
1950’s when there was a grant provided by the State legislature and there was an
explosion of school construction in the early 1950’s. Many elementary schools and
other schools were constructed. Since that time, the standards of quality came along
and they don’t include any capital support, but they do provide for utilities, insurance
and maintenance. There today exists in the Commonwealth of Virginia $7.6 billion of
debt for all the counties and cities of the Commonwealth. With the current construction
costs escalating, there is going to have to be some attention to State funding, just like
Community Colleges and State Colleges get today. All of our legislators in this area
supported the Senate bill to form this commission to study and they asked for at this
meeting, the top projects for each schools division all over the State with a report out in
September. They also asked how are other states addressing this, which he thought
was a great question. We will find out some news on that. They even suggested
something that he was surprised, incentivizing joint schools operations and building
across boundaries. Something that he was surprised to see. There is $95 million in the
American Relief Plan that can be used for facility improvements and repairs to support
public health, but you have to have prior approval from the State to move forward and it
June 8, 2021
386
must be clearly COVID related. What he is saying is that the American Relief Plan does
not really provide any true dollars for capital expansion. The bottom line is when this
committee comes out with its report in November, early December, it will recommend a
line item to budget consideration and inclusion in the January biennium under whoever
the new Governor and legislature is. He will provide more on this as he moves along,
but there is a lot of dialog and discussion taking place with General Assembly
commission numbers.
Supervisor Radford stated he wanted to add a little bit more regarding the
IRONMAN event. He too was a volunteer this past weekend and his volunteer position
took him out on the waters of Carvins Cove with Mr. Dan O’Donnell at 3:30 am. We got
to see the sun rise. Talking about an event that will galvanize a community and bring it
together, this was it. This was a homerun and cannot wait; we have a contract for two-
more years and if it continues to have the attendance, we will probably renew it. It was
absolutely fantastic, 1,500 volunteers. They told us that there were 1,600 swimmers
that came out and if you want to see swimmers coming at you at a lake, a reservoir, at
6:40 am, it is absolutely breathtaking. Just the competition to be around that is
exhilarating to see all those athletes putting their all into it and they really appreciate
how well it was put together. Another one of the directors, sent an email out to all the
volunteers saying that a lot of the athletes said they could not tell this was our first time
doing a triathlon because all the volunteers were so welcoming and kind and
considerate. He too looks to this being a great asset to the community and also ages
with Supervisor North, he cannot wait to hear the economic impact that this is going to
have. They were here two-three (2 to 3) days, hotels, motels, shopping, restaurants.
They got to see the area and who knows, they might move here permanently.
Supervisor Peters congratuled everyone who completed the IRONMAN;
and he thinks we all heard that Supervisor North is going to do it next year. We are
excited about that. We will be there cheering him on. Thank you to the volunteers, he
has heard nothing but good things about the event and everything that took place
throughout the valley. There were a lot of people that were very skeptical about the
traffic and how that would work, but from what he could tell, it worked very well.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss the Economic Development Strategic
Plan with the Board of Supervisors (Jill Loope, Director of
Economic Development)
In attendance with Ms. Loope were Scott Tate and Ashley from Virginia
Tech Center for Economic and Community engagement.
Ms. Loope and guests provided a PowerPoint presentation
The work session was held from 4:30 p.m. until 5:39 p.m.
June 8, 2021
387
2. Work session to discuss the stream buffer ordinance with the
Board of Supervisors (Tarek Moneir, Director of Development
Services)
In attendance with Mr. Moneir was David Henderson, County Engineer
and Nicky Mills, Civil Engineer.
A PowerPoint presentation was given.
The work session was held from 5:48 p.m. until 6:14 p.m.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:11 p.m., Supervisor Peters moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A 1 - Discussion,
consideration, or interviews of prospective candidates for employment; assignment,
appointment, promotion, performance, demotion, salaries, disciplining, or resignation of
specific public officers, appointees, or employees of any public body; namely alternates
for the Board of Equalization. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 6:15 p.m. until 6:35 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 6:36 p.m., Supervisor Peters moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 060821-5 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s
knowledge:
June 8, 2021
388
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 6:37 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks P. Jason Peters
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman