4/11/2023 - Regular - DRAFT
April 11, 2023
119
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 March 2023. 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 Hooker called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Martha B. Hooker; Supervisors Paul M. Mahoney,
Phil C. North, P. Jason Peters and David F. Radford
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Rebecca
Owens, Deputy County Administrator; Doug Blount,
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: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Richard Caywood, County Administrator, requested the addition of an
additional New Business item, Resolution approving a memorandum of Understanding
between the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County School
Board regarding capital funding. There were no objections.
April 11, 2023
120
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the work being
done by Shentel/GloFiber (Chris Kyle, Vice President of
Programming, Regulatory, and Business Development at Shentel)
Briefing was given.
2. Briefing to discuss with the Board of Supervisors the Roanoke
County Public Schools proposed fiscal year 2023-2024 budget
(Susan Peterson, Director of Finance, Roanoke County Public
Schools)
Ms. Peterson provided the briefing. Also, in attendance was Dr. Ken
Nicely, Superintendent of Roanoke County Public Schools. David Linden, School Board
member for Hollins was in the audience.
Supervisor North thanked school staff for all their time working on the
school construction grant. He also thanked the School Board working with the General
Assembly on the Budget Appropriations Committee and brining our concerns to them.
He stated he feels we have made a huge step in bringing forward a concern over the
scoring system. On the first page of the chart you put up, it had a category known as
payroll lapse. It looks like approximately $750,000. Was that carried over from this past
year? Ms. Peterson explained that payroll lapse it what it is. We budgeted and have
been budgeting the past couple of years to offset our increases because we know every
year we are going to end up having different positions. We are going to have
employees that come and that may make less at retiring at higher pay grades. We put
large numbers in there. We may not see the large collapses going forward.
Supervisor Peters asked for clarification that the percentage to your
employees is 78%, with Ms. Peterson responding in the affirmative. He stated he does
not have a problem with what you presented as far as the actual budget. His concern is
with the Capital Improvement Program. It needs to reflect what is in the financial policy.
As of today, we have no agreement on any of the schools or any of the construction
projects. It really needs to reflect what is actually in the policy until we come to a mutual
agreement.
Supervisor Hooker stated it jumped to her attention when you were talking
about the average starting pay for Roanoke County versus some of the surrounding
localities. It sounded fairly close. She has heard differing answers about the mid pay.
Does it even out and what about at the end of the career. Ms. Peterson advised not as
much as they would like; all three areas are lagging.
April 11, 2023
121
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution approving the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
budget for fiscal year 2023-2024 (Mike Stewart, Executive
Director, Roanoke Regional Airport Commission)
Mike Stewart provided his budget noting it has been approved by
Roanoke City and City of Salem. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 041123-1 APPROVING THE ROANOKE
REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2023-2024
WHEREAS, Section 24.B of the Regional Airport Commission Act and Section
17.(a) of the contract between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, and the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission provides that the Commission shall prepare and submit its
operating budget for the forthcoming year to the Board of Supervisors of the County and
City Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, by report dated March 28, 2023, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board, the Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission has submitted a request that the County approve the fiscal year 2023-2024
budget of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia that the fiscal year 2023-2024 budget and proposed capital
expenditures for the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission as set forth in the March
28, 2023, report of the Commission Executive Director, a copy of which is incorporated
by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk
are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any
documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said
approval.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
2. Resolution setting the allocation percentage for Personal
Property Tax Relief in Roanoke County for the 2023 tax year
(Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services)
Ms. Gearheart outlined the request with a change of percentage 56.1%
versus the 44.98% included in the Board packet. There was no discussion.
April 11, 2023
122
RESOLUTION 041123-3 SETTING THE ALLOCATION
PERCENTAGE FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF IN
ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE 2023 TAX YEAR
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1-3524
(C) (2) and Section 58.1-3912 (E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of
the Acts of Assembly 2004 Special Session I, and as set forth in item 503.E (Personal
Property Tax Relief Program or “PPTRA”) of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly,
a qualifying vehicle (as defined in Section 58.1-3523 of the Code of Virginia) with a
taxable situs within the County commencing January 1, 2023, shall receive personal
property tax relief; and
WHEREAS, the PPTRA directs the County to set a reduced tax rate that shall be
applied to the first $20,000 of value for each qualifying vehicle, for which the
Commonwealth provides reimbursement funds to the County, which reimbursement
amount was set (and capped) during tax year 2006; and
WHEREAS, insofar as the Commonwealth’s reimbursement amount provided to
the County has remained constant since 2006, while the County’s tax assessment base
has grown, the degree of State-provided relief has annually declined since 2006; and
WHEREAS, in order to fully provide available tax relief to owners of qualifying
vehicles, and in accordance with the provisions of the PPTRA, the Board has historically
set a reduced rate that would fully maximize potential reimbursement from the
Commonwealth, which reduced rate has of necessity made assumptions about future
revenue receipts. Accordingly, in prior years, the County’s reduced rate has provided a
further degree of relief to owners of qualifying vehicles that exceeded the exact amount
received by the Commonwealth as reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the unprecedented increase in personal property
values attributable to continued disruptions in supply chains resulting from the COVID-
19 pandemic and current higher inflation, the Board desires to provide additional relief
to owners of qualifying vehicles by further decreasing the reduced tax rate that is
applied to the vehicles’ first $20,000 of value, recognizing that reimbursement from the
Commonwealth will again be less than the amount of relief provided; and
WHEREAS, based on the Commissioner of Revenue’s preliminary estimates of
personal property receipts for tax year 2023, and based upon prior practice in setting
the reduced tax rate pursuant to the PPTRA, the County’s Finance and Management
Services Department originally proposed to reduce the rate of taxation of the first
$20,000 of qualifying vehicles by 44.98%; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to increase the amount of relief by reducing the
rate of taxation on the first $20,000 of qualifying vehicles by 56.10%; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted pursuant to Ordinance 122005-10
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 2005, which incorporated the
provisions of the PPTRA into the Roanoke County Code.
April 11, 2023
123
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That tax relief shall be allocated so as to eliminate personal property taxation
for qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less.
2. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued from $1,001 to $20,000 will be
eligible for 56.10% tax relief.
3. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall only
receive 56.1% tax relief on the first $20,000 of value; and
4. That all other vehicles which do not meet the definition of qualifying (for
example, including but not limited to, business use vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor
homes, etc.) will not be eligible for any form of tax relief under this program.
5. That the percentages applied to the categories of qualifying personal use
vehicles are estimated fully to use all available PPTRA funds allocated to Roanoke
County by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6. That this resolution shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
3. Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke
County School Board regarding joint capital funding.
Mr. Caywood outlined the resolution approving the MOU with the Roanoke
County School Board.
RESOLUTION 041123-2 APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE ROANOKE COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD REGARDING JOINT CAPITAL FUNDING
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, the Board of Supervisors, by resolution, 1)
approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that updated the County’s policy for
the financing of necessary general County government and school capital projects in a
fiscally responsible manner, and 2) authorized the Chairman and County administrator
to execute the approved MOU; and
WHEREAS, since December 13, the Board has received further proposals from
the Roanoke County School Board with respect to the MOU; and
WHEREAS, the MOU has accordingly been revised and is attached to this
Resolution as Attachment A; and
April 11, 2023
124
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Board again approve the MOU by resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. The Memorandum of Understanding attached to this resolution as
Attachment A is hereby approved, and
2. The Chairman and County Administrator are authorized to execute the
Memorandum on behalf of the Board.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
1. Public hearing for citizen comments on the following items:
Calendar Year 2023 Real Estate, Personal Property and Machinery
and Tools Tax Rates (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and
Management Services)
Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
speak on this agenda item.
2. Request to adopt the following taxes rates:
(a) Resolution setting the tax rate on Real Estate in the County of
Roanoke for the calendar year 2023;
RESOLUTION 041123-4 SETTING THE TAX RATE ON REAL
ESTATE SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 2023
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that
the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2023, and ending December
31, 2023, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $1.06 per one hundred dollars of
assessed valuation on all taxable real estate and mobile homes classified by Sections
58.1-3200, 58.1-3201, 58.1-3506.A.8, and 58.1-3506.B of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, situate in Roanoke County.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
April 11, 2023
125
NAYS: None
(b) Resolution setting the tax levy on Personal Property situate in
the County of Roanoke for the calendar year 2023;
RESOLUTION 041123-5 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON
PERSONAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR
THE CALENDAR YEAR 2023
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2023, and
ending December 31, 2023, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $3.40 per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property,
excluding that class of personal property generally designated as machinery and tools
as set forth in Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and
excluding all those classes of household goods and personal effects as are defined in
Sections 58.1-3504 and 58.1-3505 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, but
including the property separately classified by Sections 58.1-3500, 58.1-3501, 58.1-
3502, 58.1-3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service
corporations based upon the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation
Commission and duly certified.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
(c) Resolution setting the tax levy on a classification of personal
property - Machinery and Tools - situate in the County of
Roanoke for calendar year 2023 (Laurie Gearheart, Director of
Finance and Management Services)
RESOLUTION 041123-6 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON A
CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - MACHINERY
AND TOOLS - SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 2023
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal
property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1-
April 11, 2023
126
3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery
and tools.
2. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 2023, and
ending December 31, 2023, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $2.80 per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property as
herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully
defined by Section 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally
designated as machinery and tools.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 041123-7 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 April 11,
2023, 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 7 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – January 11, 2023
2. Proclamation recognizing the week of April 9-15, 2023 as National
Telecommunicators Week in Roanoke County
3. Observance and Proclamation of Thursday, April 27, 2023, as National Arbor
Day in Roanoke County
4. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
accept Fairway Ridge Court of Ridge at Fairway Forest Section 3 in the
Windsor Hills Magisterial District into the VDOT Secondary Road System
5. Resolution approving the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) budget
for fiscal year 2023-2024
6. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a donation from the Cave Spring First
Aid and Rescue Squad, Inc. in the amount of $8,250 for use by the Roanoke
County General Services Department (First Reading and Request for
Second Reading)
April 11, 2023
127
7. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of one-half (1/2) interest in three parcels
of real property containing approximately 42 acres adjacent to Explore Park,
located in Roanoke County and in Bedford County; and authorizing execution
of an updated purchase agreement, a deed of conveyance, and other
documents necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate (First
Reading and Request for Second Reading)
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
A-041123-7.a
A-041123-7.b
RESOLUTION 041123-7.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
FAIRWAY RIDGE COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition Form AM-4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation’s Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999 for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) to add the street(s) described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.2-
705, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after
receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of
the developer, whichever occurs last in time.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board hereby guarantees the performance of
the street(s) requested herein to become a part of the State-maintained secondary
system of state highways for a period of one year from the date of the acceptance of the
April 11, 2023
128
referenced streets by VDOT into the secondary system of state highways. This Board
will reimburse all costs incurred by VDOT to repair faults in the referenced streets and
related drainage facilities associated with workmanship or materials as determined
exclusively by VDOT.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
A-041123-7.d
A-041123-7.e
Supervisor Mahoney asked to pull the following item off consent for
5. Resolution approving the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
(RVRA) budget for fiscal year 2023-2024
Supervisor Mahoney asked to pull this agenda item from consent. He
stated he wanted to discuss with the Board members some areas that to him appear to
be red flags that we will be considering sometime in the future; particularly with some of
the reserve funds. Around page 138 and 165, we talk about the Rutrough Road landfill
fund and how that fund is about exhausted. It worries him because he can remember
going back in time how critical that was for not only the folks in East county, but all
citizens in the County. One of the problems with Rutrough Road landfill is that it
leaches into the Roanoke River and to him that is a significant issue. So, he sees an
ongoing potential liability even though, at least within the reserve fund, the reserve
funds are being exhausted. The second concern area on page 148 of our agenda and
page 14 in the reserve fund provisions. The equipment funds are going to go negative
in 2025-2026 and equipment is critical to the ongoing operation of the landfill. The third
and final area on page 165 of our agenda and page 30 in this document. Looking at
deficits for the CIP, probably starting in 2029-2030. So again, he does not see an
immediate problem this year, what he does see in the long run, whether it is Rutrough
Road, our equipment funds or other CIP funds, we are showing some deficits. The way
you would address that is increasing the tipping fee and that has an adverse effect, as
we have seen in the past, not only for the local governments, but also when we try to
work a contract with some of the commercial haulers.
April 11, 2023
129
A representative of the RVRA advised Dan Miles was unable to attend.
First, Supervisor Mahoney is correct in all assumptions to look at the budget in that
manner and they are all very good questions. First with regard to the questions on
Rutrough Road reserve fund. Historically, the landfill there has been a much more
eminent concern regarding leachate runoff, however, we have done great investments
over the many years to improve our leachate collection systems, most notably with the
addition of the force-main system, which helped tremendously. We got away from the
traditional truck and haul method that saved on operation funds, but it also provided a
much more secure, protected way to get that leachate discharged directly into the
system in order to be treated properly. However, it is a closed landfill and you are right
and with that there are always outstanding liability concerns that you have to be mindful
of. Previously, it has always been the direction of the Board to deplete that fund over
time through previous actions. This year was simply holding it consistent with that to
further make up reserves and we have some additional costs that are coming on line
that were properly allocated to that fund with regard to landfill operational management
concerns. So, it was the Board’s decision to continue that draw down and complete that
budget so it is no longer shown on the budget books. However, that does not negate
the Authority’s responsibility nor the members responsibility to back stop that with other
reserve funds. There are means and methods by which we can do that through the
existing reserves should that ever become a problem. Additionally, that landfill is
actually dated to go outside of monitoring over the next couple of years. Whether that
actually comes to fruition is a different story. With regard to the equipment, we have
been “robbing from Peter to pay Paul” for quite some time. We have been operating in
survival mode with regard to equipment being a fairly large expense item that we have
been managed quite well for the last several years by extending its life, however, if you
over the last couple of years budget you will see an ever-ballooning operational cost
with regard to equipment, maintenance and repairs. We are looking to provide an
avenue out of that. The budget presented is the first budget in the last couple of years
where we have confidentially coming to you we are now looking to positively fund our
reserves with regards specifically to equipment. We have been on equipment hold.
Even in the years we have approved funds, we have withheld expending those funds
much later in the fiscal year to ensure that everything else has priority. We have been
working with the Board over the last couple of months to do some strategic planning
and put out a much longer-term picture so that everyone has a proper understanding of
what those deficits look like and how we can intervene and prevent those from
occurring. He feels like we have a good plan of action and has the support of our Board
that will in all likelihood have us back before this Board in the future looking at possible
amendments to our special use permit as the road has proven successful. In fact, we
have opened new avenues by which we can generate revenues that previously were
not on line. In this budget, we have an increase in revenues this year about $1 million
over what as anticipated, but we also have additional deficits that we are encountering,
inflation, cost of equipment and fuel. We fully recognize that we have a looming
April 11, 2023
130
problem in the distance and we are working strategically to intersect and come up with
ways to prevent. Raising tipping rates is a balancing act. In the future, we hope to avoid
that by seeking new sources of revenue. We are looking at some gas development and
alternative things that recently been off the table that we are right out the corner of
closing a deal that will be yet another revenue source.
RESOLUTION 041123-8 APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY
RESOURCE AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
2023-2024
WHEREAS, Section 5.9 of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use
Agreement provides that the Authority shall prepare and submit its operating budget for
the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of the County, the City Council of
the City of Roanoke and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton; and
WHEREAS, the Chief Executive Officer of the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority has submitted the fiscal year 2023-2024 budget of the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority for approval.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA that the fiscal year 2023-2024 budget for the
Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, is hereby approved, and the County Administrator
and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest respectively, on behalf of the County,
any documentation, in form by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said
approval.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
William Skaff of 4815 Farmington Place Court provided the following
statement. “After four years, 21 prepared Statements, and Rezoning Written and Oral
Comments, I would like to respectfully make some recommendations regarding the
structure of the County government that handles development, the responsiveness of
the planning process, and individual Supervisors’ approach to governance.
Government Structure. The Planning Commission is led by the Director of Planning
and, to all appearances, operates as an extension of the Planning Department, helping
to create and then approving its recommendations. This is a conflict of interest if
impartial judgment is sought. Planning Commission members are affiliated with the
construction business, and they ultimately see as their primary mission facilitating
development. For zoning code revisions and rezonings, they tend to favor the larger and
April 11, 2023
131
the commercial. These Commissioners are naturally unlikely to vote against developers,
contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, architects, etc., because they constitute their
world. I respectfully recommend that the County name this group what it really is, a
Developers Commission, and establish a separate group, a true Planning Commission,
consisting of five residents who are not affiliated with any facet of the greater
construction business. Each Commission would consider the same issues, hold
separate meetings, hear the exact same presentations, and take separate votes. The
outcomes of both votes, and the relevant reasons, would be included in separate
reports to the Board. Short of this, I suggest expanding the current Planning
Commission to six members, three being outside the entire development industry. If the
Board does not move to correct this systemic problem, the impartial evaluation of
rezonings, development projects, changes to the zoning code, and comprehensive
plans will continue to be a pretense. Government Responsiveness. How faithful and
forthcoming is the planning process, or does the Planning Department implement
preconceived policy preferences? There are soft documents, such as Comprehensive
Plans and specific-location Reimagine Plans. And there are hard documents, such as
Design Guidelines and the County Code, such as “Zoning Ordinance—Use and Design
Standards.” Then Chairman Mahoney explained the difference during the Barnett
Rezoning Hearing using Future Land Use Designations: “Neighborhood Conservation
and Transition . . . is a guide. It’s not an ordinance, not a mandated requirement.” With
soft documents, the Planning Department arranges public meetings, online surveys,
and community participation reports. In the hard documents phase, accuracy and
explicitness begin to disappear. Consider the design principle, “Encourage development
within developed suburban areas in order to protect the rural areas of the County and
natural resources.” This rests on the Department’s fabrication that, somehow, suburban
residents do not care about their proximity to nature, in order to justify unleashing
density development. In the final Reimagine 419 Design Guidelines of August, key
numbers are hard to find, such as eight story buildings covering 90 percent of the site.
For zoning code revisions, there are no public meetings with before and after diagrams
on walls showing changes in height and bulk of buildings and lot coverage allowed.
What remains is the Planning Department quietly implementing its policies through
number-based binding ordinances. In fact, Roanoke County 200 can be significantly
redirected during the “zoning ordinance rewrite process,” which occurs after Board
adoption of the Plan. Respectfully, how much longer will the Director of Planning be
allowed to pursue development preferences diametrically opposed to those of the vast
majority of people who are living in, or who want to live in, Roanoke County? Surveys
indicate that people overwhelmingly choose Roanoke County for rustically landscaped
suburbia, not characteristically urban density development. Approach to Governing.
The preoccupation with growth—population or commercial—by the Board, the
Commission, and the County government can violate residents’ property rights,
particularly when commercial enterprises or density development are forced into and
eliminate residential areas. Site-specific residential and rural zonings are changed by
April 11, 2023
132
Board rezonings all the time. If there remains limited land for development, violating
residents’ property rights is certainly not the way to create more. The relatively small
percentage of the County zoned residential or commercial nevertheless provides ample
tax revenue. Stability is not an economic problem for Roanoke County—we are a self-
sufficient and self-sustaining economic system, and our population is readily
replenished by relatively quick property turnaround. Respectfully, individual Supervisors
cannot operate as an elite. For instance, if individual Board members can disregard
such critical development criteria as Future Land Use Designations, as we have seen,
then how important to Board decisions can the Comprehensive Plan actually be?
Individual members are not entitled to vote according to their personal vision of the
County and its neighborhoods, and then give largely specious or inconsequential
reasons that are transparent to the rest of us. This kind of libertarianism is antithetical to
a democratic Constitutional republic.”
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Radford moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Radford stated now we have the MOU and we have been
working with working with the School Board members on the acceleration for the
borrowing and the construction, he pointed out to our School Board and our school
administration, we really need to look at solar for our schools. There are still huge tax
credits out there from the information that he discovered when he took the tour. There
are schools in South Carolina, there is still a lot of benefit that we can achieve at our
schools even through they are renovated they can put them up on top., even the new
ones. So, he would hope they would still consider that. Another item is, when he was
touring those schools, mechanical equipment was all in self-enclosed on top of the
structures. If you do the schools altogether in a group, you can have efficiency with
purchasing, he would hope they would consider looking at that. Most of today’s
computer modeling for HVAC systems, electrical systems, you can do that to figure out
what your energy consumption is along with your energy savings. So, he would they
look at that in detail. In his research, he found that he thinks our County can benefit by
April 11, 2023
133
them turning the corner and utilizing on their new CTE and for their renovation for the
two elementary schools.
Supervisor Peters stated he is appreciative of the Board coming together
for the MOU. He feels personally invested in getting the CTE done. As someone on
the street everyday he makes it business to look for skilled labor. He thinks this is a
huge step in the right direction. He is thankful that the Boar came together and
hopefully we get a unanimous vote on the school side. The other thing that he wanted
to bring up and has already spoken with Mr. Caywood, and something else he has been
a huge advocate of during his time on the Board, public safety. We have made great
strides to provide our citizens with the best, whether it is Police, Fire and Rescue or the
Sheriff. We implemented a pay scale that cost over $10 million to implement over three
(3) years because as we have all said as a Board, if you have the best schools, best
parks, best everything if you don’t have a safe community, you have nothing. So,
something has come to his attention over the last several months. As many of you
know, he is still a part of the fire and rescue volunteer side. Concerns come to him in
his district, especially when we are spending a lot of time running calls in different
counties. This came to him by way of several individuals within the department and
citizens who are aware of this. Many of you have probably read that Bedford County is
looking to cut the tax rate by nine (9) cents and some on the Board want to cut is by
twelve (12) cents. His problem with that is that have a huge deficit in their fire and
rescue. He personally has put a lot of time and energy into getting our system up to
where it is today along with the Board, not just him. It is a group effort and to have our
resources 45 minutes down the road in the County is not serving our citizens. He is
asking with the Board’s permission to give direction to our County Administration and
our Fire Chief to enter into some conversations with Bedford County. He already had
the situation where both the Vinton Fire Chief and ambulance, paid staff, are in Bedford
County and then someone in our district needs an ambulance. We have to wait for Mt.
Pleasant or Roanoke City to show up. Our citizens are paying for the service. We are
reciprocating the services such as we do in Roanoke City, we have a mutual agreement
with them. We have put a lot of time and energy with prior Boards to getting an
ambulance there, the goal was to have one there in six (6) minutes. We cannot do that
if we are elsewhere and if not willing to step up their game. He wants to address that
for our citizens who are paying for the service.
Supervisor North stated we have accomplished much. Staff and the Board
have been quite busy with our budget for next year. Since November, the Board has
offered a three schools construction proposal, all the while, focusing on lower tax rates,
both real estate and personal property. All of the proposed changes well within our
financial guidelines. All is good. It’s a win-win for schools, county and should be
celebrated. Over the weekend our staff and Board received a note from a citizen
thanking us for the school construction proposal. They offered to help with any state
grant support. Such notes are rare, but appreciated. Lastly, our recent school
construction proposal for $130M is symbolic for two reasons. First, It’s the largest
April 11, 2023
134
capital projects in Roanoke County History. And second, affirms this boards support
and investment in our school’s capital because this board supports our schools within
our financial guidelines, without raising tax rates. Let’s all count our many blessings
each and every day. Meanwhile, the state budget conferees have indicated a final
budget may not be ready until June. We all know there are many needs and never
enough money, especially facing an economic downturn possibility the second half of
this year. The current state budget proposed over $200M funding for I 64, East of
Richmond. While none exist for exists 137-128 southbound on I 81 which passes thru
the county at an estimated cost of $300M. Regional efforts tried to seek state funds
during recent VDOT smart scale, but were not successful. Transportation begets
economic development. I 81 is the busiest commercial corridor in the US. Improve I 81
is an ongoing project and always will be. The proposed budget provides funds for a
public private partnership study. Here is another example, our regional airport. We need
a runway expansion to meet business economic development, not to mention lower
airfares as many local flyers, some 50%, drive to Charlotte for lower airfares rather than
fly ROA. What’s wrong with this picture? The estimated 10-year economic impact is
$1.6B and the proposed state budget has $200,000 earmarked for a study on Roanoke
airport expansion. Why do I mention these roads and airport needs? So, you can
consider joining our efforts and tell our regional, local, state and federal leaders of your,
the citizens, support for transportations improvements in our part of the state. It matters.
Supervisor Hooker commented on how proud she is of the Board; about
going forward with negotiating with trying to get these full and completed with making
offers with negotiating and continuing to make efforts to meet in the middle. It has been
going on for quite some time. She appreciates the work that happened here. She looks
forward to, hopefully, a unanimous vote by the School Board. This is a process that is
sought after for both Boards, for a long time.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:34 p.m., Supervisor Hooker moved to go into closed meeting
pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711.A.3 - To discuss or consider the
acquisition of real property, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect
the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. Specifically, the Board
will consider the acquisition of potential property for Parks, Recreation and Tourism in
the Catawba Magisterial District and Section 2.2-3711.A.5 - Discussion concerning the
expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has
been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in
the community namely in the Catawba, Hollins and Vinton Magisterial Districts and
Section 2.2-3711.A.1 – Discussion on the performance and/or compensation of specific
public officers, appointees, or employees of Roanoke County; namely the elected
Constitutional Officers, County Administrator and County Attorney. The motion was
seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
April 11, 2023
135
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 4:45 p.m. until 7:10 p.m.
Chairman recessed to the third floor for closed session at: 4:35 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 4:35 p.m., Supervisor Hooker moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 041123-9 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
April 11, 2023
136
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hooker adjourned the meeting at 4:36 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks Martha B. Hooker
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman