HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/24/2010 - RegularAugust 24, 20~ 0 303
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 fourth Tuesday and the second
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; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Deborah C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk
to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverend D. Keith Beasley of Good
Shepherd Lutheran Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring Friday, September 3, 2010, as the eleventh
annual Hokie Pride Day in the County of Roanoke
Adam Shores, Committee Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Hokie Club
was present to accept the proclamation.
PROCLAMATION DECLARING FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2010,
AS THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL HOKIE PRIDE DAY IN THE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE
304 August 24, 2010
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley has had a long and mutually beneficial
relationship with Virginia Tech, its alumni and supporters; and is home to many
thousands of Virginia Tech alumni and friends of the University; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Tech has brought great positive attention to Southwestern
Virginia in academics, research and athletics; and the supporters of Virginia Tech feel
great pride in the accomplishments of the University; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Tech Hokie Club, which extends membership to any and
all supporters of Virginia Tech, is promoting Friday, September 3, 2010, as the eleventh
annual Virginia Tech Hokie Pride Day; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke wishes to recognize the positive impact of
Virginia Tech on its community and to encourage all supporters of Virginia Tech, both
individuals and businesses, to demonstrate their Hokie pride.
NOW THEREFORE, WE, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
do hereby proclaim Friday, September 3, 2010, as the eleventh annual HOKIE PRIDE
DAY in the County of Roanoke, and call its significance to the attention of all of our
citizens; and
FURTHER, we extend our best wishes to Virginia Tech, its alumni, friends and
supporters for continued success in future endeavors.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Church added an agenda item to allow for citizen comments
regarding the second reading of the ordinance creating the South Peak Community
Development Authority.
Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney advised the Board that under Closed
Meeting, the correct section number should be Section 2.2-3711(A)(1).
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to approve holiday schedule for calendar years 2011 and
2012 (Joseph Sgroi, Director of Human Resources)
A-082410-1
There was no discussion. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the staff
recommendation to approve the following schedule. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
August 24, 2010
305
2011 Holidays
New Year's Day .Saturday, January 1 -> Observed Friday
12/31/10
Martin Luther King Day Monday, January 17
Presidents' Day Monday, February 21 -> Floating
Memorial Day Monday, May 30
Independence Day Monday, July 4
Labor Day Monday, September 5
Columbus Day Monday, October 10 -> Floating
Veteran's Day Friday, November 11 -> Floating
Thanksgiving Day Thursday, November 24
Day after Thanksgiving Friday, November 25
Christmas Day Sunday, December 25 -> Observed Monday
12/26/11
2012 Holidays
New Year's Day Sunday, January 1 -> Observed
Monday 1/2/12
Martin Luther King Day Monday, January 16
Presidents' Day Monday, February 20 -> Floating
Memorial Day Monday, May 28
Independence Day Wednesday, July 4
Labor Day Monday, September 3
306 August 24, 2010
Veteran's Day
Thanksgiving Day
Day after Thanksgiving
Christmas Eve*
Christmas Day
Sunday, November 11 -> Floating
Thursday, November 22
Friday, November 23
*App/y Columbus Day Floating Holiday
on Monday 12/24/12
Tuesday, December 25
2. Resolution initiating an amendment to Section 30-23-2,
Nonconforming Uses of Buildings, Structures or Land of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance to modify provisions relating
to the expansion of an existing nonconforming residential
structure (John F. Murphy, Zoning Administrator)
Supervisor Altizer questioned what would happen to these types of
properties if there is a natural disaster that destroys 50 percent or more of the house,
would the homeowner be allowed to rebuild? Mr. Murphy replied that the current State
law would allow the homeowners to rebuild.
Supervisor Flora advised that he had brought forth this amendment due to
the needs of an existing homeowner whose property is now in a commercial zoned area
that needs to expand their home to add on a handicapped bathroom.
Supervisor Elswick inquired whether the entire new structure would be
subject to current requirements or merely the addition.
Mr. Murphy replied that basically, the existing footprint was grandfathered
and this amendment would be dealing with an expansion of the existing footprint.
Supervisor Flora asked what zoning would it be subject to, i.e. the
expansion itself, the grandfathered old zoning or today's zoning.
Mr. Murphy responded that Roanoke County would work with the Planning
Commission upon adoption of the resolution and draft language that would address the
specifics of what would be changed. He further explained this is the first step in the
process as zoning ordinances can be done by resolution of the Board of Supervisors, a
motion of the Planning Commission or can be self-initiated by a property owner through
the normal process.
RESOLUTION 082410-2 INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 30-23-2, NONCONFORMING USES OF BUILDINGS,
August 24, 2010 307
STRUCTURES OR LAND OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
WHEREAS, Section 30-14 of the Roanoke County Code and Section 15.2-2286
of the Code of Virginia provides that whenever the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare or good zoning practice requires, an amendment to the zoning
regulations or district maps may be initiated by resolution of the governing body; and
WHEREAS, the Board requests this amendment in order to address concerns
with respect to the expansion of an existing residential structure located in a commercial
or industrial zoning district, and to initiate by resolution the procedures to amend these
sections of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia:
1. That an amendment to Section 30-23-2, "Nonconforming Uses of
Buildings, Structures or Land" of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance is hereby
initiated in order to allow for the expansion of an existing residential structure located in
a commercial or industrial zoning district. Currently a nonconforming use shall not be
enlarged, intensified or increased.
2. That this amendment be submitted to the Planning Commission for its
review and recommendation, which shall then be forwarded to the governing body.
Further this amendment shall be scheduled for public hearings before the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors at the earliest practicable dates consistent with
public notices as required by law.
3. That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning
practice requires this amendment.
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: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the emergency relocation of the Bennett
Springs voting precinct (Due to time constraints, it is requested
that, upon afour-fifths vote of the Board, the second reading be
waived and the ordinance adopted as an emergency measure.)
(Judith Stokes, General Registrar)
Ms. Stokes explained the need for this ordinance is due to the current
308 August 24, 2010
location being unavailable as a voting precinct. Due to time constraints Ms. Stokes
requested that the Board dispense with the second reading of the ordinance upon a
4/5t" vote of the Board. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 082410-3 AUTHORIZING THE EMERGENCY
RELOCATION OF THE BENNETT SPRINGS VOTING PRECINCT
WHEREAS, Section 24.2-310 D of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended,
provides that if a polling place becomes inaccessible due to an emergency, that the
electoral board shall provide an alternative polling place subject to the prior approval of
the State Board of Elections; and
WHEREAS, Section 24.2-307 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended
mandates that the governing body of each county shall establish the polling place for
each precinct in that jurisdiction by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Mountain Pass Baptist Church building has recently become
unavailable for use as a polling place for the November 2, 2010, election due to a vote
by the church congregation at a business meeting on August 11, 2010; and
WHEREAS, Masons Cove Fire Station at 3810 Bradshaw Road, Salem, is
available to serve as the new polling place for the Bennett Springs precinct; and
WHEREAS, an emergency exists due to the urgent need to notify voters in the
Bennett Springs precinct of the new location of their polling place, which necessitates
the adopting of this ordinance on an emergency basis in accordance with the Roanoke
County Charter; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 24, 2010; and
the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with, since an emergency
exists, upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That an emergency exists due to the continued unavailability of the
Mountain Pass Baptist Church as the polling place for the Bennett Springs precinct of
the Catawba Magisterial District of Roanoke County.
2. That Masons Cove Fire Station at 3810 Bradshaw Road, Salem, is hereby
designated as the polling station for the Bennett Springs precinct, Catawba Magisterial
District for the November 2, 2010, elections.
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 Bennett Springs 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.
August 24, 2010 309
5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately. The first reading of this
ordinance was held on August 24, 2010; and the second reading of this ordinance has
been dispensed with since an emergency exists, upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of
the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance amending Ordinance 081010-3 approving a lease
agreement for the Tinker Mountain Tower Site (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the reason for this ordinance is due to the request
from the executor of the estate of the property owner to extend the terms of the lease
from three to five years. There was no discussion. Chairman Church moved to
approve the first meeting and scheduled the second reading for September 14, 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 creating the South Peak Community Development
Authority (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney advised that the first reading and public hearing was held on
August 10, 2010. He emphasized the approval of this ordinance is just a preliminary
step in a multi-step process and outlined the future actions that would occur to
implement this ordinance.
Mr. Hunter Smith of Smith/Packett highlighted the overwhelming support
that has been received after the August 10, 2010 meeting. He stated that basically
what it comes down to is the citizens want to see something, i.e. economic
development, job opportunities, etc. that will all come together with this development.
Mr. Smith stressed that the citizens want jobs and the County needs further tax
revenue.
Mr. John O'Neil of Smith/Packett advised the Board that he wanted to
address two items, both of which were brought up during the first reading and public
hearing and to follow-up on the comments that Mr. Mahoney made this afternoon. The
first item was Roanoke County's legal obligation and the second is what are the issues
310 August 24, 2010
that surround the rating agencies and the market as to its expectations of a locality,
Roanoke County, in this case as it relates to the support for the Community
Development Authority (CDA) over the course of time and in particular whether or not
that particular authority would incur financial trouble. Mr. O'Neil first advised that he
wanted to be clear on Roanoke County's legal obligation. The CDA ACT, which is part
of the Water and Waste Authority Act, makes clear that the obligations of the CDA are
limited as to the revenues pledged to support it. He further stated there are provisions
within the statute that dictate what those revenues would be. Mr. O'Neil explained that
just as importantly and a part of the conversations that he has been involved in with the
rating agencies, is another provision in the CDA Act, by which the General Assembly
has said that a locality may only be bound to pay CDA obligations if the locality
affirmatively agrees to do so. If it does not affirmatively agree to do so, then it has no
power to provide financial assistance to a CDA in the future. Additionally, Mr. O'Neil
advised that this is an act that has to occur when the CDA is formed. He explained
without that action, there cannot be, despite what may be a request or a desire on the
part of the locality, no financial assistance because the corresponding county would be
legally prohibited from doing so. This is an important element to consider and it is one
that has come up in a number of conversations. Mr. O'Neil, further clarified that in his
law practice, of which seventy percent is representing localities like Roanoke County
and the remainder is involved in representing private sector clients in the public finance
realm that when he is on the locality side, he is very much concerned about these
issues as well and has engaged the ratings agencies along with financial advisors on
this specific question. The ratings agencies, particularly Moody's, which has been the
most interested in this issue now accepts the position that without the legal obligation in
place at the time the CDA is created, there can be no obligation in the future.
Additionally, he explained rating agency expectations and market expectations
generally really relate to this idea that somehow, not withstanding this legal prohibition,
localities have a moral obligation to stand up and support them. He explained that the
rating agencies assessment on that is at best muted. Mr. O'Neil stated that as he sat
here a couple of weeks ago and listened to Mr. Mahoney read the August 2009 report
from your financial advisor, who happens to be a close friend of his, he can appreciate
the position that Mr. Johnson has taken as a matter of being technically correct. Mr.
O'Neil reiterated the rating agencies are not indifferent to CDA's or any other special
taxing district and these agencies will consider those entities to be overlapping debt,
very similar to what a town would be in a county. However, when a rating agency
evaluates these issues of overlapping debt, they do so within the context of scope. He
stated CDA's are limited geographically and in their effect on population and so the
rating agencies will consider the issues of CDAs within the context of what this will do to
the rating agencies metrics, principally the metric of per capita debt and by in large, in
Virginia at least, there have been so few CDAs created, they are really not a material
matter for the rating agencies when they evaluate, but they clearly are a factor much
like any other factors that the rating agencies consider. Among those considerations the
August 24, 20~ 0 311
rating agencies spend time on is what is a locality doing to incentivize and to promote
economic development. Mr. O'Neil stated in his experience, that conversation is at
least as important as conversations that relate to overlapping debt, whether it is for
towns, a special assessment district or a CDA. He stated that he is of the opinion it is
important to remember the legal obligation is clear, the petition that has been submitted
and the ordinance that has been drafted for the Board's consideration makes clear that
the County is not undertaking an obligation to pay the debt service, other than to the
extent that tiff revenues are available and that otherwise there is no legal obligation. Mr.
O'Neil further clarified that his opinion on the issue of a moral obligation, at least in my
experience, which spans nearly 20 CDAs in Virginia, he has not had an experience
where the rating agencies have penalized the locality for the existence of a CDA.
Supervisor Church advised the audience that due to the large number of
speakers, to please pay close attention to the light system, green, yellow and when the
red light comes on, the speaker should please finish their comments.
Mr. Mike Bailey of 7516 Deerbranch Road, Hollins advised he has spoken
against the proposed plan to make South Peak a viable development at prior meetings.
He thanked Chairman Church for changing the agenda so that citizens could speak
before the vote was taken. Mr. Bailey explained there were ten or more people at the
last meeting that spoke against the South Peak project and only one that he was aware
of that spoke in favor. He advised that he knew the Board had received far more
objections than those in support, yet the project seems to be running through with a
three to two vote from the Board. Mr. Bailey encouraged the Board to listen to the
citizens and asked that the Board vote not as to what the Board thinks is best for the
citizens, but what the citizens think is best for them. He stated that he encourages the
Board to listen to the citizens as there had been citizens who have spoken against the
increased traffic, the use of a significant portion of the tax revenue to help the developer
fund the project, concern for the possible success or lack of success for this project and
a moral conflict of interest by one of the Supervisors. He encouraged the Board not to
hurry through this project. He stated there are new points that are being realized
everyday, which the Board will hear this afternoon. Mr. Bailey stated as an example of
something to consider that is new is that it is his understanding that the bonds under
consideration may be open to the developer for purchase. He stated that seems like a
sweet deal and the Board may want to reconsider. He stated that the Board would be
hearing more about that particular item later on and hopefully as the citizens learn more
about this project, the Board will in turn learn about the project. He urged the Board to
vote against the largest tax give away in Roanoke's history.
Mr. Michael Mixon of 3945 Thames Drive in the Windsor Hills Magisterial
District thanked the Board of Supervisors for all they do for the County of Roanoke. Mr.
Mixon spoke in opposition to creating the CDA and ultimately to authorize the bond
sale, as he stated he feels this is a bail-out for the developer of the South Peak project.
Mr. Mixon stated if the market had demanded the goods and services that this
development would provide; it would not have taken seven years to move forward. He
312 August 24, 2010
stated there is an abundance of commercial and retail space sitting empty in Southwest
Roanoke County, which could have housed these companies and retailers had that
demand existed. He stated he supports the rights of the developer to complete this
project, but he is of the opinion that it should be completed with the backing of private
financiers, not by any action of this Board or of Roanoke County. He stated he fears
this decision could create a dangerous precedent and represents moral hazards for
other developers, builders and firms. He stated it is not the responsibility of Roanoke
County to act as the provider of solutions of last resort as they pertain to private
enterprise. The main concern that Mr. Mixon stated he has with the proposal occurred
during a conversation last night with a Board member. He advised that he had a very
pleasant conversation where ultimately he and this Board member agreed to disagree
on the merits of the proposal, but he stated he was left with one major concern when he
was told that this project could bring 3,000 jobs to Roanoke. He stated that he asked
how such a small project could bring 3,000 jobs to Roanoke and the answer he received
was that with the successful completion of this project, the developer may bring a
project to Roanoke which is currently slated for construction in North Carolina, thus
providing the 3,000 jobs. Mr. Mixon stated that he personally has a concern about this
and if there is any connection between this Board authorizing the CDA and the issuance
of bonds for the completion of the South Peak project and any further consideration to
be given by the developer for another economic development project in Roanoke, he
would like to have clarification on this matter.
RoxAnne Lane Christley of 7259 Willow Valley Road in Roanoke advised
the Board that the National Association of Realtors pending home sales index, which is
one of the broadest gauges of sales activity in the housing sector, gave bad news this
past week by reporting the United States housing recession was bottoming out and in
step decline. She also advised that the report indicated that signed contracts for
purchasing previously owned homes experienced its sharpest drop in nine months,
declining over five percent through the month of May. Additionally, Ms. Christley stated
the South had the biggest contraction by declining over seven percent. She stated in a
local news article, published two days after the prior meeting on the 10t" of August
2010, there was a note that after high numbers in June, July saw one of the worst real
estate months since the end of the housing bubble, the local home sales numbers for
July were very low and home sales in the Roanoke Valley for the traditionally busy
summer selling season took a sharp dive. Ms. Christley stated the upbeat home sales
for the past few months might have been tied to the tax credit that were given to citizens
and in July the numbers plummeted nearly one third to 276. She stated even more
troubling is the average home price is down nearly ten percent this July compared to
2008. Additionally, she explained 429 homes sold in June of this year, which is actually
a high number when taking into account the tax credits that were given. Ms. Christley
outlined there are presently 4,500 homes in the Roanoke Valley that are sitting vacant
and not sold. She stated strip malls are empty all over the County. The Board has
closed valuable and loved schools and has built things such as recreation centers and
August 24, 20~ 0 313
approved $6 million to build a new library because of its antiquated furniture and small
size. She stated she would love to spend more money on her own furniture and expand
her own home and improve her own driveway, but she cannot afford it and Roanoke
County cannot afford to do this project either. She explained the man that wants to
build this project has the money to do so himself. She advised our economic
development has been built all over Roanoke County and as she stated before is sitting
vacant everywhere. She advised that she did not care if the site is an eye sore as her
own front year is an eye sore, but she explained she is growing children and cannot
afford to grow flowers. She stated that she thinks this project is not ethically or morally
right and is not necessary for our County to consider right now.
Frank Porter of 6529 Fairway Forrest Drive in Roanoke stated he is a
professional real estate appraiser, consultant and problem solver for the last fifty years.
He asked what Roanoke County's approval of a "smoke and mirrors" bail out
Community Development Authority agreement to a wealthy developer does to advance
the health, safety and welfare of the taxpaying citizens. He stated in his opinion
"nothing" for the economic times Roanoke County is in today and probably for the next
decade hence. Mr. Porter stated Roanoke County has no business being involved in
the high risk, speculative land development business with a project of private roads that
cannot be turned over for sale with the projects up there. He stated the Board must
request that these roads and streets and infrastructure be put in according to Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. Mr. Porter explained that he did not
have any qualms with Jim Smith. He stated that quite frankly the reason South Peak
has not yet been developed is because national tenants are not attracted to that type of
land, as it is nothing but a dog piece of land, up a hillside. He stated that you can take
all these CDAs up North, they are all on flat land and places where the demographics
are high and there is a demand. He stated the previous lady that spoke mentioned
there are over a hundred vacant stores between Lewis Gale and Route 220 and over
twenty seven signs of office space for rent. There are already five hotels out on Route
220 and another one planned at the International House of Pancakes (IHOP) across the
road as soon as they receive the financing. Mr. Porter explained that to enter into a
CDA would be a very discriminating act that would be hurtful to other developers and
their projects, as they have to perform within the marketplace criteria without CDAs. He
stated that the marketplace was not good, and to keep in mind the petitioner can always
call upon the financial strength of his parent company that had over a $190 million in
sales last year. He further stated that the County is playing around with a piece of land
that the developer has already had for six years and has invested millions in. Mr. Porter
stated that will all due respect to Mr. Elswick, who he voted for, and at the last meeting
stated Mr. Smith was the right man, it was the right time. Mr. Porter indicated that Mr.
Smith could develop this project without the CDA, as Mr. Smith has done everything
else he wanted to do without the CDA. He advised that a good restaurant would take
$2 million in investment to go on South Peak; no one is going to want to go up there.
He stated, health, safety and welfare, the Board takes that oath. Mr. Porter indicated
314 August 24, 2010
when the public is driving down Route 220 North, there is a split second to look up on
that hill and make the turnoff at Quality Inn. Additionally, if the public is coming from
Ukrops and drive 55 miles per hour South on Route 220, the turnoff can be seen, but it
is only 200 feet before the turnoff to go through Wendy's. In closing, Mr. Porter stated
he prides himself on being thorough, informed and making the right judgments and he
expects the Board as competent Supervisors to do the same. He stated that he feels
this project is a no-win situation for Roanoke County and it is not fair to the citizens to
have to fund it.
Steve Nobel of 5376 Cantor Drive, Roanoke stated that he had prepared
written text that was provided to the Board earlier and today he wanted to expand it with
additional comments. He stated that four weeks ago, during a work session he
submitted a series of questions that the Board was so kind to put on the County's
website, which the developer answered. However, Mr. Nobel feels there were really no
facts in the response; there was a lot of hope and confidence in the developer himself.
Mr. Nobel stated he would like to discuss several key issues today. Mr. Nobel detailed
that he cannot emphasize enough that the CDA should not permit the developers to buy
or ever own CDA bonds. He stated that the reasoning is if the marketplace does not
buy the full allocation and the project would not move forward, the developer could step
in a buy the last million or whatever it takes, to move the project forward with his own
money. In fact, during the work session, Mr. Smith stated that he was willing to buy all
of the bonds in order to move forward. Mr. Nobel stated if he can buy the bonds, he can
build the project out of his pocket with the reason being if he buys the bonds, the project
will move forward, whether the marketplace thought it was a good idea or not. CDAs
were originally intended over twenty years ago for inner-city project rehab, which had a
lot of upfront costs for demolishing buildings, replacing streets, upgrading antiquated
water and sewer, rebuilding streets, etc. There is nothing in the South Peak property
characteristics that are so unique that every other development could write a $20,000
check to be submitted for a CDA. This is not a rehab project, like CDAs were intended
for; most of these projects in urban markets have failed partially because of that reason.
Mr. Noel indicated all the infrastructure must be proffered, upon the CDA's rezoning,
which is today; you are simply rezoning the property. The entire infrastructure must be
proffered to meet VDOT standards. That is the CDA's collateral and that is supposed to
be turned over to the County. The County should not accept any private streets, any
non-standard construction at taxpayer expense. Roanoke County does not accept
other developers private streets, the owners take care of them, but Roanoke County
does not pay for them with tax monies. Mr. Noble advised that he had sent the Board
an extensive outline where he showed where the developer can do his work with only
75 percent of the construction and the County can generate $25 million without a CDA.
The question is if Mr. Smith is willing to spend his money and only develop 75% of this
project to receive the $25 million, which the public has her constantly is the goal of the
program.
Mr. Hunter Smith of 2315 Crystal Spring Avenue, Roanoke stated that one
August 24, 20~ 0 315
of the big misconceptions and a lot of comments are being made as to where the
money is coming from. He advised the only money that goes toward this project is
funds that are created within this project. Mr. Smith reiterated there is no taking away
County revenue; it is generated outside of the CDA; no-one is at risk of this project
taking away from taxes being created further down Route 419. He indicated this is the
way the CDA works and that has always been the case. Mr. Smith advised that
currently this project only generates $35,000 of taxes; the County still continues to
receive that baseline while the CDA bonds are in place, so the County is never out any
taxes funds from this. He further stated what it does is give the opportunity for excess
taxes to be generated. In response to the comment about the public utilities and the
roads, Mr. Smith again explained a lot of people do not have the benefit as staff who
have been working on this for two years, nothing that is done in the CDA presupposes
what was agreed to in the zoning. The roads have to be made up to VDOT standards;
they have to have curb and gutter, sidewalks all of that has been taken care of. The
agreement with the water authority, which is offsite and Smith/Packett will be required to
post an escrow of approximately ten percent to make sure that all of these
improvements are going to be taken care of. A lot of this has been given a lot of
thought, and it is tough for the benefit of the public that have not had the opportunity to
attend the public meetings that we put on or the work sessions, where these issues
have already been addressed. The CDA was created to create unique development.
Smith/Packett cannot develop South Peak and generate the taxes without the CDA
putting the infrastructure in place. Mr. Smith disclosed the parking garage, while it is
going to be serving the hotel, also services the other uses. He outlined there will be 312
spaces, for a hotel that is roughly 90 units. Additionally, Mr. Smith indicated that access
parking is going to support the office uses, as well as the restaurants. Mr. Smith
advised all of this information has been made available; projections, etc have been
shares and is free through the Public Information Act.
Richard Moreira of 3790 Braeburn Drive in Salem, Virginia stated that he
does not feel there is anything he can add. He stated he is against the project, he is not
against developing the hill, but he is against putting the County in this predicament. Mr.
Moreira asked if here is no cost for the taxpayer, if it is going to increase sales at the top
of the mountain, there will be a decrease in the value of the mountain and this increase,
70%, so there is an opportunity for the loss of taxes at first anyway. He stated again
that he is in favor of the project if it is done in private, but not in favor to hold the County
liable. He further indicated that if this was a good deal, he is sure Mr. Smith could have
done it by himself without the County help.
James R. Smith 2354 Woodcliff Roanoke, Virginia stated that if he was
more sensitive he could get his feelings hurt, but he is not. Mr. Smith explained he
would like to address money with the Board. Mr. Smith explained the whole exercise
here was to increase the revenue that the County would receive. He stated the property
is the property; it will be developed as it is developed, so the question becomes are
there things that can be done that would increase the density of the property and
316 August 24, 2010
thereby increase the taxes that are paid by that property? Mr. Smith reiterated that the
issue is not about him and as much as he would like for it to be, it is about revenue for
the County. Mr. Smith explained the County should be selfish, if this development is not
in Roanoke County's best economic interest, the Board should decline it; if it is in the
County's best economic interest, and they should approve it. Roanoke County has had
two years of consultants, Smith/Packett is on their 12t" proforma and all parties agree
that mathematically the best balance is to increase the taxes available on this property
for Roanoke County, not this year, not next year, but for decades in the future. He
stated the money is not $25 million, it is hundreds of millions. Mr. Smith stated if this
developed is messed up and no density development is done on that property now, it is
his opinion that the economic consequence of that will pale in the future. Mr. Smith
encouraged the Board to look at this from the point of view that Roanoke County has
the best staff and consultants that money can buy and step forward with the proposal
that has generated over two years of active study and in his opinion it is very worthy of
consideration.
Stan Seymour of 5942 Coleman Road, Roanoke gave up his time
allotment to Steve Noble.
Steve Noble of 5376 Cantor Drive, Roanoke advised he wanted to
address benefits to the County for tax revenues. Mr. Noble stated that it is every real
estate developers dream to have a successful project, make a lot of money and pay real
estate taxes, so South Peak is no different than any other real estate developed project
in Roanoke County which eventually will pay lots of real estate taxes and other taxes,
hopefully to the County for successful projects. He outlined the difference being they do
expect tax revenues to pay for their infrastructure to advance their project to a density
that is beyond what the market has asked for and most likely will support. Earlier, Mr.
Noble stated he had presented a very elaborate analysis of the developer doing the
work out of his own pocket; building about 75 percent of what has been presented to the
County. He stated the question gets to be, where is this marginal demand that pushes
this project to be successful as a CDA when it has been unsuccessful the last six years.
Mr. Noble indicated that he felt the biggest issue is the developer has to become the
best real estate developer ever in Roanoke County and find another intersection with
this amount of development over a six year period. He detailed that the projections
indicate an excess of 100,000 square feet of retail space, which is two Keagy Villages,
and sitting empty; 50,000 square feet of office space, Class A, Roanoke County has lots
of office space sitting empty, three major, 2,000 square foot restaurants, the last one
built in Roanoke County was Ruby Tuesday, years ago, two hotels, one 90 units and
one 60 units, with one of them demanding a parking garage. Additionally, he explained
there are 240 condominiums, which generates the bulk of the taxes that the developer
says is going to come to Roanoke County, but the Board needs to ask Billy Driver how
many $400,000 condominiums or townhouses are assessed in Roanoke County; is
there a demand for 240, $400,000 condominiums? Mr. Nobel asked should Roanoke
County be placing taxpayer's money into a development whereby only the elite, the
August 24, 20~ 0 317
most wealthy, the most successful people are allowed to move into a development
where taxpayer's money is providing them support for water, street, sewer and fire
protection. Mr. Noble stated $400,000 condominiums is where the money will come
from and the probability of selling those in the next six years, given our real estate
market is essentially nil.
Frank Porter of 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, Roanoke asked that the Board
refer to page one of the petition, the tenth paragraph, stated the petitioner has
determined a CDA affords the best mechanism for providing all or a portion of
infrastructure use. He stated that he is not so sure that should have come from the
Petitioner, but from the County staff and the Board of Supervisors after a year and now I
have heard tonight two years of meetings and workshops. He advised the public has
only had one opportunity before tonight to speak. He stated he thinks the public is
entitled to more clarity before letting their Board of Supervisors approve insuring $16
million in bond financing for such a speculative project. Mr. Porter asked do the
taxpaying citizens have a say in who the five CDA Board members might be, or does
the petitioner have any say in their selection? Mr. Porter inquired how can the tax
payers be assured the Board members have specific expertise regarding the CDA,
when none has ever been done in Southwest Virginia, which appears the Board will be
learning as it goes through the process. Additionally, Mr. Porter stated before approving
the CDA, inform the citizens how much the petitioners have paid the County in
connection with the creation of this project for over two years. He asked that the Board
be transparent and show the dollar numbers and see how the numbers were figured for
the time of all the people involved regarding the CDA proposal. He indicated there must
be some record of these items and he would like to know how much has been paid for
them to date. Mr. Porter then asked for the Board to tell him or have Smith/Packett tell
us, what will Roanoke County do with a hotel, twenty years hence or sooner, that has
deteriorated. Mr. Porter then stated that he is sure the Board understands the
seriousness in asking not approve this CDA. He advised that in his fifty years plus of
appraising costs and as a developer, he did not receive any subsidies to do Long Ridge
and he had extended sewer and water up that mountain and pump station. He stated
that this action flies in the face of private developers. In concluding, Mr. Porter stated
this development might have a chance to be successful and profitable for Roanoke
County, but he would not risk his bond rating and save it for the schools.
James Pietrazak of 5250 Hunting Hills Drive in Roanoke stated he
was in support of the project. He advised over the last thirty years, he has personally
handled as an investor and as an attorney and has been a principal in closing deals in
excess of a billion dollars. Mr. Pietrazek stated he has looked at this project and it is a
good project. This is a project that there is no down side for Roanoke County or for the
citizens of Roanoke County; there is a lot of upside. As a resident of Hunting Hills, Mr.
Pietrazak stated he is very pleased to learn that this project included $2 million in
improvements to the water system in this County and it will connect Roanoke County,
Franklin County and Roanoke City and will benefit Hunting Hills so he is support of this
318 August 24, 2010
project. Mr. Pietrazak indicated he has heard a lot of stuff today; people do not
understand this project. He clarified there is no insurance by Roanoke County, by the
citizens and the risk is on the developer. He emphasized that he feels this as a good
project for the County and urged the Board to support this project.
William Terry, III of 6814 Fairway Wood Ct in Roanoke stated he loves
Roanoke County and both of his children graduated from public schools in the County
and he is proud to say that Roanoke County has some of the best public schools in the
State. He explained that schools, libraries, parks and recreation and running the
County costs money. He further stated that in the fifteen years he has lived in the
County that cost have not gone down, but has gone up and in the next fifteen years in
which he hopes to live in the County, those costs are going to continue to go up. It is an
unfortunate state of affairs. Mr. Terry outlined that the CDA is a common practice in
many other states and the idea that it is an inner-city remedy is just not true. He
commented a CDA is a remedy for economic development approved by our State
legislator. He further clarified by saying it is not something new, it is not something
funny and it is not something limited to Roanoke County. Mr. Terry pointed out that a
CDA is a way to encourage economic development by using bonds to pay for public
improvements that are part of a project. He reiterated that there is no risk to the
County. He noted that the bond ratings comment is a "smoke and mirrors" argument;
as the obligation of the County is not involved. Furthermore, he explained that Roanoke
County has an upside on this project and no downside. Mr. Terry commented that he
has heard a number of speakers say that the County is going to put tax dollars in this;
this is not true. He explained that Roanoke County is weighing the possibility of future
tax dollars from the generation of improvements on this site; they are not taking from
one place and put to another. He advised that he feels this is being said by people who
don't understand this process. South Peak is right now generating approximately
$35,000 a year, which is what Roanoke County, has received in each of the last six
years. Additionally, Mr. Terry noted that if you look across Route 220, above Walmart,
across from the Lowes, Mr. Smith has developed Pheasant Ridge. Pheasant Ridge has
three office buildings, which are full, a skilled nursing facility, assisted living,
independent living and 112 condominiums. He stated Pheasant Ridge is generating
real estate tax today over $700,000 and to suggest Mr. Smith does not know how to
develop is to ignore the past, and he hopes this Board will not. Mr. Terry feels the
citizens need to look in Roanoke County on the basis of where additional economic
development will come from. He stated that unfortunately, Roanoke County has one of
the highest tax rates in the State; of the large counties, Roanoke County is second to
Loudoun County. Additionally, Roanoke County also has the lowest per capita of the
ten largest counties in the State; make less money and has higher taxes. Mr. Terry
indicated that this is the cost of the quality of schools. He stated that Roanoke County
citizens are faced with a choice to either increase tax revenue or decrease services. He
stated there is only two ways to increase your tax revenue, increase your tax base or
increase your tax rate. He commented the same people that are here today complaining
August 24, 20~ 0 319
about the CDA and South Peak will be the same ones complaining about the tax rate if
the Board is required to increase the tax rate. This is an opportunity for economic
development which Roanoke County desperately needs and he asked the Board for
favorable consideration.
Chris Clemmer of 5868 Grey Fox Lane in the Catawba District stated he
had a big speech prepared, but feels this issue basically boils down to two points. As a
Roanoke County resident, he thinks that this project will help keep his tax rates lower,
so that Roanoke County does not become the highest taxed county in the State of
Virginia. As a Roanoke Valley business owner, he stated he feels this project makes
sense to increase jobs and business tax revenue.
Joyce Waugh of 3522 Holland Drive in the Windsor Hills District stated
that she was in attendance on behalf of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce
and stated their support of the creation of the CDA at South Peak. She stated that the
Board was aware that this project includes several promising commercial, retail and
residential development opportunities that will both strengthen and diversify the
County's economic base. She stated that she would also like to commend the Board
and the County staff for their deliberative consideration of this innovative approach to
economic growth. Roanoke County is a great place to do business and your support of
the community development authority at South Peak will further enhance the County's
business friendly reputation.
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive, Roanoke stated he believes in
government assistance for economic development and believes in CDAs when they are
properly used. He commented that he does not know why the Board is so eager to
engage the CDA process or initiate the CDA process in the County on a project of this
nature. He explained there are three acid test questions concerning the viability in his
estimation. First, if the project is a sound business decision, why can't this powerful
company who has hundreds of millions of dollars in annual sales finance the project
without any public involvement; the necessity for creating the CDA has not been
adequately demonstrated. Secondly, the statement that citizens have no risk is in error
because as the staff has already pointed out there is bond risk, a credit risk. In addition,
what will be the condition of the property, the partially developed property when it fails
and will that condition create such an untenable appearance that the County
government will have to spend funds to correct these unintended consequences, no
matter what it costs which he feels is throwing good money possibly after bad. Is the
Board placing Roanoke County in a situation that will have unintended exposure. The
County is indeed a partner in this endeavor and the citizens will view it as such. Third,
the real issue here in his judgment is how to improve the appearance of South Peak.
He stated that at the last session, Supervisor Elswick really expressed this very well
when he asked the question, who else will develop it, that is a great question. Mr.
Beyer stated he, the Board, citizens and staff does not know because the question has
not been asked and looking at this issue from that point of view has not been done. Mr.
Beyer explained that he feel the current owners whose attitude was expressed by
320 August 24, 2010
Hunter Smith at the last session, was if the CDA was not forthcoming, they would just
"pick up their marbles" and go elsewhere, like Hickory, North Carolina. He indicated
that he felt this would leave the mess that was created for us. Mr. Beyer stated that he
felt it smells like extortion. He asked why is the County really caving in to this and why
shouldn't that question be examined and all the alternatives determined before the
Board acts on this measure.
Bob L.Johnson, 8276 Olsen Road, Roanoke stated he was not sure that
he has listened to the same presentation that some of these speakers have today. He
stated he is in support of the proposal and the mechanism before the Board in order to
fund it. Mr. Johnson stated she was not sure, but felt some of the people have allowed
themselves to be confused with the facts and before they start presenting what he sees
as obfuscation of the issue, wants these citizens to know they have totally
misrepresented what are the facts. Mr. Johnson stated he has heard an attorney and
several people report to you exactly what the County's liability will or won't be and then
speaker after speaker comes before the Board and throws this "hell, fire and
damnation", if the County gets involved in this, it is just awful. He stated that he thinks
that is unfortunate. He pointed out that the infrastructure improvements that have been
mentioned here, the $3 million, if that is true, plays right in the hands of the decision that
was made in 1987. Mr. Johnson explained this County did not have water; a lot of you
don't know that all the water in this County except for a small portion in the Hollins
district was from wells. All of our wells were going dry; Roanoke County had to take fire
trucks up Route 221 for fire suppression and even deliver water to residents in the
Windsor Hills and Cave Spring Districts. Roanoke County did not have a choice. He
stated the $3 million plays into it because when Roanoke County had to make a
decision on whether to build Spring Hollow reservoir, Roanoke City was a participant, at
the eleventh hour, after all the bond work was done with Mr. Hodge, Mr. Mahoney and
Diane Hyatt, Roanoke City decided to exit, stage left and stated they were not going to
participate. At that time, The Board had to make a decision and the staff had to get
awfully creative. Mr. Johnson asked aren't you glad right now that a few people took
the bit and went ahead and did that? He stated now there is a water authority because
of that decision. He advised that the Board stands on the shoulders of a lot of
dedicated people that came before. In the sixties and seventies, it was Joe Thomas
and Charlie Osterhoudt who put the biggest school building program on a per capita
basis that Southwest Virginia has ever seen. In 1980's, it was the EPA who shut down
our landfill on Rutrough Road in the Vinton District and the State Water Control Board
shut it down and advised it had to be capped as it was leaching into the river. Steve
McGraw located that landfill in his district. This meeting room didn't hold one third of the
people who stood and the lines went out both doors in opposition. Mr. Johnson asked
again, aren't you glad that the decision was made? Roanoke County now has 1,000
acres, my grandchildren's; grandchildren will not have to worry about where our solid
waste stream is going. In 1990s, on the decision on Spring Hollow Reservoir, the
people were lined up to save the snail darter and the orange fin in the Roanoke River,
August 24, 2010 321
and yet Roanoke County could not supply a potable supply of drinking water for the
citizens of the County. Mr. Johnson stated that $70 million plus was bonded and that
took a lot of guts. Dick Rober stood up and did it. Mr. Johnson commented that if
indeed, this is a private, public partnership, and he is not convinced that it is, in my 36
years of experience in Roanoke County, on both sides of the microphone, I have never
met a more honest, honorable or decent man than Jim Smith and if you are going in
business with somebody, I recommend him to you highly.
Richard Evans of 4443 Cordell Drive, Roanoke stated basically that he
heard about this CDA in January and he leads a group in Roanoke County called
Common Sense, Progress for Roanoke County, but is speaking as an individual and not
as a representative of that group. Mr. Evans stated that at their first meeting in January
was about the CDA because none of the members knew anything about it. He
explained that the group had Roanoke County staff, the developer, even members of
the Board of Supervisors that came and listened to the presentation. When the meeting
was over, he does not remember anyone coming up to him and saying that they did not
like this idea. Mr. Evans explained that in the beginning, he felt no one liked it because
the group thought it was a risk that the County was taking. He advised that now that it
is understood that there is no risk. Mr. Evans outlined the only thing that he heard today
is just that it is a risk that the County is going into partnership with the developer and
that is simply not the fact. He advised that he has heard it said the developer should
not do it because it just cannot be successful, and he is sure Mr. Smith has been told
that on every project he has ever done and he has been a very successful developer.
Mr. Evans expressed his opinion that he would rather back this one as our first CDA
project than one with a lesser developer. Additionally, Mr. Evans stated In the future, if
another developer comes forward with a project like this that will enhance the
infrastructure in the County, enhance our tax base and offer jobs and services to draw
people here, then it will be terrific to have done all this ground work to have the CDA in
place. He reiterated what the County Attorney said earlier, that this is just one hurdle,
there are lots of other hurdles that have to be crossed and there is always the chance
that this project will stop at some point, but we have to cross this hurdle to keep it going
and it looks to him like it is going to be a great thing for that area of the County.
Supervisor Flora questioned Mr. Mahoney concerning an email he had
received regarding procurement and stated his concern was that potentially the
developer could also be the contractor putting the public improvements and set his own
value and get reimbursed through the tax reimbursement. Supervisor Flora stated that
Mr. Mahoney had some comments and safeguards that he would like for Mr. Mahoney
to address.
Mr. Mahoney advised that Mr. Flora had raised the question with respect
to the applicability of the Virginia Public Procurement Act and this project at the point of
assuming the CDA is approved and work begins on the construction of the public
improvements. It was my opinion that yes, the Virginia Public Procurement Act would
apply because the CDA is a public entity and these bonds are being issued by a public
322 August 24, 2010
entity, so those dollars in effect would be public dollars and in that context Mr. Mahoney
stated he believed the Act would apply. He explained there is a mechanism under the
Virginia Public Procurement Act whereby the CDA could declare the
developer/contractor as a sole source and thereby comply with the Act. There is a
concern because once a sole source is declared, as Mr. Flora indicated, the competitive
aspect is lost versus if the project had competitive sealed bids. Mr. Mahoney explained
in order to protect a public interest under the Act with a sole source determination, there
are several options. Mr. Mahoney expressed that in his opinion, this would be
addressed in the negotiation of the development agreement, by placing some
restrictions and limitations on that kind of activity. Mr. Mahoney stated he feels there is
another real world aspect that may involve the CDA having to hire an engineer or
project manager who has some expertise in that field so he or she or that firm would be
able to compare the cost pricing that would be invoiced back through the bonds to
determine what is a fair and reasonable cost for that kind of project in this region. Mr.
Mahoney explained there are some mechanisms to put some protections in through the
development agreement and again all of that assumes that the developer would also be
the contractor, however that is not a given. Mr. Mahoney stated that although he could
see a situation where it makes more sense to have the developer be the contractor
because as the private improvements are built other improvements would tie into them.
As a practical matter, if the project is broken down into its component elements, there
should be some pretty good historical and competitive data for example with respect to
offsite water and sewer improvements. There are enough of those projects that are out
there through the water authority that the CDA can be protected in terms of what those
contract prices are. Mr. Mahoney felt there are some contract prices out there with
respect to construction of roads, curb and gutter, stormwater improvements, etc. Mr.
Mahoney reiterated that he feels there are mechanisms out there if the developer is the
contractor, which representation has not been made to staff, that would comply with the
Virginia Public Procurement Act.
Supervisor Moore reminded the audience that there is a disclosure form
filed in the Clerk's office about the perception of a conflict. Supervisor Moore then
explained that the entire sitting Board, some time ago, unanimously approved the
establishment of community development authorities. Now, Roanoke County has a
developer who meets all of the criteria and a project that meets all of the requirements
to establish a CDA. She advised if the water authority installed water and sewer at
South Peak, without the help of the CDA, it would cost on the upslope of $2 million. The
burden of this cost is taken off of the taxpayers and is put back on the developer.
Water, sewer and stormwater management is very expensive to install. Roanoke
County has the opportunity to change the way it has done business in the past, an
opportunity for our tax payers not to have to fund the expensive infrastructure, but put
the burden of the cost back on the developer. Ms. Moore explained it is not something
new that Roanoke County has given tax breaks to developers in the past and to
businesses that are locating in Roanoke County. South Peak is at present paying
August 24, 20~ 0 323
$35,000 per year for real estate taxes. Roanoke County has the opportunity to receive
$1 million for twenty years and after that receive 100 percent of the tax revenue. South
Peak is situated on a hillside that is located in one of the most traveled areas in
Roanoke and is located on a main thoroughfare that leds to other states. This is a great
opportunity for the entire Roanoke Valley; it will create jobs, promote the economy and
put something aesthetically pleasing back on South Peak. The developer will be
financially responsible for any debt incurred. The bond company will not issue bonds
until the developer has contracts from the businesses. This is totally different from the
way Keagy Village and other developers have done in the past. Roanoke County will
have the final approval of what will be built with no financial responsibility. The CDA
was a custom fit for the developer, who is here today. Ms. Moore expressed her hope
that other developers will come forward to qualify and consider a CDA for other projects.
It is a good tool that will take the burden away from the taxpayers and put it back on the
developer. She stated that she has heard several citizens state that Roanoke County
will be helping this individual developer. She stated that it is her opinion that this
developer is helping our taxpayers; he is the first one to come forward since the CDA
was approved and to apply.
Supervisor Elswick explained his position and what was gone through as a
group and other people have done when Roanoke County considered the CDA and the
development of South Peak. Mr. Elswick stated that serious consideration was given to
the impact it would have on the community and on the tax revenue. He stated that he is
conservative and will always be that way and anytime Roanoke County can increase tax
revenue without endangering the economic situation of any tax payer, it should be done.
He further explained that it relieves the tax burden from people who are already
shouldering most of the expenses for what the County has been doing in the last few
years. The site was looked at, and it is a site that needs to be improved, as it reflects
poorly on the area, the developer and Roanoke County. Mr. Elswick stated he felt a
potential business looking to come to Roanoke County. If you are a potential business
owner and you come down Route 581, one of the first things the business owners sees
when you get out into the County is what is there and you are not coming away with a
very good opinion of Roanoke County and it does not appear to be the kind of place you
want to move to. He further stated the next thing that you look at when you consider
this, as he did, is the developer's credibility in past business situations, financial status,
involvement in Community affairs and commitment to expanding his local operation.
The developer has a tremendous risk. Mr. Elswick stated that there is talk about risk for
the County, well if Smith/Packett goes bust with this development think of the impact it
would have on his ability to do other developments in other areas of the State or other
areas of the Country. It is a tremendous risk to the developer. The developer himself
has been on the Medical Board of Virginia Tech and at Carillon. He has a good
reputation in the community and has demonstrated his ability to produce developments
that generate a lot of tax revenue, which relieves the burden on other tax payers. The
risk for the tax payers currently in Roanoke County, should be essentially zero, the risk
324 August 24, 2010
that has been implied is maybe if the project were to go bust, which is highly unlikely
because staff has researched the possibility, but if it were to go bust, some say that as
the County there would be amoral obligation to bail them out. Mr. Elswick stated that
from his perspective, and the people buying these bonds are going to know, Roanoke
County will not going to bail them out. If it goes bust, it goes bust and those who put
their money into it are the ones that lose, not the tax payers in Roanoke County. Mr.
Elswick stated as far as he is concerned the developer can buy all of those bonds that
means that his money is only money going into it. No tax payer money whatsoever is
going into the development, yet there is a potential of $23 million worth of increased
revenue over twenty years. Mr. Elswick questioned how can anyone not strongly
consider that kind of a situation, where no money is put up, there is no risk to the tax
payers and millions of dollars are received from someone else's work. Roanoke
County's risk is not too great and the economy hopefully can support the development.
Mr. Elswick further stated that healthcare is growing in the County, Carillon, Virginia
Tech and all of our healthcare industry is growing, which is the kind of industry
Smith/Packett is in. He stated that you have to believe they are going to grow and that
they will in fact bring some jobs to Roanoke County. He indicated that he did not know
if it will be 3,000 or 300, but obviously, there will be jobs associated with this
development. This project puts no reliance on the tax payer and if there are projects
that the County can pursue that does not increase the tax burden of the tax payers and
present little risk to the County and the County makes money from someone else's
efforts, we should look for more of them, not try to disparage the ones that the
developers put in front of us. This is not the first time Roanoke County has partnered
with a developer. On the other side of town, there is a recreation center, which cost $30
million for the entrance to a private, industrial park. That project is costing tax payers
over and above what Mr. Haislip has been able to do, which is fantastic. The project is
costing the County tax payers $1.8 million a year. This one won't cost us anything; it
will make money for us.
ORDINANCE 082410-4 CREATING THE SOUTH PEAK
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "Board"),
has received a petition (the "Petition") from McNeil Properties LLC, Woodcliff
Investments LLC, DNAL Holdings III, LLC, M&H Holdings Inc., Slate Hill I LLC and Slate
Hill II, LLC (collectively, the "Petitioners") for the creation of the South Peak Community
Development Authority (the "CDA"), and the Petitioners have represented that they own
all of the land within the proposed CDA district; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held on August 10, 2010, by the Board on
the adoption of this Ordinance and notice has been duly provided as set forth in §15.2-
1427 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, and § 15.2-5156 of the Virginia
August 24, 20~ 0 325
Water and Waste Authorities Act, Chapter 51, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Board proposes to create the CDA in order to provide the
infrastructure improvements, facilities and services described in the Petition; and
WHEREAS, the creation of the CDA to assist in financing the infrastructure,
improvements and services in connection with the development of the land into a
mixed-used development proposed to include commercial, retail and residential
components known as South Peak (the "Project") will benefit the citizens of the County
by promoting increased employment opportunities, strengthening the economic base
and increasing tax revenues, and will meet the increased demands placed on the
County as a result of the development or redevelopment within or affecting the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Petitioners have waived in writing the right to withdraw their
signatures from the Petition in accordance with § 15.2-5156 of the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
Section 1. Creation of Authority. The South Peak Community Development
Authority is hereby created as a political subdivision in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Act. The CDA shall have the powers set forth in the Act.
Section 2. Boundaries of the CDA. The CDA boundaries shall initially include
the property containing approximately 62.5 acres, more or less, identified in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and presented to the Board of Supervisors (the "CDA District"). In
accordance with §15.2-5157 of the Act, a copy of this Ordinance shall be recorded in
the land records of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County for each tax map parcel within
the CDA District as such CDA District exists at the time of issuance of the CDA's bonds
(the "Bonds") and the CDA District shall be noted on the land records of the County.
The County may adjust the boundaries of the CDA District to release or exclude land
from the CDA District before or after the issuance of the Bonds so long as the owners of
at least fifty-one (51) percent of the land area or assessed value of land remaining in the
CDA District after adjustment petitioned for the creation of the CDA. In addition, the
CDA may release and exclude from the CDA District parcels of land with respect to
which all special assessments have been paid or prepaid.
Section 3. Facilities and Services. The CDA is created for the purpose of
exercising the powers set forth in the Act, including acquiring, financing, constructing
and developing, and owning and maintaining, if necessary, certain permanent
infrastructure improvements, facilities and services in connection with the development
of the Project as described in the Petition and the Articles of Incorporation described
below. The CDA shall not provide services which are provided by, or obligated to be
provided by, any authority already in existence pursuant to the Act unless such authority
provides the certification required by § 15.2-5155 of the Act.
Section 4. Articles of Incorporation. Attached hereto as Exhibit B and presented
to the Board of Supervisors at the time of the adoption of this Ordinance are the
326 August 24, 2010
proposed Articles of Incorporation of the CDA. The County Administrator is authorized
and directed to execute and file such Articles of Incorporation on behalf of the Board
with the State Corporation Commission in substantially the form attached as Exhibit B
with such changes, including insubstantial changes to the boundary description of the
CDA District described therein, as the County Administrator may approve. The County
Administrator is authorized to approve such other changes or corrections to the Articles
of Incorporation prior to filing with the State Corporation Commission as do not change
the purpose or function of the CDA as set forth in this Ordinance and in the Petition.
Section 5. Capital Cost Estimates. The Board hereby finds, in accordance with
§ 15.2-5103(8) of the Act, that it is impracticable to include capital cost estimates,
project proposals and project service rates, except as summarized in the Petition.
Section 6. Membership of the Authority.
(a) The powers of the CDA shall be exercised by an authority board
consisting of five (5) members.
(b) All members of the CDA board shall be appointed by the Board in
accordance with the provisions of § 15.2-5113 of the Act.
(c) The initial members of the CDA board shall be as set forth in the Articles
of Incorporation for the terms set forth therein.
(d) Each CDA board member, except for officers and employees of the
Petitioners and Roanoke County, shall receive such compensation for his or her
services as a CDA board member as may be authorized from time to time by resolution
of the CDA board, provided that no member shall receive compensation in excess of
$300 per meeting attended unless authorized by resolution of the Board.
Section 7. Plan of Finance; Memorandum of Understanding; Issuance of Bonds;
Dissolution.
(a) The infrastructure improvements, facilities, services and operations to be
undertaken by the CDA as described herein and in the Petition shall be funded from all
or some of the following sources: (i) bonds to be issued by the CDA; (ii) special
assessments to be levied pursuant to § 15.2-5158(A)(5) of the Act, (iii) contributions
made by the County of certain incremental tax revenues generated within the CDA
District as more particularly described in the Petition and the Memorandum of
Understanding, attached hereto as Exhibit C, to be entered into by County and the
Petitioners of the Project and (iv) any other source of funding available to the CDA
including rates, fees and charges to be levied by the CDA for the services and facilities
provided or funded by the CDA and any other appropriations, grants, contributions or
financial assistance that the CDA receives from other governmental entities.
(b) The County Administrator is authorized and directed to execute and
deliver the Memorandum of Understanding in substantially the form attached as Exhibit
C with such changes consistent with the tenor and intent of the Petition and this
Ordinance as the County Administrator may approve.
August 24, 2010 327
(c) The Bonds to be issued by the CDA will not exceed a maximum aggregate
amount of $16,000,000, and will have a final maturity not later than twenty (20) years
from the year in which the Bonds are issued. The proceeds from the sale of Bonds will
be used to pay the costs of the infrastructure improvements, facilities and services as
described herein and in the Petition, the costs of issuing the Bonds, any required
reserves and the interest on the Bonds for a period of up to thirty-six (36) months after
the issuance of the Bonds.
(d) Any bonds issued by the CDA or any other financing arrangements
entered into by the CDA will be debt of the CDA, will not be a debt or other obligation of
the County and will not constitute a pledge of the faith and credit of the County.
(e) In the event the Bonds or any portion thereof are not issued within three
(3) years from the date of adoption of this Ordinance, the CDA will be dissolved in
accordance with the provisions of § 15.2-5109 of the Act.
(f) Adoption by the Board of this Ordinance does not constitute approval of
the issuance of any bonds or similar debt obligations by the CDA.
Section 8. Recordation of Ordinance. In accordance with §15.2-5157 of the Act,
the Board hereby directs the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County to record a copy of
this Ordinance in its land records for each tax map parcel included in the CDA District
and to note the existence of the CDA District on the land records of the County.
This Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Elswick, Church
NAYS: Supervisors Altizer, Flora
The above votes were cast with the following comments:
Supervisor Altizer stated he felt there was a very good debate during the public
hearing that was held at the last meeting and he thinks when the Board looks at this
issue, and stated that this Board at one time or another would all agree the
development of South Peak probably would take a CDA to come about. However, it is
now down to the percentage of what is done for revenues. Mr. Altizer explained if the
Board wanted to have economic development in Roanoke County and wanted to give
70 percent to every business that comes into Roanoke County, even if it is generates
millions at only 30 percent of the revenue over time, there would not be a whole lot of
revenue before the entire taxable base is developed. He stated it does come down to
the percentage of what is being allocated to this project. Mr. Altizer emphasized the talk
about risk, and any time there is great risk then he feels Roanoke County should look at
every aspect of it. We do have a great developer; he has a solid track record, which
has never been in doubt. We also had Jim Johnson, who was brought up by Mr. O'Neil,
who gave us also things that need to be worried about, as our County Attorney did at
328 August 24, 2010
the beginning. Talking about risk in the marketplace, all anyone has to do is read in the
paper this morning at what Montgomery County was presented to them last night to
build schools. The current bond rate, if they were to finance those bonds, is 3.48
percent. The proforma for the bonds issued on this is $7.5 percent. There is a reason
for it being almost two times the going rates for bonds and that is risk. If this project
passes tonight, I know everyone on the Board will certainly do everything they can to
make it a success, but it is a risk and there is some of us who have questions about the
four years that we went through the greatest boom in creating jobs and investment in
this County and nobody came. Mr. Altizer asked how can now at the bottom of the
worst economy can the Board believe they will come. So, it is about risk and a
difference of philosophy that this Board has. I don't think there is any question of any
Board member up here about Mr. Smith and what he can do, but Mr. Smith is only as
good as the amount of businesses that he can attract to come there and that will dictate
the success or failure of this project.
Supervisor Flora stated that he was one of the five who voted in favor of
the ordinance that allowed for the creation of CDAs. He reiterated that he believes
CDAs will work if the right project comes along with the right formula for sharing the
revenues. In this case, though, it comes down to what one might believe is reasonable
and our policy has been for years to allow 100 percent of revenue reimbursed to the
developer, business or industry for a period of one to three years. If you equate the 70
percent that we are talking about in this case to a 100 percent, that would be a five year
reimbursement based on the maximum of three years at 100 percent that would be five
years at 70 percent, but this project is not about five years at 70 percent, but twenty
years at 70 percent. This project is being considered for approximately $28 million of
money that would have been tax revenue and now will go back to pay for this project.
The Board is discussing what one might perceive as being reasonable and I don't
perceive that as being a reasonable incentive. I think that is more of a gift. There are
times when local government has to take chances, Spring Hollow was one of those, and
the landfill was another one, but when you look at those two projects, Roanoke County
citizens were 100 percent beneficiaries of those two projects. The risk had to be taken,
but the County residents are absolute beneficiaries of that, they are the only
beneficiaries, except in the case of the landfill where Roanoke City also benefitted. The
citizens benefitted. This project is not going to be something that the citizens are going
to benefit from, this benefits the developer and it is all about money. If the Board was
discussing five years at 70 percent, I would not even think about it, it would be a good
project. Unfortunately, what I think is reasonable and what others think is reasonable
this Board disagrees on and that is what the whole process is about. History will tell us
who was right and who was wrong and to tell you the truth I am voting against it, but I
sure hope I am wrong and it is successful.
Chairman Church commented that the Board has gone through, as the
County Attorney and staff has discussed, probably two years of work sessions, in depth
studies, countless hours spent by staff and as our County Attorney and other have
August 24, 2010 329
explained and many of you sitting here today in many work sessions that you were privy
to come and take part in, watch and understand. There have been meetings around the
County that brought as much information as possible to the citizens and the Board has
been deluged with questions and facts and requests for financial information. Mr.
Church explained that Mr. Mahoney and Diane Hyatt and all of our financial people
have done, in his opinion, their utmost best to project the best interest for Roanoke
County. It was bit that long ago that the Board sat right here for the Green Ridge
Recreation Center and plenty of people who objected to that item. Mr. Church stated he
voted yes for that item and he was not 100 percent sure as no one can ever get a
guarantee in life. But to the gentlemen to my right and left it depends on I guess your
particular feelings on a particular project. I have made this comment before and I spoke
probably ten or fifteen minutes on that fateful night for the recreation center and the
County was not in financial high cotton so to speak at that time. Things were already
shaky and I was so close to not voting yes then. One of our Board members said and I
comment almost verbatim "if we listen to Mr. Church tonight we should all go home and
put out heads under our pillows, because doom is coming." Mr. Church explained no
one has a crystal ball, but he is very happy that his was the third vote for the
recreational center. Additionally, Mr. Church advised Mr. Elswick, with all due respect,
the debt payment has to be so many million, which is in the contract, but it is doing so
well that the center is almost covering operating expenses and that was not even
thought about for maybe the first two years. Mr. Church queried does that mean the
economy is well and thriving? It does not, but it says that this Board, when it makes a
commitment and makes a vote, none of the Board members surely does not hope it fails
if it wasn't our choice to vote for. Roanoke County will pull together and do all it can to
make this the most beneficial project ever imagined. In times of the economy being on
the downswing, I have personally been out to Green Ridge Recreation Center and given
tours to probably 300 to 400 citizens that have walked through there and they tell me
times are tough but this is a great project, this is something Roanoke County will be
proud of for many years to come and my children and grand children cannot wait to
come here. They are bringing friends and there are members from Bedford, Roanoke
City, Botetourt, Lynchburg and Blacksburg. So I don't know what kind of ending this
project will have, but I have to believe in my heart that the citizens will in fact benefit.
Contrary to comments that have been said tonight, the County benefits, everyone
benefits as the citizens are the ultimate beneficiary, make no mistake about it. I wish
you the great success with everything that happens at South Peak.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING O 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
330 August 24, 2010
Safety Building/Fire Station, Catawba Magisterial District (Tarek
Moneir, Deputy Director of Development Services)
Tarek Moneir explained there were two changes from the first reading on
August 10, 2010, a question was posed by Supervisor Moore regarding the cause of the
of the underground line failure. Mr. Moneir explained that the cause was due to a dead
short to ground which developed somewhere along the length of the underground cable
and replacement of an underground electric line would necessitate extreme expense
compared to the cost of an overhead electric line. Additionally, the parties involved
have agreed to work with County Staff to minimize any impact on the natural
surrounding trees and avoid, if at all possible, cutting down trees. It has been agreed to
finalize the plat after the above ground line is actually installed.
Supervisor Elswick requested that staff look at the cost of underground
versus overhead lines.
Supervisor Moore asked who installed the underground line and was there
another route that could be taken. Mr. Moneir replied that he was not aware of who had
originally installed the underground line and all other possibilities had been explored.
No citizens spoke on this ordinance.
ORDINANCE 082410-5 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
WHEREAS, the Catawba Hospital of the Department of Mental Health, Mental
Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, Commonwealth of Virginia, located in the
Catawba Magisterial District, County of Roanoke, due to the failure of an underground
electric line, needs to replace the electric service to its Paint Shop Building, located
adjacent to Roanoke County's Catawba Public Safety Building/Fire Station; and
WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (APCO), which currently provides
electric service to Catawba Hospital, has reached agreement with the Craig-Botetourt
Electric Cooperative (CBEC), which currently serves the Catawba Public Safety
Building/Fire Station, to provide electric service to the hospital's Paint Shop due to the
extreme expense to APCO of replacing its electric service with an overhead line; and
WHEREAS, the proposed easement will serve the interests of the public and is
necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
August 24, 20~ 0 331
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 10, 2010, and a second
reading and public hearing was held on August 24, 2010.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the interests in real estate to be conveyed are hereby declared to be surplus,
and are hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Craig-Botetourt
Electric Cooperative (CBEC) for the replacement of electrical service to the Paint Shop
Building of the Catawba Hospital, Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and
Substance Abuse Services, Commonwealth of Virginia.
3. That donation to CBEC of an easement and right-of-way for an overhead
electric transmission line and related improvements, within a forty foot (40') easement
area on the County's Catawba Public Safety Building/Fire Station property (Tax Map
No. 07.00-01-29.00) in order to relocate the electric service for the Catawba Hospital's
Paint Shop building is hereby authorized and approved.
4. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
5. 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 Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
3. Virginia Western Community College Advisory Board (At-Large
appointment)
Charles Robbins was appointed to the Virginia Western Community
College Advisory Board during the closed session held on August 10, 2010. Chairman
Church asked that confirmation of the appointment be placed on the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 082410-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA
332 August 24, 2010
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 24,
2010, designated as Item J -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 3 inclusive, as follows:
1. Resolution amending Resolution 092308-1, which adopted policy guidelines
for approval of the creation of a Community Development Authority
2. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $105,330 to the
Roanoke County Public Schools
3. Confirmation of appointment to the Virginia Western Community College
Advisory Board
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 082410-6a AMENDING RESOLUTION 092308-1,
WHICH ADOPTED POLICY GUIDELINES FOR APPROVAL OF
THE CREATION OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, by Resolution 092308-1 adopted on September 23, 2008, the Board
of Supervisors of Roanoke adopted Policy Guidelines for approval of the creation of a
community development authority (CDA); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1. Submission of Draft Petition of the Policy
Guidelines, the Petitioner must submit a petition for review by the County and such
petition must contain certain information as set out in the policy guidelines in sub-
paragraphs (i) through (xii); and
WHEREAS, sub-paragraph (x) of Section 1. Submission of Draft Petition
requires the following: "A provision stating that the CDA Board shall be comprised of
five members who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors; the term of office shall be
for four (4) years with each member subject to reappointment. One or more members
of the Board of Supervisors and County staff, as well as the Petitioners or their
representatives may be appointed CDA Board members; no person residing outside
Roanoke County may serve on the Board;" and
WHEREAS, the Board wishes to amend sub-paragraph (x) of Section 1 of the
Policy Guidelines to allow persons residing outside of Roanoke County to serve on the
CDA Board.
August 24, 20~ 0 333
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County approves and adopts the following amendment to Section 1. Submission of
Draft Petition, sub-section (x) of the Policy Guidelines as follows:
(x) A provision stating that the CDA Board shall be comprised of five
members who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors; the term of office shall be for
four (4) years with each member subject to reappointment. One or more members of
the Board of Supervisors and County staff, as well as the Petitioners or their
representatives may be appointed CDA Board members; ~e--persons residing outside
Roanoke County may serve on the Board.
This amendment to the Policy Guidelines shall take effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
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. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of July 31, 2010
5. Accounts Paid -July 2010
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances for the month ended July 31, 2010
7. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues for the
month ended July 31, 2010
334 August 24, 2010
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 28, 2010: Ordinance granting
the petition of Bobby B. Twine to rezone 5.892 acres from AR,
Agricultural/Residential, District to I-2, High Intensity Industrial,
District for the purpose of operating a construction yard, located
near the intersection of Twine Hollow Road and Meacham Road,
Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Planning)
Chairman Church noted there will no 7:00 p.m. evening session as the
public hearing and second reading has been postponed at the request of the Planning
Commission.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore stated that she would like to take a moment to thank all
of our servicemen and women, who are serving our Country. She advised her son has
been on leave from the Navy this week and she had really enjoyed having him home.
She also stated that she would like to thank all of the nurses, doctors, and medical
personnel especially those who work at rehabilitation centers. Supervisor Moore
indicated that her mother had her knee replaced and has been in rehab and the
personnel have been phenomenal, adding it takes a very special person take care of an
elderly person, especially when they are in pain.
Chairman Church expressed the Board deepest heartfelt sympathy to the
Rita Glinecki family, who was a champion of the citizens in the Roanoke Valley and
surrounding counties and the Board cannot express its sorrow in how much she will
missed.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 5:07 p.m., Supervisor Church moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section Section 2.2-
3711(A)(1): Personnel, namely discussion concerning appointments to the Community
Development Authority (CDA) Board, Economic Development Authority, Grievance
Panel and Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy (CEDS) Committee and Section 2.2-3711(A)(1): To discuss and consider the
employment, assignment, appointment and performance of specific public officers,
appointees or employees. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
August 24, 20~ 0 335
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
At 5:08 p.m. Chairman Church recessed to the fourth floor for work
session and closed meeting.
The closed meeting was held from 6:22 p.m. until 7:12 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (TRAINING ROOM - 4T" FLOOR)
1. Work session to provide follow-up information pertaining to the
Trane Energy Performance Contract (Anne Marie Green, Director
of General Services; Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
The work session was held from 5:24 p.m. until 5:39 p.m.
In attendance with Ms. Green and Ms. Owens were Jim Vodnic, Assistant
Director of General Services, Mark Donihe and Justin Hanna from Trane. Ms. Green
outlined that this work session was scheduled to provide any follow-up information in
order to add this as an agenda item to the September 14, 2010, Board meeting as the
project needs to get started because of the funds from the federal government. Ms.
Green indicated that Supervisor Elswick had visited General Services and all of his
questions were answered at the time, which left Supervisor Flora's questions
concerning open protocol.
Supervisor Flora asked if in the event any Trane equipment fails, can the
County put in any other equipment and what would it have to be replaced with another
Trane piece of equipment?
Mr. Hanna indicated that no component has to be Trane. Supervisor Flora
further clarified that he was taking about a part of the Energy Management System
within a particular building. Mr. Hanna indicated that they are off the shelf items and can
be dropped in. Supervisor Flora then asked about parts from the sensor to the Internet.
Mr. Hanna indicated that it could be sourced from a number of manufacturers, as long
as it communicates on industry standard protocols. He further indicated that there may
be some issues with certain vendors that require their technicians to only work on their
own products.
Supervisor Flora indicated that he has spoken with several individuals
since the last work session on July 27, 2010, and it was indicated to him that the
industry standard is now open protocol.
Supervisor Elswick then asked if Roanoke County would have access to
the software if changes need to be made. Mr. Donihe explained that because of the
guaranteed energy savings in the contract, there will need to be a limitation on how
much variance is given to each individual building.
336 August 24, 2010
Supervisor Elswick ask if any of the mercury bulbs would be installed and
recommended not putting any of these bulbs in. Ms. Green indicated that these bulbs
would not be installed. Additionally, Mr. Donihe indicated that there would be several
ballasts that will be removed per federal requirements.
It was the consensus of the Board to place this item on the September 14,
2010 Board agenda for consideration.
2. Work session to provide an update on the County Building Team
(B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
The work session was held from 5:39 p.m. until 6:06 p.m.
Mr. Goodman explained to the Board that a building team was created
approximately one year ago to work together to look at different policies throughout the
County to tap into the individual expertise and knowledge.
This team identified three policies that were discussed with the Board: (1)
Leadership in energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Energy Star Statement;
(2) The Public-Private Education on Facilities Act of 2002 (PPEA) Use Policy; and (3)
Guidelines for Acquisition, renovation and/or disposition of property or buildings.
Copies of these policies are on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
3. Work session to review proposed revisions to the Roanoke
County Procurement Policy Manual (Rob Light, Purchasing
Manager)
The work session was held from 6:06 p.m. until 6:14p.m.
Mr. Light reviewed the proposed revisions to the procurement policy
manual with the Board members. Supervisor Flora ask why the large jump from $2
million to $5 million, with Mr. Light answering that these changes are in keeping with the
limitation within the Code of Virginia.
It was the consensus of the Board to place this item on the September 14,
2010, Board agenda for consideration.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:12 p.m., Supervisor Church moved to return to open session to adopt
the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 082410-7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
August 24, 20~ 0 337
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 voice vote:
.~..
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
Submitted by:
Deborah C. cks
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
Joseph B. "Butch" Church
Chairman
338
August 24, 2010
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY