9/27/2011 - RegularSeptember 27, 2011 597
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 September 2011. 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. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church; Supervisors Michael
W. Altizer, Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Charlotte A. Moore and
Richard C. Flora
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Teresa H. Hall, Director of Public Information and
Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator added the following closed
session items: Section 2.2- 3711.A.1 Consideration of the employment and the
appointment of specific public officers, namely Chief of Police and Section 2.2-
3711.A.29 Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of
public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, for an economic
development performance agreement with Anderson Properties of Virginia, LLC, where
discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating
strategy of the County. There were no objections.
598 September 27, 2011
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation commemorating the 100th Anniversary of Grand
Home Furnishings and proclaiming September 27, 2011, as Grand
Home Furnishings Day in Roanoke County (Jill Loope, Acting
Director of Economic Development)
In attendance for this recognition were Jill Loope, Acting Director of
Economic Development; Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist; Robert
Bennett, Executive Vice President of Grand Home Furnishings; Randy Lundy, Chief
Financial Officer of Grand and Steve Davis, Vice President of Marketing of Grand. All
Supervisors offered their congratulations.
2. Proclamation declaring the month of October 2011 as Fire
Prevention Month in the County of Roanoke (Richard E. Burch,
Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue; Gary Huffman, Fire Marshal)
In attendance for this proclamation were Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of
Fire and Rescue; Gary Huffman, Fire Marshall; Todd Maxey, Division Chief; Brian
Clingenpeel, Public Educator; John Sweeney, Fire Inspector; Deputy Fire Marshal
(Flash), Scott Jones, Fire Inspector; Brian Simmons, Fire Inspector (Patches); Patches
and Pumper; Flash and Sam the smoke - sniffing dog. All Board Members thanked the
department for bringing this before the Board and thanked them for their service
performed each and every day.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Catawba Sustainability Center and Catawba Greenway (Pete
Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
Pete Haislip explained the Catawba Greenway section and B. Clayton
Goodman outlined the Sustainability Center. It was explained that the Catawba
Sustainability Center (CSC) has been working with Virginia Tech for more than one
year; citizens whole - heartedly support. It is the intent to formalize what is being done
with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Virginia Tech. Mr. Goodman then
outlined two changes that were not included in the original MOU. Supervisor Moore
asked if there was a time commitment with Mr. Goodman responding in the negative.
Supervisor Moore than advised she has several questions and would like to table this
item until it could be discussed at work session. Supervisor Flora stated he concurred.
It was the consensus of the Board to move this item to work session at the October 11,
2011 meeting.
September 27, 2011 599
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public Hearing and request to adopt a resolution authorizing the
issuance of not to exceed $10,500,000 of General Obligation
School Bonds to be sold to the Virginia Public School Authority
(VPSA) for Capital Improvements at Cave Spring Middle School
(Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens explained the details for this agenda item. She indicated Dr.
Lorraine Lange, Dr. Martin Misicko and School Board Member "Fuzzy" Minnick were in
attendance to answer any questions. Chairman Church opened the public hearing and
one citizen spoke on this matter: Mr. Ron Keith Adkins of 3057 Timberlane Avenue,
SW; Roanoke County stated he was there to speak not against or for the bond issue
that was just brought forth, but as a tax paying citizen of Roanoke County he stated he
is deeply concerned at the overall cost of this school, which he understands is over $28
million for one school built on property that Roanoke County already owned. He added
when dividing the amount of students that will be attending that school by the cost, it is
pretty stiff, particularly in this time and age the way the economy is. He stated his sons
were educated in Roanoke County, as a matter of fact, Dr. Lange helped educate them
when they went to Green Valley Schools many years ago and we have the best school
system in Roanoke County bar none and would put our school system and Roanoke
County up against any in the United States, but he is deeply concerned along with a lot
of other taxpayers in Roanoke County about the override and the high cost of one
school; $28 million is not "chump change." Do you remember the old Senator from
Illinois, Dirkson said "a few bucks here, a few bucks there, pretty soon we are talking
about billions." We are talking about millions here and he is very much aware that the
school must be financed; the old school building has already been torn down and gone.
What strikes him is that he thinks "we are putting the cart before the horse." Staff
should have thought about the total outlay of this before the school was built. He asked
the Board to please look at this real close and make sure that if any costs can be cut on
this, although it is already on the board and you probably cannot do anything but again,
$28 million for one school building is to him a very, very high price entity to get into it.
He stated he knows staff will need to go on with this, but he is deeply concerned about
how it got this far and how it cost this much and he stated he thinks staff should have
had some firm bids on it and if so, why did it go higher.
Dr. Lange, Superintendent stated she understands Mr. Adkins concerns.
The Cave Spring community deserves this school. Currently, Hidden Valley High
School and Hidden Valley Middle are overcrowded. The school is being built for nine
hundred (900) students because the school intends to move students over from Hidden
Valley High School and Hidden Valley Middle and try to balance the population. As
soon as the school is build, the schools will be redistricted.
600 September 27, 2011
School Board Member "Fuzzy" Minnix stated he too understands Mr.
Adkins concerns; he has concerns as well. The $18 million that is in reserve to build
this school had been brought about by taking advantage of the current economy. He
stated if this school was being built under the old economy it would probably cost $35
million. Additionally, when new schools are built, staff attempts to make it on the cutting
edge of education. He stated Roanoke County schools are second to none and the
School Board is willing to spend a little more to benefit the students.
Supervisor Flora indicated to put this into perspective; Hidden Valley cost
$28 million. The school today is slightly smaller for the same price.
Supervisor Elswick stated the times he has reviewed the contracts, staff
has done an excellent job of obtaining bids and selecting vendors. He further advised
Mr. Adkins is a concerned citizen and he should be allowed to look at the contracts and
he would be glad to sit down and go over them with him.
Supervisor Altizer asked on the $10.5 million not to exceed is the'/ million
for closing costs, which is an unknown? He inquired if staff is going to sell bonds for
$10.5 million or will staff know beforehand what those closing costs are and will you
know that it is $10.2 before the bonds are sold or are you just going sell $10.5. Ms.
Owens advised she would attempt to explain the complexity. With VPSA, there are
other localities participating in the fall sale of the bonds, so it is not just Roanoke
County, it is other municipalities as well. So, it is staff's intent to sell $10 million worth of
bonds so Roanoke County will end up with $10 million in bond proceeds, but depending
upon all of the participants and the market and whether or not those bonds will sell at a
premium or a discount, staff will not know until the transaction is complete. Historically,
staff has always handled VPSA Bonds in this way. The last one was done in 2009, staff
needed $47.7 million for the project. So the Board authorized staff to sell those bonds
up to $50 million. Those bonds sold and Roanoke County received $47.7 million, they
were sold at a premium and then there was only $3,000 extra that had not been
appropriated. The intent of VPSA is for Roanoke County to receive $10 million in bond
proceeds, but authorization has to be made to sell an amount greater than that in the off
chance the market is not good. Supervisor Altizer responded he stated he just wanted
to make sure if you sell $10.5 million, there is not $300,000 left out there unspent
because it came in less than we thought and then all of a sudden, you have a $300,000
"candy list ". Supervisor Altizer asked what would happen to those funds if this was the
case. Ms. Owens responded this would not occur, because they are only going to sell
the amount of bonds for Roanoke County that is needed to obtain the $10 million in
proceeds to cover all of our bond issuance costs.
RESOLUTION 092711 -1 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND
SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $10,500,000 GENERAL
OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC
September 27, 2011 601
SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND
DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board ") of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia (the "County ") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an
amount not to exceed $10,500,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds to
finance certain capital projects for school purposes (the "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on September 27, 2011, on the
issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of
Section 15.2 -2606, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code "); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has requested by resolution the
Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) and has
consented to the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that
$10,000,000 is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested ") from the
Virginia Public School Authority ( "VPSA ") in connection with the sale of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the
Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the "VPSA
Purchase Price Objective "), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization
schedule the County has requested for the Bonds relative to, the amortization
schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for
its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of VPSA's bonds; and
WHEREAS, such factors may result in requiring the County to accept a discount,
given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, under which
circumstance the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds received by the County will be
less than the amount set forth in paragraph 1 below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds The Board hereby
determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation
school bonds of the County in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$10,500,000 (the "Bonds ") for the purpose of financing the Project. The Board hereby
authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms
established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds It is determined to be in the best interest of the
County to accept the offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to VPSA,
the Bonds at a price determined by VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board
or the County Administrator and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, and such
officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized
and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the VPSA providing for the
602 September 27, 2011
sale of the Bonds to VPSA in substantially the form on file with the County
Administrator, which form is hereby approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement ").
3. Details of the Bonds The Bonds shall be issuable in fully
registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated
the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation
School Bonds, Series 2011" (or such other designation as the County Administrator
may approve) shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi - annually
on each January 15 and July 15 (each an "Interest Payment Date ") beginning July 15,
2012, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and
shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date ") and in the
amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution. The Interest
Payment Dates and the Principal Payment Dates are subject to change at the request
of VPSA.
4. Interest Rates and Principal installments The County
Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the
Bonds established by VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be no more than five
one - hundredths of one percent (0.05 %) over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA for the
corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the
"VPSA Bonds "), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds,
and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed six
percent (6 %) per annum. The County Administrator is further authorized and directed to
accept the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and the amounts of principal of the
Bonds coming due on each Principal Payment Date ( "Principal Installments ")
established by VPSA, including any changes in the Interest Payment Dates, the
Principal Payment Dates and the Principal Installments which may be requested by
VPSA provided that such aggregate principal amount shall not exceed the maximum
amount set forth in paragraph one and the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later
than 21 years from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in
paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal
Payment Dates, interest rates, principal amount and Principal Installments as having
been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a
single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar The following
provisions shall apply to the Bonds:
(a) For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all
payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in
immediately available funds to VPSA at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest
Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if
such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia,
September 27, 2011 603
then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next succeeding such Interest
Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by
law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) U.S. Bank National Association, Richmond, Virginia, is designated
as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds.
7. Prepayment or Redemption The Principal Installments of the
Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2021, and the definitive
Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or
before July 15, 2021, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated
maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after
July 15, 2021, and the definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be
exchanged that mature after July 15, 2021, are subject to prepayment or redemption at
the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date
on or after July 15, 2021, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices
(expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal
amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date
set for prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15, 2021 through July 14, 2022 ....... ............................... 101%
July 15, 2022 through July 14, 2023 ........ ............................... 100.5
July 15, 2023 and thereafter .................... ............................... 100;
Provided however that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption
prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written
consent of VPSA or the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment
or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by
registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the
date fixed for prepayment or redemption. The County Administrator is authorized to
approve such other redemption provisions, including changes to the redemption dates
set forth above, as may be requested by VPSA.
8. Execution of the Bonds The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the
Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and
deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of such
execution may be by facsimile, provided that if both signatures are by facsimile, the
Bonds shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature of the Paying
Agent.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit For the prompt payment of the
principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall
become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and
in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and
collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in
the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of
604 September 27, 2011
the principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such
principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without
limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in
the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and
appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate; Non - Arbitrage Certificate The
Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them and such other
officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and
directed to execute a Non - Arbitrage Certificate, if required by bond counsel, and a Use
of Proceeds Certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of
the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show
compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
"Code "), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of
interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the
County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested
and expended as set forth in such Use of Proceeds Certificate and the County shall
comply with the covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County
shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the
VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
11. State Non - Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement The Board
hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct
the County Treasurer to participate in the State Non - Arbitrage Program in connection
with the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of
them and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are
hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with
respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the
County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, VPSA, the investment
manager, and the depository substantially in the form on file with the County
Administrator, which form is hereby approved.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement The Chairman of the Board and
the County Administrator, or either of them, and such other officer or officers of the
County as either of them may designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to
execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond
Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and
containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the
provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2 -12, under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and directed, and (ii) to make all filings
required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by
the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement).
13. Filing of Resolution The appropriate officers or agents of the
County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution
to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County.
September 27, 2011 605
14. Further Actions The County Administrator, the Chairman of the
Board, and all such other officers, employees and agents of the County as either of
them may designate are hereby authorized to take such action as the County
Administrator or the Chairman of the Board may consider necessary or desirable in
connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously
taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Effective Date This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from
the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on September 27, 2011, and
of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I
hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that,
during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. The last
page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the Board of Supervisors
present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting, and (iii) the
vote of each member, including any abstentions.
The following Board members were in attendance: Chairman Joseph B.
"Butch" Church; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Charlotte A. Moore
and Richard C. Flora. There were no Board members absent.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Glenn Reed to rezone approximately 13.7 acres
from AR, Agricultural /Residential District to AV, Agricultural
Village District and to obtain a special use permit for the purpose
of a gas station /convenience store located at 9651 Bent Mountain
Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District
Supervisor Elswick moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for October 25, 2011. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Skyway Towers to obtain a special use permit for a
606 September 27, 2011
broadcasting tower (199') in an AG -3 district on 17.12 acres,
located at 3557 Jae Valley Road, Vinton Magisterial District
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for October 25, 2011. 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 amending Section 23 -3.4. "Stormwater management facility
maintenance agreements" of Chapter 23. "Stormwater Management"
of the Roanoke County Code (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
(Postponed until October 25, 2011)
Mr. Mahoney advised the second reading of this ordinance has been
postponed in order for Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Covey to meet with the Roanoke Regional
Homebuilders Association.
2. Ordinance amending Section 5 -33. "Disposal of dead companion
animal" of Chapter 5. "Animals and Fowl" of the Roanoke County Code
(Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained this is the second reading of this ordinance and
there were no changes from the first reading held on September 13, 2011. He briefly
summarized the need for this ordinance. Supervisor Altizer inquired if Mr. Mahoney had
received any comments from the Town of Vinton with Mr. Mahoney responding in the
negative. There was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 092711 -2 AMENDING SEC. 5 -33. "DISPOSAL OF
DEAD COMPANION ANIMAL" OF CHAPTER 5. "ANIMALS AND
FOWL" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police reports that some owners of deceased animals
are not fulfilling their responsibility to cremate or bury such animals; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.2 -510 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the governing
body of any county to adopt an ordinance requiring the cremation or burial of deceased
animals, and further authorizes the recovery of actual costs and a reasonable fee for
such cremation or burial; and
September 27, 2011 607
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the adoption of this ordinance
will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2011
and the second reading was held on September 27, 2011.
NOW, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as
follows:
1. That Section 5 -33. "Disposal of dead companion animal" of the Roanoke
County Code be amended to read and provided as follows:
Sec. 5 -33. - Disposal of dead companion animal.
The owner of any companion animal, poultry, or livestock which has died from disease
or other cause shall forthwith cremate or bury the same. If, after notice, the owner fails
to do so, any judge of the general district court shall direct the community service officer
or other officer to bury or cremate the companion animal, poultry or livestock and he
may recover, on behalf of the county, from the owner his actual cost for the cremation or
burial and a reasonable fee for this service. All sums recovered under this section shall
be deposited to the community service animal impoundment account.
In addition to recovery of costs and fees, any person violating the provisions of this
section shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 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
3. Ordinance amending Section 21 -73. "General Prerequisites to
Grant" of Chapter 21. "Taxation" of the Roanoke County Code
(Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained this was the second reading of this ordinance and
there were no changes from the first reading. He briefly explained the reason for the
ordinance was to tighten up the definition of income and total combined net worth.
Supervisor Altizer asked if Ms. Horn could come to the podium. He
explained at the first reading he had some concerns with regard to a relative that stayed
two or three days a week with a disabled citizen. He stated this new addition has
identified income, subject to tax under federal tax laws and wanted to be sure the
income from that person was not included if the relative has their own real estate. Ms.
Nancy Horn, Commissioner of the Revenue explained the person would not lose the tax
relief. Another question would be if that person pays another to take care of the person,
608 September 27, 2011
this will not affect income, but would be labor that would be contained under a 1099.
Supervisor Church asked if the one acre of land is still being used in the
definition with Ms. Horn responding in the affirmative.
ORDINANCE 092711 -3 AMENDING SECTION 21 -73 "GENERAL
PREREQUISITES TO GRANT" OF CHAPTER 21. "TAXATION"
OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE,
WHEREAS, the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly amended
Section 58.1 -3212 of the Code of Virginia, which establishes the local restrictions and
exemptions for the Elderly and Handicapped real estate tax program, and,
WHEREAS, this ordinance brings the County Code into compliance with this
enabling legislation; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2011
and the second reading was held on September 27, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows:
1. That Section 21 -73 of the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and
provide as follows:
Sec. 21 -73. - General prerequisites to grant.
Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following conditions
are met:
(1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar year,
from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not
exceed fifty six thousand five hundred sixty -six dollars ($56,566); provided, however,
that the first ten thousand dollars ($10,000) of income of each relative, other than the
spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total.
"Income" shall include only those sources of gross income that are subject to tax
under federal income tax laws, regulations, rules or policies.
(2) That the owner and his spouse did not have a total combined net worth, including
the present value of all equitable interests, exceeding two hundred thousand dollars
($200,000) as of December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount
of net worth specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and
up to one (1) acre of land.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above if a person qualifies for an exemption and
if that person can prove by clear and convincing evidence that his or her physical or
mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only alternative to permanently
residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility or physical or
mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for that person, and if a
relative does then move in for that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of
the relatives spouse shall be counted towards the income limit, provided the owner of
the residence has not transferred assets in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000)
September 27, 2011 609
without adequate consideration within a three(3) -year period prior to or after the relative
moves into such residence.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the Consent Resolution, with Item 6 -
Resolution approving authority of Roanoke County Police Department to execute
contracts with political subdivision for the use of Roanoke County firearms range and
authority of County Administrator to approve related documents and fee schedules and
allocation of any revenues received therefrom removed for separate consideration.
RESOLUTION 092711 -4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September
27, 2011, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes —August 23, 2011
2. Request to approve a resolution affirming the execution of an agreement to
allow the County School Board of Roanoke County to participate in the
Roanoke County OPEB trust, and to name a school representative to the
Roanoke County Local Finance Board
3. Request to appropriate funds in the amount of $45,127.37 to the Roanoke
County Public Schools
4. Confirmation of appointment to the Court Community Corrections Alcohol
Safety Action Program (ASAP) Policy Board; Grievance Panel; Virginia
Western Community College Board
5. Request to accept and appropriate five (5) Division of Motor Vehicle grants in
the amount of $203,530
610 September 27, 2011
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 092711 -4.a AFFIRMING THE EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF
ROANOKE COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ROANOKE
COUNTY OPEB TRUST, AND TO NAME A SCHOOL
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY LOCAL
FINANCE BOARD
WHEREAS, in Ordinance 042809 -4 the County of Roanoke established a trust
for accumulating and investing assets to fund post - employment benefits other than
pension in accordance with section 15.2 -1544 of the Virginia Code; and
WHEREAS, in Section 2 of Ordinance 04208 -4, the County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the County and agreement(s) with the
Roanoke County School Board to participate in any trust, trusts or equivalent
arrangements for the purpose of accumulating and investing assets to fund post -
employment benefits other than pensions in accordance with section 15.2 -1544 of the
Virginia Code. Separate accounts will be established for each entity; and
WHEREAS, in Section 4 of Ordinance 042809 -4 it states that the finance board
may be expanded by the Board of Supervisors to provide representation for any other
political subdivision that may, in the future, agree to participate in the Trust Fund with
the County; and
WHEREAS, in Section 4 of Ordinance 042809 -4 is states that subsequent
appointments to the finance board may be made by resolution adopted by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting on September 22, 2011, the Roanoke County School
Board authorized the execution of an agreement with the County of Roanoke to
participate in the County OPEB trust, and to appoint Penny Hodge, Assistant
Superintendent of Finance, and the school representative to the Local Finance Board;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the Board of Supervisors reaffirms its intent to allow the County
School Board of Roanoke County to participate in the County OPEB trust; and
2. That Penny Hodge, Assistant Superintendent of Finance, will be added as
the school representative to the local finance board; and
4. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary
September 27, 2011 611
to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon a form approved by the County
Attorney.
5. That this resolution shall become effective immediately.
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
A- 092711 -4.b
A- 092711 -4.c
A- 092711 -5.d
6. Resolution approving authority of Roanoke County Police
Department to execute contracts with political subdivision for the
use of Roanoke County firearms range and authority of County
Administrator to approve related documents and fee schedules
and allocation of any revenues received therefrom
Supervisor Altizer advised he wanted to clarify at the last work session
held on September 13, 2011, it was approved by consensus to allow the Roanoke
Regional Jail Authority to bring their own safety officers. Accordingly, he added at the
end of Section 1.a.2, the Roanoke Regional Jail Authority shall be allowed to supply its
own safety compliance officer, who shall be a Department of Corrections (DCJ) certified
firearms instructor. The original required the Police Department to send someone up for
that. There was no further discussion.
RESOLUTION 092711 -5 APPROVING AUTHORITY OF
ROANOKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT TO EXECUTE
CONTRACTS WITH POLITICAL SUBDIVISION FOR THE USE
OF ROANOKE COUNTY FIREARMS RANGE AND AUTHORITY
OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE RELATED
DOCUMENTS AND FEE SCHEDULES AND ALLOCATION OF
ANY REVENUES RECEIVED THEREFROM
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Police Department has completed
modifications and improvements to the firearms range facility on County -owned property
at the former Dixie Caverns Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Police Department desires to make its modern
firearms range available to law enforcement agencies in this region on a space
available basis and to utilize any revenues received from leases thereof to defray the
costs of care, maintenance and future renovation of this range; and
612 September 27, 2011
WHEREAS, the County Police Department has developed, with the assistance
of the County Administrator and County Attorney, a lease agreement and related
documents addressing the use of its firearms range, which forms have been shared with
the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Police Department has requested approval by
the Board of Supervisors of its authority to enter into lease contracts with other law
enforcement agencies for the use of its firearms range and for the County Administrator
to execute any necessary legal documents, to annually adjust the fee schedule for use
of the firearms range and to direct the allocation of any revenues received from said
leases;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That the authority of the Chief of Police of Roanoke County to enter into lease
contracts with other law enforcement agencies, and establish related requirements
concerning liability and proper use, for the Firearms Range Facility on property owned
by Roanoke County at the Dixie Caverns Landfill property, is approved on behalf of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia.
2. That the County Administrator or designee is authorized and directed to
execute such leases and other necessary legal documents for the use by other law
enforcement agencies of the Roanoke County Police Department Firearms Range and
to direct the appropriate allocation of revenues received thereby, all upon such form as
may be approved by the County Attorney. This resolution shall be effective as of the
date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution with the added language,
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:
September 27, 2011 613
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 August 31, 2011
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
August 31, 2011
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of August 31, 2011
7. Accounts Paid — August 2011
8. Proclamations signed by the Chairman
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:12 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2- 3711.A3. Namely
acquisition of property for public use for economic development purposes, where the
discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the County and Section and Section 2.2- 3711.A.1 Consideration
of the employment and the appointment of specific public officers, namely Chief of
Police and Section 2.2- 3711.A.29 Discussion of the award of a public contract involving
the expenditure of public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract,
for an economic development performance agreement with Anderson Properties of
Virginia, LLC, where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining
position or negotiating strategy of the County. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 6:24 p.m. until 6:50 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
At 4:13 p.m. Chairman Church recessed to the fourth floor for work
session and closed meeting.
1. Work session on Roanoke County's Legislative Program for the
2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly (Paul M.
614 September 27, 2011
Mahoney, County Attorney; Eldon James, Roanoke County
Legislative Liaison)
In attendance for this work session were Paul M. Mahoney, Eldon James
and B. Clayton Goodman III. Mr. Mahoney explained with the assistance of Mr. James
staff has put together about eight items that he recommends to the Board for
consideration, would like to discuss and seek input to see if there are any other
initiatives or delete some of these item. Mr. Mahoney explained there is an agenda item
on the evening session to approve the resolution. Mr. Mahoney stated for the last
several years staff has expressed concern regarding the Comprehensive Service Act.
He has been attempting to educate the legislators on this issue. He stated he felt
progress has been made with the secretary, but as reminded by Mr. James he is not
sure what the secretary is proposing; staff is not opposing the proposal but does not
know what the proposal is. At this point, staff is stressing the idea that if any changes
do come down and are submitted to the General Assembly in 2012, staff would like to
emphasize those changes should reflect the collaborative nature of the problem, the
State and the locality working together and it should reflect the fact if there are changes,
those changes should benefit not only the State in its budget, but also local government.
Mr. James added it should benefit both partners and statewide local governments are
about a forty percent (40 %) partner. Decisions made locally affect our budget as well
as the State budget and the reason changes should be beneficial to both partners is
because it concerns the same taxpayer. Chairman Church remarked he felt the last
session with the local legislators was beneficial; staff was able to talk to them for more
than five (5) minutes on a one -to -one basis. Mr. James agreed as long as staff
delivered a consistent message over time and it is reasonable.
Mr. Mahoney then referenced item number six and the language with
respect to devolution and the Board's opposition to the current plan and he indicated it
is not fiscally prudent to go forward, because the current roads need to be brought to
current standards; not expanding local revenue authority; addressing the inefficiencies
of having over one hundred (100) local transportation departments as opposed to one
centralized, unified State transportation department and finally at the end of the day, all
that is going to happen is those costs are going to be shifted to the residential, real
estate taxpayer. In Roanoke County, eighty -five percent (85 %) of our real estate tax
base is residential.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if the General Assembly offered any kind of
justification for making such a proposal. Mr. James responded if the perspective was
turned around, Virginia is only one of four states that maintain its system the way it is
done. Also, the State has no control over land use, so it is the local governments
creating an unfunded mandate on the State by approving subdivisions and adding roads
to the system that the State has no choice but to accept. Mr. Elswick responded by
stating the localities generally work with the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) when they plan new subdivisions, etc. There is interaction all the time with
September 27, 2011 615
VDOT as to the flow of traffic and Virginia is recognized as having some of the best
roads in the country. Mr. James stated if he were to wear the State perspective hat and
continue he would probably say, "there you go again with that local perspective." Mr.
James continued by stating the State has a real problem; it has up to $450 million a
year that is being moved out of capital to balance the maintenance budget and growing
at a rate of approximately $50 million a year. How long it is going to be before the
construction contribution is to the point that federal money is left on the table and other
States are accessing because Roanoke County is not utilizing ours.
Supervisor Altizer stated the direction of the partnership should be looked
at differently. For example, one county has a population of 9460 people per square
mile, conversely Roanoke County has 342 people per square mile and when the County
builds subdivisions fifty (50) homes are built and when the other county builds them
there are 1250 homes. The other side of this is that the State is going to come back
and say if you do not want it, then we will take over land use control or some variation
thereof. Urban Development Areas (UDA) are the first example of that.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if VACo was involved with Mr. James
responding in the affirmative. Mr. James stated he has yet to talk to any county
representative who feels any differently than Roanoke County.
Mr. Goodman stated he would like to add an item concerning support for
the extension of passenger rail service from Bristol through Roanoke and on to
Lynchburg and then to Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Virginia (the
"TransDominion Express "). There was no opposition.
Mr. Mahoney then reviewed the items relating to VRS, Urban Development
Areas, local taxing authority, opposition to imposing a tipping fee at landfills for the
Department of Environmental Quality, devolution, local support of the Commonwealth
and the study to look at BPOL taxes.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if " "Lacey's" hybrid system will be brought forth
again with Mr. James stating he feels it will be brought forth in the fall or early winter
and the election could have a significant impact. Mr. Goodman advised Diane Hyatt is
working on this issue.
Chairman Church thanked Mr. James for all he is doing and noted this is a
team effort.
Supervisor Altizer inquired of Mr. James if he sees the State going to a
point either this cycle or in the future of eliminating the final $4.00 of per diem. Mr.
James stated the pressure is always there, but has not heard a specific reference.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the Board needs to include anything as it
relates to the Communications Act, i.e. Comcast. Mr. Mahoney responded he thought
that is something that should be included, but does not see how staff can do so without
repealing completely. Mr. James indicated it does not have a targeted fix; legislation
was ill advised.
It was the consensus of the Board for Mr. Mahoney to add the support for
616 September 27, 2011
transportation and support for correction of the deficiencies in the "Licensing and
Regulation of Cable Television Systems" legislation and postpone the item from the
evening session and bring back at the October 11, 2011 meeting. The work session
was held from 4:31 p.m. until 5:10 p.m.
2. Work session on Revenue Sharing Program for fiscal year 2012 —
2013 (David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
In attendance for this work session were B. Clayton Goodman III, David
Holladay, Arnold Covey and Scott Woodrum and Anthony Ford from the Virginia
Department of Transportation. Mr. Holladay gave a PowerPoint presentation to the
Board, a copy of which is on file in the Clerk to the Board's office. Mr. Arnold stated after
Mr. Holladay has given the presentation they would appreciate receiving the Board's
direction as to participating in the program and where the dollars should be allocated.
Chairman Church inquired with regard to the Thirlane and Wildwood
projects, are they both fully funded up to a certain point with Mr. Woodrum responding
in the affirmative. Chairman Church inquired whether it would be better to go ahead
and get what is funded completed with Mr. Woodrum explaining he understands,
however they are looking at the bigger picture and not have to divide up into too many
pieces. Mr. Goodman responded that the Thirlane project would address immediate
concerns and the main concerns on Wildwood were safety, narrow lanes and drainage
issues up and down the road (three miles total). The civic league also mentioned the
street near the church. Mr. Goodman commented this is an issue throughout the
County; it is better to do a bigger project than two tenths of a mile here and there.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the County received its full allotment last year
with Mr. Holladay responding no. Supervisor Altizer then asked what about the year
before with Mr. Covey explaining the County did $460,000 and the developer of the
subdivision put in a $40,000 check resulting in $500,000.
Supervisor Elswick asked if there are any valuation criteria for each of
these projects as to which one should receive the highest priority with Mr. Goodman
responding in the negative. Mr. Goodman explained staff has attempted to put
together, but there is really no County using any type of criteria other than paving.
Supervisor Elswick asked what is the advantage to working on Cotton Hill? Mr.
Woodrum explained Cotton Hill was one similar to Wildwood Road whereby lane width
is minimal, shoulders are nonexistent and ditches have steep drop -offs. Geometrically
from a "cross- section" standpoint is just not up to standard especially with the traffic and
the large residential development. Mr. Covey responded when this was added, the
work on Rt. 221 was to be upgraded and by putting Cotton Hill in there, the bridge is
being replaced with primary dollars and therefore is saving money. Supervisor Elswick
stated so we are improving the entrance under the current project. Mr. Woodrum
responded in the affirmative and stated it goes beyond the residential development up
September 27, 2011 617
to the Parkway. Supervisor Elswick stated so with the case of Thirlane Road, did staff
look at it as simply a deficient road or did staff say if this is approved, more businesses
will locate there or there will be accident reductions. Mr. Goodman explained some of
the local business owners have contacted the County over the years seeking assistance
with regard to pedestrian traffic. There are people staying in hotels and they cannot
walk to the restaurants in the area safely. Supervisor Elswick stated so it could
increase the tax base with Mr. Goodman responding it is an economic boost in the eyes
of the people who run the hotels there, but it has been functioning as is for some time, it
just needs to be upgraded.
Supervisor Moore stated the Board all know these roads well enough to
establish their own criteria and they could bring something back that would show safety,
drainage and then bring the worse roads forward.
Supervisor Elswick inquired of a start date for Mill Creek with Mr. Covey
stating he anticipated it would be next construction season, which would be next spring.
Due to time constraints it was the consensus of the Board to bring this
item back for additional work at the next meeting. This work session was held from 5:10
p.m. until 5:45 p.m.
3. Work session to review the preliminary financial results for June
30, 2011, for the County of Roanoke (Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
In attendance for this work session was Rebecca Owens and B. Clayton
Goodman III. Ms. Owens began her PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file
in the office to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. After several slides were
discussed, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this item to the next Board
meeting. This work session was held from 5:50 p.m. until 6:20 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 092711 -6 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
618 September 27, 2011
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution adopting a Legislative Program for the 2012 Session
of the Virginia General Assembly and petitioning the General
Assembly to favorably consider the topics and issues addressed
herein (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Based on the consensus of the Board during work session, this item was
postponed until the October 11, 2011, Board of Supervisors meeting.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Scott and Debbie George to rezone approximately
5.02 acres from R -1, Low Density Residential, District to AR,
Agricultural /Residential, District, located at 4211 Harborwood
Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson explained this petition is to allow for cows and chickens on
the George's property as a hobby for their autistic son. The Planning Commission held
a public hearing on September 6, 2011, and one citizen spoke in favor. The Planning
Commission approved four to zero. Mr. Thompson explained the petitioner was here to
answer any questions. Chairman Church opened the public hearing. There were no
citizens to speak. Chairman Church inquired of Mr. Thompson if there had been any
citizen concerns with Mr. Thompson responding in the negative.
ORDINANCE 092711 -7 REZONING 5.02 ACRES FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R -1) TO
September 27, 2011 619
AGRICULTURAL /RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (AR) LOCATED AT
4211 HARBORWOOD ROAD, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO. 074.00 -01- 16.00- 0000), UPON THE
APPLICATION OF SCOTT AND DEBORAH GEORGE
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 23, 2011, and
the second reading and public hearing were held September 27, 2011; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on September 6, 2011; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
approximately 5.02 acres, as described herein, and located at 4211 Harborwood Road
(Tax Map Number 074.00 -01- 16.00 -0000) in the Catawba Magisterial District, is hereby
changed from the zoning classification of R -1, Low Density Residential District, to the
zoning classification of AR, Agricultural /Residential District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Scott and Deborah
George
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron pin on the north side of Va. Sec. Rte. 639 corner to
the property of Blue Ridge Memorial Gardens and corner to property of
Edna F. Hubble, the property being herein described, said point of
beginning being 25 feet from the center line of Route 639; thence leaving
Route 639 and following the line between the Blue Ridge Memorial
Gardens property and Hubble property and generally along a fence N. 15
42' 33" E. 591.09 feet to an iron pin corner to property of Clyde Collie;
thence following a line between the Collie property and the Hubble
property S. 81 26' 30" E. 354.15 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing
along the westerly side of a 20' roadway owned by Clyde Collie and the
Hubble line S. 8 33' 30" W. 605.49 feet to a point; thence continuing with
a line between the Collie property and the Hubble property S. 18 24' 50"
W. 54.28 feet to a point on the north side of Route 639 and 25 feet from
the center line with a curve to the left whose arc is 26.41 feet, whose
radius is 425.00 feet, and whose chord is N. 84 38' 04" W., 26.40 feet to a
point; thence continuing with Route 639 N. 86 24' 52" W. 33.47 feet;
thence with a curve to the right whose arc is 107.77 feet, whose radius is
250.00 feet, and whose chord is N. 74 03' 55" W. 106.93 feet to a point;
thence continuing with Route 639, N. 61 42' 58" W. 75.65 feet to a point;
thence continuing with Route 639 and property herein described with a
620 September 27, 2011
curve to the left whose arc is 95.00 feet, whose radius is 505.00 feet and
whose chord is N. 67 06' 20" W. 94.86 feet to a point; thence continuing
with Route 639, N. 72 29' 42" W., 90.66 feet to the BEGINNING and
containing 5.02 acres and being shown on map made by T. P. Parker &
Son, Engineers & Surveyors, Ltd., dated October 15, 1979, a copy of said
plat being of record in Deed Book 1138, page 394, in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke Virginia; and
BEING the same property conveyed unto Darlene Kinnan Brown from
Mildred I. Kinnan by deed dated February 9, 1995, and recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in
Deed Book 1467, page 1035.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. Proposed Bent Mountain Elementary School lease (B. Clayton
Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman explained that the Roanoke County School Board is in the
process of investigating the possibility of conveying the Bent Mountain school facility to
Roanoke County and has asked that negotiations on the lease be suspended until a
decision has been made. Mr. Goodman stated it is his recommendation to postpone
the public hearing and second reading until a decision has been made.
Supervisor Flora asked in the event that it would go down the same road
staff is heading down now, which he does not believe will happen, would the process
have to be restarted. Supervisor Flora then asked if the Board could go ahead and hold
the public hearing, but continue it indefinitely. Mr. Mahoney advised that was possible if
that is what the Board wanted to do. Chairman Church opened the public hearing.
There were no citizens to speak on this item.
Supervisor Flora moved this item be continued until such time the County
Administrator has a definitive response from the School Board. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
September 27, 2011 621
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
3. Proposed lease with Bent Mountain Center Nonprofit Group (B.
Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman explained this was a sublease with the nonprofit group to be
established for the running of the Bent Mountain Community Center. It is his
recommendation to move forward and make any minor changes as needed. Mr.
Goodman advised the 501(c)3 has not been filed because there is a cost associated
with this and in consultation with their representative; the community groups was
looking for some direction from the Board as to whether this would be approved or not
so they could proceed.
Supervisor Flora suggested the same procedure be used as in the
previous agenda item because the whole dynamics could change.
Supervisor Elswick advised the lease would be same whether Roanoke
County owned the property or the School Board owned it. The essential ingredients of
the lease would be the same. Therefore, there should not be any reason the Board
could go ahead and approve the concept and the wording as is with the provision the
wording could be changed if the property is owned by Roanoke County instead of the
School Board. He stated they have worked such a long time on this. Chairman Church
asked Mr. Mahoney to weigh in on Mr. Elswick's request. Mr. Mahoney stated if it is the
intent of the Board to substantially agree with respect to the key items in the lease,
whether the County was the fee - simple owner of the property or the County was acting
as tenant and subleasing to the Community Group, he believes if the Board is
comfortable with that it would only take minor modifications to the current draft lease
that is before the Board to reflect those two different situations. The key element that
he was attempting to address in the lease was based on the certain commitments made
that the School Board wanted to add those commitments into any lease and make that
applicable to any sublessee. If the County were the fee - simple owner of the property,
he believes he could delete those items from the lease. In his opinion, it would not
change the substantive elements of the deal. If the Board feels differently, that would
be another matter.
Supervisor Altizer thinks the citizens, rightfully so, need direction. He
does not know what it is going to cost. He is not sure if this property comes over to
Roanoke County whether the Board would need to have deliberative discussions as far
as this now becomes a different "animal" if the County owns the property and has one
hundred percent (100 %) of the maintenance. The Board is sitting here talking about a
lease, which a lot of hard work has been done and a lot of common ground that has
been bridged between the County Administrator and the citizens there. For him, there
needs to be some divinity. He does not think he would go out as an individual and sign
a lease or negotiate a lease or to buy a piece of property that he does not own. In his
622 September 27, 2011
opinion, Roanoke County does not own, there is no lease agreement and he thinks that
infers some things if you go ahead and approve a lease when you do not have
ownership. He feels these two agenda items go together. The Board needs clarity on
what is really going to happen. He suggests the Board move forward as was done on
the prior agenda item and wait until the Board gets some clarity and then figure out all of
the ramifications are from a maintenance standpoint.
Mr. Goodman explained it is not typical, he was attempting to address so
that staff could move forward with the citizens group.
Supervisor Elswick stated the lease does not really get completed until the
School Board says it is okay for the County to lease the gym facility from them. In that
case, if the Board approves the lease and then the School Board says no, the Board
would not want to lease it to the County, then this lease would be voided. If, in fact, the
School Board surpluses the facility, then the lease would be valid because it would be
with the County. He stated he thinks they are separate.
Supervisor Moore stated she concurred with what Mr. Altizer had said,
and thinks the County would be accepting some undue liability if the Board went forward
with a lease and does not have the authority to do so from the School Board. She
stated she felt the Board should wait and see what the School Board is going to do and
then make a decision.
Chairman Church asked Mr. Goodman if the Board would incur some
unforeseen liability. He stated he thinks the Board wants to see the community be
successful in this endeavor. Would there be any unknown liability by moving forward?
Mr. Mahoney stated liability comes in many different shades. Liability to the community
group, he does not think so. Liability with respect to the School Board, he hopes not
and does not believe that is the case. He stated the key issue with respect to the
relationship between the Board and the School Board revolves around who will have
responsibility for what he terms major capital repairs. These issues were addressed in
the lease agreement. If the School Board declares the property surplus, it reverts to the
Board of Supervisors and then the Board is facing liabilities and responsibilities with
respect to major repairs, but this is true with respect to any parcel of property that the
School Board owns by virtue of the State code. The School Board can declare the
property surplus and then it automatically transfers with recordation of the deed to the
local governing body. He stated he feels there is potential liability there, but thinks the
liability was something that the Board of Supervisors was well aware of in any
transaction with respect to the School Board.
Supervisor Elswick stated the understanding would be if the Board
approves leasing to the community, the understanding is that the County would have to
have agreement from the School Board or own the property and so the lease would
become moot if that happened. He stated the Board knows what is really going to
happen and that is the School Board is going to surplus it and the County is going to
own it. So, the County is not incurring any risk by going ahead and approving the lease
at the time contingent upon either having an agreement with the School Board or
September 27, 2011 623
owning it.
Chairman Church inquired of Mr. Goodman if he has substantial
information that the School Board is going to surplus this property. Mr. Goodman
explained he has been notified the School Board is considering it and if they move
forward they would like to have community meetings on Bent Mountain to discuss the
transfer of the property to the County. He stated he does not know definitively they are
going to surplus the property. The fact that they are discussing it clearly shows there is
an interest in it. There has been no formal decision that he is aware of by the School
Board to convey the property to the County. Chairman Church inquired if any Board
member had been contacted by the School Board concerning this. Supervisor Altizer
responded he was not aware of anything definitive. Supervisor Flora stated he had a
discussion with one of the School Board members. It is his understanding they are now
leaning in that direction. Supervisor Flora stated his point is that he does not want to
vote for a lease that is going to be "tweaked." He would rather vote on a lease that he
knows exactly what is in there and exactly what is going to be signed. He stated it is
just a comfort level that he needs.
Chairman Church opened and closed the public hearing. The following
citizen spoke on this matter. Andrea B. Krochalis of 9428 Patterson Drive, Bent
Mountain, Virginia stated she was not planning to speak, but does want to reassure the
Board whichever the ownership goes is fine with the citizens. It is well documented in
our survey results the community is committed to fund raising, volunteering and would
like to have use of the gym with our target because there is a lot of school storage
material there now, but certainly have in their minds a five -year plan on how the facility
could be used in conjunction with the County and Parks and Recreation and whoever.
What she is most concerned with is that the Board understands that the community has
discussed fund raising, we do have papers with an attorney to file incorporation into a
591(c)(c), it is on its way and is part of the process. She stated they have a meeting
tomorrow to finalize. She stated she wanted the Board to be assured that they plan to
be there and to use it once it has been released, but for the community the step of
having some indication from the Board that the County is going to do that means they
can continue to move forward with their filings, because people are paying for out -of-
pocket. As Chair of that group, she wants to be sure that they are not incorporating with
nowhere to go. She stated they are waiting on the Board. They are ready and did have
a very good return from the community on the survey, twenty -five percent (25 %) which
in survey research is very high; usually it is eight to ten (8 to 10). Our highest
responses were, "yes, I will help support it with volunteering or fund raising or
donations." We already have a couple of donations waiting in the wings. In terms of the
community's commitment, it is there. They are ready and eager to work on this. A lot of
the maintenance ends up in the hands of Parks and Recreation because they have the
land. The School and the Library sit in a park, so they are already responsible for that.
The community does a lot there in terms of paying for the trail and maintaining the
butterfly garden and some Eagle Scouts have put projects that created the trail and the
624 September 27, 2011
deck that goes into the bird - watching area. So, there is already quite an extensive
community commitment on the grounds, it is very tangible. We paid for part of the
library. We have some history with the County and just wanted to make that clear on
behalf of the citizens and they have generally had a great experience working with Mr.
Goodman and Mr. Elswick, etc. So, they are ready to roll when the Board is.
Chairman Church then asked Mr. Goodman if the School Board had a
meeting pertaining to this item in the last few days with Mr. Goodman advising there
was a meeting last Thursday night and received this information late Thursday, early
Friday in regards to their interest to investigate their conveyance of the property to the
Board of Supervisors versus a lease. They have not taken specific action other than to
explore the possibility.
Supervisor Elswick stated he just wanted to assure the Board and advised
this is going to happen, at least the gym. There are going to be things happening in the
facility in a few years and some may be fairly immediate that will relieve the County of a
burden, if the County ends up with the facility. There is maintenance expense involved
and any facility that is not utilized tends to deteriorate fairly rapidly and with the
community using it as well as the potential for Blue Ridge Parkway personnel, Fiddlefest
and Fiddle and Banjo Club and some other groups doing performances there. The
facility will be kept in better shape. It is sort of a cost avoidance situation; instead of the
County spending a lot of money he anticipates the community will be able to cover a lot
of the costs based on the indications that the people are going to really support it. It
could probably save the County money by allowing the citizens to use it and not let it
deteriorate and generate funds to cover. There are a lot of costs that would cost
$10,000 to $15,000 that the people will do for free.
Supervisor Elswick moved that this item be continued until at such time
the County Administrator has a definitive response from the School Board. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
4. Ordinance authorizing the granting of a ten (10) foot utility
easement to Verizon Virginia Inc. on property owned by the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 097.05 -01-
26.00) for the purpose of an underground communication system
to the new South County Library, Cave Spring Magisterial District
(Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance and advised this was the second
reading and there were no changes from the first reading held on September 13, 2011.
This easement will follow the same lines as the Appalachian Power (AEP) easement
and will be underground. Supervisor Moore asked if Mr. Mahoney knew how far
September 27, 2011 625
underground these lines will be with Mr. Mahoney responding in the negative.
Chairman Church opened and closed the public hearing. There were no citizens to
speak on this item.
ORDINANCE 092711 -8 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF A
TEN (10) FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT TO VERIZON VIRGINIA
INC. ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NO. 097.05 -01- 26.00)
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN UNDERGROUND
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM TO THE NEW SOUTH COUNTY
LIBRARY, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Verizon Virginia Inc. (Verizon) requires a permanent utility easement
for purposes of providing communication service to the new South County Library; and
WHEREAS, granting this utility easement for an underground communications
system is necessary for the operation of the new South County Library; and
WHEREAS, the proposed utility easement to the South County Library 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:
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 September 13, 2011, and a
second reading and public hearing was held on September 27, 2011
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and
is hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Verizon Virginia Inc.
for a utility easement.
3. That donation to Verizon Virginia Inc. of a utility easement for purposes of
an underground communication system, as shown on a plat number BCC - 88879 -R and
attached sketch "A" titled "Verizon Virginia Inc. Right -of -Way Plat" prepared by Verizon
Virginia Inc., 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 Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
626 September 27, 2011
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke.
Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane in the Cave Spring District stated
she is here again to express her concerns about Roanoke County membership in ICLEI.
RCCLEAR repeatedly stated that they are a local group of volunteers concerned about
the environment and she believes that their motives are good. They state they only use
the ICLEI software and information, but that is contradicted when you look at their goals
and ICLEI mandates. They are exactly the same. So what conclusions are we to draw
except they are ICLEI. If RCCLEAR is indeed local, why do they need an outside group
mandating goals? Why are you giving away your obligation to do what is right for our
County to an outside group? Some say that being a member of ICLEI is good for local
businesses planning to relocate yet our economic development and investing in the
future sites do not mention ICLEI. How do you explain businesses locating to Virginia
localities that are not in ICLEI? Wouldn't being a member of an outside group that
dictates what you do seem at lot less appealing to a business in the County that thinks
and plans for itself? One of ICLEI's goals and therefore one of RCCLEAR's goals is to
reduce CO2 emissions by thirty percent (30 %). Using the IPCC research, a thirty
percent (30 %) reduction would be a reversion to what was used in 1990. How does the
County plan to implement this. To enforce goals as ICLEI expects, we the County
citizens could save some prospects that are not acceptable. Here is an example from
ICLEI's website of programs they consider exemplary. Cincinnati — one way to meet
their goals was to completely renovate all existing city -owned structures to be
environmentally friendly. The cost was $14.5 million taxpayer dollars. Orange County —
home account for twenty percent (20 %) of the green house gas effective emissions.
They gave all homeowners a $1,000 to upgrade their home to be more energy efficient,
taxpayer dollars. Fort Collins determined that cars must come off the road to meet their
goals so they increased bus routes to outlying areas. All the cost of the new buses and
drivers — taxpayer dollars. ICLEI USA homepage now advertised sustainability
accelerated. They are giving up to a starter program available in early 2012, which has
eighty -one (81) goals because "communities needs define goals." Is our community not
capable of deciding what we need? What looks good on paper can have future
ramifications that you do not want and the citizens will not tolerate. She stated she can
think of no reason for our County to remain in ICLEI. There is no issue that cannot be
addressed here without ICLEI mandates. The time for us to get out is now.
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke and has been a County
resident for nineteen (19) years. The UN Agenda 21 pie has two major ingredients.
The first ingredient is known as the wildlands project with its UDA speak. This
ingredient seeks to claim loss of land across the country through various means,
September 27, 2011 627
voluntary means such as conservation easements, agreements made between
landowners and land trusts or counties voluntarily adding UDA language to their
comprehensive plan. Gradually, the mandates start showing up. A recent State
mandate imposed on counties in Virginia is one of the first local examples of this. The
second major ingredient to the Agenda 21 pie is the perceived need to modify our
energy consumption patterns in an attempt to reduce man -made CO2 emissions.
Currently the face of this in the County is a voluntary ICLEI milestone implementation.
This agenda is based on the theory that man -made CO2 emissions are appreciably
contributing to global warming when compared to all natural sources of CO2 emissions.
That theory is still up for debate on a national and international level. Where was the
due diligence on the County's part to hear both sides of the debate prior to quickly
joining ICLEI in 2007? By joining ICLEI, the County has by default ended any debate
about the man -made global theory as it might affect future County policy making. ICLEI
provided software to obtain the baseline levels; that data was calculated by and
presented to the Board by local experts who are convinced the theory is not a theory but
instead is true. He expects from the other side of this debate could have been brought
into peer review these findings. As the County moves through ICLEI milestones four
and five and finds difficulty approaching its thirty percent (30 %) reduction goals in years
to come, it will likely find that it may likely feel compelled to start mandating certain
behavioral modifiers on its citizens. For example, currently RCCLEAR is providing
voluntary energy audits for residents and commercial properties in an attempt to
contribute to the County's three percent (3 %) yearly reduction. As you know, many
times mandates start out as being voluntary. I request to know if RCCLEAR has any
remote intention of recommending portions of this energy audit become mandatory in
any capacity between now and the end of the program in 2020.
Mr. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty lane stated he is a Landowner /Taxpayer,
Roanoke CO Resident since 1956. The Declaration of Independence, the first published
document of the American people was forged to assert our unalienable rights. Rights
granted by GOD. The difference between unalienable and inalienable? Inalienable
rights are those which the possessor may give away GOD, incomparably beneficent in
generosity, bestowed us with unalienable rights, for all of perpetuity, but that doesn't
mean that thieves don't come stalking at the back door, under the cover of darkness to
rob us of our liberty or in this case, under the guise of "Sustainable Development ". This
is a new word for ICLEI.... The International Council of Legislative Environmental
Initiatives wasn't sugar coated enough for all to swallow so now the word play, at play.
"sustainable development" maybe feels, looks, tastes better. Last meeting he
mentioned almost all of the socialist word play involving at our local level. They believe
humans are contaminating the earth and that they know better how to manage our lives.
That way is their way, herding everyone, as livestock into tightly quartered urban
development areas. That does not play here in our constitutional republic. It was wrong
here in 2007, no matter how long wrong, thousands of years, still wrong. We the people
need to fix it. Our reps will not. We have a Declaration of Independence. We have a
628 September 27, 2011
Constitution of The United States of America. All as our shinning light of Liberty,
individual unalienable rights from GOD as our founding documents; does matter. My
concern here from the beginning of my presentations is the backward governance we
are subjected to and the Board deals with that every day. Local government is our
founding documents. Being bullied around by an out of control federal and state
government is not our foundation. Local government is our foundation. The panhandle
of Virginia matters not to feds, matters not to Northern Virginia. Starting with our local
government, let us remove all socialist NGO's (non - government organizations)
influence. Let's start with ICLEI, ICLEI must go.
Mrs. Robert Hardin from 3044 Stoneybrook Drive in the Castle Rock
subdivision stated she heard a man, Rob Astorino speaking on a television program
about the fact he is a county executive, which is similar to being a County administrator
in West Chester County, New York and he was talking about problems he was having
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and as she listened to
him, she thought oh my gosh this sounds like it might be more than just HUD that he is
having a problem with. She stated she did some research and found out a way to get in
touch with him and sent him a letter entitled, "you may be fighting more than HUD" and
explained what she understood about ICLEI and Agenda 21. About a week later,
maybe sooner, she received a letter from a Secretary thanking her for her
communication and on September 19 received an email, which she has provided to
the Board of Supervisors, County Administrator County Attorney, Deputy Director of
Planning and also has copies for the Planning Commission. She stated her husband
has copies in case anyone present would like a copy after the meeting. She proceeded
to read part of his letter because it concerns her and still makes her wonder if ICLEI or
Agenda 21 is part of their problems. He stated "when I took office and I became
responsible for implementing the affordable housing settlement that was agreed to by
my predecessor and approved by the Westchester Board of Legislators..." "Now the
federal government is attempting to make demands that by their own admission go
beyond the four corners of the settlement, which would dramatically increase the cost of
the settlement from $50 million to over $100 million and dismantle local zoning rights."
He stated "HUD is attempting to use Westchester as a test case for the rest of the
country" and he added he thought she might be interested in today's Wall Street Journal
editorial. Copies have been provided. She proceeded to read several things from this
article. "In 2009 Westchester's then - county executive reached a settlement with HUD to
end a lawsuit brought by a liberal activist group. The suit alleged that Westchester had
accepted federal grants while making false claims about "affordable housing" in the
county. Never mind that prior to this, HUD officials in republican and democratic
administration had praised Westchester's housing practices. Mr. Spano agreed to take
the deal instead of going to trail because he did not want to put federal funds for the
county at risk." At the end of the editorial, "the problem is not Westchester's affordable
housing policies. The problem is a government mentality that wants to determine where
people should live.
September 27, 2011 629
John Brill of 1727 Memorial Avenue in Roanoke City stated he would like
to discuss the premise behind the green initiatives that citizens keep hearing about and
that is man -made climate change. He stated he has an article that discusses data from
ice cores from both Greenland and Antarctica. He has made copies for the Board. The
information that man -made global warming advocates like to cite is the last five hundred
(500) years and we can see from 1400 to 1800 temperatures were somewhat stable
and then an increase from 1800 on, but is this rise in temperature unusual. No. Going
back to 800, where we see from 800 to 1200 there was a warming period known as the
medieval warm period which dwarfs the warming we are currently experiencing over the
course of the past two centuries. But is the medieval warm period itself unusual. No.
Going back to 3,000 BC, we see natural fluctuations and the earth's temperature that
dwarfs the medieval warm period. As much as the medieval warm period dwarfs the
rise in temperatures that we are currently experiencing this past two hundred (200)
years. Many proposals that come before the Board of Supervisors rely on the false
premise that we need to regulate CO2 because mankind is driving climate change. This
data shows that the temperature fluctuations that we have experienced within the past
two hundred (200) years are well within the natural occurring fluctuations of the earth's
temperature. The earth is going to warm and cool of its own accord. Therefore, crafting
policies and funding groups that aspire to moderate the world's temperature will be
about as effective as legislating the earth to stand still. He stated he hopes the Board of
Supervisors will keep this information in mind in the future. There is more information in
the packet and he hopes the Board will review it carefully.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Elswick stated it is good to see citizens come out because they
are the ones that elect the Board and that is why the Board is here. The Board is
supposed to represent the citizens and when they have an issue, he thinks the Board
needs to respond to it and investigate it. He stated he supports what RCCLEAR is
attempting to do. He stated he does not need an audit to tell you there are too many
lights on in this room. He does not need someone to do an audit of his house to tell him
to turn the lights off and he just left a conference room where he was freezing to death.
If the County is serious and not just talking and if the County is serious about controlling
the amount of energy it uses then we ought to adopt some serious ways of doing it. For
instance, putting mercury bulbs in County facilities that does a little bit. It also exposes
future generations to mercury in the landfill. In spite of what some people say, Anne
Marie Green told me the County recycles mercury bulbs; that is baloney. There are no
recycling sites in this County for mercury bulbs that he is aware of; there may be one in
Anne Marie Green's office, but there not anywhere else, not here, not upstairs. The
government has allocated $74 billion for alternative energy. Most of it going to energy
sources that are not sustainable without massive subsidies. Eventually the subsidies go
away; those energy sources will go away also because no developer will do it on their
630 September 27, 2011
own. At the same time, we say we want to control CO2. CO2 comes from coal -fired
plants. We are a country with massive amounts of natural gas. Should we not take
most of $74 billion and convert coal -fired plants to natural gas plants and eliminate the
CO2 problem? Has common sense gone out the window? Of course we ought to
explore all kinds of alternative energies, but if coal -fired plants are our big problem and
we have lots of natural gas and $74 billion, then let us convert the coal -fired plants to
natural gas and stop the pollution. In a recent issue of National Geographic there are
new designs for nuclear plants that are absolutely confirmed safe. They shut
themselves down, they do not have to rely on water cooling and the interesting thing is
the engineers who have come up with the new designs for nuclear plants that are safe
are not from the United States. We have billions of dollars to throw around then why
don't we invest some in exploring new avenues of nuclear energy that we do not have
to worry about?
Supervisor Moore invited everyone to come out this weekend, Saturday,
October 1, 2011, to help with cleanup of the Roanoke River. This will be held at
Wasena Park and starts at 8:30 a.m. and we will be there until the river gets cleaned up.
She also thanked all of the nonprofit organizations, there are a lot of them in Roanoke,
and they do great things for the community. She attended the first legislative support
kick -off this morning at Feed America, because of this nonprofit organization a lot of
families will not go hungry. ICLEI is also a nonprofit organization. We can learn from
their resources. They collect information from all over the world and if we will take an
opportunity to listen to their resources, we have an opportunity to insure that our valley
will be kept safer and cleaner for the next generation, we can expand on new ideas and
we will be able to save money. Supervisor Moore also thanked everyone for coming out
the past weekend to the old Starkey Elementary School. There was a Starkey reunion,
which was an incredible event. It was awesome to see everyone and hear all of the
stories that were told.
Supervisor Church offered congratulations to both Glenvar and Northside,
footballs teams especially. Northside beat Salem for the first time in a century, maybe.
It was wonderful to see the Northside group and the Glenvar group both victorious. He
stated he thinks it has been eight (8) years in a row that Salem has taken Northside
down. Into overtime, it was very good, exciting contest and the crowd was ecstatic.
Both coaches, Mr. Clifford at Glenvar and Mr. Torrance at Northside are doing a
wonderful job and he really appreciates all they are doing.
September 27, 2011 63 1
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.to the October 11,
2011 meeting with work session to begin at 1:00 p.m.
Supf�itted by: Approved by:
Deborah C. Ja s ;jJo B. "Butch" Church
Clerk to the Board Chairman
632 September 27, 2011
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY