HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/10/2010 - RegularAugust 10, 2010 277
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August 2010. Audio and video recordings
of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Vice Chairman Eddie
"Ed" Elswick, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Richard C.
Flora, Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt,
Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Becky R. Meador, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverend Paul R. Henrickson of the
Roanoke College Chapel. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution recognizing the 75t" Anniversary of the Blue Ridge
Parkway
Attending to accept the resolution were Catherine Fox, Blue Ridge
Parkway 75 Board; Peter Givens, Interpretive Specialist; Landon Howard, Executive
Director, Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau; Susan Mills, Executive
Director, FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge Parkway; Richard Wells, Roanoke County Honor
Representative for Blue Ridge Parkway 75; and Roger Holnback, Western Virginia Land
Trust.
278 August 10, 2010
RESOLUTION 081010-1 RECOGNIZING THE 75TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
WHEREAS, construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway began on September 11,
1935, to link Shenandoah National Park in Virginia and Great Smoky Mountains
National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee; and
WHEREAS, the Blue Ridge Parkway is the most visited unit in the National Park
Service system, surpassing that of Grand Canyon, Yosemite and Yellowstone national
parks combined; and
WHEREAS, the Parkway is an internationally recognized scenic highway that
winds through 29 counties and encompasses nearly 82,000 acres in Virginia and North
Carolina; and
WHEREAS, there is great pride in the fact that nearly 3,000 acres and more than
25 miles of the Blue Ridge Parkway's 469 miles are located in Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County recognizes the economic value of the Blue Ridge
Parkway, which contributes more than $2.3 billion annually to the local economies along
its path; and
WHEREAS, recognizing the 75t" Anniversary of the Blue Ridge Parkway is an
honor for Roanoke County, which has dedicated time and resources to raising
awareness of this exceptional natural and cultural resource; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has selected Richard Wells, Publisher and
President of Leisure Publishing in Roanoke County and past President of FRIENDS of
the Blue Ridge Parkway, as its Honor Representative during the 75t" Anniversary year
in recognition of his tremendous service in support of the Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke recognizes its citizens deep commitment to
the Blue Ridge Parkway as they enjoy the scenic beauty and recreational opportunities
that abound there and work steadfastly to help preserve this unique asset for future
generations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby express its most sincere appreciation to the
Blue Ridge Parkway for its very special "museum of the managed American
countryside" - as envisioned by the Parkway's first landscape architect, Stanley Abbott
- which leads travelers from around the world along its scenic corridor and into the
Parkway's gateway communities to enjoy the quality of life there; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Roanoke County, in commending and
congratulating the Blue Ridge Parkway for its 75t" Anniversary, wishes Blue Ridge
Parkway 75 its best during its upcoming signature events and looks forward to a
continued and meaningful partnership with the Parkway for the next 75 years.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
August 10, 2010 279
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution in support of Lewis-Gale Medical Center's application
to introduce Neonatal Special Care (Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney)
Mr. Victor Giovannetti, CEO of HCA Southwest Virginia was in attendance
and gave a brief overview of the request. All Supervisors voiced their support of this
application.
RESOLUTION 081010-2 IN SUPPORT OF LEWIS-GALE
MEDICAL CENTER'S APPLICATION TO INTRODUCE
NEONATAL SPECIAL CARE
WHEREAS, Lewis-Gale Medical Center operates an acute care hospital in
Salem, Virginia that provides residents of Roanoke County and surrounding
communities with access to high quality, essential hospital services; and
WHEREAS, Lewis-Gale Medical Center offers a broad range of services to
patients but is not currently approved to provide neonatal special care services; and
WHEREAS, neonatal special care services are a fundamental service for any
hospital serving a vibrant and growing community; and
WHEREAS, Lewis-Gale Medical Center's ability to provide neonatal special care
services is essential to continuity of care for area maternity patients and newborns
because it is highly disruptive to patients and their families to be required to obtain
neonatal special care services from another provider; and
WHEREAS, expectant mothers treated at Lewis-Gale Medical Center who
discover that their children may need neonatal special care services must change their
care teams in mid-pregnancy after developing important patient-caregiver relationships
with their current care teams; and
WHEREAS, infants born at Lewis-Gale Medical Center in need of neonatal
special care services must be transferred to another facility; and
WHEREAS, transferring infants in need of neonatal special care services takes a
tremendous toll on patients and their families, particularly because such transfers have
the capacity to split apart families within hours of an infant's birth because mother and
child would be hospitalized at different facilities; and
WHEREAS, in addition to these emotional costs, clinical outcomes are usually
better for families that can be kept together; and
WHEREAS, the introduction of neonatal special care services at Lewis-Gale
Medical Center will mitigate the emotional costs and improve clinical outcomes; and
280 August 10, 2010
WHEREAS, Lewis-Gale Medical Center is accessible to all patients regardless of
ability to pay or payment source because of the hospital's generous charity and
uninsured discount policies, and it is very accessible from a geographic perspective.
NOW, THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors supports Lewis-Gale Medical Center's plans to establish an eight-bed
specialty neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) at the hospital.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors respectfully urges the Virginia Commissioner of Health to grant approval for
this much-needed project.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing conveyance of a forty foot (40') utility
easement to the Craig-Botetourt Electric Cooperative for electric
service to Catawba Hospital, Commonwealth of Virginia, across
property owned by the Board of Supervisors -Catawba Public
Safety Building/Fire Station, Catawba Magisterial District (Tarek
Moneir, Deputy Director of Development Services)
Supervisor Moore questioned why the original underground line failed
and asked how expensive it would be to replace with another underground line. Mr.
Moneir indicated that he had not been provided with this information and
representatives from Catawba Hospital were not in attendance to respond. Mr. Moneir
further advised he would obtain the necessary information and provide to the Board of
Supervisors before the second reading of this ordinance Supervisor Church moved to
approve the first reading and schedule the second reading and public hearing for
August 24, 2010. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance approving a lease agreement for the Tinker Mountain
Tower Site (Jim Vodnik, Assistant Director of General Services)
August 10, 2010 2 8
Mr. Vodnick explained to the Board in the interim period since the first
reading, Mr. Hartman has passed away. The ordinance has been changed to reflect
working with his estate to sign the lease; all other conditions remain the same. There
was no discussion. Chairman Church expressed the Board's heartfelt sympathy to the
Hartman family and thanked them for all they have done for the betterment of the
Roanoke Valley.
ORDINANCE 081010-3 APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT
FOR THE TINKER MOUNTAIN TOWER SITE
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke rents a site located on Tinker Mountain in
the County of Botetourt, Virginia, on property owned by Lee C. Hartman, Jr., for the
purpose of maintaining towers, antennae and equipment buildings for the operation of
its public safety radio communications systems, said property being designated upon
the Botetourt County Land Records as Tax Map No. 106-45; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke has leased this site for over a decade to
provide E911 coverage to critical areas and to provide back-up capabilities for the public
safety system; and
WHEREAS, the most recent lease term has expired and staff had negotiated with
the property owner for a new lease of this site; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hartman has recently passed away, however, the County
expects to complete this lease transaction with his successors, or the administrator or
executor of his estate; and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County
require that the acquisition of any interest in real estate, including the lease of real
property, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was
held on July 27, 2010, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on August 10,
2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the lease of a parcel of land from Lee C. Harman, Jr., or his
successors, or the administrator or executor of his estate, consisting of 0.0363 acre,
more or less, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, together with the non-exclusive
right of ingress, egress and regress from Tinker Top Road (Frontage Road) over the
existing gravel access and private driveway to the site, for an initial term effective as of
July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2013, at an annual rental of four thousand two hundred
fifty-two and 50/100 dollars ($4,252.50), with an increase of five percent (5%) each year
in the annual rental rate, is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the rent payment shall be paid from the E911 Maintenance Account.
3. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is
authorized to execute this lease on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County and to execute such other documents and take such further actions as are
282 August 10, 2010
necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form approved by
the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
Supervisor Flora reappointed Becky Walter to represent the Hollins
Magisterial District. Chairman Church asked that confirmation of the appointment be
placed on the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the Consent Resolution, with Item 2
removed for separate consideration.
RESOLUTION 081010-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 10,
2010, designated as Item I -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 4 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of Minutes -July 13, 2010 and July 27, 2010
2. Resolution canceling the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of
Supervisors to be held on September 14, 2010 (This item was removed
from the Consent Agenda.)
3. Resolution accepting Isabel Lane and Clayview Circle into the Virginia
Department of Transportation secondary road system
4. Confirmation of appointment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Review Committee (appointed by District)
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, with the exception of Item
I-2 and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
August 10, 2010 283
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 081010-4.a ACCEPTING ISABEL LANE AND
CLAYVIEW CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) Form AM-4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements, and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM-4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: Resolution canceling the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board
of Supervisors to be held on September 14, 2010
Supervisor Flora requested additional information with regard to cancelling
this meeting. Supervisor Flora stated the memorandum was vague as to the need to
cancel this meeting.
Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahoney to explain to the Board about the
scheduling conflict on September 14, 2010.
2 84 August 10, 2010
Mr. Mahoney advised that due to a scheduling conflict, Chairman Church
had asked Mr. Mahoney to look into moving the September 14, 2010, meeting to
September 7, 2010. Mr. Mahoney stated that he had some concerns with moving to
September 7, 2010, as that would fall the day after the Labor Day holiday, and
anticipated some difficulties in terms of scheduling work and delays that might arise.
Mr. Mahoney further explained that due to the light agenda, it was suggested that the
meeting be cancelled altogether.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the board to remove this item
from the agenda and to hold the September 14, 2010, meeting as scheduled. Mr.
Mahoney advised no vote was necessary.
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Brent Wiley of 5280 Wade Road, Roanoke stated some concerns
about the project of developing Rt. 221 and the manner in which it is going to be done.
He advised this project evolved 20 years or more. Due to expansion on Bent Mountain,
Mr. Wiley explained that the Rt. 221 development is needed. He indicated that he has
discussed his idea of not putting in major bridges, but go past the curves and begin
improvements just before Ran Lynn Drive and Cotton Hill Road. Mr. Wiley stated that
the most serious problem deals with turning opportunities, particularly at Cotton Hill
Road, back up into those curves at rush hour times. Additionally Mr. Wiley stated that
he was of the opinion the danger to that road is the lack of passing opportunities before
you get to the base of Bent Mountain, as this is where most fatalities occur and
unfortunately, Mr. Wiley feels this project will not address these issues, but actually
exacerbate if the project is stopped just past Cotton Hill Road. Mr. Wiley stated that he
is suggesting to take into account the character of this area, the fact that the speed limit
is currently 35 miles per hour (mph) through the curves and the new road will have a 45
mph speed limit, a major amount of dirt moving will be necessary to realign Ran Lynn
Drive and the curve will be enormous. Mr. Wiley also stated that at the public hearing
on this road about ten years, which was a record attendance of any Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) hearing in the State of Virginia. He indicated 85 percent of
the citizens in attendance wanted improvements, but still wanted to maintain the
character of the area. Mr. Wiley encouraged the Board to taking another look at how
these improvements are planned.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
August 10, 2010
285
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Corrected Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment
and Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 2010
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:45 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711(A)(3): To discuss
or consider the acquisition of real property for future public use where discussion in an
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of
the County, namely for library purposes; and Section 2.2-3711(A)(1): Personnel,
namely discussion concerning appointments to the Economic Development Authority,
Grievance Panel and Virginia Western Community College Advisory Board.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
At 3:46 p.m., Chairman church recessed to the 4t" floor for work sessions
followed by closed meeting.
The closed meeting was held from 4:43 p.m. until 5:04 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (TRAINING ROOM - 4T" FLOOR)
1. Work Session - Proposed Inmate Work Program (Daniel R.
O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Michael Winston,
Sheriff; Major Charles Poff, Chief Deputy; Mark Courtright,
Assistant Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
The work session was held from 4:00 p.m. until 4:37 p.m.
286 August 10, 2010
Mr. O'Donnell, gave a brief background on this issue explaining that
several things led to this proposed program; Mr. Goodman's emphasis on Departments
working together to save money, citizen questions with regard to why inmates could not
mow the medians and the lack of Parks and Recreation staffing due to budget
reductions. Mr. O'Donnell further indicated that the concept was to look at a pilot
inmate work program in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr.
O'Donnell then turned the discussion over to Major Poff, Mark Courtright and Deputy
Sheriff Captain Barry Tayloe, explaining these individuals have been working on this
issue for several months, further adding the proposal is essentially adding one deputy to
the Sheriff's Department that would be assigned to oversee afull-time inmate work
crew. Mr. O'Donnell noted Major Poff's extensive experience with similar programs in
other jurisdictions.
Major Poff first gave the apologies of Sheriff Winston, as he was unable to
attend due to a funeral. Major Poff thanked the Board for the opportunity to discuss the
proposed work program and advised the Board that the concept of providing a work
program is not new to the County's Sheriff's office. He explained there has been a
modified work program in place for approximately 16 years that was stopped in
February of this year due to budget reductions and has now received a federal grant
that has allowed the Department to restart the program on a week-end only basis.
Major Poff described the proposed pilot program, which would be a partnership between
Parks and Recreation and the Sheriff's office, which he feels will be beneficial to both
Roanoke County and its citizens. He further clarified that the main objective for the
program is to reduce Parks and Recreations work load, improve quality and provide
incentives/work training for inmates. Major Poff outlined that the Sheriff's Office would
work with Parks and Recreation to improve the grounds, landscaping and provide a
weekly mowing and trimming schedule that would occur from April through October of
each year. In the remaining months, the crew would be assigned such duties as
mulching, leaf removal, cleaning, painting, seeding, fertilizing, snow removal and
providing assistance for special events. Major Poff indicated staffing for this program
would be one full-time deputy, who will supervise four inmates, who will be thoroughly
screened and only non-violent offenders would be utilized. Each inmate would go
through orientation and training for the equipment they will be utilizing on a daily basis.
Major Poff explained that this program would be funded by the Sheriff's office and Parks
and Recreation, with the Sheriff's office funding the program for the ten remaining
months of fiscal 2010-2011 at a cost of $32,500 and beginning with fiscal 2011-2012,
the funds would be derived from taking over select mowing contracts. Major Poff
indicated the Parks and Recreation Department will purchase the necessary equipment
for the inmate work team and work closely with the Sheriff's office to monitor this
program and schedule the work. Major Poff expressed his opinion that if this program is
approved he felt it would be a win/win situation for both departments.
Mr. O'Donnell clarified that the funds for the additional start-up costs
would be provided by roll-over funds left at the end of fiscal year 2009-2010 from the
August 10, 2010 287
Sheriff's Department.
Supervisor Moore asked about the experience level of the inmates, if they
would be driving the vehicles and about certifications for spreading fertilizer. Mr.
Courtright indicated the Sheriff's Department would look at what inmates would be
eligible for this program and work with the Deputy for training; the inmates would be
doing manual labor such as behind the snow blowers, using shovels, weed whackers,
etc. and the Deputy would drive the vehicles; and the inmates would not spread
chemical fertilizers that require certification. A certified Agricore staffer would be
handling all regulated chemicals.
Supervisor Moore questioned if there was enough equipment for the
program. Mr. Courtright explained that some of the start-up funds would be allocated to
the purchase of additional equipment so the program would have its own equipment
and not have to shuttle it back and forth with Parks and Recreation. The equipment
would consist of a landscape trailer, two walk-behind mowers, backpack blowers, weed
whackers, and wheelbarrows, shovels and rakes.
Supervisor Moore then asked about liability insurance on the inmates, with
Major Poff indicating the liability is already covered under the Virginia Department of
Investment Management policy that the Sheriff's office has, noting that no accidents
have occurred over the last sixteen years.
Supervisor Moore indicated that her question related to items such as
thrown rocks, etc. Mr. Mahoney explained this type of situation would fall within the
same liability standards as a County employee.
Supervisor Altizer asked if these inmates were trustee or trustee-type
designated inmates. Major Poff advised that only non-violent offenders would be eligible
and all would be thoroughly screened.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if the inmates could cover all of the paid
contractors' territory and how much money will be saved. Mr. Courtright felt an
additional four-man crew would be necessary to cover all the same territory and the
funds saved by not hiring contractors would be used to support the work team. The
contracts total approximately $60,000 to $75,000. In order to be sustainable, the crew
would have to earn enough money to cover the deputy's salary, equipment, fuel, repairs
and maintenance. He further indicated that the efficiency of the team is still
undetermined. Hopefully, during the months of April through October, the program will
cover the Deputy's salary and from November through March be assigned to other work
duties where the real benefits will be achieved. Mr. O'Donnell noted this will be a pilot
program for the first year in order to measure the efficiency.
Chairman Church then asked Mr. Courtright to discuss how Parks and
Recreation has been handling these contractors, who they are, their experience level
and if they carry their own liability insurance. Mr. Courtright explained that the work is
put out for bid and one contractor is currently being utilized for 25 of the 77 sites that are
mowed each week. The contractors have their own liability insurance and business
license.
288 August 10, 2010
Supervisor Flora stated he was of the opinion there seemed to be some
misunderstanding concerning the dollars going into this program. He then stated that
hypothetically, you currently have an outside contractor from April to October and you
are paying $40,000 a year. With this program, Parks and Recreational will pay the
Sheriff's Department the $40,000; the inmates will work from April to October doing the
same work. Additionally, Parks and Recreation will then have an additional six months
at no cost. Mr. Courtright responded affirmatively and clarified they also have a great
deal more flexibility to do different things. Supervisor Flora indicated that he feels the
program makes a lot of sense and knows it has worked successfully in other localities
and feels this program would be a win/win situation for everyone.
Mr. O'Donnell indicated that the Board would be updated on how the
program is progressing.
It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the pilot program.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Church called the meeting back into open session.
RESOLUTION 081010-5 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
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 Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
August 10, 2010 289
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance creating the South Peak Community Development
Authority (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
Before this item was discussed, Supervisor Moore reminded the audience
of her disclosure of a potential conflict of interest filed with the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisor's office on February 9, 2010. She noted that the Commonwealth Attorney
and the County Attorney have confirmed no conflict of interest exists.
Mr. Mahoney outlined this is the first reading and public hearing of an
ordinance that would create a Community Development Authority (CDA), the first
Community Development Authority (CDA) in Roanoke and west of Henrico County. He
indicated the CDA would be a mixed-use project of residential, commercial, retail and
encompasses a variety of different corporate entities that own various parcels of real
estate in this proposed project. The CDA would be authorized to issue no more than an
aggregate, maximum principal amount of $16,000,000 in bonds, which would be used to
construct a variety of public infrastructure improvements, such as water and sewer
improvements, stormwater, a public parking garage, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street
signs, signage, lighting and landscaping. He stated that the signed petition was
received yesterday and is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Mahoney advised that a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) is still being
worked on and the parties are still negotiating some of the minor details. He outlined
the key elements of the MOU and advised they are very critical because the MOU
establishes the detail with respect to issuance of the bonds and phasing and scheduling
of the development. County Staff has negotiated with the petitioners over the past nine
months and has sought the assistance of consultants, who have greater expertise
specifically Bonnie France, an attorney in Richmond, and Jim Johnson, the County's
financial advisor. Staff has composed the documents to allow for as much protection
possible for Roanoke County and the taxpayers with respect to this project and
repayment of any debt. Mr. Mahoney further explained that the MOU details the
incremental tax revenue that would be derived from the private development that could
be put in this project. Incremental tax revenues would be a substantial part of paying the
principal and interest on the bonds and a mechanism whereby a special assessment tax
on real estate could be imposed if the incremental tax revenues are not enough to pay
the debt. He indicated the MOU would contain a mechanism for addressing
administrative costs and some fairly tight time lines. If the bonds are not issued within
three years of the Board's adoption of this ordinance, the CDA will be dissolved. If the
CDA is established, if will not be able to issue any bonds without the Board's consent.
Mr. Mahoney advised the finalized MOU would come before the Board at the second
reading, which is scheduled for August 24, 2010. If approved, the Board will have to
appoint afive-member CDA Board and negotiate a development agreement.
290 August 10, 2010
Hunter Smith, representative of the petitioner, presented a PowerPoint, a
copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Smith
gave a brief history of Smith Packett and the work that has been accomplished to date
and indicated that Roanoke County will have no responsibility for the costs associated
with this project. Mr. Smith stated that the site is located at one of the busiest
intersections of Route 419. His company has already signed a contract with the Hilton
Garden Hotel and received financing on the first phase of the condominiums, noting the
potential for expansion over the next twenty years avoiding urban sprawl further down
Route 220, which is not equipped to accommodate this type of expansion. He stated
that this property is appropriately zoned and meets Roanoke County's core
development planning. Mr. Smith commented that the property is currently only
generating $35,000 in tax dollars, which would increase to $25 million after the bonds
have been paid and 20 percent of the bonds will be earmarked for off-site infrastructure
consisting of water lines on Routes 419 and 220, which is outside of the development.
He noted that this infrastructure will eventually be at County expense if this project does
not go forward. Mr. Smith feels the project will also create more jobs in addition to more
tax revenue.
Mr. Tori Williams of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce located
at 210 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke spoke in support of the petition. Mr. Williams
stated that this development contains opportunities that will strengthen and diversify
Roanoke County's economic base and commended the Board of Supervisors on their
careful consideration of this project. He believes the Board's support of this project will
enhance Roanoke County's reputation as a good place to do business.
Frank D. Porter III of 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, SW relinquished his time
to Steve Noble.
Steve Noble of 5376 Canter Drive, Roanoke spoke in opposition of the
petition. (Clerk's note: Mr. Noble's remarks referred to a list of questions he posed to the
County regarding the CDA. His questions, along with the Petitioner's answers, were
published on the Roanoke County website. A copy of this document is on file for
inspection in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Noble thanked the
Board for putting his questions submitted during work session on July 27, 2010, on the
website. Mr. Noble reviewed the answers on the website and raised additional
questions, stating that whenever taxpayers' real estate or business taxes are refunded
away from the County, the County has less money to pay for operations and other
taxpayers make up the difference. Mr. Nobel stated when the CDA holds title to the
public improvements until the bonds are paid off, Roanoke County loses control over
those assets. Mr. Noble stressed the CDA Board is a fiduciary to the bond holders and
not a partner of the developer. Additionally, Mr. Nobel advised the CDA Board can
actually move to replace the developer and change the project, which they have tried to
do in other locations. He stated the CDA owns the infrastructure, although they are paid
for by taxes and questioned whether Roanoke County really wants to own a parking
garage that is twenty years old when it is turned over to the County by the CDA. Mr.
August 10, 2010 2 9
Noble referenced Smith-Packett's response to his question about whether the developer
would occupy any of the office space within the CDA. He questioned why Smith-Packett
believes such a restriction would "make this development functionally impossible,"
noting that a tenant paying taxes is different than the developer refunding up to 70
percent of taxes to himself. He asked if the project is only feasible if the developer
occupies these buildings, principally the offices. Mr. Noble next noted the Petitioner's
response to his question regarding the percentage of each type of tax the CDA will
receive, which the Petitioner estimates at $25 million over the life of the bonds. It was
his opinion the $25 million relies on $9 million in excess collections to be refunded late
in the game, and another $5.7 million is supposed to be accumulated from the 240
condominiums proposed to be constructed and sold for over $400,000 each. Mr. Noble
concluded that $16 million is late term money and very high-end, $400,000
condominiums really are not much of a community development for Roanoke County
citizens when they are helping to foot the bill. He questioned how many citizens in
Roanoke County live in $400,000 condominiums. Mr. Noble commented on the
Petitioner's response to his allegation that the absorption schedule provided was really
a construction schedule and suggested it be relabeled as such. The Petitioner stated
the absorption schedule was based on the anticipated dates that a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) might be received. Mr. Noble noted the financial forecasts have the
building fully occupied and producing maximum tax revenues in the year of completion
and was of the opinion this information is not believable. Next, Mr. Noble indicated the
developer stated the current value of the land is more than the CDA bonds of $16
million, adding $11 million in infrastructure improvements would equate to a value of
approximately $27 million. He further questioned if you borrow 50%, which is $13.5
million, and there is only $11 million in construction, why is a CDA necessary?
Attempting to make his point further, Mr. Noble questioned why should Roanoke County
taxpayers take on any responsibility for a project that at a 50 percent loan to value ratio
can be done, unless the value of the land is not that and the contributing value of the
improvements is not dollar for dollar. Mr. Noble stated he could guarantee the
contributing value of the improvements is not dollar for dollar and to ask Winchester,
and Frederick County. He stated that he feels the CDA is not warranted and it is not
necessary. Mr. Noble's next question was on development and exactly what has the
Board approved? He stated that it is noted on the website the development of this
project has to be done by the CDA, because that is what the Board approved. Mr.
Noble stated he did not know what the Board approved and feels no-one else does
either. He then stated this is not anine-year project; as the absorption schedule states
as these buildings will be fully occupied and paying the maximum taxes in a 36 month
period, between year 4 and year 6, there are restaurants totaling 23,000 square feet;
that is three 7,500 square foot restaurants, a 90 room hotel; retail space of 105,000
square feet, which is twice Keagy Village. Mr. Noble suggests the Board drive through
Keagy Village and see how much is occupied. He stated there is 38,000 square feet of
office buildings, which is five times Dr. Tiller's office building and it is not full. Mr. Noble
292 August 10, 2010
stated additionally there are 64 condominiums, reduced down from 80, but that is twice
what the Fairfax is downtown, which has been ongoing for three and one half years and
six units remaining to sell at a lower price. He indicated they still have six units to sell
and they are priced lower. Finally, Mr. Noble indicated there are not facts to support
any of this project; the County should not take the risk, especially with a developer who
can afford it.
Chairman Church reminded the audience that no public outbursts are
allowed in a public meeting.
Judy Hawks of 5314 Amanda Lane, Roanoke indicated that she had
moved to the County in 2003 and watched with horror as the trees came off Slate Hill,
which is now South Peak. She stated South Peak is an eyesore and should have never
been stripped, but it was and now Roanoke County is stuck. Mrs. Hawks stated she
would like the Board to approve the CDA if for no other reason than she would not have
to drive past that barren hill for another five years
RoxAnne Lane Christley of 7259 Willow Valley Road, Roanoke thanked
the Board for allowing her to speak. Ms. Christley first commented that she disagrees
with Ms. Moore's belief that her association with this project is not a conflict, as from her
own readings and understandings; it is a conflict of interest. Ms. Christley then stated
that in her opinion, it becomes as an issue of questionability as to whether she should
be able to vote on this at all. Ms. Christley opined there is a connection, and she finds it
very offensive for Ms. Moore to try and deliberately state there is no conflict. Ms.
Christley next claimed that this project is all going to be done on the backs of taxpayers,
which is really ridiculous. Ms. Christley stated that she is in agreement with the
gentleman that just spoke that Roanoke County has empty buildings all over and as a
result are generating no tax revenue for the County. Ms. Christley then remarked that
she and her husband have six children, does not work outside of her home and is trying
to tighten their own budget; accordingly, she expects the Board to do so as well.
Stan Seymour of 5942 Coleman Road, Roanoke stated that he really has
enough to do and does not need or want additional work, however, he stated that it
appears like he is going to be a member of this Board in 2011, so he can stop some of
the nonsense with the CDA and the other things on behalf of the hardworking taxpayers
of Roanoke County. Mr. Seymour explained the concept of the CDA was established in
1950 by the Commonwealth of Virginia to help develop specific areas; it was intended to
build infrastructure, water, sewer and things like that for small communities. He stated
that once established the CDA was to issue tax-free bonds and pledge real estate taxes
to pay the bonds back. Mr. Seymour stated now we have Mr. Smith, who came with his
high-paid lawyers and accountants and by his own omission is a wealthy man. Mr.
Seymour further states that Mr. Smith makes money all over the United States, has one
of the largest senior-living companies in the County and his office space is next to
Walmart and is 100 percent occupied. Mr. Seymour stated Mr. Smith owns the land
known as Slate Hill. Mr. Seymour stated he is of the opinion Mr. Smith got together with
his lawyers and is trying to scam the taxpayers of Roanoke County to support bonds
August 10, 2010 293
with future revenues. Mr. Seymour stated South Peak has been a bad business plan as
long as the Bojangles was being developed, which is a long time and what happens if
the project is not successful. He further indicated Mr. Smith has been trying to obtain
funding since the height of the real estate boom. Mr. Seymour stated Slate Hill was a
project nobody would touch in the best of times, and now due to the economic climate,
Mr. Smith is looking for the help of politicians and taxpayers to get it done, which
sounded to Mr. Seymour like "Chicago" politics. Mr. Seymour indicated disaster is
heading right toward Roanoke County taxpayers and the tax payers are going to be the
ones that end of paying. Mr. Seymour stated that he has heard through the grapevine
Mr. Smith can get the money to buy all the bonds if he wants to and if that is the case,
why doesn't he just do the infrastructure himself. Mr. Seymour indicated he pays his fair
share of taxes, he thinks everybody should. Mr. Seymour opined that it is his belief Mr.
Smith plans to have the taxpayers work for him so he can get richer. Mr. Seymour
stated the members of the Board of Supervisors have a duty to look after the best
interests of the taxpayers of Roanoke County and what is being considered tonight is in
his opinion immoral, unethical to some and can be considered some type of corruption if
looked at deeply enough, as it is being done for one person's benefit. Mr. Seymour
indicated that he is going to watch the vote to see who is working for Mr. Smith and who
is working for the taxpayers.
Francis E. Boatman of 5260 Crossbow Circle, unit 5C, Quail Valley,
Roanoke spoke on behalf of the Quail Valley Homeowners Association. Ms. Boatman
indicated that she is very concerned about this project; she was concerned back when it
was Slate Hill; she was concerned when it was said it would not affect the tree line and
yet when you go by now and as another speaker said, it is a real eyesore. Ms.
Boatman stated her concern is that in booming times, the developer could not and has
not been able to get anyone to build up there so why does Roanoke County feel that the
developer will accomplish this now. She stated she understands that the developer has
a commitment, a partial commitment from Hilton Inn, which is an excellent hotel chain,
but her concern is where is the money going to come from if there are not enough taxes
coming from whatever is put there to repay the debt. She stated that it has been said
the County is not responsible, but yet isn't the County responsible? Ms. Boatman stated
Mr. Mahoney also mentioned there were several entities that own part of this land and
her concern is whether or not some of these entities are LLCs. Ms. Boatman explained
the homeowner's association has had a very poor experience with LLCs; people agree,
sign contracts and are going to do certain things, then they do not do them, they
dissolve the LLCs and you are left holding the bill. Ms. Boatman indicated her opinion
that if it is that good of a deal, then she feels the developer should use his own backing
and use his own money to go ahead and develop it and if Roanoke County wants to
give him some type of tax break on that, that is up to them, however, she does not feel
that a taxpayer should have to pay or even possibly be responsible for any payment of
tax money if the developer does not have the development that they think they are
going to have. Accordingly Ms. Boatman indicated that the association opposes this
2 94 August 10, 2010
item and agrees with the earlier speaker whose questions were outlined on the website.
Ms. Boatman thanked the Board for listening and asked that each Supervisor give this
item very careful consideration because it is their children and grandchildren that will be
paying for this.
Karena McGraw of 7216 Buckeye Road, Roanoke stated that she has the
July 15, 2010 agenda packet and it states this is the busiest intersection in the Valley;
accordingly Ms. McGraw wanted to know why the County is not concerned with the
extra traffic that this development would bring to the busiest corner in the Valley. She
stated that within this information it is stated there were over 95,000 cars daily and with
the accidents that are already occurring on Electric Road almost every day, this
development would only worsen the situation. Additionally, Ms. McGraw stated that the
Keagy Road development is not fully occupied and with empty buildings all over town,
she feels Roanoke County should be more worried about getting those filled instead of
obtaining new ones. She further indicated that it is a well know fact that Mr. Smith had
$191 million in sales in 2009, which means he can pay for this all by himself, not
through the CDA. Ms. McGraw stated Roanoke County taxpayers cannot pay for this
development and cannot afford it.
Judy Hawks of 5314 Amanda Lane, Roanoke stated Charlotte Moore
represents her in the Cave Spring District and Ms. Moore has talked to her constituents
and has conducted community meetings about this issue and she is of the opinion her
vote represents the majority of her constituents.
Chairman Church reminded the audience that there cannot be an
exchange between citizens.
Hunter Smith provided the following responses by stating the CDA
involves a lot of steps, a lot of due diligence and a lot of work. He indicated
Smith/Packett, Roanoke County staff and the Board of Supervisors has been working
on this for over a year and so it is very hard to communicate everything that has been
done. Public hearings were held to bring more clarity. Mr. Smith stated with regard to
the comments made in connection with taxes, Roanoke County should not have to give
up taxes. Unfortunately, the reality is that the way this CDA is set up, the taxes would
not be in place unless the infrastructure was put in and right now the water and sewer
does not exist to build this development out to the density that it should be. He
indicated there is not going to be anymore land at this corner and if the CDA is not in
place, these taxes will not exist. He stated the CDA enables the County to collect $25
million in taxes over atwenty-year period; if investment scenarios are run there is no
risk. Mr. Smith responded to the comments regarding fill-up by stating if the need is not
there, the risk of this development not being successful falls to Smith/Packett. He further
clarified by stating if there is a short-fall in payments the developer will be responsible,
not Roanoke County. Mr. Smith explained Roanoke needs a vision and to believe that
businesses want to be here, people want to be here. He stated the intent of the CDA is
to do something special, not to do what is already there. He further clarified by
explaining when the Board informed Smith/Packett that this development needed to be
August 10, 2010 295
special, that was the path worked on with Roanoke County staff. Additionally, he said
there is no parking garage located in Roanoke County, no Hilton-Garden Inn and no
Class A office space. He further indicated they do not exist, not because they are not
needed, but simply there has been no opportunity to be developed. This is the location
to do so. Mr. Smith indicated once these improvements are in and businesses are in,
which has been seen in Short Pump and other places where CDAs have been used to
bring economic development, other developments and other tax revenues will follow.
Mr. Smith then addressed the concern regarding traffic and zoning by stating this
development already has an entrance permit, the entrances are built out and have
already been zoned. Mr. Smith commented that he wished all citizens could see the
benefit of all the work that has been done. He stated Smith/Packett has attempted to
reach as many citizens as possible by holding Community Meetings, and as a result,
citizens want to see activity, are tired of seeing a vacant hill, want to see jobs and now
is the time to do this, interest rates are at a historic time low, construction costs are the
lowest they have ever been. Mr. Smith then advised this will be the smallest CDA ever
approved and the markets are all aligning up to make this a very successful project, with
the assistance of Roanoke County.
Supervisor Altizer questioned Mr. Mahoney regarding some questions he
had brought forward earlier and wanted to make sure which ones were still outstanding.
The first question was whether or not the reimbursement of water/sewer connection
fees to the CDA, and not to the developer had been inserted into the MOU.
Mr. Mahoney advised that Roanoke County was in discussions to try to
incorporate some language to address that and the goal is to incorporate into the
development agreement.
Supervisor Altizer then asked if with regard to the property association
fees, will the CDA be exempted from POA fees?
Mr. Mahoney responded this has been discussed with the petitioners,
agreement has been reached and discussion is ongoing as to the best place to put the
provision; does it fit better in the MOU or in the future development agreement?
Additionally, Mr. Mahoney indicated it could possibility be put in both; it is a matter of
draftsmanship at this point.
Supervisor Altizer then asked for confirmation that because of how the
CDA is created, it would not be subject to special assessment. Mr. Mahoney replied in
the affirmative.
Supervisor Altizer then asked if Roanoke County has no financial liability?
Mr. Mahoney replied in the affirmative.
Supervisor Altizer then stated based on conversations with Bonnie France
and Jim Johnson our advisors, how does the Board answer to the citizens of Roanoke
County. Mr. Altizer advised the he was quoting from a Memorandum dated August 21,
2009, from Mr. Johnson, that realistically and practically this development will create
issues for the County. Additionally, Supervisor Altizer stated that during a meeting
between the County's financial advisor, Jim Johnson and the developer the financial
296 August 10, 2010
Staff advised the group that it is technically correct to say the CDA creates no legal
responsibilities on behalf of Roanoke County, however, in reality a failed CDA could
seriously affect the County's future bond rating; this could happen when the County
seeks to sell future bonds or during a routine reevaluation from the rating agencies. At
that time, the rating agencies will evaluate the County's economic development status
and an ailing CDA would cast doubt on the County's economic future and could result in
a downgrade of the County's bond rating, which could directly affect how much the
County has to pay for future bond sales. Mr. Altizer then asked Mr. Mahoney if this was
a correct statement on the way it was explained to the developer and staff?
Mr. Mahoney clarified that Mr. Johnson did provide this information and he
feels it is an accurate forecast of a possible horrible event.
Mr. Altizer questioned Mr. Smith by stating he had mentioned a contract
with the Hilton, and could he explain what that really means as far as a contract to
perform.
Mr. Smith responded that the franchise for the Hilton Garden Inn has been
approved by Hilton Garden, specifically for that site and requires Smith/Packett to work
with Virginia Tech and Hotel Roanoke because Hilton has an exclusivity agreement and
Hilton Garden Inn is part of the Doubletree brand.
Mr. Altizer then asked if Mr. Smith was telling him that the Hilton was 100
percent a go? Mr. Smith stated he suspected Mr. Altizer was alluding to some type of
contingency or something similar in the contract. He explained that with regard to the
Hilton-Garden Inn, the big contingency is if the parking garage goes into place, which is
always been part of why the CDA was needed.
Mr. Altizer then stated he could remember a couple of questions when
the first vote was taken and he was questioning the number of condominiums and then
the discussion went to the development was going to be unique and nothing as there is
in currently in the Roanoke Valley. He asked if this was still correct. Mr. Smith
responded this is goal. Mr. Altizer then reiterated that is the goal, but is that the way it
was as it quoted to this Board on that day. Mr. Smith responded in the affirmative. Mr.
Altizer then referred Mr. Smith to the current MOU that now includes any business that
would want to relocate or expand and is in Roanoke City or Roanoke County. He stated
he does not mean to be disparaging to any business, but if square footage was
expanded, Roanoke could be spending $28 million to put a Hardees on the top of that
mountain.
Mr. Smith responded by stating that Slate Hill is not zoned for Hardees
and reiterated a special use permit would be required as the current zoning does not
allow fast food establishments. He further explained the language in regard to the 10
percent pertains to any business in Roanoke County that could come to a point they will
either expand and go to a new market or go to a new location. He advised
Smith/Packett thought it was wrong to put the CDA in place and exclude current tax
payers of Roanoke County, if they wanted to expand their business. He also added if
all Roanoke County citizens were excluded and did not have the opportunity to go up to
August 10, 2010 297
South Peak, Smith/Packett felt would be unfair. Additionally Mr. Smith stated at the
same time, Supervisor Altizer was correct; Smith/Packett did not want to essentially
recreate an existing development; accordingly the need for the larger size.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he appreciated what they are doing, but he
was just trying to get to the point that Roanoke County was told it would be businesses
that are unique and not in this Valley and now Smith/Packett will be opening it up for
businesses that are already in the Valley.
Mr. Smith stated the intent of the CDA is to encourage economic
development and there are a lot of businesses that may open up, i.e. Smith/Packett. He
advised Smith/Packett is continually starting new businesses. For example, in
December of 2009, a management company that has roughly 3,000 employees was
started. He advised Smith/Packett will need to expand its office space; with the choices
being either to expand in Roanoke or go to Hickory, North Carolina. He stated
Smith/Packett would like to have the opportunity to expand here, not for logistic reasons
because the businesses are in North Carolina, but it could be done. Mr. Smith
explained Hickory, Greensboro, and Charlotte are all places that have put in CDAs or
some type of financing and as a result, Smith/Packett is attempting to create a level
playing field where Roanoke County can go out and get those businesses. He further
explained Hickory has a CDA and Roanoke County does not and businesses are going
to go where they are best treated.
Supervisor Altizer stated he really did not want to ask this question, but felt
he had to and he stated that he asked it with all due respect. He stated that Mr. Smith
brought up a level playing field and he remembered Mr. Smith standing before the
Board five years ago and making the same statement with regard to a level playing field
and arguing against incentives for Keagy Village and that Slate Hill would never come
before this Board asking for incentives. He stated that he felt this was strange.
Mr. Smith responded by saying when they originally came forward
Smith/Packett was under the impression that they were meeting with County staff and
engineers and that the water and sewer infrastructure existed to develop that site; which
became part of the rezoning and density discussion as the site could not be developed
out. Mr. Smith further explained it never occurred to anyone at Smith/Packett that the
intersection of Routes 220 and 419 did not have water and sewer infrastructure. Mr.
Smith stated that was the big difference.
Supervisor Flora stated he was not going to belabor this, as this has been
gone over and over. He stated his position has not changed; Roanoke County has
offered incentives in the past and has struggled giving industry three years worth of
revenue reimbursement. Supervisor Flora stated you can package it anyway you want,
but this is incentivized by Roanoke County taxpayers to the tune of $28,177,746.
Supervisor Flora explained that philosophically, he believes in incentives, has supported
incentives for business and industry when the issue was one to three years of
incentives. He stated he has considered other investments in the future, but did not
consider this such an investment in the future; it would be a gift to a developer.
298 August 10, 2010
Supervisor Flora reiterated that he just simply cannot bring myself to fathom giving $28
million away in taxpayers' money and understands you have to get that money before it
can be given away. Additionally, he stated there are lot of industries that have come to
Roanoke County that have provided that kind of revenue that got back only a small
pittance of their investment. Supervisor Flora stated that he feels Roanoke County is on
the wrong trail here; that he is probably going to be in the minority, but believes he is
right and this is not the project that Roanoke County needs to be spending this amount
of money on.
Supervisor Moore commented that Roanoke County has a history of
providing incentives to businesses in order to help them locate to Roanoke County and
Roanoke County appreciates and encourages all businesses. Additionally, Supervisor
Moore noted there is also the expensive task of installing infrastructure, which at times
can be very costly. She explained by establishing a CDA, Roanoke County will be
putting the financial burden on installing the infrastructure and all of the construction
costs on the developer. Supervisor Moore stated that Roanoke County is receiving
$35,000 per year from South Peak and Roanoke County has the opportunity to
generate meals tax, real estate tax, personal property tax, transient tax and BPOL tax at
a 30 percent rate over the next twenty years. She reiterated these taxes will generate
$25 million for Roanoke County, not to mention the aesthetics. Supervisor Moore
advised that she had heard the concerns about Keagy Village and emphasized the
bond company that is selling the bonds for the South Peak CDA will not allow the
developer to begin construction until the bonds are sold. She advised that Roanoke
County has a great opportunity to create jobs and to promote economic growth. She
explained that South Peak is located on one of the biggest thoroughfares that leads out
of state and accordingly will attract out of state businesses and visitors. Supervisor
Moore indicated that at the appropriate time, she would like to move approval of this
agenda item to create a CDA for South Peak.
Supervisor Elswick stated that he could not imagine anyone but
Smith/Packett being willing to undertake working on South Peak. He stated it is his
opinion that this property is an eyesore to the community; when you drive down 581,
your impression of Roanoke County is not good, it is bad. He advised Smith/Packett is
obviously proven, they are a good developer, they are not going to flee the area and
drop the ball and he thinks Roanoke County needs to do as much as it can to improve
the appearance of South Peak and generate tax revenue. Supervisor Elswick indicated
that Roanoke County is receiving $35,000 a year and with this development Roanoke
County will receive about $1 million a year, who can argue with that. He reiterated that
other Supervisors have stated that this development is $28 million worth of taxpayer
money, but it is not, it is zero, it is $35,000 a year without any development and if
Smith/Packett is willing to develop it and they have shown that they can do that, then
Roanoke County will make $23 million and not spend one penny. He explained there is
no obligation, no tax dollars involved, tax rates are not going to go up as a result of this
decision and Roanoke County will receive tax revenue without any investment and no
August 10, 2010 299
obligation for taxpayers to repay the bonds, even if the project fails. Furthermore,
Supervisor Elswick noted that when the bonds are issued, whoever buys them is going
to know that Roanoke County is not going to save the project if it fails and he thinks
there is very little risk involved and if looked at from a practical standpoint, what else is
Roanoke County going to do with the area? Who else are we going to get to develop it
unless Smith/Packett does it? Supervisor Elswick stated he does not see anything
wrong with issuing the CDA, which will allow Roanoke County to make a contribution to
improving the community and generate additional tax revenues.
Supervisor Altizer noted a remark was made that this is one of the
smallest CDA's that has ever been created and it is one of the biggest taxpayer funded
expenditures that Roanoke County has ever made. He further added if Roanoke
County had $28 million to hand out to a hundred businesses across Roanoke County to
expand, he feels that would constitute real economic development. Mr. Altizer further
added that he knows Mr. Smith, and he feels they are of the highest integrity, but if
"there is anybody in this room that will give me $28 million and I give you $25 million
back, I will meet you at the door after the meeting." He further stated that things are
changing, it appears to be a moving target and he has a lot of worries. Mr. Altizer
explained that there are CDAs that are failing, CDAs having to go back and do special
assessments and get the developers to put in additional funds and he does feel, as he
reads from report from Mr. Johnson, one of our financial advisors that even though
Roanoke County has no responsibility, this project can have a negative effect on the
bonds ratings for the County in the future, if it fails. He further explained that in the first
initial meeting it was explained that everything was going to be new and unique to the
Valley, all of a sudden things have changed. He added that in his opinion it is not right
to spend $28 million to have some businesses that are eligible that we would probably
never incentivize, just because of the nature of their business. Supervisor Altizer also
advised there are other things that concern him in the operation agreement; that the
CDA can be expanded to other pieces of properties that are contiguous and if it is an
income-producing property then it would fall under the same set of rules. All of a
sudden, Roanoke County was getting 100% of tax revenues from a property that 70
percent could now go to the CDA and the County losses that 70 percent of revenue.
Supervisor Altizer explained that he feels there is a great deal of negatives in this
project. He stated when he goes back and looks at what this County just came through
about six years ago, five years of the greatest economic development in business
expansion in the history of our Country; he stated he cannot fathom that now at the
bottom of the worse economy that the sun has risen to the types of investments that is
going to happen with this development. Supervisor Altizer stated he cannot support this
development in good faith and he knows he will be in the minority, but that is his
position.
Chairman Church then reminded the viewing audience and the people in
attendance, that this is the first reading of this ordinance and the second reading will be
held on August 24, 2010.
300 August 10, 2010
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and schedule the
second reading for August 24, 2010. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Elswick, Church
NAYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Lawrence A. Goldstein, 5115 Fox Ridge Road, Roanoke stated he has
great respect for developer, but is speaking in opposition to the development. Mr.
Goldstein stated it should not have been a surprise that the sewer was available or not.
Mr. Goldstein advised at the time this property was acquired, the developer or anyone
who purchased it knew or should have been aware of availability of the sewer and
should have some idea of the cost to develop it. Additionally, he stated this property is
a very difficult property to develop understandably, but that should be reflected to some
degree in the selling price; if it were a property that was easy to develop and the sewer
had been there, no doubt someone would have paid a lot more for the property than
what was paid. Mr. Goldstein indicated one of his greatest concerns is when the
discussion centers on this development being paid for by tax; this is not all new tax. Mr.
Goldstein pointed out if you have a hotel in that area, basically, there are a certain
number of hotels in the City and a certain number of hotels in the County, although Rt.
220 is important and will bring in has a great deal of traffic some from out of state, some
of the revenue, the hotel tax or the sales tax or whatever the tax are borrowed, because
it comes from other hotels that are going to do less business, resulting in less taxes.
The revenue is not 100 percent new. Next, Mr. Goldstein stated there are equitable
issues here, if Roanoke County helps one developer, even if it is a prominent and a
very good one, other developers are hurt; other developers are not going to come and
speak against someone else in the business, but the reality still comes down to some of
this is not going to be brand new and is going to discourage other developers in the
County, even if there are homes placed at the site, some of these homes would have
been placed somewhere else in the County, if the County is growing and there is a need
for those homes. So accordingly, if Roanoke County is subsidizing this developer and in
part subsidizing residential development at this site, Roanoke County may be unfairly
treating other residential developers who wanted to develop somewhere else because
he is not big enough and is not going to get some sort of assistance. Mr. Goldstein
stated this is a very difficult site to develop, but he feels Roanoke County is moving
away to some degree from the capitalistic approach, meaning if the site basically is too
hard to develop, maybe there was no intent for it to ever be developed or basically if the
site is an expensive site to develop, it should be reflected in the purchase price for the
site.
August 10, 2010 3~ 1
~...
Cynthia Goldstein of 5115 Fox Ridge Road, Roanoke and would like to
address her remarks to Ms. Moore and indicate that as her representative she certainly
hopes at the second reading she would reconsider her current decision.
Chairman Church stated that as a matter of respect and oratory; please
direct all comments to the Chair as a matter of respect to the other Board members.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Altizer wanted to let everyone know in the Mt. Pleasant area
and the people at the end of Franklin County bordering Roanoke County that the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will be holding a public hearing on the
restriction of tractor trailers coming over Windy Gap Mountain on August 31, 2010, from
6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. at the Mt. Pleasant elementary school. Mr. Altizer expressed
his hope that many would come out to voice their opinions to VDOT in order to have the
truck restriction reduced to 28 ft. in length so that Roanoke County does not continue to
go through it has on this Mountain.
Supervisor Church expressed the sympathy for the audience and
throughout Roanoke County with heartfelt prayers for the family of Jill and Nicholas
Jones, who lived in Lynchburg and tragically lost their lives in Roanoke County.
Supervisor Church stated that the Board's prayers and thoughts go out to Liberty
University and the entire congregation there, as they have a great loss and he
encourages everyone to keep them in their thoughts and prayers.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.m.
S bmitted by: Approved by:
~~ ~~l
Deborah C. Ja s oseph . "Butch" Church
Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman
C
302
August 10, 2010
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY