8/28/2007 - Regular
August 28, 2007
739
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
August 28, 2007
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August, 2007.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C.
Flora, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch"
Church, Michael A. Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board;
Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
INRE:
OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Ken Wright, Evangel Foursquare
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
7 40 August 28, 2007
REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Hodge requested a closed session pursuant to the Code of Virginia
Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for
public purposes; namely, economic development purposes. There was a consensus of
the Board to add the closed session.
INRE:
PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
~ Proclamation declarina Friday, Auaust 31, 2007, as the eiahth
annual Virainia Tech Hokie Pride Day in the County of Roanoke
Chairman McNamara presented the proclamation to Brian Wilson,
President, Roanoke Valley Tech Club, and Adam Shores, Director, Roanoke Valley
Tech Club, and future Hokie Pride Day Committee Chairman.
INRE:
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARING
~ Public hearina to receive citizen comments reaardina proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2007-2008 budaet in accordance
with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virainia. (Diane Hyatt, Chief
Financial Officer)
Ms. Hyatt advised that the Code of Virginia requires that the County
publish notice of a meeting and public hearing whenever proposed budget amendments
exceed one percent of the total expenditures shown in the adopted budget or $500,000,
August 28, 2007
741
whichever is lesser. She further advised that a notice for the public hearing was
published in the Roanoke Times on August 21,2007.
Ms. Hyatt advised that the Board would hear the following proposed
budget amendments during the meeting: (1) Request to appropriate $9,082,780 for
upgrade of the 800 MHz radio system; (2) Request to appropriate $400,530 Flood
Mitigation Assistance Grant Project for West Roanoke River Mitigation; (3) Request to
appropriate $66,000 from the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority to the Information
Technology Department for Information Technology Services; (4) Request to
appropriate $6,712 in State funds to Library Services for fiscal year 2007-08; (5)
Request to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $3,661.94 from the Library of
Virginia to Library Services for mandated technology protection measures for public
computers; (6) Request to appropriate $3,000 from the Division of Motor Vehicles to the
Police Department for the "Click It or Ticket" campaign; (7) Request to appropriate
$47,100 from the Division of Motor Vehicles to the Police Department to support traffic
enforcement and training; and (8) Request to appropriate a Local Government
Challenge Grant in the amount of $5,000 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts. Ms
Hyatt stated that no action was required as a result of the public hearing since the
Board will take action on the individual items later on the agenda.
There were no citizens to speak on these items at this time.
742 August 28, 2007
2. Public hearina and reauest to adopt ~ resolution authorizina the
issuance of not to exceed J7.500.000 General Obliaation School
Bonds to be sold to the Virainia Public School Authority pursuant
to the literary loan subsidy sale for capital improvements at
Northside Hiah School. (Diane Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer)
R-082807 -1
Ms. Hyatt advised that the next two items are related to the Northside High
School capital project; however, she stated that each item should be considered
separately with a public hearing and action. She stated that the first request is for the
Board to authorize $7.5 million bonds to be sold through the Virginia Public School
Authority (VPSA) for a literary loan subsidy program for the Northside High School
project. She advised that tbe School Board has prepared the necessary application for
the project and is in the initial stage of development for the closing of the loan in
November so that the cash proceeds will be available for the Northside High School
project. Ms. Hyatt stated that at the conclusion of the public hearing, she is requesting
that the Board adopt a resolution to be forwarded to the VPSA.
There were no citizens to speak on this item and there was no discussion.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
August 28, 2007
743
RESOLUTION 082807-1 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO
EXCEED $7,500,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TO BE SOLD TO THE
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE
LITERARY FUND SUBSIDY SALE AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM
AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, in July of 2007, the Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Education
(the "Board of Education") placed the application (the "Application") of the School Board
of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "School Board") for a loan in the amount of
$7,500,000 (the "Literary Fund Loan") from the Literary Fund, a permanent trust fund
established by the Constitution of Virginia (the "Literary Fund"), for financing a portion of
the cost of Northside High School (the "Project"), in the County of Roanoke, Virginia
(the "County"), on the First Priority Waiting List.
WHEREAS, the Board of Education was to have approved the release of Literary
Fund moneys to the School Board and make a commitment to loan such moneys to the
School Board (the "Commitment") within one year of placement of the Application on
the First Priority Waiting List upon receipt of the Literary Fund of an unencumbered sum
available at least equal to the amount of the Application and the approval, by the Board
of Education, of the Application as having met all conditions for a loan from the Literary
Fund.
WHEREAS, the Board of Education was thereafter to have given advances on
the amount of the Commitment for the Literary Fund Loan to the School Board, as
construction of the Project progressed, in exchange for temporary notes from the
School Board to the Literary Fund (the "Temporary Notes") for the amounts so
advanced.
WHEREAS, after the completion of the Project and the advance of the total
amount of the Commitment, the Temporary Notes were to have been consolidated into
a permanent loan note of the School Board to the Literary Fund for each project (the
"Literary Fund Obligation") which was to evidence the obligation of the School Board to
repay the Literary Fund Loan.
WHEREAS, the Literary Fund Obligation was to have borne interest at three
percent (3%) per annum and mature in annual installments for a period of twenty (20)
years.
WHEREAS, in connection with the 2007 Interest Rate Subsidy Program (the
"Program"), the Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") has offered to purchase
general obligation school bonds of the County, and the Board of Education has offered
to pay, to the County, a lump sum cash payment (the "Lump Sum Cash Payment")
equal to the sum of (i) net present value difference, determined on the date that VPSA
sells its bonds, between the weighted average interest rate that the general obligation
school bonds of the County will bear upon sale to the VPSA and the interest rate that
744
August 28, 2007
the Literary Fund Obligation would have borne plus (ii) an allowance for the costs of
issuing such bonds of the County (the "Issuance Expense Allowance").
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County has
determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow up to $7,500,000 and to issue
its general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school
purposes.
WHEREAS, the County has held a public hearing, after due publication of notice,
in accordance with Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia
Code") on August 28, 2007 on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below).
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has requested by resolution the
Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) and has consented to
the issuance of the Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby
determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation
school bonds of the County in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,500,000
(the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes.
The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon
the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County
to accept the offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the
Bonds at a price determined by the VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board
or the County Administrator and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, and such
officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized
and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the VPSA providing for the
sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially the form on file with the County
Administrator, which form is hereby approved ("Bond Sale Agreement").
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form;
shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated
"General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2007B" (or such other designation as the
County Administrator may approve); shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof
payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 (each an "Interest Payment
Date"), beginning July 15, 2008, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph
4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal
Payment Date") and in the amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this
Resolution. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Payment Dates are subject
to change at the request of VPSA.
4. Principal Installments and Interest Rates. The County Administrator is
hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by
the VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent
August 28, 2007
745
(0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal
payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the 'VPSA Bonds"), a portion of
the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that the
true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed six percent (6.00%) per annum. The
County Administrator is further authorized and directed to accept the aggregate
principal amount of the Bonds and the amounts of principal of the Bonds coming due on
each Principal Payment Date ("Principal Installments") established by the VPSA,
including any changes in the Interest Payment Dates, the Principal Payment Date and
the Principal Installments which may be requested by VPSA provided that such
aggregate principal amount shall not exceed the maximum amount set forth in
paragraph one and the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than approximately
21 years from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in
paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal
Payment Dates, interest rates, principal amount and Principal Installments as having
been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single,
temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.
6. Payment: Payino Aoent and Bond Reoistrar. The following provisions
shall apply to the Bonds:
(a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all
payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest an the Bonds shall be made in
immediately available funds to the VPSA at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the applicable
Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the business day next
preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal. Payment Date or date fixed for
prepayment or redemption;
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by
law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and
(c) U.S. Bank National Association, Richmond, Virginia, is designated
as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds.
7. No Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds
are not subject to redemption or prepayment. Furthermore, the Board covenants, on
behalf of the County, not to refund or refinance the Bonds without first obtaining the
written consent of the VPSA or the registered owners of the Bonds.
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or
any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the
Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of such execution and
affixation of the seal may be by facsimile, provided that if both signatures are by
facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature of the
Paying Agent.
746
August 28, 2007
9. Pledqe of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal
of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become
due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each
year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in
accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County
subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal
of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if
any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or
amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the
extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such
purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate: Non-Arbitraqe Certificate. The Chairman of
the Board and the County Administrator, and such officer or officers of the County as
either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage
Certificate, if requested by bond counsel, and a Use of Proceeds Certificate setting forth
the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such
covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations
relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA
Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the
issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Use
of Proceeds Certificate and the County shall comply with the covenants and
representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of
the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable
from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
11. State Non-Arbitraqe Proqram: Proceeds Aqreement. The Board hereby
determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the
County Treasurer to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with
the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them,
and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby
authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to
the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the
other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager,
and the depository substantially in the form on file with the County Administrator, which
form is hereby approved.
12. Continuinq Disclosure Aqreement. The Chairman of the Board and the
County Administrator, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as
either of them may designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to execute a
Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale
Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing
such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions
of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and (ii) to make all filings
August 28, 2007
747
required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by
the VPSA to be a "Material Obligated Person" (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure
Agreement).
13. FilinQ of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are
hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed
with the Circuit Court of the County.
14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, the Chairman of the Board,
and such other officers, employees and agents of the County as either of them may
designate are hereby authorized to take such action as the County Administrator or the
Chairman of the Board may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the
issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from
the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on August 28, 2007, and of
the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I
hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that,
during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. The front
page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the Board of Supervisors
present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting, and (iii) the
vote of each member, including any abstentions.
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Roanoke, Virginia, this 28th day of August, 2007.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None .
3. Public hearina and reauest to adopt! resolution authorizina the
issuance of not to exceed $16,500,000 General Obliaation School
Bonds to be sold to the Virainia Public School Authority for
capital improvements at Northside Hiah School. (Diane Hvatt,
Chief Financial Officer)
R-082807 -2
748
August 28, 2007
Ms. Hyatt advised that the second portion of the borrowing for the
Northside High School capital project is a request for $16.5 million of VPSA bond
proceeds. She stated that the proceeds will actually be $15.7 million since they needed
an additional amount in event the bonds are sold at a premium. She advised that she
failed to mention earlier that the following personnel from the schools were present: Dr.
Lorraine Lange, School Superintendent; Dr. Marty Misicko, Director of Operations; and
Penny Hodge, Assistant Superintendent of Finance.
Ms. Hyatt advised that this VPSA bond issue will have the same timetable
as the literary loan subsidy issue, and they should have the proceeds in November for
the project. She stated that there is also a resolution that should be adopted by the
Board at the conclusion of the public hearing.
There were no citizens to speak on this item.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
Supervisor Wray inquired if any of the school personnel present would like
to give the Board an update on the Northside High School project.
August 28, 2007
749
Dr. Misicko advised that they have completed the contract negotiations
with Martin Brothers and Spectrum, and they will have an executed contract after the
meeting today. He advised that construction work will begin next week; that all of the
asbestos has been taken out of the building; and that the students have been located in
trailers for classrooms. He reported that they anticipate putting barriers in the hallways
to start construction of the administration and guidance areas, and they anticipate a 50
percent reduction in fuel at the school with the new HVAC system. He advised that this
is a stressful time for both the staff and students; however, spirits are great and
everyone has adopted a perseverance attitude.
Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to Dr. Lange, Dr. Misikco and
Ms. Hodge and advised that the young people and parents he has talked to are eager to
see this project come to a conclusion. He advised that he has heard few complaints.
RESOLUTION 082807-2 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE
OF NOT TO EXCEED $16,500,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL
BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TO BE SOLD TO
THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR
THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia (the "County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an
amount not to exceed $16,500,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds to
finance certain capital projects for school purposes.
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on August 28, 2007 on the issuance
of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-
2606, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code").
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has requested by resolution the
Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and has consented to the issuance of the
Bonds.
WHEREAS, the objective of the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") is to
pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the
750
August 28, 2007
Bonds' market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration
such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds, the
amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received
by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of VPSA's bonds.
WHEREAS, such factors may result in requiring the County to accept a discount,
given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, under which
circumstance the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds received by the County will be
less than the amount set forth in paragraph 1 below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
16. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby
determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation
school bonds of the County in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$16,500,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school
purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form
and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
17. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the
County to accept the offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to VPSA,
the Bonds at a price determined by VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board
or the County Administrator and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, and such
officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized
and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the VPSA providing for the
sale of the Bonds to VPSA in substantially the form on file with the County
Administrator, which form is hereby approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement").
18. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully
registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated
the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation
School Bonds, Series 2007B" (or such other designation as the County Administrator
may approve) shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually
on each January 15 and July 15 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), beginning July 15,
2008, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and
shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the
amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution. The Interest
Payment Dates and the Principal Payment Dates are subject to change at the request
of VPSA.
19. Principal Installments and Interest Rates. The County
Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the
Bonds established by VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be no more than ten
one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the
corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the
"VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds,
August 28, 2007
751
and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed six
percent (6%) per annum. The County Administrator is further authorized and directed to
accept the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and the amounts of principal of the
Bonds coming due on each Principal Payment Date (the "Principal Installments")
established by VPSA, including any changes in the Interest Payment Dates, the
Principal Payment Dates and the Principal Installments which may be requested by
VPSA provided that such aggregate principal amount shall not exceed the maximum
amount set forth in paragraph one and the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later
than 21 years from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in
paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal
Payment Dates, interest rates, principal amount and Principal Installments as having
been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
20. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a
single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
21. Payment Payino Aoent and Bond Reoistrar. The following
provisions shall apply to the Bonds:
(a) For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all
payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in
immediately available funds to VPSA at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the applicable Interest
Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if
such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia,
then at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment
Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption;
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by
law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and
(c) U.S. Bank National Association, Richmond, Virginia, is designated
as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds.
22. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the
Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2017, and the definitive
Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or
before July 15, 2017, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after
July 15, 2017, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be
exchanged that mature after July 15, 2017, are subject to prepayment or redemption at
the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date
on or after July 15, 2017, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices
(expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal
amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date
set for prepayment or redemption:
752
August 28, 2007
Dates Prices
July 15, 2017 to July 14, 2018, inclusive................................ 101%
July 15, 2018 to July 14, 2019, inclusive................................ 100.5
July 15, 2019 and thereafter .................................................. 100;
Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption
prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written
consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or
redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered
mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption. The County Administrator is authorized to approve such
other redemption provisions, including changes to the redemption dates set forth above,
as may be requested by VPSA.
23. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the
Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and
deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of such
execution may be by facsimile, provided that if both signatures are by facsimile, the
Bonds shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature of the Paying
Agent.
24. Pledoe of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the
principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall
become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and
in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and
collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in
the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of
the principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such
principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without
limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in
the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and
appropriated for such purpose.
25. Use of Proceeds Certificate; Non-Arbitraoe Certificate. The
Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them and such officer
or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to
execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate, if required by bond counsel, and a Use of Proceeds
Certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds
and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with
the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and
applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the
Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i)
the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as
set forth in such Use of Proceeds Certificate and the County shall comply with the
covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with
August 28, 2007
753
the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will
remain excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
26. State Non-Arbitraoe Prooram; Proceeds Aoreement. The Board
hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct
the County Treasurer to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection
with the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of
them and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are
hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with
respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the
County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, VPSA, the investment
manager, and the depository substantially in the form on file with the County
Administrator, which form is hereby approved.
27. Continuino Disclosure Aoreement. The Chairman of the Board and
the County Administrator, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as
either of them may designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to execute a
Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale
Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing
such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions
of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and (ii) to make all filings
required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by
the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement).
28. Filino of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the
County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution
to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County.
29. Further Actions. The County Administrator, the Chairman of the
Board, and such other officers, employees and agents of the County as either of them
may designate are hereby authorized to take such action as the County Administrator or
the Chairman of the Board may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the
issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified
and confirmed.
30. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from
the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on August 28, 2007, and of
the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I
hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that,
during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. The front
page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the Board of Supervisors
present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting, and (iii) the
vote of each member, including any abstentions.
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia, this 28th day of August, 2007.
754
August 28, 2007
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS
1: Resolution authorizina ! reQuest to the Virainia General
Assembly for reimbursement of the cost of iail personnel hired
prior to the openina of the Western Virainia Reaional Jail. (John
Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator)
R-082807 -3
Mr. Chambliss advised the Western Virginia Regional Jail (regional jail) is
under construction and that the opening is anticipated in March 2009. He advised that
the local jails for Franklin County, Montgomery County and Salem/Roanoke County are
being retained, and the regional jail will handle sentenced inmates, as well as inmates
due to overcrowding of the local jails or special needs. He stated that since the local
jails will not be closed, approximately 194 new employees will be needed to operate the
regional jail. Mr. Chambliss advised that they will need to hire employees who are not
trained in corrections work approximately six months before opening of the regional jail
in order for those employees to attend the academy and attend orientation at the
regional jail to learn the policies and procedures. Mr. Chambliss advised that typically
the State Compensation Board (SCB) would not reimburse expenses until such time as
the regional jail opens; therefore, the salaries for these employees will be at local cost.
He advised that if an employee has been previously trained or comes from another
August 28, 2007
755
corrections facility, this would save ten to twelve weeks of time by not having to send
them to the academy; however, they would still have to complete the orientation and
training required for the regional jail.
Mr. Chambliss advised that they met with the area legislators and
representatives from the Governor's Office to request that consideration be given to
including funding in the Governor's upcoming budget for salaries for approximately six
months prior to the opening of the regional jail. He advised that the actual local cost will
be approximately $5.5 million and the state's share, based upon the normal
percentages that are paid by the SCB, would be approximately $3,187,000. He advised
that they have asked that this amount be considered for inclusion in the Governor's
budget, and they have asked each of the participating governments to adopt a
resolution to be forwarded to the Governor's Office.
Supervisor Flora inquired if 194 employees would be the total number
hired for the regional jail and asked for the best estimate on the number of staff that will
be transferred from the existing facilities to the regional jail because of the reduction in
inmates at the local jails. Mr. Chambliss advised that there are emergency funded
positions which would not necessarily be transferred from the local facilities to the
regional jail, and reported that there will be an open application process whereby staff
can request a transfer from the local jails. He advised that they anticipate that there will
be experienced staff hired from Sheriffs offices, local jails and the State Department of
Corrections. He advised that it is preferable and they desire to have a blend of
756
August 28, 2007
employees who have experience as well as entering the corrections field for the first
time working at the local and regional jails.
Supervisor Church advised that at the appropriate time, he would move
approval of the resolution.
Supervisor Altizer advised that normally when a regional jail is opened, the
local jails are closed; however, this is a new process and may serve as a model for
other localities seeking to establish regional jails. He advised that the Board has to take
this approach of requesting funds from the Governor's budget because there is no
statute that allows the Board of Corrections to accomplish this. Mr. Chambliss advised
that the County followed the example of the Hampton Facility which is the only one in
the state to build a new jail to cover an expansion and retain local jails. Mr. Chambliss
advised that another cost savings in retaining the existing jails is that there are
approximately 217 certified jail beds which will not have to be replicated at a cost of
approximately $180,000 to $200,000 per bed. He also advised that there is an
operational savings to keeping the existing jails since the arresting officer will continue
to use the local jail rather than having to go to the regional jail and come back to
continue patrols.
Supervisor Church moved approval of the resolution with comment. He
advised that there was no immediate fiscal impact on this year's budget and inquired if
staff would estimate the usage and determine an amount for fiscal year 2008-2009 at a
later date. Mr. Chambliss advised that the cost figure used at this meeting is being
August 28, 2007
757
projected for fiscal year 2008-2009; however, since the Governor's budget is presented
in mid-December for consideration at the 2008 General Assembly, this request needs to
be approved by the Board at this time.
Supervisor Church's motion to adopt the resolution carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 082807-3 AUTHORIZING A REQUEST TO THE
VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE
COST OF JAIL PERSONNEL HIRED PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF
THE WESTERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL
WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Franklin County, Montgomery County, and the
City of Salem have entered into a cooperative agreement and formed the Western
Virginia Regional Jail Authority pursuant to 53.1-95.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as
amended, to construct and operate the regional jail on behalf of the four localities, and
WHEREAS, the jail project has been approved by the Board of Corrections and
is eligible for reimbursement up to fifty percent (50%) of eligible project costs of the
regional jail facility pursuant to 53.1-81 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, and
WHEREAS, the regional jail is under construction and is anticipated to open on
March 9, 2009, and
WHEREAS, staffing costs incurred by the Authority prior to the opening of the
facility are not eligible for reimbursement, and
WHEREAS, the three local jails will remain in operation and will retain their staff,
and
WHEREAS, the regional jail will hire a total of 194 new staff and the majority of
this staff must be hired in September 2008 to allow new officers to complete the basic
corrections academy as mandated by the Department of Criminal Justice Services, and
WHEREAS, the Authority is responsible to fund $5,554,460 in start-up staffing
costs including fringe benefits.
758
August 28, 2007
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, that it requests assistance from our legislators to seek
reimbursement from the General Assembly and the Commonwealth of Virginia to
include $3,187,931 in the Governor's budget to offset the cost for new employees hired
before the scheduled opening of the jail to ensure all new employees complete
academy and other specialized training as mandated by the Department of Criminal
Justice Services, and
That it hereby authorizes the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute
such documents and to take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the
purposes of this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. ReQuest to appropriate J66.000 from the Western Virainia
Reaional Jail Authority to the Information Technoloav Department
for Information TechnoloQV Services. (John Chambliss. Assistant
County Administrator)
A-082807 -4
Mr. Chambliss advised that at the August 14, 2007, meeting, the Board
approved a consulting agreement with the County's Information Technology (IT)
Department and the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority to allow technical services
by the IT Department for the new regional jail. He stated that the fiscal impact for the
services would be $6,000 per month paid from the regional jail to the County and these
funds would be used to provide additional staffing assistance to the IT Dept so that the
existing programs could continue without delay. He advised that the incoming funds
total $66,000 and requested that these funds be appropriated to the IT Department so
they can hire the appropriate staff to assist with this project.
August 28, 2007
759
There was no discussion of this item.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation
(appropriation of the monies from the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority to provide
Information Technology Advisory Services at the rate of $6,000 per month - total of
$66,000 for fiscal year 2007-2008). The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. Request to appropriate $9.082.780 to uparade the 800 MHz radio
system and to adopt ~ resolution declarina intent to reimburse
expenditures from bond proceeds. (Diane Hyatt. Chief Financial
Officer)
A-082807 -5; R-082807-6
Ms. Hyatt advised that at the August 14, 2007, County Board meeting, the
Board authorized the County Administrator to execute a contract with Motorola for
$9,082,780 for the upgrade of the 800 MHz radio system to digital. She stated that this
action was contingent upon a financing plan and the appropriation of funds by the
Board. She advised that the system upgrade will take place over a 25 month period
and that the County currently has $5,181,508 available to pay toward the purchase of
the radios. She stated that of this amount, $5 million is currently in the Minor County
Capital Fund and it has been noted for several years that it would go toward the radio
760 August 28,2007
purchase. Ms. Hyatt stated that the additional $181,508 is currently in a Fire and
Rescue Capital account to go toward the purchase of radios.
Ms. Hyatt advised that the remaining $3,901,272 can be borrowed over a
ten-year period of time. She stated that this borrowing could be done as a stand-alone
lease purchase through Motorola or another company using the radios as collateral for
the borrowing, and that the debt service on this stand-alone borrowing would be in the
range of $600,000 annually; however, with the other capital projects that the Board is
currently considering, it would be more cost effective to include it in one large revenue
bond sale in Spring 2008. Ms. Hyatt advised that the radios could be included as a
portion of that sale and be structured for payment over a ten year period. Ms. Hyatt
advised that the available cash is sufficient to make the planned payments until the
Spring 2008 bond sale, and if the bond sale does not materialize, the County could still
finance through a lease-purchase at that time.
Ms. Hyatt advised that staff makes the following recommendations: (1)
adopt a resolution which allows the County to reimburse itself from future bond issues
or other financings; and (2) appropriate $9,082,780 to the Radio 800 MHz Upgrade
Project from the following sources: (a) Minor Capital Fund - $5,000,000; (b) Fire/Rescue
Capital - 181,508; and (c) Future Borrowings $3,901,272.
Ms. Hyatt advised that Elaine Carver, Chief Information Officer, was
present to answer questions.
August 28, 2007
761
Supervisor Flora advised that this project which is very expensive has
been anticipated for a number of years, and it is good planning that the County has $5
million for the project instead of having to borrow the entire amount. He questions
whether the $600,000 annual payment on the borrowed portion is built into the
operating budget, will come from funds set aside for the debt service or from 9-1-1-
revenues. Ms. Hyatt advised that there is no additional money coming from the 9-1-1
revenues. She stated that the funds will come from a combination of sources that she
would review at the work session this afternoon and will be from available funds from
the current debt structure of the County.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the analog system in Roanoke City would
cause any interference or delay in communications during the 25 month upgrading
period. Ms. Carver advised that there will not be any issues with being able to
communicate back and forth with Roanoke City. She advised that this issue was
discussed when they negotiated the contract, and they worked very closely with
Roanoke City and Motorola.
Supervisor Wray moved to approve the staff recommendation (appropriate
$9,082,780 to the Radio 800 MHz Upgrade Project from the following sources: Minor
Capital Fund $5,000,000; Fire/Rescue Capital 181,508; and Future Borrowings
$3,901,272) and adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
762
August 28, 2007
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 082807-6 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO
REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF A FINANCING FOR
CERTAIN COSTS TO UPGRADE THE 800 MHZ RADIO SYSTEM TO
DIGITAL
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the
"County") has determined that it may be necessary or desirable to advance money to
pay the costs of designing, installing, and equipping an upgrade of the County 800 MHz
radio system to digital (the "Project"),
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under
Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2.
2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or
to be made by the County to pay the costs of designing, installing, and equipping the
Project from the proceeds of its debt or other financing. The maximum amount of debt
or other financing expected to be issued for the designing, installing, and equipping the
project is $9,082,780.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
4. Reauest for approval of an amendment to the Roanoke County
Investment Policv. (Kevin Hutchins. Treasurer)
A-082807 -7
Mr. Hutchins advised that the County's Investment policy was adopted in
1987. He stated that due to the fluid and ever-changing nature of investments, this
policy is considered to be a living document which has to be revised periodically. He
August 28, 2007
763
advised that since 1987, five revisions of the policy have occurred with the last revision
being in 2001.
Mr. Hutchins advised that for the past several years the County has
actually enjoyed having an inverted yield curve resulting in more earning potential for
short-term government investments than those of longer duration. He advised that as a
result of this inverted yield curve, there has been a wider divergence between US
Treasury and US Government Agency notes. He advised that currently there is a yield
separation of 60 basis points between investment percent return on Government
Agency versus US Treasury. He advised that they normally buy bonds in $1 million
increment and 60 basis points would mean $6,000 worth of interest per year. He stated
that by making a change to the investment policy of the overall percentage of the
County's assets, approximately $80,000 of interest could be earned each year.
Mr. Hutchins advised that the County is only limited by its investment
policy as to specific allocations. He stated that these investments are allowed by the
State Code of Virginia under Section 2.2-4500-4517, and that the State Code makes no
difference between a US Treasury or US Government Agency. He advised that they
are requesting an amendment to the County Investment Policy to change the allocation
percentage from 70 percent to 80 percent in order to maximize their return on
investments. He advised that this request is not being made in reaction to what has just
happened in the last couple of weeks with sub-prime lending and the financial meltdown
in the market. He advised that he has been concerned about the County's allocation
764
August 28, 2007
percentage for some time, and since he wrote this Board report, the Federal discount
rate was cut on August 17 which immediately affected US Treasury and Government
Agencies rates. He advised that this amendment would be an increase in earnings
potential which would benefit the County and there is no negative fiscal impact. He
requested that the Board approve the amendment to the Investment Policy.
Supervisor McNamara inquired how the figure of 70 percent for
investments was obtained and where would the other 30 percent be invested. Mr.
Hutchins replied that 70 percent is the maximum allowable percentage that staff was
willing to put into one type of investment and that percentage is not set by the State
Code. He advised that the County's investment policy separates US Treasury and US
Government Agencies; however, under State Code both are seen as the same type of
investment so 80 percent would not be taking on any more risk. He advised that he
spoke with the auditors concerning the rate of investment and while they would not give
an official opinion, they indicated that they do not have a problem with the amount
designated. Mr. Hutchins advised that the remainder (30 percent) of the County's funds
could be put into other investments whether it is money market fund, US Treasury, US
Government Agencies, or Local Government Investment Pool; however, these would
not apply to the 80 percent allocation and the County could have a mix of the same type
of investments.
August 28, 2007
765
Supervisor McNamara inquired if the County could invest in commercial
paper not to exceed $1 million. Mr. Hutchins advised that the County is permitted to do
this; however, the last revision of the Investment Policy in 2001 was made by the Board
because of the relationship that the County had with commercial paper. He advised
that when he became treasurer in January 2004, he did not want any of the public funds
to be invested in corporate paper because while you can achieve a higher interest rate,
you take on a great deal of risk by associating with these investments.
Supervisor Wray inquired about zero balance accounts (ZBA) and how
they are utilized. Mr. Hutchins advised that the ZBA is something totally different from
how the County operates the investments that are purchased. He reported that the
County has a main concentration account with a target limit, and funds above that target
limit goes into overnight interest and purchases in and sells out each morning so that
the interest is maintained; however, the funds are concentrated together so they can be
utilized in one place. He further explained that the County then has a ZBA which pools
funds from those accounts only when necessary for vouchers, payroll or other items and
the County does not keep funds in that account which are not working for the County.
He stated that the County utilizes an electronic system to manage its accounts.
Supervisor Church complimented Mr. Hutchins on his thorough
presentation and advised that he was proud that Mr. Hutchins is the County Treasurer.
766
August 28, 2007
Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation (approval
of the proposed amendment to the Investment Policy). The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
.L First readina of ordinance to rezone 15.67 acres from C-1 C, Office
District with conditions, to PTD, Planned Technoloav Development
District, for the operation of an office and assemblv of
technoloaical/enaineered products, located at 1325 Electric Road,
Windsor Hills Maaisterial District, upon the petition of Fralin &
Waldron Commercial Rental.
2. First readina of ordinance to obtain! Special Use Permit to operate!
construction yard in an AV, AariculturalNillaae Center District, on
1.87 acres, located at 2914 Jae Vallev Road, Vinton Maaisterial
District. upon the petition of McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first readings and set the
second readings and public hearings for September 26, 2007. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
August 28, 2007
767
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
None
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1: First readinQ of an ordinance approvinQ the West Roanoke River
Flood MitiQation proiect. Phase !h acceptinQ flood mitiQation Qrant
of -'300.398 from FEMA and appropriatinQ the Qrant to this
proiect. authorizinQ the County match of J100.132 to be paid
throuQh funds and in-kind labor from the Department of
Community Development. and authorizinQ the aCQuisition of real
estate to reduce the number of structures in the Roanoke River
Flood Plain. Catawba MaQisterial District. (Arnold Covey.
Director. Community Development)
Mr. Covey advised that the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
Emergency Management, has notified the County of approval of a grant application to
fund the acquisition of flood-prone homes along the Roanoke River in Roanoke County.
He reported that the grant is from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
in the amount of $300,398; the County's match is $132,000 which will be paid through
funds and in-kind labor from the Department of Community Development; and the total
costs of the project is $400,530. He advised that the three properties were selected for
acquisition from the FEMA repetitive loss list based on the severity of flooding and
flooding depths. He advised that the property owners have been contacted and signed
AYES:
NAYS:
INRE:
768
August 28, 2007
a voluntary participation agreement to sell. Mr. Covey advised that the County's share
of this project will be paid by Community Development funds that have been earmarked
in the Drainage IFlood Control capitol account for flood mitigation projects.
Mr. Covey advised that staff recommendation is to accept the grant and
authorize staff to match with funds and in-kind labor from the Department of Community
Development, and approve an ordinance to authorize the acquisition of the identified
properties.
Supervisor Flora inquired how many houses were identified as eligible for
purchase. Mr. Covey advised that 24 properties have been identified; they receive an
updated list from FEMA every two years; and they start at the top of the list to contact
the property owners. In response to further inquiries from Supervisor Flora, Mr. Covey
advised that the three houses being purchased were Number 1, 3 and 7 on the list, and
the owners of other properties on the list between these numbers declined to
participate.
Supervisor Church advised that he felt this was a positive action by FEMA
and the County, and can only improve the situation. He advised that he would hope to
see this work continue in this direction in the future.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for September 11, 2007. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
August 28, 2007
769
IN RE:
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1: Second readina of an ordinance approvina ! residential lease at
the Roanoke County Center for Research and Technoloav.
Catawba Maaisterial District. (Anne Marie Green. Director of
General Services)
0-082807 -8
Ms. Green advised that this is the second reading of an ordinance to rent
the log cabin which is located at the corner of the Center for Research and Technology
(CRT) property. She advised that they have listed the name of the tenants in the
ordinance and the property will be leased from September 28, 2007, until September
27,2008, at a rental of $700 per month. She advised that staff recommended approval
of the second reading of the ordinance so that the lease can be signed.
Supervisor Church advised that this action has been taken on a fairly
routine basis, and it is very positive for the County and CRT.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 082807-8 APPROVING THE RESIDENTIAL LEASE OF
THE LOG CABIN LYING GENERALLY IN THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CENTER FOR RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY PROPERTY (TAX MAP NO. 54.00-1-2) IN THE
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT OWNED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
770
August 28, 2007
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County is the owner of a tract of
land containing 457.60 acres, being located in the Catawba Magisterial District and
designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map No.54.00-1-2, which is
being developed for economic development purposes as the Roanoke County Center for
Research and Technology; and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance 031098-7, the Board of Supervisors authorized the
continued rental of the three residences on the property until such time as construction
would begin and require termination; and
WHEREAS, the leases for 5365 Glenmary Drive and 5393 Glenmary Drive were
terminated by the County, effective November 1, 1999, to permit commencement of
construction; and
WHEREAS, the log cabin at 4958 Glenvar Heights Boulevard had been rented until
recently; and
WHEREAS, it would serve the public interest for the County to have the log cabin
occupied and maintained until such time as all or portions thereof may be needed for
economic development purposes; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1997, the Board authorized the creation of a self
balancing account entitled Glenn Mary Capital Account for acceptance of rent payments
and expenditure of the funds on maintenance of the property; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 14,
2007; and the second reading was held on August 28,2007.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the County Administrator or his designee is hereby authorized to
execute a lease agreement with Giles Phillip Cochran and Terrie L. Cochran for the log
cabin residence having the address of 4958 Glenvar Heights Boulevard, from September
28, 2007, to September 27, 2008, thereafter continuing on a month to month basis, for a
monthly rental of $700.00 to be paid into the Glenn Mary Capital Account.
2. That the County Administrator or his designee is authorized to execute said
lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke and to
execute such other documents and take such further actions as are necessary to
accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions
approved by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
August 28, 2007
771
INRE:
APPOINTMENTS
1:. Capital Improvement Proaram (CIP) Review Committee (appointed
.ID! district)
Chairman McNamara advised that the following one-year terms will expire
on August 31, 2007: (a) King Harvey, Catawba District; (b) James T. Anderson, Cave
Spring District; and (c) Brian Garber, Windsor Hills District
Supervisors Church and Wray advised that they plan to make
appointments at the next Board meeting.
1 Clean Vallev Council
Chairman McNamara advised that the two-year term of Dennis "Chip"
Harris expired on June 30, 2007.
Supervisor Wray advised that he may be able to make an appointment at
the next meeting.
3. Economic Development Authority
Chairman McNamara advised that Craig W. Sharp, who lives in the Vinton
District, has submitted his resignation effective at such time as a replacement may be
appointed or at the end of August 2007. Mr. Sharp is serving a four term which will
expire September 26, 2010. He also reported that the four-year terms of Gregory
Apostolou, who lives in the Hollins District, and Carole Brackman who lives in the
Catawba District, will expire September 26, 2007.
772 August 28, 2007
Supervisor Flora requested that the Clerk contact Mr. Apostolou to
determine if he is willing to serve another term, and if so, place confirmation of his
appointment on the Consent Agenda at the next meeting.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he would submit the name of a
replacement to serve the remainder of Mr. Sharp's term at the next meeting.
4. Grievance Panel
Chairman McNamara advised that the three-year term of R. Vincent
Reynolds will expire on September 10, 2007.
Supervisor Flora requested that the Clerk verify Mr. Reynolds' eligibility for
reappointment with the Human Resources Department and contact Mr. Reynolds to
determine if he is willing to serve another term. It was the consensus of the Board that
if Mr. Reynolds is willing to serve another term, confirmation of his appointment be
placed on the Consent Agenda at the next meeting.
5. Local Governments for Sustainabilitv (ICLEI)
Chairman McNamara advised that at the Board meeting on August 14,
2007, the County approved a resolution to join this organization. He stated that In order
to complete the application process, a Board member needs to be appointed as liaison
to this organization.
6. Reaional Stormwater Manaaement Committee
Chairman McNamara advised that the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany
Regional Commission has requested that the County appoint a Board member to serve
August 28, 2007
773
on its Regional Stormwater Management Committee. He advised that the Commission
hopes to hold the initial meeting of the committee in early September, and they have
requested that the name of the County's representative be forwarded to Wayne
Strickland at the Regional Commission by August 17, 2007.
Supervisor McNamara suggested that this appointment be discussed later
in the meeting.
7. Western Virainia Water Authoritv Board of Directors
Chairman McNamara advised that the three-year term of Elmer C. Hodge
expired on June 30, 2007.
Mr. Hodge requested that a closed session be added pursuant to Code of
Virginia Section 2.2-3711.A (1) discussion and consideration of appointments of
prospective candidates for the following committees: Local Governments for
Sustainability (ICLEI); Regional Stormwater Management Committee; and Western
Virginia Water Authority. It was the consensus of the Board to add the closed session.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-082807 -9
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
774
August 28, 2007
RESOLUTION 082807-9 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN
ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 28,
2007, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5 inclusive, as follows:
1. Request to appropriate $6,712 in State funds to Library Services for fiscal
year 2007-08.
2. Request to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $3,661.94 from the
Library of Virginia to Library Services for mandated technology protection
measures for public computers.
3. Request to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $3,000 from the Division
of Motor Vehicles to the Police Department for the "Click It or Ticket"
campaign.
4. Request to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $47,100 from the
Division of Motor Vehicles to the Police Department to support traffic
enforcement and training.
5. Request to accept and appropriate a Local Government Challenge Grant in
the amount of $5,000 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts
That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by
law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the consent resolution, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
INRE:
REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
August 28, 2007
775
INRE:
1: General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Continaency
4. Accounts Paid = July 2007
4. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended July 31. 2007
5. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Budaet Report
6. Public Safety Center Buildina Proiect Chanae Order Report
CLOSED MEETING
At 4:00 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711.A (30)
discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds
and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, namely, the comprehensive
agreement for the multi-generational recreation facility, where discussion in open
session would adversely effect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the
County; Section 2.2-3711.A (30) discussion of the award of a public contract with the
Economic Development Authority and English Construction involving the expenditure of
public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, namely, a
performance agreement for the development of a new business park, where discussion
in open session would adversely effect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of
the County; and Section 2.2-3711.A (3) discussion of the acquisition of real estate for
776
August 28, 2007
public purposes from English Construction of approximately 12 acres of real estate for
the development of the multi-generational recreation facility, where discussion in open
session would adversely effect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the
County; Section 2.2-3711.A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real
property for public purposes; namely, economic development purposes; and Section
2.2-3711.A (1) discussion and consideration of appointments of prospective candidates
for the following committees: Local Governments for Sustainability (lCLEI); Regional
Stormwater Management Committee; and Western Virginia Water Authority. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss the Update to the Roanoke Valley
Greenway Conceptual Plan. (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Plannina: Liz Belcher, Greenway Coordinator)
The work session was held from 4:10 p.m. until 4:46 p.m. with the
following County staff present: Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning, and
Janet Scheid, County Planner. Others present included Liz Belcher, Greenway
Coordinator; Lucy Ellett, Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission; and Shane Sawyer,
Regional Planner, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission.
August 28, 2007
777
Ms. Belcher advised that the County Planning Commission has
recommended that the 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan
be adopted by the Board as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan just as the 1996
plan was adopted. She advised that Ms. Scheid would provide background and details
about the updated plan via a Power Point presentation.
Ms. Scheid reported on the many benefits to having greenways and stated
that the reasons to update the plan included improving the process of getting
greenways built and updating and prioritizing greenway routes. She referred to a chart
showing that 3.01 miles of greenways have been built in Roanoke County during 1997
to 2007. She advised that there was community involvement and input and that the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the plan.
Ms. Scheid advised that the goals of the new plan are: (1) Greenway
Construction: Complete a connected greenway network and focus on finishing the
Roanoke River Greenway in five years. (2) Funding: Increase and diversify funding. (3)
Land Acquisition: Develop a program that provides rights-of-way needed. (4)
Community Education: Develop a community outreach & education program. She
advised that strategies to implement the plan include: (1) Develop a Roanoke River
Greenway Master Plan and an Implementation Plan to use in soliciting corporation
donations. (2) Form land acquisition teams to assist with acquisition of greenway
easements. (3) Develop public relations documents that focus on Roanoke River
Greenway.
778
August 28, 2007
Ms. Scheid advised that the Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department
will work with the Commission to submit Capital Improvement Project (CIP) requests for
the Roanoke River Greenway, and this year's request will focus on the eastern section
from the Waste Water Treatment Plant to the Blue Ridge Parkway. She advised that
the Commission would like to hold public hearings this fall to adopt the updated plan as
part of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. The Commission would also like to
continue its partnership with the County and other localities to develop a regional
greenway network.
In response to inquiries from Supervisor Altizer, Ms. Belcher advised that
it takes approximately eighteen months to finalize a greenway route and acquire the
rights-of-way, and Ms. Scheid advised that they hope to have the right-of-way
acquisitions completed for the Roanoke River Greenway by early 2009.
Mr. Hodge advised that he felt the Board was supportive of the updated
plan which he felt was much improved and focused. However, before bringing the plan
back to the Board for an endorsement or adoption into the Comprehensive Plan, he
would like to have discussions concerning what obligations the County might incur as a
result of adopting another agency's master plan.
August 28, 2007
779
2. Work session to discuss County capital fundina. (Elmer Hodae.
County Administrator)
The work session was held from 4:50 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. with the
following County staff present: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator, and Diane Hyatt,
Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Hodge advised that the funding method which was established several
years ago for the County and schools to accomplish capital projects has been very
successful, and these funds have increased on a systematic basis. He assured the
Board that only County funds will be used for County capital projects and that the
current commitments to future school operations or capital will not be affected.
Ms. Hyatt advised that the County and schools allocate funds to the joint
account on a fifty-fifty percent basis each budget year, and the funds are allocated two-
thirds to the schools and one-third to the County.
Ms. Hyatt distributed and discussed the following schedules which were
drafted as of August 28, 2007: (1) County and schools projection of future debt payment
reserve fund; (2) County capital projects sources and uses of funds; and (3) Sources of
funds for annual debt service. Ms. Hyatt explained that the County plans to combine
the following five capital projects into a bond issue for Spring 2008: (1) Garage; (2)
South County Library; (3) Multigenerational Recreation Center; (4) Radio System; and
(5) North County Fire Station. Ms. Hyatt advised that the total cost of all the capital
projects, including the Business Park and Franklin County water line, is $74 million; the
780
August 28, 2007
bond issue will be $58.3 million; and the remainder of the debt will be paid from other
County funds.
There was discussion concerning whether the bonds would be for twenty
or thirty years, and Ms. Hyatt advised that the radio system was a ten-year loan while
the other four capital projects were thirty-year loans.
Ms. Hyatt advised that the schools are in the process of issuing bonds for
$23.2 million and based on preliminary projections, they will have $2.6 million of unused
allocation after the sale.
INRE:
CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 5:55 p.m. until 6:35 p.m.
INRE:
CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-082807 -10
At 7:05 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 082807-10 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.
August 28, 2007
781
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
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 McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
INRE:
NEW BUSINESS
1: Reauest for authorization to enter into ! Public-Private
Partnership Performance Aareement with Enalish Construction
Company. Inc. to provide for infrastructure improvements to open
! new 200 acre Business Park. Hollins Maaisterial District. (Elmer
Hodae. County Administrator)
A-082807 -11
Chairman McNamara advised that this agenda item and the following item
are related because the first deals with infrastructure improvements and the second
concerns the multigenerational recreation center. He requested, with the consensus of
the Board, that the procedure should be as follows: (1) presentations on both items; (2)
Board discussion, (3) citizens will speak; and (4) the Board would deliberate. There
were no objections from the Board members to this procedure.
Mr. Hodge advised that the first item concerns the development of a new
782
August 28, 2007
business park in partnership with English Construction Company and the County's
involvement in incentives regarding the park's infrastructure. He reported that Doug
Dalton, President of English Construction Company, was present to give an overview of
the park. Mr. Hodge advised that they have discussed this with the Board many times
and made a presentation before; however, he stated that the park is located at the
intersection of Interstates 81 and 581, contains approximately 100 acres and possibly
more acreage as Mr. Dalton will report later. He advised that the County is delighted to
have the opportunity to develop a new business park because they realized fifteen
years ago when Valleypoint Phase I opened that the back side of the property, which
has more acreage and is visible from Interstates 81 and 581, should be developed. He
advised that the County has the opportunity to provide incentives to help initiate the
infrastructure improvements at the entrance to the business park with the ultimate result
being approximately 2,000 jobs and in excess of $2 million in additional revenues.
Mr. Hodge advised that there have been inquiries asking if the revenues
are related to the multigenerational recreation center. Mr. Hodge advised that County
revenues go undesignated into the general fund; however, funds can then be
designated for certain purposes such as Fire and Rescue. He reported that the County
is paying for the recreation center from funds from the County's reserve account. He
advised that the County shares new revenues with the County schools, and it is
important for the schools to realize that the recreation center does not compete with
revenues from the business park. He advised that the revenues from the business park
August 28, 2007
783
will be utilized as the Board and School Board determine and shared according to
policy. He advised that the business park is very important because of the jobs which
will be generated for citizens and the incentive for premier companies to locate in this
area. He advised that after Mr. Dalton shares his vision for the business park, he would
review how the contract applies to the incentive package and make some revisions.
Mr. Dalton advised that there have been several work sessions with the
Board over the past fifteen years to pursue the possibility of developing this property
which the company has owned since 1985. He stated that it has been their vision that
this property might be used as a professional office park, and they are committed to
moving the project forward quickly and successfully in partnership with the County. He
advised that although they have a schematic of the appearance of the park, they do not
have a master plan. He stated that they have pledged to the County to present a
detailed master plan with all of the criteria that would be acceptable to the County and
necessary to rezone this property from heavy industrial use to an office park. He
advised that subject to moving ahead with the project upon the Board's approval, they
have entered into a contract to establish a master plan in concert with the County staff.
Mr. Dalton stated that they have also received a commitment to cooperate
from the tenant who operates a large business on the property and has agreed to
minimize immediately their footprint of operation and during 2012, if not sooner, relocate
the asphalt plant from the center of the property to another area. He advised that the
landowner has also pledged to partner with the County to extend Valleypoint Boulevard
784
August 28, 2007
to Wood haven Road with the first section of a new entrance into the park far enough to
provide access and a formal entrance into the multigenerational recreation park if the
County chooses to build it. He advised that this will be a four-lane landscaped
thoroughfare with divided median. He advised that the actions he has described have
already been set in motion to move ahead with the business park if the County
approves, and he pledged his efforts to move this office park forward as quickly as
possible in a continuing partnership with the County.
Mr. Hodge requested that Ray Booth, English Construction Company,
point out the extension of the road, and advised that Mr. Booth would provide
information about the road which is one of the County's incentives to help with the
business park. Mr. Booth advised that beyond the fiber optics plant, the road changes
from four-lanes to two-lanes, and they plan to continue the four-lane divided road to
Wood haven Road, into the entrance to the park, and beyond the entrance to the
multigenerational recreation center. He advised that the concept is to make a loop of
the road within the approximately 200 acre business park. Mr. Dalton advised that the
road will be designed to state standards and turned over to the state road system. Mr.
Dalton stated that they have acquired all of the necessary rights-of-way as well as the
property that they did not own initially. He referred to this property as the Simpson
property and advised that this acreage was added to the park to provide the right-of-way
for the extension of the road to the park.
August 28, 2007
785
Mr. Hodge advised that it was agreed that while the road work was being
done, the water and lines would be oversized to accommodate the needs of the existing
families and companies in the area. Mr. Hodge further advised that fiber optics and
natural gas lines necessary would also be completed at one time. He stated that the
County has broken the incentive package into two components, and they have
estimated that a return on investment that would be suitable for the County would be
$2.5 million. He advised that at one time, the incentive package was to be $500,000 for
five years; however, since more information has been received, the incentives have
been broken into two components.
Mr. Hodge advised that the first component of the incentives is to
reimburse English Construction Company for the actual cost of the construction of the
road, intersection, and water and sewer lines with two payments. He stated that one of
the payments will be halfway through the project and the other will be paid upon
completion and based on actual costs. He advised that the actual cost of the
infrastructure will be higher and English Construction Company will invest a similar
amount to the amount that the County is putting into the infrastructure improvements.
Mr. Hodge advised that the second component of the County's incentive would be $1
million, which will be withheld until they actually begin developing the property and there
is a sufficient return on that.
786
August 28, 2007
Mr. Hodge advised that upon completion of the road and the
multigenerational recreation center, the 30 acre site will be available for sale and it is
being marketed now. He advised that additional properties are being bought on the
bottom side of Wood haven Road and those are being added to the office park as well.
He advised that the office park is getting larger in concept than it was when it was
originally brought to the Board and staff thinks has determined that it is a good project
for the County.
Chairman McNamara inquired if Mr. Hodge had a separate presentation
for the second agenda item. Mr. Hodge advised that before presenting information on
the second item, he would like to cover the amendments to the draft contract which was
included with the Board's agenda. Mr. Hodge advised that page 5, paragraph D, would
have to be amended because the last sentence in paragraph D refers to the original
method of $500,000 for five years. He stated that since this method was changed to
basing it on the infrastructure on the performance that was put in place, that sentence is
no longer necessary. He advised that page 5, paragraph 3, suggested that English
Construction Company would refund the County for the infrastructure costs if the
business park does not go forward, and because this is an unlikely event and the
County is actually withholding $1 million, the refund of that will not be necessary. Mr.
Hodge advised that he has discussed the rewording of these paragraphs with Mr.
Mahoney and the Board members, and he will review these with Mr. Dalton in the next
few days and finalize the contract. Mr. Hodge advised that if there were no questions
August 28, 2007
787
on this agenda item, he would suggest moving to the next item.
Supervisor McNamara inquired how the amount of $2.5 million has been
changed in Item 3, page 5. Mr. Hodge advised that the $2.5 million has been broken
into two components with one being $1.5 million which reflects a first reimbursement
and a second reimbursement and the $1 million that will be withheld. Supervisor
McNamara inquired how the changes will be made if the Board is being asked to
approve the agenda item at this meeting. Mr. Hodge advised that he would recommend
approval of the agenda item subject to changes to be made by Mr. Mahoney and to the
funding allocation by the Finance Department. Supervisor McNamara inquired as to the
other change that was being made. Mr. Hodge advised that there were only two
changes and stated that both changes are on page 5, with one being the last sentence
of paragraph D and striking refund in the third line of paragraph 3.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the changes would affect the refund dates if
the park does not generate the required revenues. Mr. Hodge advised that the County
has incorporated certain conditions in the agreement which include a master plan,
rezoning, and relocation of the asphalt plant to another location by 2012 in order to
market the properties in the center of the acreage, and he advised that the County will
withhold $1 million until these conditions are met. Mr. Hodge advised that if the park
builds out faster and the asphalt plant is relocated before 2012, the County would be
pleased to refund the $1 million.
788
August 28, 2007
Supervisor Wray stated that if English Construction Company was
assigned to a separate entity at any time, this would not relieve them of the refund or
these obligations. Mr. Hodge advised that this was correct. Mr. Mahoney advised that
he had misunderstood and thought that paragraph 3 was going to be amended so that
on line one instead of $2.5 million, it would read $1 million, and there would still be a
refund obligation if the new business park did not generate new local revenues in the
amount of $1 million. Mr. Hodge explained that if the asphalt plant is not relocated by
2012 and the County pays the $1 million incentive to English Construction Company
before they have met their criteria and the park does not built and there are no
companies located there, it is potentially a refund situation because no revenue will be
generated. Mr. Hodge further explained that the County can withhold the $1 million until
the asphalt plant is relocated and if there are still no companies in the park generating
additional tax revenue by 2017, English Construction Company would be required to
repay the $1 million. Mr. Hodge advised that staff will finalize the contract with Mr.
Dalton and it will be substantially in compliance and conformance as discussed at this
Board meeting. He advised that if there are changes, he would bring the contract back
to the Board.
August 28, 2007
789
2. Reauest approval for the execution of ! Comprehensive
AQreement with FirstChoice Public : Private Partners: Roanoke
Recreation Center. LLC. for the construction of a
MultiQenerational Recreation Center. Hollins MaQisterial District.
(Elmer HodQe. County Administrator: Dan O'Donnell. Assistant
County Administrator: Pete Haislip. Director. Parks. Recreation
and Tourism)
A-082807-12
Mr. Hodge advised the second agenda item is a request for approval to
execute a comprehensive agreement with FirstChoice Public-Private Partners for a
recreation center. He advised that he is making this presentation because Mr.
O'Donnell is unable to be at the meeting because of his father's illness. Mr. Hodge
advised that Mr. O'Donnell serves as project manager and deserves the credit for the
negotiation of the agreement.
Mr. Hodge advised that the business park and the recreation center are
directly connected because Mr. Dalton has stated that the recreation center is an
opportunity to anchor and provide for growth in the business park. Mr. Hodge advised
that the recreation center will be built on 12 acres of land which is part of the new
business park, and was brought to the Board in November 2006 and July 2007. He
advised that on August 14, the County received some of the design concepts and the
scope of the work, that public notice was posted on the website and in the Roanoke
790
August 28, 2007
Time, and that the citizens have been provided much information for their input. He
advised that the center was part of a master plan for the Parks, Recreation and Tourism
Department, and there have been numerous meetings in the community where citizens
voice their support. He stated that members of the Board visited other localities to see
how their recreation centers had been built and have a very good understanding of the
design and quality of work and the benefits to the County. He advised that the
recreation center will be a benefit for the citizens who live here and an economic
development tool for sports marketing. He advised that Doug Westmoreland, who is
one of two partners in FirstChoice Public-Private Partners, will share an overview of the
recreation center, and that Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
Department and citizens who would use the facility will also speak.
Mr. Westmoreland advised that FirstChoice Public-Private Partners is a
partnership between English Construction and Moseley Architects, and the Board met
Doug Dalton and Ray Booth earlier. He advised that they have worked diligently with
the County staff including Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Haislip, Parks and Recreation Department
staff;; Warren Walker, construction adviser, and Construction Dynamics Group (CDG),
to craft a very strong proposal to meet the County's recreational needs. He advised that
the center will be an important asset to the citizens and contains approximately 75,000
square feet indoor and 14,000 square feet outdoor. He reported that there will be two
full basketball courts which can be used for many purposes other than basketball,
extensive fitness facilities, a three-lane walking track, two aerobic studios, extensive
August 28, 2007
791
indoor and outdoor aquatics which will include lap pools, lazy river, and zero entry of
pool for children and disabled citizens. He reported that there will also be multi-purpose
rooms available for groups which can be divided into three different spaces. He advised
that when they first started working with the design group, they established a project
vision with the citizens and some of the salient points of the vision say a lot about the
proposal. He advised that this center will welcome all ages, all activities, and all abilities
to enhance the quality of life of the citizens of Roanoke County. He advised that this will
be a signature recreation building which is functional, accessible, environmentally
friendly and affordable, and the center will be a sense of community pride and economic
generator for the new office park.
Mr. Hodge advised that Mr. Haislip would provide some thoughts and
input on the use of the recreation center. Mr. Haislip advised that this process has been
on-going for some time and the economic development benefits of the business park,
the quality of life and sports marketing have been discussed. He advised that he
thought it would be more appropriate for the Board to hear from the citizens, those of
whom have been involved in the process and those who have not, concerning the
importance of the reaction center. He advised that Debbie George, Chairperson, Parks,
Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission, who lives in the Hollins District, would
speak.
Ms. George, speaking on behalf of the Roanoke County Parks, Recreation
and Tourism Advisory Commission, expressed appreciation to the Board for their
792
August 28, 2007
consideration of this project. She advised that the Commission has tried to identify the
major needs and desires of the citizens, and indoor recreation facility with programming
was one of the citizens' top priorities. She advised that the Commission is pleased to
meet the citizens' needs while also providing an economic development incentive. She
advised that personally she was thrilled that the County might provide a facility that
would be family friendly and provide an additional venue to provide therapeutic
recreation for the community because she struggles as a parent to provide recreation
opportunities for her son who is autistic.
Mr. Haislip advised that he received numerous calls from citizens who
were attending a meeting at Northside High School and had been advised that they
would be sending letters of support.
Mr. Hodge advised that there were a number of people present to speak;
however, he wanted to assure the Board that the quality of this facility will be similar to
the quality of the other recreation building that they visited and that the cost will be very
reasonable. He advised that Warren Walker, construction manager for the Public
Safety Center, and now working on the recreation center, would address the Board. Mr.
Hodge stated that he wanted to point out that Mr. Mahoney was involved in all of the
negotiations for the agreement, that staff did an outstanding job of resolving any
uncertainties, contingencies, and that the cost is solid and the quality of the center will
make the Board proud.
August 28, 2007
793
Mr. Walker advised that he has been involved in a number of intense work
sessions with FirstChoice and County staff to clarify the scope for this project. He
advised that there were some reductions of the project during this time and they spent a
great deal of time working with Mr. Mahoney on the terms and conditions of the
contract. Mr. Walker stated that being a public-private partnership, they created a
unique comprehensive agreement under Virginia law that captures all the terms and
conditions that will bring a quality project at the best cost to the County. He advised that
they were also challenged to do a cost estimate to see if the costs that were being
proposed were reasonable, and they compared the costs of this facility to two others
that the CDG had been involved with managing and found that the construction costs
for this project lies in-between the other two completed projects. He advised that they
are confident that this is a good contract for the County and will bring a high-quality
project at a very reasonable cost.
The following citizens spoke in support of approving the multigenerational
recreation center: (1) Brad Grose, 407 Aragona Drive; (2) Cindy Bryan, Roanoke
County; (3) Becky Worley, Roanoke City resident; (4) Eugene J. Jones, 98A Colbourne
Avenue, Vinton; (5) Kevin Connelly, 6121 Renair Lane; (6) David Watt, 462 Nellie
Circle; (7) Lee Blair, 7713 Old Mill Forest, Advisory Commission; (8) Fred Corbett, 5511
Sternes Avenue, Advisory Commission; (9) Paul Huffman, 6323 Homewood Circle; (10)
Elaine Grubbs, 7198 Red Cedar Circle; and (11) Mary Catherine Dean, 8216
Strathmore Lane.
794
August 28, 2007
The following comments were made by citizens who spoke in support of
the Board approving the proposed multigenerational recreation center: (1) will add to
the quality of life for citizens; (2) will be used by a cross-section of citizens; (3)
opportunity for those in North County to attend classes and exercise since New Fitness
closed; (4) provide recreation opportunities for the entire family; (5) a central place for
people to meet each other and exercise; (6) will provide incentive for young adults to
remain in the area; (7) opportunity for economic development, receive revenues and
attract sports; (8) facility in North Roanoke but will serve all County citizens; (9)
opportunity to host recreation tournaments; (10) facilities are handicapped assessable
to provide those citizens recreation opportunities; and (11) will attract young engineers
and people to the area; and (12) excited about being able to use water aerobics.
Steve Noble, 5376 Cantor Drive, advised that he would speak against
building the recreation center because he feels it is the wrong time and place, and there
has not been enough information about the $26 million project cost. He advised that the
County's model is River Chase where the majority of the activities have fees with only a
few free activities. He advised that he is also concerned about the operational cost of
the building. He advised that the top five needs of the County from the recreation
survey are all outdoor activities and only the sixth item requires a building but not the
one proposed. He advised that aquatics are found in the private segment and the
County does not need to consider providing aquatics at this time. He stated that if the
County thinks this is such a great deal, why not combine both items and advance
August 28, 2007
795
English Construction Company $2.5 million for the road after they build, occupy and
operate the recreation center. He advised that he is opposed to the County putting this
cost obligation on its children and future citizens.
Eddie Elswick. Bent Mountain. advised that all of the citizens he spoke
with, except one, have expressed concern about high taxes and that so many projects
are being conducted at one time and financed without a bond issue. He advised that
the April 2006 survey showed that only 14 percent of the citizens responding wanted an
aquatics type facility while 58 percent wanted greenways and parks. He suggested that
the County conduct a statistically accurate survey of every citizen to determine if they
really want large capital expenditures and are willing to pay higher taxes for them. He
advised that the multigenerational facility reminds him of Explore Park where the County
wasted millions on a wish-list venture. He suggested that the County provide funds to
develop local scenic areas. He advised that there is an informal coalition of civic
organizations that meets at National College and on September 20, they will host a
debate for the candidates for the two open supervisory positions.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he was looking at the survey in reverse
and commented that 48 percent of the citizens reported that the County did not meet
their needs for outdoor swimming as well as indoor fitness and exercise. He advised
that this has been approximately a two-year process, and the Board visited St. Louis to
review their facility. He advised that he talked with the citizens in St. Louis, and the
conversations were similar to the comments expressed by citizens at this meeting. He
796
August 28, 2007
advised that a multigenerational center will meet the needs for all citizens and is an
investment in the citizens. He advised that the County recently invested $30 million in a
regional jail and he hoped that no citizens present would have to take advantage of that
investment.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he feels the multigenerational center is a
good investment in the quality of life especially for families and will be used by citizens
from all parts of the County. He advised that this facility will not cause young
professionals to stay in the area but it is a first step. He advised that this is a perfect
investment and the center will be used by all citizens from all parts of the County such
as the way that the Green Hill Park is currently utilized. He advised that Mr. Walker
helped make sure that the Public Safety Center was built on time and budget with no
cost overruns or unnecessary items. He advised that in work session today, the Board
was advised that not only was the Public Safety Center built on budget, they will retain
$1.8 million of the budgeted funds in cost savings. He advised that the Board has a
grasp of what the recreation center will cost, and he feels it is a fair cost and will be
managed properly. He believes that the way the Board has completed projects gives a
history that they will be done well. He advised that it is a big leap for the County to be
considering many capital projects; however, these projects are needed. He advised
that the County has to look to the future and be progressive. He believes this is a great
investment for the County because it is an investment in its citizens.
August 28, 2007
797
Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to the citizens present for
taking their time to attend the meeting. He advised that since Mr. Elswick mentioned
the meeting, he wanted to invite the citizens to attend the candidate night on September
20 at National College. He advised that he heard tonight what he has been hearing for
years and that is the County needs to finds ways to keep young adults in the area. He
believes that this recreation center would help in that effort. He advised that the Public
Safety Center which is located in the Catawba District but serves everyone was built on
time and budget and they will recoup some money from the project. He advised that
there is always misunderstandings and misconceptions, and he had a gentleman call
him to inquire why the police station was moved from Peters Creek Road out of their
area to Cove Road. He advised that he told the gentleman that it was a mile closer to
his home; however, the citizen felt it was being taken away. He advised that an article
was in the newspapers about a new fire station and some citizens thought that this
would mean closing the Hollins Station which in inaccurate. He stated that the new fire
station will be in addition to the Hollins Station.
Supervisor Church advised that the center will pay for its operating costs
from the fees that the County will get from businesses in the office park. He advised
that this project is a way to make a better place for the citizens. He advised that he
represents the Glenvar/Northside/Catawba area and many people have contacted him
who want this facility and are looking forward to its completion. He advised that some
will say it is not cost effective but the bottom line is that it is doing what is right for the
798
August 28, 2007
citizens. He wanted to emphasize that whether this facility is approved or not, it will not
take monies from the school monies; he advised that all of the cost is on the County
side. He advised that the Board allocates approximately $60 million to the School
Board which prioritizes the schools capital expenses and the School Board has the
responsibility to manage and do the best cost effective job possible with their funds.
Supervisor Wray inquired if this project was projected for debt service and
asked about the operating costs of the center. Mr. Hodge advised that a funding
formula was adopted approximately eight years ago to set aside money each year into
an account for the schools and the County. He advised that over the year those funds
have grown to a sufficient level for the County to pay for the center as well as all of its
other capital projects. He advised that operating revenues will be generated by the fees
from the citizens and the many people who will visit from outside the County. He
advised that they intend to keep these fees low and stated that people visiting to attend
tournaments will help pay for the facility. He advised that the project is self-supporting
and self-sustaining with the revenues that the County already has.
Supervisor Wray advised that many school projects are needed, and he
believes that 44 percent of the general revenue goes to the schools. Mr. Hodge
acknowledged that revenue going to the schools is about 50 percent including debt
service. Supervisor Wray advised that he wanted to ensure that the County is not
taking any funds from the school projects and that the revenues received will go back in
the general fund. Mr. Hodge advised that the business park will generate jobs as well
August 28, 2007
799
as real estate taxes and personal property taxes which will produce revenues for both
the County and schools.
In response to Supervisor Wray's inquiry, Mr. Hodge advised that new
revenues generated by the center will be divided with the school per established policy.
Supervisor Wray advised that the ACE program as mentioned by a citizen who spoke is
an excellent program. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Haislip and staff for the
assistance they provide the ACE Program. Supervisor Wray advised that some citizens
brought up the subject of the YMCA, and he inquired if the County wanted to work with
the YMCA on programs. Mr. Hodge advised that they have talked with the YMCA and
he understood that citizens tonight spoke about the difficulty of getting into the YMCA.
He advised that he also heard from the Board that they wanted this to be a County
facility; however, staff would be willing to work with the YMCA or other organizations on
programming if that is the wish of the Board.
Supervisor Wray advised the he wanted to ensure that the changes will be
made to the contract regarding the $2.5 million and $1 million and how it will be
refunded if certain criteria is not met. He advised that he understands that the build out
of the project is projected at year 2017, and at that point, the County would realize a $2
million tax revenue generation. Mr. Hodge advised that these questions fall within Mr.
Mahoney's area, and he and Mr. Mahoney will draft the amendments and provide a
copy for the Board members to make sure that it is in accordance with the Board's
wishes.
800
August 28, 2007
Supervisor Wray advised that when he started looking at the project he
considered the impact of the recreation center before the business park; however, the
park is an economic development project. He advised that when the two are combined,
they will satisfy the needs of the citizens and generate revenue. He advised that this is
an excellent opportunity for the County.
Supervisor Flora commended all of the citizens present for their patience
during the Board's deliberations. He advised that when the Board visited the facilities in
St. Louis, he thought it was important to note that there were people from ages 2 to 82
doing separate things in one facility He advised that the proposed multigenerational
center will serve all of the people in a family. He advised that the YMCA and private
gyms are similar to a multigenerational facility but they are not the same facility which is
being proposed. He advised that he realizes that there will be citizens supporting and
opposing the center; however, it is the Board's responsibility to look at future needs and
make decisions on what is best for all citizens. He stated that he believes that the
multigenerational center will be good for the citizens, and that it was time for the Board
to make a decision on these items.
Supervisor McNamara advised that he would like to make some
comments and then he would return to Supervisor Flora for a motion. Supervisor
McNamara advised that before making a motion is made, Supervisor Flora and Mr.
Mahoney would decide on how to make the changes to the contract.
August 28, 2007
801
Supervisor McNamara expressed appreciation to the citizens for attending
the meeting. He advised that he had no doubt if the County goes forward with the
multigenerational center, it will be a nice job and a good center since they will be
utilizing professional firms. He advised that the majority of the Board appears to be in
favor of the multigenerational center, and he has great respect for the Board members;
however, he is not going to support the project. He stated that he hoped that he is
wrong and there will be $2.5 million new revenues which will fund the capital costs and
come close to funding the operating costs. He advised that he would definitely utilize
the center; however, he does not see it as a sports marketing tool since it is too small.
He advised that he personally thinks that the approximately $30 million being dedicated
to Parks and Recreation for the center could be utilized in other ways to give greater
benefits such as development of greenways. He advised that they are making some
progress in that area with two or three miles of greenways in the last ten years. He
advised that if it all works the way that everyone on the Board hopes, he believes that
there will be other centers in the Roanoke Valley, and he will be the first to thank the
other members of the Board for approving the project. He advised that one of the
benchmarks for the Capital Improvement Program established six years ago was to
attempt to finance projects for twenty years or less while increasing the capital
improvement funding stream so that the County could eventually pay cash for projects
which would help future Boards. He advised that financing the recreation center for
thirty years is the opposite of his personal preference for a shorter maturity time.
802
August 28, 2007
IN RE:
MOTIONS AND VOTES FOR AGENDAS ITEM S-1 (A-082807-11) AND
5-2 (A-082807 -12)
Chairman McNamara recognized Supervisor Flora for the purpose of
making motions.
1: Reauest for authorization to enter into ! Public-Private
Partnership Performance AQreement with EnQlish Construction
Company. Inc. to provide for infrastructure improvements to open
! new 200 acre Business Park. Hollins MaQisterial District. (Elmer
HodQe. County Administrator)
A-082807 -11
In response to Supervisor Flora's inquiry if Mr. Mahoney understood
clearly the proposed changes to the performance agreement, Mr. Mahoney advised that
he did. Supervisor Flora advised that if Mr. Mahoney did not wish to restate the
changes, he would move approval of the agenda item for English Construction, Inc. and
the changes that have been made to the performance agreement at this meeting by Mr.
Hodge. Supervisor Flora stated for clarification that this project is located in the Hollins
District; however, it is in the far northwest corner and if it was across the street in three
directions, it would be in located the Catawba District.
Supervisor Flora move to approve Agenda Item S-1: (a) authorize the
County Attorney to finalize the performance agreement providing for incentives for the
new business park with changes to the performance agreement as presented at the
August 28, 2007
803
meeting, (b) authorize the County Administrator to sign the necessary documents with
the changes, and authorize staff to fund the project with the actual appropriation being
brought to the Board at a later date. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: Supervisor McNamara
2. Request approval for the execution of ! Comprehensive
Aareement with FirstChoice Public: Private Partners: Roanoke
Recreation Center, LLC, for the construction of !
Multiaenerational Recreation Center, Hollins Maaisterial District.
(Elmer Hodae, County Administrator: Dan O'Donnell, Assistant
County Administrator: Pete Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation
and Tourism)
A-082807 -12
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation for Agenda
Item S-2 (FirstChoice Public-Private Partners) as follows: (Authorize the County
Administrator to execute the Comprehensive Agreement subject to the following: (a)
The appropriation of funds necessary. The formal appropriation is scheduled to be
brought to the Board of Supervisors in September, 2007. (b) The successful negotiation
of the Public Private Partnership agreement for the development of approximately 190
acres along Woodhaven Road and Valley Point Drive as a high quality business park
with English Construction Company. (c) The successful negotiation of an option with
804
August 28, 2007
English Construction Company to purchase approximately 12 acres of land for the site
of the Multigenerational Recreation Center. The option is currently under negotiation.
Alternative one also would authorize the County Administrator to execute an option for
the purchase of the land from English Construction Company. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman McNamara declared a fifteen-minute recess at 8:47 p.m..
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearina to receive citizen comments concernina The Cellar
on Brambleton Avenue. {Paul Mahonev. County Attornev}
Mr. Mahoney advised that he was directed by the Board at their August
14, 2007, meeting to hold a public hearing at the next meeting to allow citizens to
address the Board regarding an alleged public nuisance at The Cellar on Brambleton
Avenue. He stated that notice of the public hearing was published in the newspaper
and although it was unusual for the Board to hold a public hearing on such matters, it
was being held to provide the opportunity for all individuals to speak on this matter. Mr.
Mahoney advised that he met with Randy Leach, Commonwealth's Attorney, and other
individuals, and made the decision that this was a civil action instead of a criminal
action. He had requested that the Chief of Police direct his officers to make routine
INRE:
August 28, 2007
805
patrols of the area for sixteen to eighteen months. He advised that since only a handful
of criminal cases had arisen from those patrols, he recommended to the Board that
there was no factual basis for a civic nuisance action. He advised that he had provided
a number of documents with the Board report which included minutes of neighborhood
meetings, copies of memorandums to the Board regarding the status of the case,
copies of petitions from neighbors, an exchange of emails, and copies of the incidents
log reports from the Police Department. He advised that the neighbors disagreed with
his finding that there was no factual basis to move forward with the civic public nuisance
action and called the Board members who requested the public hearing. He advised
that six citizens had requested to speak.
Vicki Wrav. 3218 Fleetwood Avenue. advised that Mr. Newman who
signed up to speak had to leave. She advised that she wanted to remove any doubt in
anyone's mind about Supervisor Wray pushing this matter because he is her husband's
brother. She advised that Supervisor Wray has been helping them because they
received no help from anyone else. She advised that they have complained for
approximately two years to no avail and that some months ago, a detective visited the
households bothered by the complaints and informed them that only six complainants
were needed for a business to be declared a public nuisance, and that detective had
already talked with eight or nine of the families involved. She advised that it was after
this part of the investigation that Mr. Mahoney set up a meeting with Ms. Brown, the
owner, and the neighbors so they could discuss the complaints. She stated that Ms.
806
August 28, 2007
Brown indicated she would take certain steps to correct the problems but nothing has
happened. Ms. Wray reported that the dusk to dawn light has been up for years and no
new lighting has been installed to deter customers using the back of the parking lot as a
motel. She advised that nothing has changed although the bands are no longer playing
at The Cellar. Ms. Wray advised that they only learned recently that when they called 9-
1-1 about noise, if they do not ask the police officer to stop at their homes, it was not
considered an official complaint, and neighbors very seldom asked the officer to stop at
their home. She advised that Ms. Brown stated in the newspaper that she had no
control over customers in the parking lot and that the neighbors' complaints have
caused her to lose business. She advised that she thought Ms. Brown should have
considered such complaints might be made when she opened the bar with live bands in
the neighbors' backyards. She wondered if their property values had been lowered by
this ongoing problem as has their sleep. She advised that contrary to Mr. Lowe's article
in the Roanoke Times, none of the neighbors knew that there was a bar downstairs in
the building when they moved into their homes. She reported that all of the previous
bar owners put the bar upstairs and it opened onto Brambleton Avenue. She advised
that this matter could have been avoided if Ms. Brown had respected the neighbors and
conveyed that respect to her customers; however, her customers have threatened and
harassed the neighbors and their property. She feels that the neighbors are In a
position to demand that something be done about the problem.
August 28, 2007
807
Brenda Cutts. 3303 Eva Avenue. advised that it is a shame to have this
establishment located this close to homes and children. She advised that the people in
this establishment use obscenities constantly and when they come outside, they are not
in good shape. She advised that the business is a nuisance and when the police drive
by, everything calms down for a while because they know they are being watched. She
advised that if this case is closed, the loud music will return, and there will be
motorcycles driving through the yards. She stated that this case needs to be left open
and the establishment shut down.
Deborah Lockhart. 3211 Fleetwood Avenue. advised that patrons of The
Cellar keep her awake at night when they are leaving with loud arguments and
obscenities. She is also concerned about the drinking and driving and cars tearing out
of the parking lot. She stated that one night a beer bottle thrown in the direction of the
trash container hit her car and damaged the window. She filed a police report but she
did not see the make of the car because it was late at night. She advised that she
believes that the business is a nuisance and the neighbors have suggested hiring
security to patrol the property at night and extra lights to deter people from hanging
around the parking lot. She advised that if The Cellar remains open, people should
enter from the front of the building. She advised that problems are continuing, and she
is concerned for the well-being of the people who live in the direct path of this
establishment.
808
August 28, 2007
Paula FerQuson. 3214 Fleetwood Avenue. advised that she lives directly
behind The Cellar. She advised that ever since it was Brambleton Inn, she has
experienced many problems with customers, and she put up a fence which was torn
down. She advised that there were incidents late at night with people drinking and
driving cars into her yard and causing damage, people shooting in the alley and drinking
and making noise. She provided pictures to the Board showing some of the damages
done by cars to her yard. She advised that she and her husband cannot sleep at night
because of the noise and this has been going on for some time.
Christina Kocher. 3438 South Park Circle. advised that the incidents that
Ms. Ferguson referred to happened when the establishment was the Brambleton Deli.
She advised that she was representing Ms. Brown, the owner, who was unable to
attend due to a conflict. She advised that Ms. Brown opened the business
approximately two years ago and shortly after the first month, they received their first
complaint about the trash being collected in the middle of the night; however, the trash
being collected was not from The Cellar but the Frame Shop next door. She advised
that the neighbors were notified that their complaint was not about The Cellar's trash
since their trash is collected at 7:00 a.m. in the morning. She advised that people are
dwelling on past history and the allegations which were made a few months after The
Cellar opened. She reported that the bartenders from the previous complaints have
been relieved of their duties and they hired new staff with a zero tolerance policy. She
advised that any employee on or off duty must adhere to this zero tolerance policy. She
August 28, 2007
809
advised that Ms. Brown met with the neighbors when they voiced their concerns and
corrective actions have been taken which include replacing the dusk to dawn light,
addressing other lighting options, patrolling the parking lot by their staff, and they have
stopped booking bands which has reduced their sales and taxes due to the County.
She advised that Ms. Brown has given all of the neighbors her home and cell phone
numbers and she has only received one phone call from Ms. Wray, after which Ms.
Brown called the restaurant and had the problem resolved. She advised that the
neighbors are not using the program the neighbors put in place to call Ms. Brown
concerning problems. She advised that Ms. Wray has taken the role of vigilante to
close them down. She advised that extensive investigations have been made by the
County Attorney, Roanoke County Police, and there is no evidence to support the
accusations. She advised that they have done everything and they want to be good
neighbors; they do not throw beer bottles at trash cans and there is no shooting in the
parking lot.
In response to Supervisor McNamara's inquiry if the photographs provided
by Ms. Ferguson referred to incidents at a previous establishment, Mr. Mahoney
advised that he had not seen the photographs. Ms. Ferguson advised that the pictures
are not from a previous incident.
Chairman McNamara inquired if there was any discussion and hearing no
response from the supervisors, he read the title for the next item on the agenda.
810
August 28, 2007
Supervisor Church advised that this was a public hearing and inquired if
this was the end of the discussion. Chairman McNamara advised that the public
hearing was closed but discussion could continue.
Supervisor Church advised that he did not know if these events occurred
nightly; however, if The Cellar was in his backyard, he would not know what to do. He
advised that he did not know what actions the Board had available. He advised that he
did not know any of the citizens involved; however, he believed that these citizens had
more to do than make statements about alleged situations. He advised that this
predicament is very unfortunate and that he was surprised this has been on-going since
April 24, 2007. He advised that he would like to find a solution that would make things
livable for the neighbors and the establishment. He advised that he was not
comfortable with trying to close an establishment; however, he was not comfortable with
the situation that is occurring.
Supervisor Altizer concurred with Supervisor Church that he did not know
how to resolve the problem. He advised that something is going on because the
neighbors are complaining and the owner has somewhat acknowledged the problems
by the corrective action she has taken; however, the County Attorney has advised that
this cannot be prosecuted. He advised that he has heard some escalation in the
complaints from the neighbors and it is not an option to do nothing. He advised that he
would like to find a resolution between the citizens and The Cellar so they can
peacefully coexist. He suggested that staff, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Hodge attempt to get
August 28, 2007
811
the people together one more time in an attempt to resolve the situation.
Supervisor Flora asked Mr. Mahoney if the County can take no action on
the problem, is there an alternative for the citizens to take private action. Mr. Mahoney
advised that there are three approaches to this problem. He advised that he felt that
since criminal prosecution was too difficult a burden for the County to prove, he had
recommended the civil nuisance approach; however, he was unable to find supporting
evidence. He advised that another approach would be a private nuisance action which
is easier to prove and any citizen or group of citizens has the right to bring a private
nuisance action; therefore, the citizens have an individual recourse.
Mr. Hodge advised that his suggestion would be to let him and Mr.
Mahoney work on this problem.
Supervisor McNamara advised that there has been grumbling that this
situation has been ongoing for two years and that he and Mr. Mahoney have done
nothing during this time. He advised that he met with Ms. Brown two years ago, and Mr.
Mahoney has taken many actions to understand the problem and take the emotions out
of a very emotional type of conflict. He advised that a tremendous amount of County
resources have been extended to understand and work through the problem; it has
always been his feeling that they should work things out as opposed to using the courts
because in the long-term, people can learn to get along and he thought there were
willing parties. He added that before the previous Board meeting, he received a call
and went by The Cellar around 10:00 p.m., and that he has not seen a lot of things that
812
August 28, 2007
citizens are describing. He advised that when you have a C-2 zoning up against a R-1
zoning, there should be serious buffering; however, this zoning was grandfathered. He
advised that this is C-2 zoning and the bar has been in the basement for a long time.
Hearing comments made by citizens in the audience that this was not a true fact,
Supervisor McNamara advised that there are too many emotions coming out in this
conflict and that the facts are not coming forward. Supervisor McNamara suggested
that Mr. Hodge take this matter under advertisement and figure out what to do next.
Mr. Hodge advised that everyone, the Board members, and Mr. Mahoney
have worked very hard on this; however, he will try to make closure and report back to
the Board in a few weeks. He advised that he will visit with the citizens involved and the
owner in an attempt to get them to work together.
Supervisor Church suggested it might be possible to work out some
buffering between the two zoning areas and asked that staff be creative.
INRE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1: Second readinQ of an ordinance authorizinQ the relocation of the
Catawba votinQ precinct from the Catawba Fire Station to the
Catawba Recreation Center at 4965 Catawba Creek Road,
Catawba MaQisterial District. (Judv Stokes, General Reaistrar)
0-082807-13
August 28, 2007
813
Ms. Stokes advised that on behalf of the Roanoke County Electoral Board,
she is requesting approval to relocate the Catawba voting precinct from the Catawba
Fire Station to the Catawba Recreation Center. She advised that there have been no
changes since the first reading of the ordinance. She advised that Warren Campbell
and Dana Martin, members of the Electoral Board, were present.
There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 082808-13 AUTHORIZING THE RELOCATION OF THE
FOllOWING POLLING PLACE PURSUANT TO SECTION 24.2-306,
24.2-307, AND 24.2-310 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA AS
AMENDED: (1) CATAWBA POLLING PLACE (101) TO BE
RELOCATED FROM THE CATAWBA FIRE STATION, 5585 CATAWBA
HOSPITAL DRIVE, CATAWBA, VA 24070 TO CATAWBA
RECREATION CENTER, 4965 CATAWBA CREEK ROAD, CATAWBA,
VA 24070.
WHEREAS, Sections 24.1-306,24.2-307 and 24.2-310 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, authorize the governing body of each county to establish the
polling place for each precinct in that jurisdiction by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Roanoke County will be better served by the
relocation of certain polling places to locations providing more space for voting
equipment, increased lighting, more convenient parking, higher security for voting
equipment and easier accessibility for all voters; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 14, 2007; and
the second reading of this ordinance and public hearing were held on August 28,2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the relocation of the following polling places be, and hereby is
approved as follows:
814
August 28, 2007
Catawba Polling Place (101) to be relocated from the Catawba Fire
Station, 5585 Catawba Hospital Drive, Catawba, VA 24070 to the
Catawba Recreation Center, 4965 Catawba Creek Road, Catawba, VA
24070
3. That the General Registrar for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, is hereby
authorized to take all measures necessary to comply with Virginia law and regulations
regarding a change in a polling precinct and for reasonable notification to the voters of
the Catawba Precinct of this change in their polling location.
4. That the County Administrator and the General Registrar are hereby
authorized and directed to take such others actions as may be necessary to accomplish
the intent of this Ordinance.
5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Second readina of an ordinance authorizina the vacation of an
unimproved riaht-of-wav shown as Wentworth Road in the ~
View Heiahts Addition. Section ~ Windsor Hills Maaisterial
District. (Tarek Moneir. Deputy Director of Development)
0-082807-14
Mr. Moneir advised that this is second reading of an ordinance to vacate
an unimproved Wentworth Road right-of-way. He advised that only two things have
changed since the first reading. He advised that one change is that they received a
petition signed by six out of the seven property owners impacted by the closing of the
right-of-way. He stated that the other change is to the staff recommendation because
staff does not see any negative impacts on the surrounding properties if there is an
egress/ingress access easement for the closed area along the right-of-way. He advised
that staff recommends approval of the vacation subject to a 15 foot public utility
August 28, 2007
815
easement along the entire portion of the right-of-way. He advised that Mr. Bullington,
the petitioner, was present.
Supervisor Flora inquired whether the six people who signed the petition
were in agreement or not with the vacation, and Mr. Moneir responded that they were in
agreement.
Mr. Bullington advised that he and Robert Fralin were appearing on behalf
of Wentworth Office Partners, LLC, and as principals in that entity, they are one of two
petitioners requesting vacation of the remaining portion of Wentworth Road. He
advised that the other petitioner is Burgeon Enterprises, LLC, owner of the office
building on the parcel adjacent which houses ReMax Valley Realtors. He advised that
Ed Smith was present and wanted to speak.
Mr. Bullington advised that Mr. Moneir laid out the groundwork of the
request. He advised that this was a paper street which was platted in 1951 and it was
never developed, improved or dedicated. He stated that it has served as occasional
use to the rear of some properties and over half of it was vacated in 1973; they are
requesting the vacation of the remaining 600 feet of the roadway. He advised that there
are nine parcels of property that join this paper street that extends form Route 419 to
the rear of several properties. He advised that there are four properties on the
Southside and five parcels to the north, and all four of the parcel owners on the
Southside support the report and most of the parcel owners, except one, support it on
the north side. He advised that the property owners all have frontage on secondary
816
August 28, 2007
roads that are paved roads, and they use this paper street for occasional use to access
their property in the nature of an alleyway. He advised that it is essentially a soil road;
however, there is some gravel on it now on the first two lots. He stated that there is no
road maintenance agreement for joint usage.
Mr. Bullington advised that they are requesting this vacation because it will
benefit all of the property owners and there will be no detriment to any of the adjoining
property owners since they will continue to have as good an access to the rear of their
property as they currently enjoy. He advised that staff has recommended retaining a 15
foot right-of-way down the center that could be used for public utility access for these
parcels. He advised that he submitted a graphic depiction of the layout of the lots from
Blazer and Associates Engineering, and he brought extra copies for the Board's review.
He advised that the sketch depicts where the 40 foot paper street was platted and this
was done as a proposed preliminary sketch which would indicate the new lot
boundaries if it was vacated to the center line adding 20 feet to each of the adjoining
lots. He advised that the roadway looks to be 15 feet in width at the maximum and then
is narrower in width as it goes along the rear of the lots. He referred to photographs
provide by Mr. Moneir which showed when you reached the rear of these lots, it is
essentially a soil type road and completely unimproved. He advised that when they
were aware that there were objections, they tried to understand the concerns and to
assure the property owners that they should have as good an access as they always
had for their occasional use of the rear of their property as an alley, and that is their
August 28, 2007
817
intention to do whatever is necessary to assure that this takes place. He advised that
before the alternative proposed by Mr. Moneir, they would have dedicated a 20 foot
right-of-way only for the use of the lot owners to the rear. He advised that there is no
detriment to the adjoining land owners and the benefits to be obtained from vacating
this road are that it will benefit the petitioners and their use of the property, and result in
additional property being added to the parcels. He advised that it is in the interest of all
of the adjoining land owners to have this paper street vacated because currently the
street's legal status is a public right-of-way which is open to the general public. He
advised that the County recommended resolving that problem by turning it into a private
right-of-way which means that only the adjoining land owners can access their property.
He urged the Board to favorably consider approval of their petition.
Mr. Fralin advised that Margaret Guthrie, who supports the vacation and
had signed to speak, had to leave. He advised that Mr. and Mrs. Torian, Mr. Brennan,
Dr. and Ms. Lanier, and Mrs. Plasters also support the vacation.
The following citizens spoke and advised that they were not in favor of
granting the vacation: (1) Bobby Lee Kraige, 4948 Bower Road; (2) Mary Ann Kraige,
4948 Bower Road; and (3) Bob Plasters, 4958 Bower Road.
Ed Smith, 2350 Electric Road, manager for Burgeon Enterprises, property
owner on the northern corner of Wentworth Road and Route 419, spoke in support of
granting the vacation.
818
August 28, 2007
Supervisor McNamara inquired about the width ot the dirt pathway that is
used by the property owners. Mr. Moneir advised that the road is 40 teet wide;
however, the pathway is 11 teet. Supervisor McNamara asked how close the dirt path
is to the 15 toot easement. Mr. Moneir advised that this would be determined after the
survey ot the road; however, they are proposing to maintain the 15 toot easement along
the center ot the current right-ot-way to be used tor ingress and egress. Supervisor
McNamara inquired it it would be paved and Mr. Moneir stated that this would be up to
the developer. Mr. Moneir advised that he thought the developer would probably pave
most ot the 270 teet along their property which would serve as access to their tuture
development. Supervisor McNamara advised that he wanted to be sure that the one or
two neighbors who do not approve will not be negatively impacted with this change. He
requested that Mr. Fralin explain. Mr. Fralin advised that Sean Horn, Blazer and
Associates, was also present to answer questions. Mr. Fralin advised that there was
nothing obstructing the right-ot-way and they will certainly pave what is needed and the
road that is already graveled. He advised that beyond their property line, he did not
think it would affect the neighbors one way or the other it the road was paved because
there is grass now and tracks where they have been using it. Supervisor McNamara
advised that it could be an issue it the tracks they are using are not in the right-ot-way
and someone wanted to make an issue.
August 28, 2007
819
Mr. Horn advised that approximately 75 feet beyond the rear corner of the
Wentworth property the tracks of the soil road are centered on the right-of-way;
therefore, beyond their property, the 15 foot easement would encompass that soil road.
He stated that the property is relatively flat and as part of this, they could ensure that
that soil road be relocated down the center of the easement to maintain proper access
for all of the adjoining property owners. He advised that this could be part of this
agreement.
Mr. Fralin advised that the property owners who signed the petition are in
support of this happening; they want the property halfway to the right-of-way.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if having the 15 foot easement relative to
the paper road has any impact on the value of the lot. Mr. Moneir advised that he was
not a real estate agent but from his experience, he would say that it would add value to
the property. Supervisor McNamara inquired if this would increase real estate taxes
and Mr. Moneir advised that it would but only for the 15 feet being added to the owner's
property.
Supervisor McNamara advised that it was very unusual that someone
would protest a vacation; however, he visited the site and can see where there are
benefits to the Wentworth development and while he wants to encourage development,
it should not impact citizens negatively. He further advised that he can see benefits for
the citizens, many of whom support the vacation, and the only possible drawback he
can see is it might have a small impact on the lot cost. He advised that he is not
820
August 28, 2007
convinced that a little extra land would significantly change an appraisal value, and he
would support staff recommendation. He advised that the 15 foot easement is larger
than what is there now especially if it is in the middle of the existing gravel and grass
road. He advised that he cannot see a big disadvantage to granting approval.
Supervisor Flora advised that the first section was vacated in 1973, he
voted on the vacation of the right-of-way, and twenty-four year later, he will vote on
vacation of the remainder.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 082807-14 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF
UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN AS WENTWORTH ROAD IN
THE CITY VIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION, SECTION NO.3, WINDSOR
HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City View Heights Addition, Section No.3, plat recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 3, page 82,
(lithe City View Heights Add. Plat") established a street designated as Wentworth Road,
forty feet (40') in width, separating Section No. 3 and NO.4 of City View Heights, and
connecting Salem Cave Spring Road (Route 119, currently 419) with undeveloped
property of Dr. Steele; and,
WHEREAS, the area previously designated as Section No. 4 of City View
Heights was resubdivided as Sugar Loaf East Subdivision, Section 1, in Plat Book 7,
page 20, which plat identifies Wentworth Road as abutting the rear of Lots 5 and 6,
Block 1, Section 1 of Sugar Loaf East Subdivision, which lots have frontage on Woodley
Drive; and,
WHEREAS, the area designated and set aside for public use as Wentworth Road
on the City View Heights Add. plat has never been improved or accepted into the
Virginia State Secondary Road System; and
August 28, 2007
821
WHEREAS, a portion of Wentworth Road beginning at a point approximately six
hundred forty feet (640') east from the intersection with State Route 419, at a point at
the common boundary of Lots 6 and 7 of Sugar Loaf East subdivision on the south side
and the middle of Lot 10 of City View Heights on the north side of Wentworth Road, and
continuing east a distance of six hundred fifty eight feet (658'), more or less, to the end
of said road as designated in Plat Book 3, Page 82, has previously been vacated by
action of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors by Ordinance adopted December
16,1974, and recorded in Deed Book 1013, Page 188; and
WHEREAS, Wentworth Office Partners, LLC ("Wentworth") and Burgeon
Enterprises LLC ("Burgeon"), the owners of parcels on the north and south sides of
Wentworth Road at its intersection with State Route 419, said parcels extending
approximately three hundred feet (300') along the southern edge of Wentworth Road
and one hundred sixteen feet (116') along the northern edge of Wentworth Road,
respectively, have requested the vacation of this remaining unimproved portion of this
forty foot (40') right-of-way so as to permit these property owners to make
improvements to their properties; and
WHEREAS, the above-described street or road is more clearly indicated as the
cross-hatched area on the map named "R.O.W. Vacation Wentworth Road, dated
August 28, 2007, prepared by Roanoke County Department of Community
Development and attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, no other property owner will be adversely affected by the vacation of
this undeveloped portion of said Dallas Road and that its current existence imposes an
impediment to the adjoining property owners making improvements to their properties
adjoining this previously dedicated but unimproved street; and
WHEREAS, these adjoining property owners, as the Petitioners, have requested
that pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, vacate the remaining right-of-way,
designated as "Wentworth Road" on the plat of the City View Heights Addition, Section
No.3, Plat Book 3, Page 82, as now shown on the attached Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected
County departments have raised no objection thereto on condition that a fifteen foot
(15') public utility easement and public access easement be retained over the vacated
right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code
of Virginia (1950, as amended); and
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on August 14, 2007, and a second
reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on August 28,2007.
822
August 28, 2007
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the subject real estate (Wentworth Road, a street forty feet (40') in width and
approximately six hundred forty feet (640') in length) is hereby declared to be surplus
and the nature of the interests in real estate renders it unavailable for other public use.
3. That this street; Wentworth Road, forty feet (40') in width and approximately
six hundred forty feet (640') in length, being designated and shown as the cross-
hatched area on Exhibit "An attached hereto, said street being located between the
intersection with State Route 419 and a point at the common boundary of Lots 6 and 7
of Sugar Loaf East subdivision on the south side and the middle of Lot 10 of City View
Heights on the north side of Wentworth Road, and having been dedicated on the
subdivision plat of City View Heights Add., Section No.3 and recorded in the aforesaid
Clerk's Office in Plat Book 3, page 82, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District of the
County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the
Code of Virginia,1950, as amended, but reserving therefrom a fifteen foot (15') public
utility easement and access easement for the benefit of property owners adjoining the
vacated street.
4. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to
publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners.
5. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be
necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and
a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virginia (1950, as amended).
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. Second readina of an ordinance authorizina the vacation of an
unimproved riaht-of-wav shown as Nelms Lane on Map No.1 of
Woodbury Gardens. Hollins Maaisterial District. (Arnold Covey.
Director of Community Development)
0-082807-15
August 28, 2007
823
Mr. Covey advised that there have been no changes since the first reading
of the ordinance. He advised that this is second reading of the ordinance and staff
recommends adoption.
There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 082807-15 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF AN
UNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN AS NELMS LANE ON MAP
NO.1 OF WOODBURY GARDENS IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 114 AND
PLAT OF HEARTHSTONE ADDITION IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 145, OF
THE ROANOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, SAID
RIGHT-OF WAY LOCATED IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Map No. 1 of Woodbury Gardens subdivision recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 3, page 114,
established a street designated as Nelms Lane of variable width and connecting
Woodbury Street (Rt. 898) with Heathstone Road (Rt. 1829), located between Lot 20
(Map of Airlee Court Annex, Plat Book 2, page 103) and Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, Block 2
(Map No.1 of Woodbury Gardens) for a portion of its length; and
WHEREAS, Plat of Heathstone Addition recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 3, page 145, established a street
designated as Nelms Lane of variable width connecting Woodbury Street (Rt. 898) with
Heathstone Road (Rt. 1829), located between Lot 1, Block 2 (Plat of Airlee Gardens,
Roanoke City Map Book 1, page 18) and Lot 3, Block 2 (Plat of Hearthstone Addition)
for a portion of its length; and
WHEREAS, the area designated and set aside for public use as Nelms Lane on
Map No. 1 of Woodbury Gardens and the Plat of Heathstone Addition has never been
improved or accepted into the Virginia State Secondary Road System; and
WHEREAS, the property owners of Lot 20 (Map of Airlee Court Annex), and Lot
1 and part of Lot 2, Block 2 (Map of Woodbury Gardens), and Lot 1, Block 2 (Plat of
Airlee Gardens) and Lot 3, Block 2 (Plat of Hearthstone Addition) adjoining the
unimproved section of Nelms Lane, extending approximately three hundred (300) feet
824
August 28, 2007
from the southern edge of Woodbury Street to Hearthstone Road, have requested the
vacation of this unimproved portion of the variable width right-of-way so as to permit
these property owners to make improvements to their residential properties; and
WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company and the Western Virginia Water
Authority have requested that a public utility easement be retained for their utilities
presently occupying the existing right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the above described street or road is more clearly indicated as
"Portion of Nelms Lane To Be Vacated and Reserved as a 20' Public Utility Easement"
on "PLAT SHOWING PORTION OF NELMS LANE - TO BE VACATED BY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA", dated July 5, 2007, prepared by
Roanoke County Department of Community Development and attached hereto as
Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of this
undeveloped portion of said Nelms Lane and that its current existence imposes an
impediment to the adjoining property owners making improvements to their properties
adjoining this previously dedicated but unimproved street; and
WHEREAS, the adjoining property owners and residents of Roanoke County
and Roanoke City, as the Petitioners, have requested that, pursuant to Section 15.2-
2272 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, vacate this right-of-way, designated as "Nelms Lane" on the plat of the
Woodbury Gardens, Plat Book 3, page 114 and the plat of Hearthstone Addition, Plat
book 3, page 145, as now shown on the attached Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected
County departments have raised no objection; and
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code
of Virginia (1950, as amended); and
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on August 14, 2007, and a second
reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on August 28,2007.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the subject real estate (Nelms Lane, a variable width street and approximately
300 feet in length) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of the interests in
real estate renders it unavailable for other public use.
3. That this street, Nelms Lane, being designated and shown as "Portion of
Nelms Lane To Be Vacated and Reserved as a 20' Public Utility Easement" on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto, said street being located between Lot 1, Block 2 (MB 1, page 18),
Lot 3, Block 2 (PB 3, page 145), Lot 20 (PB 3, page 103) and Lot 1 and part of Lot 2,
Block 2 (PB 3, page 114), in the Hollins Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke,
August 28, 2007
825
be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended.
4. That a twenty foot (20') public utility easement is accepted, reserved and
maintained for public purposes in the area previously designated as "Nelms Lane" as
shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
5. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to
publication, survey, and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners.
6. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be
necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
7. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and
a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virginia (1950, as amended).
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
4. Second readinQ of !n ordinance to obtain! special y!! permit to
construct! reliQious assembly facility on approximately 11 acres.
located at 4505 and 4625 West Main Street. Catawba Maaisterial
District. upon the petition of the Community Church. (Philip
Thompson. Deputy Director of PlanninQ)
0-082807 -16
Mr. Thompson advised that the Community Church is requesting a special
use permit to operate a religious assembly in an R-1, Low Density Residential, zoning
district, of an eleven acre parcel located on the West Main Street across from Barley
Drive and backing up to Interstate 81. He advised that the proposed project includes
the construction of a new 17,000 square foot building with a 300 seat sanctuary as well
_.--~--_.--_._~------~----'-------~'-----------"-"'_.-_.---_._--------~-----~-_._------------_.~---~--~-----..-------------
826
August 28, 2007
as offices, classroom, kitchen and other ancillary facilities. He stated that there will be
single access point off Route 460 with associated parking, landscaping, and stormwater
management. He advised that the surrounding zoning to the west and north is zoned
R-1, Low Density Residential, and to the south, 1-2, Industrial, and to the east, C-2
General Commercial, 1-1 and 1-2, Industrial. He stated that the surrounding land uses
are commercial and industrial as well as vacant land, that the community plan
designated this property as transition, and that the proposal is consistent with the
policies and guidelines of the community plan. He advises that the site has ample
space to meet all applicable building standards and there are no negative impacts
anticipated. He reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August
7, and there were questions regarding traffic, parking, and possible day care operations.
He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request with two
conditions as follows: (1) The subject property shall be developed in substantial
conformity with the site plan prepared by Gerald S. Cannaday and dated June 4,2007.
(2) Total parking onsite shall not exceed 125 spaces.
Supervisor Church asked Pastor Thomas McCracken to come forward,
and advised that he wanted to commend the young people who were attending the
meeting on behalf of the church. He advised that many of them were smiling at 6:45
p.m. and there were still smiling at this late hour. He advised that he was going to
recommend approval of the request and asked Pastor McCracken if he would like to
speak.
August 28, 2007
827
Pastor McCracken, on behalf of Community Christian Church, expressed
appreciation to the Board members and Planning Commission members for the time
spent in considering their request. He advised that a large contingent of members were
in the audience to support their request; however, some had to leave because of the
late hour. He advised that the church began on July 10, 2005, with 22 charter members
and in that 25 month period, they have grown to 200 members, and they continue to
grow and make an impact on the community. He advised that the church's goal and
prayer is that the Board consider and approve their request and they desire that this be
approved without a mandate of a traffic impact analysis. He expressed appreciation for
the Board's efforts on behalf of the church.
Supervisor Church advised that he has discussed this item with Pastor
McCracken, Mr. Covey and County staff, and he is making an assumption that the
church agrees to the two conditions attached to this request. He advised that staff
would try to help the church comply with the Virginia Department of Transportation
requirements. He advised that if the young people in the audience were late for school
tomorrow, to tell their teachers that they had a very long government class with the
Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Wray made the following comments when he voted. He
expressed appreciation to the citizens present for sitting through the long presentations
tonight. He advised that this is a valuable lesson for young people to know about their
government and how people come together to make decisions. He advised that the
828
August 28, 2007
number of citizens attending this meeting shows the solidarity of the church and
community, and he wished them good luck and God bless on their church.
Supervisor Church, Altizer and Flora also made comments thanking the
citizens for attending and wishing the church best wishes in the future. Supervisor
McNamara advised that if the church had another rezoning, they should let him know
and he would put them first on the agenda.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 082807-16 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY FACILITY ON 11
ACRES lOCATED AT 4505 AND 4625 WEST MAIN STREET (TAX
MAP NOS. 54.04-3-3 AND 54.04-3-4) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF THE COMMUNITY CHURCH
WHEREAS, the Community Church has filed a petition for a special use permit
for construction of a religious assembly facility to be located at 4505 and 4625 West
Main Street (Tax Map Nos. 54.04-3-3 and 54.04-3-4) in the Catawba Magisterial
District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
August7,2007;and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on July 24, 2007; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on August 28,2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit for
construction of a religious assembly facility to be located at 4505 and 4625 West Main
Street in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted
2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of
the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum adverse
August 28, 2007
829
impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use permit is
hereby approved with the following conditions:
(1) The subject property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
site plan prepared by Gerald S. Cannaday and dated June 4,2007.
(2) Total parking onsite shall not exceed 125 spaces.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
5. Second readina of an ordinance to rezone 2.22 acres from C2S
and C2CS, General Commercial District with conditions and with
special use permit, to C2CS, General Commercial District with
conditions and with special use permit, to construct ~ drive-in
and fast food restaurant and retail buildina, located at the
intersections of Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and
Merriman Road, Cave Sprina Maaisterial District, upon the
petition of Seaside Heiahts, LLC (Boianales). (Philip Thompson,
Deputy Director of Plannina)
0-082807-17
Supervisor McNamara requested that Mr. Thompson highlight the
differences of the plan versus the currently approved plan.
830
August 28, 2007
Mr. Thompson advised that in November 2005, the Board approved a
rezoning and a special use permit for the fast food restaurant on this property with ten
proffered conditions. He advised that one of these conditions deals with the site being
developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the application.
He advised that the applicant desires to amend the site plan and that the remaining nine
proffers would still be in effect. He displayed the new site plan and advised that they
propose to flip-flop the location of the restaurant with the retail space. He advised that
the original plan was for Bojangles to face Colonial Avenue and now the retail building
will be facing Colonial Avenue. He advised that the entrances and location on
Brambleton Avenue and Merriman Road are the same configuration as approved by
VDOT and that the retail building decreases by 3,515 square feet and the restaurant
decreases by 239 square feet. He reported that there was a community meeting held
on July 3, 2007, with 20 citizens in attendance, and there was discussion about the
differences in the two site plans, possible tenants of the retail building and Spring Lawn
traffic calming which is a revenue sharing project. He reported that the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on August 7, and one citizen spoke, Margaret Jones,
who inquired about the location of the Lions Club entrance on the site plan. He advised
that there will be a gate for the Lions Club to utilize and close access to their property.
He advised that there were concerns expressed about automobiles turning right onto
Merriman Road; however, this is the same design which VDOT approved to eliminate
August 28, 2007
831
making left turns coming out onto Merriman Road. He advised that the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the project.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the internal traffic circulation is better than
before, and Mr. Thompson advised this it was. In response to Supervisor Wray's
inquires, Mr. Thompson advised that decreasing the size of the buildings would mean
less people coming to the building and less traffic, and that VDOT has approved the
original design for entrances with no changes in this plan.
Ben Crew, Blazer and Associates, representing Stan Seymore, with
Seaside Heights, LLC, advised that the plan is better for the site with more green space,
better traffic circulation, and smaller buildings.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the buffer on the upper side had been
changed. Mr. Crew advised that this will remain the same with a retaining wall, a safety
fence, and landscaping.
Supervisor Church advised that the thought this was a better plan and he
was going to support approval. He advised that even decreasing the buildings should
work in favor of the petitioner.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Wray advised that Gloria Christian contacted him about this
item and Spring Lawn Avenue. He advised that Spring Lawn Avenue was a major
concern when this issue was presented initially and he asked for an update on the
project. Mr. Covey advised that last month the County received notification that funds
832
August 28, 2007
were received for revenue sharing and that project was part of that list. He advised that
staff met with VDOT last Friday to review the list and they are working toward a
schedule to do the projects. He advised that the revenue sharing projects for fiscal year
2007 -2008 are not done until the latter part of the 2008, and advised that the list is
being finalized now and they are working through the projects. He advised that there is
no date set at this point; however, something will happen prior to 2008. Supervisor
Wray inquired if the project would be scheduled before the restaurant opened and Mr.
Covey advised that he did not have the date but they would try to move the project
along as quickly as possible.
Supervisor Wray advised that Mr. Seymore has worked with the neighbors
to make this a good project and it is a better project with the changes. He advised that
this is an example of continually trying to work together with the County, citizens, and
businesses to make things better.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 082807-17 TO REZONE 2.22 ACRES FROM C2S and
C2CS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS AND
WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT, TO C2CS, GENERAL COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS AND WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT, TO
CONSTRUCT A DRIVE-IN AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND
RETAIL BUILDING, LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF
BRAMBLETON AVENUE, COLONIAL AVENUE, AND MERRIMAN
August 28, 2007
833
ROAD IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE
PETITION OF SEASIDE HEIGHTS LLC (BOJANGLES)
WHEREAS, Ordinance 111505-11 adopted on November 15, 2005, rezoned .98
acres (Part of Tax Map No. 86.08-3-35.1 - .298 acres and all of Tax Map No. 86.08-3-
36.1 - .68 acres) from C1, Office District, to C2, General Commercial District with
conditions, and issued a special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast
food restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of Brambleton Avenue,
Colonial Avenue, and Merriman Road; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner desires to amend the site plan which was approved by
Ordinance 111505-11 in order to change the location and size of the commercial
structures; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 24,2007, and the
second reading and public hearing were held on August 28,2007; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 4, 2007; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
2.22 acres, as described herein, and located at the intersections of Brambleton Avenue,
Colonial Avenue, and Merriman Road (Tax Map No. 86.08-3-34, 86.08-3-35, 86.08-3-
35.01, and 86.08-3-36.01) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed
from the zoning classification of C2S and C2CS, General Commercial District with
conditions and with a special use permit, to the zoning classification of C2CS, General
Commercial District with conditions and with a special use permit.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Seaside Heights, LLC.
3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
hereby accepts:
(1) The development of the property shall substantially conform with
the site plan entitled "Site Layout and Grading Plan for RoBo, LLC," dated
Novomber 10, 2005, IlBoianales - Master Plan" dated June 8th, 2007,
attached as Exhibit A, with driveway access only from Brambleton Avenue and
Merriman Road, subject to those changes required by Roanoke County during its
comprehensive site plan review.
(2) The exterior of the fast food restaurant to be constructed on the
Property shall substantially conform to the photographs attached as Exhibit B.
(3) All building exterior walls shall be brick from grade to eave.
(4) The Merriman Road driveway shall be designed to prohibit right
turns onto Merriman Road.
834
August 28, 2007
(5) Signage placed on the building(s) shall occupy less than 5% of the
building fa<;ade area.
(6) Any freestanding sign shall be a monument style not to exceed 5
feet in height or 7 feet in width, and shall have brick construction to match the
buildings.
(7) The top of any light fixture shall not exceed 15 feet.
(8) The sides and rear of the dumpster enclosure shall be brick
construction to match the buildings.
(9) Dumpsters shall not be emptied between the hours of 10:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m.
(10) Portions of the front yards along the Colonial Avenue and Merriman
Road rights-of-way designated on the concept plan for landscaping shall remain
as open green spaces, and landscaped with any combination of flower, shrubs,
ground cover or trees.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
All of the following tax map numbers:
86.08-3-34 containing 0.62 acres
86.08-3-35 containing 0.24 acres
86.08-3-35.01 containing 0.68 acres
86.08-3-36.01 containing 0.68
Totaling 2.22 acres
5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
6. Second readina of an ordinance to amend the Roanoke County
zonina ordinance to allow public parks and recreational areas !!
~ riaht uses in the 1:1 Industrial District and the 1-2 Industrial
District. (Philip Thompson. Deputy Director of Plannina)
0-082807 -18
August 28, 2007
835
Mr. Thompson advised that there have been no changes since the first
reading of the ordinance.
There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 082807 -18 AMENDING THE ROANOKE
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 30-61-2 AND
30-62-2, 1-1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND 1-2 INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT, TO INCLUDE PUBLIC PARKS AND
RECREATIONAL AREAS AS A PERMITTED USE
WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice support an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Roanoke to
allow public parks and recreation areas as a permitted use in 1-1 and 1-2 industrial
districts; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this amendment
on August 7,2007; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors held first reading of this
ordinance on August 14, 2007, and second reading and public hearing on August 28,
2007; and,
WHEREAS, public notice and advertisement of this amendment has been
provided as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, and the Roanoke
County Code.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That Section 30-61-2 and 30-62-2 of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance be amended to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 30-61-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design
836
August 28, 2007
Standards, for those specific uses.
* * * *
2. Civic Uses
Day Care Center *
Park and Ride Facilities
Post Office
Public Maintenance and Service Facilities
Public Parks and Recreational Areas*
Safety Service
Utility Services, Minor*
Utility Services, Major*
* * * *
Sec. 30-62-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design
Standards, for those specific uses.
* * * *
2. Civic Uses
Day Care Center *
Park and Ride Facilities
Post Office
Public Maintenance and Service Facilities
Public Parks and Recreational Areas*
Safety Service
Utility Services, Minor*
Utility Services, Major*
****
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
August 28, 2007
837
7. Second readina of an ordinance to amend the Roanoke County
zonina ordinance to update the County's floodplain ordinance.
(Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planninal
0-082807 -19
Mr. Thompson advised as part of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA) Map Modernization process, the County entered into an agreement
with FEMA to update its Floodplain Ordinance once a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) were completed. He advised that the study and map
have been completed. He reported that as part of the process, the County's Floodplain
Ordinance was also reviewed by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State
Coordinator and certain changes were recommended. Mr. Thompson stated that in
June, the County received a letter from FEMA stating that the Floodplain Ordinance had
to be amended by September 28,2007.
Mr. Thompson advised that the proposed amendment to the Floodplain
Overlay (FO) District changes the date of the Flood Insurance Study to September 28,
2007, and adds a special floodplain designation to the overlay district. He reported that
the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on August
7, 2007, and recommended approval of the proposed amendment, and that the Board
approved the first reading of this ordinance on August 14, 2007.
There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item.
838
August 28, 2007
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 082807-19 AMENDING SEC. 30-74. (FO) FLOODPLAIN
OVERLAY DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice support an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Roanoke to
modify the floodplain overlay district requirements; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this amendment
on August 7,2007; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors held first reading of this
ordinance on August 14, 2007, and second reading and public hearing on August 28,
2007; and,
WHEREAS, public notice and advertisement of this amendment has been
provided as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia, and the Roanoke
County Code.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That Section 30-74 Floodplain Overlay District be amended to read and
provide as follows:
Sec. 30-74-1. Purpose.
(A) The purpose of these floodplain provisions is to prevent the following hazards:
1. The loss of life and property;
2. The creation of health and safety hazards;
3. The disruption of commerce and governmental services;
4. The extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and
relief; and,
5. The impairment of the tax base.
(8) These provisions are designed to accomplish the above purposes by:
1. Regulating uses, activities, and development which, acting alone or in combination with
other existing or future uses, activities, and development, will cause unacceptable increases in
flood heights, velocities, and frequencies;
2. Restricting or prohibiting certain uses, activities, and development from locating within areas
subject to flooding;
3. Requiring all those uses, activities, and developments that do occur in flood-prone areas to
be protected and/or f1oodproofed against flooding and flood damage;
August 28, 2007
839
4. Protecting individuals from buying lands and structures which are unsuited for intended
purposes because of flood hazards.
Sec. 30-74-2. Applicability and Administration.
(A) These provisions shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of Roanoke County and
identified as being within a floodplain, as stipulated in this section.
(8) These provisions shall supersede any regulations currently in effect in floodplain areas.
Where conflict exists between these provisions and those of any underlying zoning district, the
more restrictive provisions shall apply.
(C) In the event any provision concerning a floodplain area is declared inapplicable as a result
of any legislative or administrative actions or judicial discretion, the basic underlying zoning
district provisions shall remain applicable.
Sec. 30-74-3. Compliance.
(A) No land shall hereafter be developed and no structure shall be located, relocated,
constructed, enlarged, or structurally altered except in full compliance with the terms and
provisions of this section and any other applicable ordinances and regulations which apply to
uses within the jurisdiction of this section.
Sec. 30-74-4. Delineation of Areas.
(A) The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters of the 100-
year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall be the Flood Insurance
=..S.... ....!...........U...d...........".~.... '.'........f.....~......~g"..~.'...j.w.'...~..........~.'~.w.p..~e., ..~...o.. '.U.' ...n..... t w.. '.. r. e. .;E!!!,.......a...r....:......~?~.m by the Federal Emergency Management ~~ency, dated
m;:;~m;:':>"c:,,,~:;:,"~"~', . ."ilc."'lIlI'A as amended. These areas are more speCifically defined
as follows:
1. The Floodway is delineated for purposes of this section using the criteria that a certain area
within the floodplain must be capable of carrying the waters of the 100-year flood without
increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than one foot at any point. These
Floodways are specifically defined in Table 4 of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study
and shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map accompanying that study.
2. The Flood-Fringe shall be that area of the 100-year floodplain not included in the Floodway.
The basis for the outermost boundary of the Flood-Fringe shall be the 1 OO-year flood elevations
contained in the flood profiles of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study and as shown on
the Flood Insurance Rate Ma accom an in the stud.
~ 4. The Approximated Floodplain shall be those floodplain areas shown on the flood
insurance rate map for which no detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, and all other
floodplain areas where the drainage area is greater than 100 acres. Where the specific 100-year
flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of data such the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone
Quadrangles, etc., then the applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall
determine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques.
Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or others
840
August 28, 2007
of demonstrated qualifications. who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly reflect
currently accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to
existing land use and potential development under existing zoning. Studies, analyses,
computations, etc., shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the
director of community development.
(Ord. No. 92893-18, S 1, 9-28-93; Ord. No. 42694-12, S 10,4-26-94; Ord. No. 92695-18, S 1, 9-
26-95; Ord. No. 042799-11, S 1 c., 4-27-99; Ord. No. 012505-4, S 1, 1-25-05)
Sec. 30-74-5. Creation of Overlay.
(A) The floodplain areas described above shall be an overlay to the existing underlying zoning
districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, and as such, the provisions for the floodplain
areas shall serve as a supplement to the underlying zoning district provisions.
(B) The boundaries of the floodplain areas are established as shown on the Flood Insurance
Rate Map which is declared to be part of this chapter and which shall be kept on file in the office
of the administrator.
(Ord. No. 92893-18, S 1, 9-28-93)
Sec. 30-74-6. Floodplain Boundary Changes and Interpretation.
(A) The delineation of any of the floodplain areas may be revised by the board of supervisors
where natural or manmade changes have occurred and/or made detailed studies conducted or
undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified agency, or an individual
documents the need for such change. However, prior to any such change, approval must be
obtained from the Federal Insurance Administration.
(B) Initial interpretations of the boundaries of the floodplain areas shall be made by the
administrator. Should a dispute arise concerning the boundaries of any of the floodplain areas,
the board of zoning appeals shall make the necessary determination. The person questioning or
contesting the location of the floodplain area boundary shall be given an opportunity to present
his case to the board of zoning appeals and to submit technical evidence. Procedures for such
appeals shall be as outlined in Section30-24 of this ordinance.
Sec. 30-74-7. Floodplain Area Provisions, Generally.
(A) All uses, activities, and development occurring within any floodplain area shall be
undertaken only upon the issuance of a zoning permit. Such development shall be undertaken
only in strict compliance with the provisions of this section and with all other applicable codes
and ordinances such as the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the Roanoke County
Subdivision Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of any such permit, the administrator shall require
all applications to include compliance with all applicable state and federal laws.
(B) Under no circumstances shall any use, activity, and/or development adversely affect the
capacity of the channels or f100dways or any watercourse, drainage ditch, or any other drainage
facility or system. Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any channels or f100dways of
any watercourse, stream, etc., within Roanoke County, approval shall be obtained from the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water. Further, notification of the
proposal shall be given to all affected adjacent jurisdictions. Copies of such notification shall be
forwarded to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water, the State
Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Federal Insurance Administration.
August 28, 2007
841
(C) The lowest floor elevation of any new residential structure constructed within a floodplain
area shall be at least two (2) feet above base flood elevation. The lowest floor elevation of any
new non-residential structure constructed within a floodplain area shall be at least one (1) foot
above base flood elevation, unless such structure is f1oodproofed. In addition, no existing
structure shall be modified, expanded or enlarged unless the new construction complies with
this standard.
(D) All applications for development in the floodplain district and all building permits issued for
the floodplain shall incorporate the following information:
1. For structures to be elevated, the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement).
2. For structures to be flood proofed (nonresidential only), the elevation to which the structure
will be f1oodproofed.
3. The elevation of the one hundred-year flood.
4. Topographic information showing existing and proposed ground elevations.
(E) For all new subdivisions which adjoin or include floodplain areas identified in the flood
insurance study, the base flood elevation shall be shown on the final record plat.
(F) All recreational vehicles located in a FEMA designated floodplain shall either:
1. Be on site for fewer than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days, be fully licensed and
inspected, and ready for highway use; or
2. Meet the minimum requirements for placement and the elevation and anchoring
requirements for manufactured homes as contained in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building
Code.
A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is
attached to the site only be quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no
permanently attached additions.
(Ord. No. 42694-12, 9 11, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 92695, 9 1, 9-26-95)
Sec. 30-74-8. Floodway Development Regulations.
(A) In the f100dway no development shall be permitted except where the effect of such
development on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements which have been
approved by all appropriate authorities as required above.
(B) The placement of any manufactured home, except in an existing manufactured home park
within the floodway is specifically prohibited.
(C) In the f1oodway, the following uses, types and activities are permitted provided that (1) they
are in compliance with the provisions of the underlying zoning district, (2) are not prohibited by
any other ordinance and (3) no specific land use requires any type of structure, fill, or storage of
materials and equipment:
1. Agricultural
2. Public Parks and Recreational Areas
3. Outdoor Sports and Recreation
4. Golf Courses
5. Accessory residential uses such as yard areas, gardens, play areas, and loading areas.
6. Accessory industrial and commercial uses such as yard areas, parking and loading areas,
airport landing strips, etc.
842
August 28, 2007
(D) The following uses and activities may be permitted by Special Use pursuant to Section 30-
19 of this ordinance provided that they are in compliance with the provisions of the underlying
zoning district and are not prohibited by this or any other ordinance:
1. Structures (except for manufactured homes) accessory to the uses and activities by right,
above.
2. Certain utilities and public facilities and improvements such as pipe lines, water and sewage
treatment plants, and other similar or related uses.
3. Water-related uses and activities such as marinas, docks, wharves, piers, etc.
4. Extraction of sand, gravel, and other materials (where no increase in level of flooding or
velocity is caused thereby).
5. Storage of materials and equipment provided that they are not buoyant, flammable or
explosive, and are not subject to major damage by flooding, or provided that such material and
equipment is firmly anchored to prevent flotation or movement, and/or can be readily removed
from the area within the time available after flood warning.
6. Other similar uses and activities provided they cause no increase in flood heights and/or
velocities. All uses, activities, and structural development, shall be undertaken in strict
compliance with the flood-proofing provisions contained in all other applicable codes and
ordinances.
Sec. 30-74-9. Flood-Fringe_~'" and Approximated Floodplain
Development Regulations.
(A) In the f1ood-fringe~tIIIl and approximated floodplain the development and/or
use of land shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations of the underlying zoning district
provided that all such uses, activities, and/or development shall be undertaken in strict
compliance with the floodproofing and related provisions contained in the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Buildi"28 Code and all other applicable codes and ordinances.
However, in 1IIr,.- and the approximated floodplain areas the applicant and/or
developer shall evaluate the effects of the proposed development and/or use of land on the
floodplain with current hydrologic and hydraulic engineering techniques. The applicant and/or
developer shall submit studies, analysis, computations, etc. to show the delineation of a
floodway based on the requirement that all existing and future development not increase the
100-year flood elevation more than one (1) foot at any point. The engineering principle, equal
reduction of conveyance, shall be used to make the determination of increased flood height.
Sec. 30-74-10. Procedures for Special Uses in Floodways.
(A) Any use listed as permitted with a special use in a f100dway shall be allowed only after
application to the county board of supervisors. All such applications shall be reviewed pursuant
to the procedures outlined in section 30-19 of this ordinance. In addition to information required
by section 30-19, all such application shall include the following:
1. Plans in triplicate drawn to scale not less than 1" to 1 00' horizontally showing the location,
dimensions, and contours (at five-foot intervals) of the lot, existing and proposed structures, fill,
storage areas, water supply, sanitary facilities, and relationship of the f100dway to the proposal.
2. A typical valley cross-section as necessary to adequately show the channel of the stream,
elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional areas to be occupied
by the proposed development, and 1 OO-year flood elevation.
August 28, 2007
843
3. A profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream.
4. A summary report, prepared by professional engineers or others of demonstrated
qualifications, evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities; the
seriousness of flood damage to the use; and other pertinent technical matters.
5. A list of names and addresses of adjoining property owners.
(8) In acting upon such applications, the planning commission and the county board of
supervisors shall consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this ordinance and:
1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by
encroachments. No special use shall be granted for any proposed use, development, or activity
within the floodway that will cause any increase in flood levels during the 1 DO-year flood.
2. The danger that materials may be swept on to other lands or downstream to the injury of
others.
3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to
prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions.
4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of
such damage on the individual owners.
5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the county.
6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location.
7. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use.
8. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development
anticipated in the foreseeable future.
9. The relationship of the proposed use to the community plan and floodplain management
program for the county.
10. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles.
11. Such other factors which are relevant to the purpose of this Section.
(Ord. No. 042799-11, 9 1f., 4-27-99)
Sec. 30-74-11. Variances.
(A) The board of zoning appeals may consider variances to the requirements of this section,
under the following guidelines and conditions:
1. Variances may not be considered within any f100dway if any increase in flood levels during
the 1 DO-year flood would result.
2. Variance requests may be granted for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of
structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic
Places without regard to the procedures set forth in this section.
3. Variances may be considered for new construction and substantial improvements to be
erected on a lot contiguous and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below
the 1 DO-year flood level using the guidelines set forth in Section 30-74-10(8) above.
(8) The board of zoning appeals may refer any application and accompanying documentation
pertaining to any request for a variance to any engineer or other qualified person or agency for
technical assistance in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities,
and the adequacy of the plans for protection and other related matters. Variances shall only be
issued after the board of zoning appeals has determined that the granting of such will not result
in:
1. Unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights;
844
August 28, 2007
2. Additional threats to public safety;
3. Extraordinary public expense;
4. Creation of nuisances;
5. Fraud or victimization of the public; or,
6. Conflict with local laws or ordinances.
Variances shall only be issued after the board of zoning appeals has determined that the
variance will be the minimum relief to any hardship.
(C) The board of zoning appeals shall notify the applicant for a variance, in writing, that the
issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the 100-year flood elevation (a) increases
the risks to life and property, and (b) will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. A
record of the above notification as well as all variance actions, including justification for their
issuance, shall be maintained and any variances which are issued shall be noted in the annual
report submitted to the Federal Insurance Administration.
Sec. 30-74-12. Existing Structures in Floodplain Areas.
(A) A structure or use of a structure or premises which lawfully existed before the enactment of
these provisions, but which is not in conformity with these provisions may be continued subject
to the following conditions:
1. Existing structures and/or uses located in the floodway shall not be expanded or enlarged
(unless the effect of the proposed expansion or enlargement on flood heights is fully offset by
accompanying improvements).
2. Any modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any kind to a structure
and/or use located in any floodplain area to an extent or amount of fifty (50) percent or more of
its market value, shall be undertaken only in full compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code.
(Ord. No. 92695-18, 9 1, 9-26-95)
Sec. 30-74-13. Liability.
(A) The degree of flood protection sought by the prOVIsions of this section is considered
reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on acceptable engineering methods of study.
Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or
natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. This section does not
imply that areas outside floodplain areas, or that land uses permitted within such areas, will be
free from flooding or flood damages.
(B) This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Roanoke County or any officers or
employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any
administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
2. That this ordinance shall be in effect from and after its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Wray, Church, Altizer, Flora, McNamara
NAYS: None
August 28, 2007
845
INRE:
CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Steve Noble. 5376 Canter Drive. advised that there was discussion tonight
concerning capital budgets, revenue sharing, and tax rate, and that the County's largest
source of revenues remains taxes from homeowners and not industrial. He advised that
the County is funding $70 million for schools, $80 million for public safety, and $70
million for services, and this would cost each household $6,300, and the County is
looking at adding more capital costs and debt service. He advised that the County
should look at why so much money is being spent now at the end of the economic cycle
and housing boom. He advised that Billy Driver, Assessor, is not going to be able to
provide a huge increase from real estate taxes in the future so the Board will have to
raise the tax rate.
Frank Porter. 6529 Fairwav Forest Drive. advised that the Board owes it to
the citizens to publish the 26 page issue from the recreation center which served as
their model because it states that there are fees for everything offered to pay the debt
service and operational costs. He advised that the recreation center they copied is in a
place with 2.7 million people and the County is constructing a center where there is
250,000 population area. He advised that the center will probably end up being another
Explore Park. He advised that giving English Construction $2.5 million to run sewer and
water to open up their 190 acres as a business park is not wise because the County is
giving them water and sewer to compete against other places located in the County. He
advised that providing water and sewer down Route 220 towards Franklin County is not
846
August 28, 2007
wise because the County is opening up that land for development to compete against
the County. He advised that when you have the second highest effectively taxed rate in
the State of Virginia and add $7,000 more debt per household, this causes people to not
want to locate or remain in the County. He advised that he would encourage the Board
to attract the intermodal to the jail area where it could open up projects to enhance the
County's tax base near the interstate.
IN RE:
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
There were no reports or inquiries from the Board members.
INRE:
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 10:43 p.m.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
~~
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Atu~
eph P. McNamara
airman