Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/10/2012 - RegularJanuary 10, 2012 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of January 2012. 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. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church; Vice - Chairman Charlotte A. Moore; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Richard C. Flora MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Director of Public Information; Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board IN RE: ORGANIZATION OF COUNTY BOARD 1. Election of Officers a. Chairman Supervisor Church nominated Supervisor Moore to serve as Chairman. Supervisor Moore declined the nomination in order to spend more time relating to the citizens and conducting her own town hall meetings. Supervisor Moore nominated Supervisor Flora to serve as Chairman. Supervisor Flora was elected by the following recorded Vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Flora b. Vice Chairman Supervisor Moore nominated Supervisor Altizer to serve as Vice Chairman. Supervisor Altizer was elected by the following recorded vote: K January 10, 2012 AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Altizer IN RE: RECESS Chairman Flora declared the meeting in recess at 2:02 p.m. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte A. Moore IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Pastoral Intern Jason Ginsburg from St. John's Lutheran Church. 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 adding a briefing to the agenda to bring the Board an update on the vandalism of the Roanoke County solid waste vehicles by Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services. There were no objections. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of appreciation to Joseph B. "Butch" Church for his service as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in 2011 All supervisors offered their thanks to Supervisor Church for his service. RESOLUTION 011012 -1 OF APPRECIATION TO JOSEPH B. "BUTCH" CHURCH FOR HIS SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN 2011 January 10, 2012 3 WHEREAS, Joseph B. "Butch" Church served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors during 2010 and 2011; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Church's term as Chairman, many noteworthy achievements took place: ➢ Opening of the Clearbrook WalMart ➢ Groundbreaking on the new Glenvar Library ➢ Opening of new South County Library ➢ Relocation of the Miller -Motte Technical Center ➢ Further development of the Catawba Sustainability Center ➢ New Masons Cove Elementary School WHEREAS, the following other accomplishments also occurred during Mr. Church's term as Chairman: ➢ Launched the new website, which has been recognized as a winner in the Center for Digital Government's 2010 Best of the Web Contact and received the Governor's Technology Award ➢ Roanoke County received the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) 2011 Achievement Award for Communications ➢ Roanoke County Fire and Rescue received two Regional Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Awards ➢ Roanoke County's Public Information Office received the 2011 Silver Anvil Award ➢ Balanced budget with no tax increase or reduction of services WHEREAS, during the ongoing Glenvar Community Comprehensive Plan, Chairman Church emphasized his belief in government from the ground up versus top down, which encouraged active and increased citizen participation; and WHEREAS, Chairman Church's belief in open communications was demonstrated by his willingness to provide an open forum for citizens to speak prior to the decision being made at all Board of Supervisor meetings; WHEREAS, Chairman Church chose a positive approach to governing by encouraging transparency and prompt responses to citizens; and WHEREAS, Chairman Church worked diligently throughout the year to represent the citizens of Roanoke County by emphasizing sound financial strategies and practices and promoting regional projects and initiatives to benefit all the residents of the Roanoke Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its deepest appreciation to JOSEPH B. "BUTCH" CHURCH for his service as Chairman during 2011 and for his belief in democracy and championing of citizen participation in local government. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora 4 January 10, 2012 NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Church 2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Thomas S. "Pete" Haislip, Director of Parks Recreation and Tourism, upon his retirement after more than eighteen (18) years of service In attendance for this recognition were Mr. Haislip and his wife Becky. All supervisors thanked Mr. Haislip for his years of service and congratulated him on his retirement. RESOLUTION 011012 -2 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO THOMAS S. "PETE" HAISLIP, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND TOURISM, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Thomas S. "Pete" Haislip was hired on September 20, 1993, as Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; and WHEREAS, Mr. Haislip retired on December 31, 2011, after more than eighteen (18) years of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County's Parks and Recreation Department, Pete's innovative spirit and leadership, along with a talented and hard working staff team, guided the department in the development of thirty -one (31) new athletic fields, seven (7) new parks, three (3) community centers, greenways and trails, programs and numerous major expansions and improvements to the park system throughout the County; and WHEREAS, He led the successful 1996 renovation campaign of the abandoned YMCA camp, to the reopening of Camp Roanoke in 2001. Notable projects and achievements include the opening of the Brambleton Center, then the Roanoke Valley's largest public community center; the partnership with Roanoke Catholic, which developed Vinyard Park into a joint use, state -of- the -art, athletic facility and park; and WHEREAS, Pete also worked to develop the Roanoke Valley's first greenway in Roanoke County's Garst Mill Park. In addition, over 400 acres of new parkland was added to the county system, over seven (7) miles of greenways and trails were built, and over $2,000,000 in parks improvements were made by community organizations through the innovative Capital Improvement Incentive Fund; and WHEREAS, Pete's crowning achievement was the 2009 opening of Green Ridge Recreation Center. The 77,000 square foot state -of- the -art, multi - generational facility includes an indoor aquatics center, gymnasium, activity room, walking track, multi- purpose rooms, childcare area and "Splash Valley ", the outdoor water aquatics park. January 10, 2012 r J Green Ridge has already become a destination attraction for many and has made a significant contribution to the local economy; and WHEREAS, Under Pete's leadership the Roanoke County Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism received numerous state wide awards including Virginia Recreation and Parks Society's Best New Program, Best New Facility, Best Promotions and Best New Events. For the development of Green Ridge and other regional accomplishments, Pete received the 2011 Presidents Tourism Excellence Award given by the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau; and WHEREAS, In addition to his service to the field of community Parks and Recreation, Pete has always been a believer in regionalism, serving on many organization Boards and committees including the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority Board of Directors, Roanoke Valley YMCA Executive Committee, Roanoke Valley Sports Marketing Committee, the Roanoke Valley Greenways Committee and the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau; and WHEREAS, Pete was also instrumental in promoting the Roanoke Valley and supporting economic development through successful regional sports marketing and tourism initiatives that have attracted major events including national youth and adult softball tournaments, the 2006 BG US Challenge event and the 2007 Outdoor Writers Association of America Annual Conference, which brought outdoor writers from across the country to the Roanoke Valley; and in celebration of his many achievements' throughout the years, the Virginia Recreation and Park's Society awarded Pete it's 2011 Distinguished Service Award. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to THOMAS S. "PETE" HAISLIP for eighteen (18) years and three (3) months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None 3. Presentation from the U. S. Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps League and appropriation of $15,000 proceeds from the 15th annual Marine Mud Run (Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) A- 011012 -3 6 January 10, 2012 Commandant Mike Shepherd of the U. S. Marine Corps League presented the check for $15,000 to Chairman Flora and Doug Bount. Also in attendance were Gene Nervo, Moses Stevens Tom Bedwell, Roger Flippen and Dell Flippen. Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation to accept and appropriate the $15,000 contribution from the Marine Corps League. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on the vandalism to the Roanoke County solid waste vehicles (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) Ms. Green advised that sometime between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on January 9, 2012, solid waste vehicles were vandalized on Kessler Mill Road. She advised there were eighteen (18) windshields broken on fifteen (15) trucks and has put solid waste out of service for the day. She explained the vandalism was to all of the automated trucks and rear loaders that were parked there. The Police are investigating and feel it was probably a deliberate act to put them out of service for the day. She then advised they have had a wonderful response, both from vendors, from the County garage and the City of Roanoke. She indicated that the good news is that between taking windshields from trucks that are currently not running and have some in stock, solid waste will be back on the roads tomorrow morning. She further indicated this will cost taxpayers because Roanoke County is self- insured. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution establishing reasonable charges incurred by the County in responding to Freedom of Information Act requests for public records (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney explained the resolution and advised these charges had not been changed since the resolution was originally adopted in 1983. RESOLUTION 011012 -4 ESTABLISHING REASONABLE CHARGES INCURRED BY THE COUNTY IN RESPONDING TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS January 10, 2012 7 WHEREAS, on September 27, 1983, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County adopted Resolution 83 -181 which established fees charged for copies made on the County's photocopy machines for personal use and /or general public use; and WHEREAS, said resolution has not been revised or updated since that time; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County intends to establish a schedule for recovering its actual costs incurred in accessing, duplicating, supplying or searching for public records requested by citizens under the Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, this resolution is in compliance with Section 2.2- 3704.F of the Code of Virginia. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1. Resolution 83 -181 is hereby rescinded. 2. That the following schedule of reasonable charges in accessing, duplicating, supplying, or searching for public records requested by citizens under the Freedom of Information Act is hereby established: CHARGES a. Generally, when minimum search time is required, there will be no charge for the viewing only of an official document. When extensive search time is required to provide the document(s) for viewing, or when copies of such documents are requested, charges are based on reimbursement to the County for the cost of searching for and reproducing such documents. If the charges to search for and reproduce the documents are expected to exceed $200, the County may require payment of the estimated costs in advance by the requestor. If such advance payment is required, the time allowed for response stops running until the requestor responds. b. Current charges for the costs incurred copying official County records have been calculated based on the costs of office machines and materials and are as follows: Office Copy Reproduction: Five pages, or fewer, no charge; thereafter $0.10 per black and white copy and $0.16 per color copy Audio or Video Tapes: $5.00 per tape (with tape provided by County) Audio or Video CDs: $5.00 per CD Maps: 24 by 36 inch maps - $4.75 per copy 36 by 48 inch maps - $7.70 per copy C. In addition to the copying costs the County will charge an hourly rate for the staff person(s) searching, retrieving, copying or otherwise preparing the records requested. d. Roanoke County waives all charges for requests that total $25.00 or less. e. For documents or other requests not specifically listed in this section, the County Administrator shall calculate the charge based on the actual cost to the County of searching for and providing the document, including but not limited to any associated labor or administrative costs. 8 January 10, 2012 f. Charges may be paid in cash or by check made payable to the Treasurer, Roanoke County. A receipt (receipts may be obtained through the appropriate department or the Treasurer's Office) will be provided to the requestor. 3. That this resolution is effective from and after the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None 2. Request to grant an additional holiday on Monday, December 31, 2012 (Vice Chairman Michael W. Altizer) A- 011012 -5 Supervisor Altizer advised he would like to amend the 2012 holiday schedule to add an additional holiday for December 31, 2012, in recognition of New Years Day. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the amending of the 2012 holiday schedule to grant an additional holiday. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance repealing and readopting Section 30 -87 -7 (B) 5 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance which established general standards for noise for large and utility wind energy systems (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney explained the request for this ordinance and advised if approved at first reading, it would go back to the Planning Commission for its' recommendation and will have ninety (90) days to make its report to the Board. Supervisor Elswick stated if we put large windmills on our mountaintops it is a tremendous impact on the people who might have to live near them. He stated he thinks the Board should do all it can to insure that the way of life for the people who live on these mountaintops is not changed dramatically. As the ordinance is currently written, the sixty (60) decibel requirement is probably thirty (30) times louder that people in rural areas are accustomed to. He stated he just hoped the Board can give a little more thought and a little more time and listen to the people who might have to live near January 10, 2012 9 the installations. He explained what has happened so far is that planning staff attended two meetings at James Madison and Dabney Lancaster sponsored by the wind companies. As a result, their recommendations initially for the ordinance were extremely lenient and favored the wind companies. An example was they said you could locate an almost five hundred foot tall windmill within four hundred and eighty eight (488) feet of people who lived in the rural areas and the sixty (60) decibel limit. The Planning Commission modified that, but the Planning Commission was in the dark as most of us are about what the impacts are for these kinds of machines He stated he asked Planning staff to speak with the Planning Commission and say that in light of the fact that they had listened to the wind company presentations twice, he thought it would be appropriate for those who live on the mountain and he thinks they call themselves, Blue Ridge Mountain Defenders, and they have a very nice presentation and they have made it to a number of groups in the County. He asked that those people be allowed to speak to the Planning Commission and our County planners. They were refused. Our responsibility, as elected officials of the County is first to the citizens of this County and as this ordinance is written, it is not responsible to the people who might have to live near it. He would like for us to listen to those people and continue to think about whether or not what we have in this ordinance is correct and that is why he is bringing this up and it is his district that is being considered for the first installation and would like the Board's support in continuing a conversation on it. The following citizens spoke on this item. Tammy Belinksy of 9544 Pine Forest Road in Cooper Hill, Virginia stated as an aside, when she made a Freedom of Information Act request it was curious to hear that most business is done by email because when she requested all the information on the initial ordinance, she received zero electronic mail message in her response to the FOIA act. The levels of noise associated with industrial activity is that an industrial noise and your ordinance plots down an industrial use in the middle of rural and agricultural land where people are living and if you think that noise ordinance is adequate then the Board should have amended the entire zoning code to allow the turbines to be built anywhere. The Board has amended only the rural preserve, agricultural preserve and industrial zone and she thinks the Board ought to amend the Code to let the turbines be built anywhere if the Board thinks that ordinance is sufficient. Since the Board has adopted that ordinance, a turbine facility has gone online in Kaiser, West Virginia, you can Google it. She advised she did not come prepared today to share the news report accounting of the suffering that is going on in that community; that community is more like the community on Bent Mountain and the agricultural and rural preserve areas of Roanoke County than the Beech Ridge facility where the "dog and pony" show has been held where no people live. Kaiser, West Virginia is a living community and those people started complaining within weeks of that facility coming online, it is on the internet. She further stated the Board's job, the primary job is zoning. The reason zoning was created was to prevent nuisance activity on adjacent properties; that is the Board's only job. Mr. Elswick's request is entirely reasonable to study this 0 January 10, 2012 issue and to make sure the Board is doing their job, which is to prevent nuisance actions, to prevent the people who live on Bent Mountain from suing this company because they will have to in order to get the turbines to stop and give them some peace and quiet and rest. She stated she supports what Mr. Elswick has done and everything he has done for her community and she will do her best to find 60 decibel meter noise machines and put them on the Board's neighbors' property next to your homes, see how you like it. Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he is speaking against this first reading because he believes it is totally unnecessary and when the ordinance was passed it was made very clear to everyone that this is subject to a special use permit and this variable, this sixty (60) decibels would be discussed and it would not be binding since it requires special use. The ordinance was passed after much discussion. This particular item was discussed a great deal and the Board members that he has listened to indicated that sixty (60) was not locked in stone; it was going to be dependent upon the application by the application of the individual corporation that advocated it. So, by changing it, by word smithing now is a waste of time. Supervisor Church indicated speakers have been correct on both accounts. He advised he proposed thirty -five (35) decibels at one time, but knowing full well what the other speakers have said but this is not a supermarket, not a store, it is not a small, tiny item that the Board normally makes zoning decisions for; in his mind, this is major. He advised he does realize the Board will look at the levels, whether it be decibels, distance, etc. and make a final decision, but he has to believe the key words here are community and industrial. He advised Ms. Belkinsky that he has to concur with her sentiments because he believes this is something that begs for a second look. Those of you who have been keeping up with the federal government know what is coming out of Washington, DC. There are subsidies and grants and when that leaves normally the project leaves or what remains; that is his fear. He is talking about structures that are four or five times the height of the height of the Wachovia Tower; forty (40) some stories. He is not talking about something that can be dismantled and removed in an hour, a week or so. He stated he thinks the most underlying factor of all is something that he has tried to do for twelve years. Every petition, every item that comes before this Board, he tries to look at as if right in his neighborhood and he stated he can assure everyone if this petition was in his district and if in the district of every other Board member, he can assure everyone that this room would be filled over and over. It does not mean these people are wrong that live in Bent Mountain that is just what happened to be the petition probability. He advised he can assure everyone once again, if it was a probable petition for Catawba, Hollins, Vinton or Cave Spring, the people "screaming from the treetops." He stated he is saying let us recognize the Board is dealing with a potential application that is not on flat land. He further indicated he is doing his studies, all over the county; all over the world and a lot of these wind farms are in areas that do not effect anybody; out away from everyone. He supports another January 10, 2012 11 look at a lower decibel; and cannot see hurrying into this. Supervisor Altizer stated he certainly appreciates the concerns that Supervisor Elswick has and thinks each and every Board member would all have the same concerns no matter whose district that a wind farm might be considered for. He advised this is not just a zoning decision that was made and an ordinance put in place that says when a petitioner comes through this is the conditions that are going to be approved. If you look at Mr. Mahoney's report, "ff the Board deletes this standard then it could replace it with a higher or lower standard or in the alternative it could delete the noise standard in its entirety" and by doing so put everyone at risk. There would be no ordinance, but the ordinance that was adopted and put into place is based on the fact here are some ground rules that everything works from. He indicated there is the same ability under a special use permit and to the people who spoke you can do one of two ways; send back to the Planning Commission and take ninety (90) days and within ninety days there may be a petition, maybe not. Until the Planning Commission acts, it would still be under the ordinance that has been adopted and asked Mr. Mahoney for verification. Mr. Mahoney advised at this point it is still applicable and enforceable until amended or changed by the Board. Supervisor Altizer stated he has no idea what decibel would end up in a Public Hearing and be the right number, but that is the process that happens then. He advised the Board could adopt thirty (30) decibels and go through the same process and that number can go up or down. He advised the Board does achieve the same purpose in the end, just because the Board lowers the decibel level does not mean that is going to be the agreed upon decibel level once we have a permit even if the special permit is approved because it is a special use permit and anything can be changed, i.e. the distance from a home, how many would be allowed if any were allowed at all. He stated he thinks the Board has put an ordinance in place as has been done with other ordinances with special use permit. The Board does not approve every special use permit for a drive -in window for businesses that come to us even though there is an ordinance that says what the baseline criteria is. He advised he sees this as having a standard that is set and the real day to decide this is when and if a petition is brought forth and thinks everyone agrees at some point in time, there will be unless the federal government decides to live within its means and take away all the subsidies and then it does not make it profitable for anybody to do it because it does not stand on its own. Further, he added to take this, change it to make it zero puts everybody at risk and quite frankly, the Board is not just dealing with Bent Mountain; but with every locality; they all have ridgelines, tops, etc. He stated it needs to be judged on its merits when it comes, up or down, whatever the criteria is set forth. Supervisor Elswick stated he agrees that the final decision will be at the time the special use permit is evaluated and he is sure the Board will get assistance in doing that from experts who are more familiar with the situation than the Board is. That being the case, if as the ordinance is currently written, negotiable at the time of special use permit, then why wouldn't the Board put numbers that favor the citizens rather than numbers that favor the wind companies. Additionally, he stated he would ask that any 2 January 10, 2012 number that goes into an ordinance of this magnitude be justified. The decibel levels should be justified in some way as well as the setbacks. When the last meeting was held and approved the ordinance as it is, the Planning Commission recommendation of 2,640 feet was modified by a motion to 1,000 feet. There was no justification whatsoever from changing from 2,640 feet to 1,000 feet, there was no reason given and so the Board was picking numbers out of the air for an issue that is so important and can have such tremendous effect on people. He stated he does not think it is something that needs to be decided on today, but the Board can do that at a second reading of the ordinance. He further stated he would like to ask that between now and then another work session be held and invite anybody that has good, objective data to speak at that work session. It is not going to hurt us to have another work session and have Cool Cities, Sierra Club and the people who would have to live near the windmills would have an opportunity to speak; give everybody 15 minutes, give each Board member 5 minutes, structure it and at least satisfy him that as a Board we are willing to entertain the subject and discuss it enough that everybody looking at our ordinance from across the State and across the county can say this Board of Supervisors put those numbers in that ordinance and they are going to stand by those numbers, that is what they really believe the ordinance should reflect and it will have a bearing on the final decision. Supervisor Church, stated with all due respect to Supervisor Altizer he was not recommending zero, he reiterated he had given a theoretical thirty five (35) and he takes the premise he is not pro or con on this, but if the Board is going to go into a situation of this stature, why not meet in the middle, not zero, thirty five (35). The Board may end up making it seventy five (75); he has no idea what the Board is going to make it, but he is of the opinion why go in on the high end. He reiterated the key words hear, in his opinion, industrial systems and communities. He stated he does not think this Board has ever to his recollection ever approached something that like that can be this life changing, not just to the citizens, but to potentionally the environment, rooftops, etc. Supervisor Altizer stated he was referring to zero because of what was in the board report. He then proceeded to ask Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning when a petition is filed, they generally have thirty days prior to the filing date a sit -down meeting is required with planning and then it is generally sixty (60) days after that, maybe ninety (90) days before it comes before the Board. Accordingly, there is a four -month span with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative stating three to four months. Supervisor Altizer stated he did not disagree with what the gentleman from Windsor Hills is saying would like to see happen. He advised when a petition comes before the Board, there will be ninety to one hundred and twenty (90 to 120) days notice before it ever comes before the Board and then maybe the Board could have a couple of work sessions that brings in people to talk about acoustics because that would be valuable information for the Board to have anyway even in determining the petition coming before the Board. He reiterated that he certainly agreed that would be the way to do it and gain the same effect; that way not going all the way through the Planning January 10, 2012 13 Commission, taking ninety (90) days to go through that and then you have a petition that could come in the middle or the end of that. He stated he thinks this is a good compromise of a way to get that information and get it in a timely manner if the gentleman from Windsor Hills would agree. Supervisor Elswick stated he agrees that would be a good way to do it and would like for the Board to take the numbers out of the ordinance and say the Board will determine later on. Supervisor Altizer responded the Board has a chance to take the numbers out and make them whatever the Board wants if we even approve it when it comes for a special use permit. He stated he understands that Supervisor Elswick is trying to get the information out and he understands. He stated he thinks the Board should have that and then once the Board has it will give us a determination to make that number because the number can be whatever the Board wants even if there is sixty (60) there. He reiterated he thinks the Board is set that if there is going to be a number it is going to err on the side of the citizens. This is a number that can be changed. Supervisor Elswick inquired would the Board have any problem modifying the ordinance after a petition is received from a legal standpoint with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative. Mr. Mahoney stated if he would come to the Board and these are the "rules of the game" and in the middle of the game you change the rules, he can call "foul." In addition, there is a contrary opinion, i.e. the Town of Blacksburg changed the rules with regard to "big boxes" two years ago. Blacksburg was able to change the rules in the middle of the "game ", but had to go to the Supreme Court and probably spent $100,000 to $120,000 defending it. He stated his personal opinion and his advice to the Board is do not change the rules in the middle of the "game ", particularly where it has been the Board's practice at least over the last twenty (20) years whereby the Board has identified certain uses as uses that require special handing, i.e. a special use permit and it is in that situation the Board has crafted requirements, conditions to protect the citizens as Ms. Belinky indicated to avoid or minimize any nuisance to neighboring property owners. He cited the Board's most recent experience, the asphalt plant. The Board crafted a very specific set of conditions under that special use permit to minimize or not totally eliminate adverse impacts on neighboring properties. One of those conditions was a noise requirement that was imposed under that special use permit a couple of years ago. The Board has identified these special uses and it is in that context that he would suggest the Board has fairly strong powers to impose those conditions to minimize those adverse neighboring impacts. Supervisor Elswick then asked would it be to the Board's advantage, legally to today take the numbers out of the ordinance and say they will be determined at the time an application for special use permit solve the problem. Mr. Mahoney responded his recommendation to the Board was to keep some standard in the ordinance because the standard is a starting point for the discussion. If you read that part of the ordinance when the applicants come in, they will need to bring in 14 January 10, 2012 independent, acoustical engineers to monitor as to the standard. If there is not a standard, then the Board, in his opinion, loses some of the benefit of having an acoustical engineer study. What is the acoustical engineer going to study? At the very least, if the Board starts out with a standard, in this case, sixty (60), then at least there is some, good scientific data that starts off the discussion and then if it is determined by the Board that a higher standard, i.e. with the asphalt plant and eighty -five ( 85) decibels and in that unique situation because of the location and the proximity of the citizens and as to that piece of property the Board determined that was a better standard to impose under that special use permit. So, his recommendation to the Board is start with some standard because that gives some credence to the engineer study. Supervisor Elswick stated he would like to comment that the normal noise level on a quiet day in a rural area is around twenty -five (25) decibels and he does not expect the Board is going to agree because it does not look like waiting until a special use permit is received. He further added he does not think the Board is going to agree on a number today, but based on Mr. Mahoney's suggestion if we have number in there, maybe a work session would not be a bad idea. Supervisor Flora offered a compromise stating the number is going to be important if an application is received. It is probably going to be a key factor that determines whether the Board approves it or not. He asked why doesn't the Board work toward getting the research. He stated he does not know what sixty (60) decibels sounds like on a quiet, peaceful afternoon, five hundred (500) feet from the source, but he knows that there is probably software out there that can replicate it. He suggested the Board work toward obtaining enough information up front so that if the Board decides it needs to change the ordinance that it will have the number to change it to. If an application is received between now and then the Board will have the number that can be applied to that special use permit. He advised he thinks the quicker the Board has the research, objective research, he does not want either side to try to influence the facts, but get reputable information and suggested Mr. Goodman contact some of the universities that specialize in sound and see how much information can be obtained and report back at the next meeting and Mr. Goodman can tell us how quickly we can obtain this information. He stated he thinks it can be obtained within sixty (60) days. Supervisor Church advised this is a first reading and asked Mr. Mahoney if it would be okay to approve on first reading and give the Board the necessary time. He stated he did not think the Board should drop anything, just give it an opportunity to be worked on. Supervisor Flora stated in this case a first reading implies that you are going to support or reject it with Mr. Mahoney stating it is also an automatic referral to the Planning Commission and the Commission has an affirmative obligation to report in ninety (90) days. Supervisor Church stated it is more complicated that he thought. He advised he is just trying to find a way to go from sixty to not zero but a working point that is not at the upper range. January 10, 2012 15 Supervisor Moore indicated this is a land -use ordinance that she thinks the Planning Commission, County staff and the Board have worked on. We have received a lot of research on it. This is an ordinance and until we get a special use permit that restricts and has some guideline that protect our citizens. It is better than not having anything and when we receive a special use permit, the Board can certainly take a look at some changes, if necessary at that time. She further indicated she thinks this is a good ordinance that a lot of thought and research has been put into it and with regard to having work sessions later to gather the information is a good idea but for right now she thinks the Board should leave the ordinance as it is. Supervisor Church stated the Chairman's suggestion of postponing it in hindsight would probably be the best and give us time to get the people together. Supervisor Flora stated he did not think the information could be obtained in two weeks and he did not want to initiate an amendment and spend a lot of time in the Planning Commission and when it comes back to us there is no better information than we had when it was adopted the first time. If that is done, the Board will end up with the same thing it has now. It was his suggestion to delay any action to give staff enough time to see if they can do the research. If the research can get in here within sixty days (60) days because the ordinance cannot be acted upon anywhere close to sixty (60) days. At least it will give us some information and then the Board can decide if it wants to proceed or not. Supervisor Elswick moved to table the ordinance until some future time until the research has been conducted by the staff. The motion was unanimously approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the purchase of approximately 14.4 acres of real estate (Tax Map No. 56.01 -01- 17.00) located along West Riverside Drive and adjacent to the Roanoke River from LSW HMW Family Limited Partnership for public use as a recreational amenity in the Catawba Magisterial District and reallocation of $20,000 from the Parks and Recreation budget for such purpose (Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) Mr. Blount outlined the ordinance advised that the Phase I Environmental Assessment has been completed and yielded no findings. The property title and survey has also been completed and verified. Mr. Blount thanked Mr. Waldrup and his family for their generosity in working with Roanoke County for the purchase of this property. 16 January 10, 2012 ORDINANCE 011012 -6 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 14.4 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP NO. 56.01 -1 -17) ADJACENT TO THE ROANOKE RIVER AND WEST RIVERSIDE DRIVE FROM LSW HMW FAMILY LP, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT AND REALLOCATING $20,000 FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION BUDGET FOR SUCH PURPOSE WHEREAS, Roanoke County staff has been negotiating the acquisition of approximately 14.4 acres of real estate located adjacent to the Roanoke River and along West Riverside Drive from LSW HMW Family LP for development as a recreational amenity; and WHEREAS, on November 29, 2011, Roanoke County and the LSW HMW Family LP entered into a Contract of Sale for the purchase of this property, subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the County now wishes to approve and ratify the execution of said contract to complete the transfer of this real estate to the County for the purchase price of $15,000; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 13, 2011, and the second reading was held on January 10, 2012; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the contract of sale dated November 29, 2011, for the acquisition of approximately 14.4 acres of real estate, located adjacent to the Roanoke River and along West Riverside Drive as shown on the attached diagram labeled Attachment A and being part of Tax Map No. 56.01 -01- 17.00, for the sum of $15,000 is hereby approved and ratified and further that the acquisition of said real estate is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) is available in the Parks and Recreation department budget to pay all of the costs of this acquisition, and will be reallocated for this purpose. This amount is for the purchase price of this real estate and for the various closing costs to complete this transaction, and due diligence expenses prior to purchase. 3. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: January 10, 2012 17 AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None 2. Ordinance authorizing and approving execution of a lease agreement with Valley Communications for tower space to place two (2) dish antennas and associated equipment at 2811 Sycamore Drive (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) Ms. Green outlined the ordinance and reiterated the purpose is to provide data and telephone services to the County's service center on Kessler Mill Road and is an experiment to save money. ORDINANCE 011012 -7 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS FOR TOWER SPACE TO PLACE TWO (2) DISH ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AT 2811 SYCAMORE DRIVE WHEREAS, the Department of Communications and IT (CommlT) have been exploring ways to reduce the cost of providing data and telephone services to County facilities; WHEREAS, one method to accomplish that goal is to bring the services in -house as much as possible through the use of line -of -sight towers; and WHEREAS, CommlT has chosen the Public Service Center on Kessler Mill Road as the first site for testing the methodology, it will require leasing a nearby site, located at 2811 Sycamore Drive for the placement of two dish antennas and associated equipment; and WHEREAS, the property is owned by AMC Investors, Inc. and managed by Valley Communications, staff has negotiated with Valley Communications to lease the premises for a period of one (1) year from February 1, 2012, at a rental of $300 per month with a renewal option of additional one (1) year terms for up to five (5) years; and WHEREAS, this site is necessary to lower the cost to the County for data and phone lines for the Public Service Center; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 13 2011; and the second reading was held on January 10, 2012. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That lease of Tower space for two (2) dish antennas and associated equipment for a period of one (1) year at an annual rental of $3600, payable monthly in 8 January 10, 2012 the amount of $300, commencing as of February 1, 2012 and ending on December 31, 2012, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and take such further actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions approved by the County Attorney. 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 1. Ordinance to accept the conveyance of approximately 9.15 acres of real estate located at 10148 Tinsley Lane known as Bent Mountain School from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of Supervisors (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney indicated there were no changes to the ordinance except for the adding of the second paragraph to cover any sale in the future. No citizens spoke on this issue. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 011012 -8 TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 9.15 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 10148 TINSLEY LANE KNOWN AS BENT MOUNTAIN SCHOOL FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, at their meeting on November 10, 2011, the County School Board declared the Bent Mountain School, a 9.15 acre parcel of real estate, to be surplus property, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property upon approval of this ordinance and recordation of a deed; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance will be held on December 13, 2011, and the second reading will be held on January 10, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: January 10, 2012 19 1. That the acquisition from the County School Board of Roanoke County of an approximate 9.15 acre parcel of real estate known as the Bent Mountain School is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the proceeds of any sale of this real estate shall be paid into the County's capital facilities accounts and expended solely for the purpose of acquisition, construction, maintenance, or replacement of other capital facilities, as provided in Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter. 3. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 011012 -9 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January 10, 2012, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — December 13, 2011 2. Request to appropriate grant funds in the amount of $9,612 to the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia received in fiscal year 2010/2011 and paid out in fiscal year 2011/2012 3. Request to appropriate $18,322.50 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal year 2011/2012 4. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke County Planning Commission; Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority 20 January 10, 2012 5. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $47,472.62 to Roanoke County Schools 6. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Ellen M. Agner, Office Support Specialist, upon her retirement after more than seventeen (17) years of service 7. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Harriet S. Medley, Custodian, upon her retirement after more than thirteen (13) years of service On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None A- 011012 -9. a A- 011012 -9. b A- 011012 -9. c A- 011012 -9.d RESOLUTION 011012 -9.e EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ELLEN M. AGNER, OFFICE SUPPORT SPECIALIST, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Ellen M. Agner was hired on January 31, 1994, as a part -time Clerk Typist for Parks and Recreation and moved to full time on March 29, 1996; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Agner was promoted to Secretary on January 25, 1999, and transferred to the Purchasing Division on May 8, 2000; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Agner was promoted to Office Support Specialist on February 14 2005, and transferred to the Finance Department on March 12, 2005; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Agner retired as Office Support Specialist on December 31, 2011, after a total of seventeen (17) years of dedicated, loyal and capable service with the County; and WHEREAS, during her tenure in the Finance Department, Mrs. Agner was responsible for providing excellent customer service to the Roanoke County departments, vendors and citizens; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Agner was responsible for answering the phones and referring or answering questions from departments, vendors and citizens as well as performing a host of data entry; and January 10, 2012 21 WHEREAS, Mrs. Agner worked closely with the departments and vendors for proper set up in the accounting software system for an accurate vendor number; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Agner worked closely with departments, Verizon, and other phone company representatives to assist with the processing and allocating of the monthly phone bills; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Agner was responsible for maintaining all office equipment, supplies, mailings, records management and departmental correspondence; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Agner has proved herself to be an exemplary employee with her great work ethic and attendance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to ELLEN AGNER for seventeen (17) years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None RESOLUTION 011012 -9.f EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO HARRIET S. MEDLEY, CUSTODIAN, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN THIRTEEN (13) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Harriet S. Medley was hired on September 19, 1998, and worked as a Custodian; and WHEREAS, Ms. Medley retired on January 1, 2012, after more than thirteen (13) years of, faithful and expert service with the County; and WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County, Ms. Medley has always exhibited an attitude of friendliness, caring respect and consideration of County Staff and Citizens; and WHEREAS, Ms. Medley has been a very dedicated employee, and served the County well over the past thirteen years; and WHEREAS, Ms. Medley will truly be missed by the judges, bailiffs, co- workers and other staff at the Roanoke County Courthouse. 22 January 10, 2012 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to HARRIET S. MEDLEY for thirteen years and three (3) months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The following citizens spoke. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in Roanoke, Virginia stated "Happy New Year and that now we know ICLEI must go. Here are questions to ask RC CLEAR, ICLEI and the Socialist from the United National that brought this non -sense to the Roanoke Valley. Say this; the fact is 99.88 percent ( %) of greenhouse warming is natural. Our Sun has the biggest influence, plant proliferation and many more natural factors. Why would anyone believe the one tenth of one percent caused by human activities causes global warming? Allow me to answer that for them. NO, it scientifically does not. Many presentations in the past few months have shown that. Here presented by caring folks that despise false junk science. Folks that care enough have come to help present the truth. Our County has been presented with false junk science to build a bureaucracy to destroy the American Dream and crowd `We the People' into tightly quartered UDAs Urban Development Areas. Our County is paying them to tell them how to do just that. It is unbelievable. Ask them where is the evidence that global warming causes hardship for mankind or the planet? We have now more than seven billion people living on the planet, each one exhaling Co2. Our food crops love that; the more Co2, food crops are more productive and healthier. Double the Co2 levels we have now and food crops increase productivity by 30 %. That preserves ground water, gives more oxygen. Greenhouse farmers have been pumping Co2 into their greenhouses for many years. Maybe the Co2 police will put a stop to that. If they do, that will stop the `ooh and aah' flowers, winter tomatoes and many other fruits and vegetables. "Why do we not know or understand this. Ask them why hasn't the earth warmed in the last 12 years. While there is slight rise in Co2 levels. The truth is it has in fact `cooled'. Listen folks, Co2 events are all cyclical influences of the sun, earth and moon events. The sun regulates our planet earth. Our atmosphere would be static and frozen without the sun. Common sense, please. ICLEI must go. We can self - govern and I'll bet we can do just January 10, 2012 23 that. We do not need an international socialist ICLEI to tell us how. Again, Happy New Year. Charles Winkler of 603 Moseley Drive in Charlottesville, Virginia thanked the Board for the chance to address the Board. He wants to talk about ICLEI from a National standpoint as the Board considers ICLEI membership. He stated he hoped the Board would consider what information ICLEI collect, whether any of it is sensitive, who has access to it, what people ICLEI sends to us and is there any possible cyber- security threat from ICLEI software. He stated he was an analyst for the Department of Defense for more than thirty (30) years until he retired. She has lived in several communist counties, lived, worked, studied and know a bunch of languages and has a long track record of following issues list this. He stated he has dealt with both intelligence and counter - intelligence matters in his career. First he has prepared a brief outline and will leave the results of his research as a package when he is finished. First he would like to remind the board that ICLEI is in fact a foreign corporation. Its world headquarters is in Bonn, Germany. It has offices in the United States as well as elsewhere in the world, but it is run out of Bonn, Germany. It is a foreign organization. Recently, as of 2004, a potential US member sends application materials to the world secretary when it was still in Toronto. He became concerned when he started looking into the relationship between ICLEI and Albemarle County and found out that ICLEI's representative to Albemarle County up to June 2011 had been an official with the People's Republic of China. She was an official member of the Chinese delegation. In a communist country that is a sensitive position. Anyone who deals with foreigners is very carefully screened. I can quote you a Soviet GR Colonel who served in Beijing to that effect. She studied at a university that was essentially subordinate to the Peoples Republic of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So, since we have sensitive facilities in Albemarle County, the question that came up to me is why is ICLEI sending us something like this. The person that replaced her is down in Atlanta, Georgia. He has a strong anti -war background; was arrested for disorderly conduct for occupying a federal building. This is the current person responsible for everything from Virginia up to Maine on the east coast in ICLEI's region. There is a map of that. So, the question I ask is why does ICLEI choose these people when there are tens of thousands of qualified scientists and engineers, environmental scientists. Why are they choosing these people? These are the people covering Virginia, Maryland, Roanoke, DC, which have lots of sensitive facilities. ICLEI collects information on air, water, rail and highway transportation. Things like how many vessels are serviced at a port. Now, this is to get at green -house gas emissions, but they are also looking at things like how much fuel was loaded, how many ships were serviced. There are hundreds of Department of Defense facilities on the actual territory of ICLEI members. He stated he had put together a list that he has provided the Board. His concern was what does an ICLEI representative have access to, even indirectly. There are hundreds of people that work at these. His initial concern was Albemarle County. His additional concern would be whether there is any potential cyber- security threat from software that ICLEI provided. If there is any question about 24 January 10, 2012 the information, he will be happy to answer. The clerk knows how to contact him if needed. Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane in Roanoke, Virginia from the Cave Spring District congratulated the new Chairman and Vice Chairman. She advised the Board has before them the answers to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) information she requested at the last meeting. She stated to please direct your attention to answer number 2. What independent safeguards are in place with the ICLEI software to insure accurate, data measurements and projections that can be relied on? The answer was N /A. She assumed this meant that it was not available. Since it was provided by ICLEI and not given in a FOIA request it would be illegal under Virginia Code 223704. So, ICLEI is providing software that has no traditional protection safeguards; no evidence that previous test results proved its accuracy and no independent validation. This is a farce. Secondly, look at answer number 1. Where were the 400 tons of carbon dioxide savings derived? Handing out CFL light bulbs saved sixteen (16) tons, but no record exists of whether or not people used them. Giving out energy tip sheets saved 200 tons; that is amazing. They are presuming that one hundred percent (100 %) of those taking the handouts implemented all of the suggestions. If people will implement anything handouts say, let's do some others; taking care of the homeless; providing all animals from the pound, pass out the handouts and it will be done. This is what they want us to believe. One hundred and ninety eight (198) tons was saved with sixty (60) energy audits. This too assumes that all those people did everything the audit suggested, no matter what the cost to them. As you note answers three (3) and four (4), no follow -ups have been done and it is unknown what the steps the homeowners took. Our four hundred (400) ton savings is simply, at best, a pipe dream and at worst, a deliberate deception. While she believes the citizens who volunteer for RCCLEAR have noble goals, and she does, she thinks ICLEI is a stumbling block. It provides the same goals for all cities in the world regardless of demographics or local needs. It provides projections with no validity. It essentially does nothing, but promote its own agenda. It is costing the tax payers of this County money through membership and through time wasted by County employees. The citizens of this County would be better served if we work locally to determine our own goals and to realistically implement them. Yet, the Board chooses to buy into the feel good aspect of ICLEI and hope the data looks good. It does not. In order to get a grant or two and look green and progressive on paper, you are aligning with a questionable organization pushing their own agenda. Or, do you choose to align with the citizens of this largely rural county who want to protect the environment while protecting their own property rights. Your vote at the end of this month will tell us what we need to know about your priorities. Ernie Ragland of 555 N. Dry Well Road in Natural Bridge, Virginia started his comments by stating Happy New Year. He advised he had previously provided the Board with a detailed write -up of the opening bills that will discussed at the General Assembly tomorrow when the General Assembly opens and the first notable bill he January 10, 2012 25 would like to summarize deals with a Senate Joint Resolution 3, which is a proposed constitutional amendment to provide that private property can be taken or damaged only for public use; only with just compensation to the owner and only so much taken as necessary for the public use. He stated he applauded Senator Mark D. Obenshain of Senate District 26 for his sponsorship of Senate Joint Resolution 3 and urged the Board to support this proposed amendment to the Virginia Constitution to help guarantee and fully support our private - property rights adversely affected by the U.S. Supreme Count Kelo decision. The second initiative is House Bill 92, which makes incorporation of urban development areas optional rather than mandatory. Any locality that has previously adopted urban development areas may, and upon voter petition shall, reconsider such action. Mr. Ragland encouraged the Board to support that bill. The third initiative is House Bill 27, which exempts residential building or manufactured home in Virginia from being subject to proposed federal cap and trade legislation. In 2011, Virginia home builders before a House of Delegates Committee testified that these federal regulations were part of the "Cap and Trade" bill that could not be met by Virginia Home Builders. He recommended the Board support proposed House Bill 27 to reserve to Virginia the authority over our State building code, instead of allowing federal agencies to prohibit the sale of your home unless you comply with proposed new requirements. The fourth initiative is House Bill 66, which establishes a procedure by which a manufacturer of incandescent light bulbs in Virginia may obtain a license from the State Corporation Commission. The reason this is important is because this is a very bad federal government overreach bill and when looking at the details and the adverse risks of CFL's, in response to that legislation and the requirement to eliminate the incandescent light bulb by 2014 will have potential adverse effects from public safety and also on groundwater, if improperly disposed of in landfills. The other bill that he brought to the attention of the Board was House Bill 67, which is an attempt to exempt Virginia from proposed redefinition of water quality to include non - navigable water. He also stated at the January 24 meeting he highly supports the Board voting to drop their membership of ICLEI based on concerns cited here today and previously and to help restore the individual's right guaranteed under the Virginia constitution and not subordinate them to that of the community. Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke Virginia stated the Roanoke County's attorney's assistant, Sue Bain, responded to one of his FOIA requests in November as follows: "Mr. Gregory, in response to your emails dated November 1 and November 8, 2011, attached are two documents. One is the climate action plan, which has not been formally adopted by the County and the other one is our plan for sending EECBG funds. This was accepted by ICLEI as our milestone 3 plan although it is not formally called "climate action plan." The Climate Action Plan states in its executive summary, " ICLEI outlines five milestones that need to be achieved in order to successfully participate in the program." Having already completed milestones 1 and 2, milestone 3 requires a development of a community action plan and it was decided to 26 January 10, 2012 form a citizen's action group to plan and implement a strategy for greenhouse gas reduction. Subsequently, RCCLEAR was formed by the Board of Supervisors to meet the criterion of creating and executing a plan for a successful, county -wide greenhouse gas reduction program. RCCLEAR will seek to educate the community and raise awareness by developing specific programs with measurable, predictable outcomes." One of the specific programs mentioned in the Climate Action Plan was an energy education campaign that is now called "Save A Ton" campaign. This was implemented a few months ago as part of ICLEI's milestone 4 kickoff. Page 6 of the Climate Action Plan, which was not formally adopted, has a title called outcomes and measurement. The statement, "need to identify" is next to that title. So, it appears the climate action plan currently does not have a plan in place to objectively measure the outcome of the Save a Ton campaign or the other items in the climate action plan. So, he asked the Board and RCCLEAR in the form of a FOIA request how RCCLEAR has or will be objectively and accurately documenting a percent in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions due to this energy education campaign known as Save a Ton campaign. The citizens of the County hear about the campaign and may or may not review the information on the Save a Ton's campaign's Facebook or webpage. If they review the information they may or may not implement it. Is RCCLEAR making a leap to say that a certain percentage of CO2 emission reduction will have occurred because Roanoke County citizens may or may not have checked out the Save A Ton sites and may or may not have implemented the tips on those sites? How much of a percentage per year reduction is RCCLEAR expecting to reduce CO2 emissions due to the Save A Ton campaign and how is that objectively being measured. John Brill of 1727 Memorial Avenue #11 in Roanoke City stated back in August of 2007 the Board of Supervisors passed R081407 -3, which resolved the Board of Supervisors to take a leadership role in promoting public awareness about the causes of climate change. It is commonly thought that carbon has something to do with that, but we should confirm that theory. He stated he has a chart that shows both the amount of carbon in the atmosphere (shown in blue) and the temperature of the earth (shown in red) for the past 400,000 years. There does seem to be a general correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the temperature of the earth. He stated as we all know correlation does not equal causality so we should take a closer look at that. During sharp rises in temperature carbon seems to rise as fast as the temperature does. This might lead some to conclude that carbon causes rises in temperature. But looking closely at the chart, we see that the carbon drop is haphazard and generally lags behind the drop in temperature. The drops do not correspond with one another. This poses a problem for climate alarmists because if carbon drove climate change then it can't simply drive it some of the time and not drive it at other times. What this data suggests then is that the warming of the earth causes the earth's natural systems to put more carbon into the atmosphere thus making carbon an indicator that warming has occurred. We could illustrate this relationship by lighting a January 10, 2012 27 fire. We would see a sharp rise in smoke. Once we douse the fire it wouldn't be producing smoke anymore, but the smoke it had produced would take some time to disperse, wouldn't it? In essence what climate alarmists would have us believe is that doing something about the "smoke" will mitigate the "fire;" that's absurd. In order to be in compliance with Resolution 081407 -3 that obligates the Board of Supervisors to "take a leadership role in promoting public awareness about the causes ... of climate change" means that the Board of Supervisors should be promoting public awareness that rises in the earth's temperature drives the release of carbon into the atmosphere and not the other way around. He stated he understands if the Board has not heard this information before. There are special interest groups whose agenda requires that they keep people in fear of carbon. These inconvenient facts do not support their chosen narrative so they aren't going to tell you that their science is junk. As public servants, however, who have bound yourself to promote public awareness about the causes of climate change you must be absolutely certain of the science. If you were promoting junk science, wasting tax dollars, and are out of compliance with your own resolutions then you would be failing your constituents; that certainly does not appear to be the case. He advised he has made some extra copies of the graph for the Board to look at, provided a link in my transcript so that you may verify my information, and I hope that the Board of Supervisors will keep this information in mind in the future. Thank you for your time. Supervisor Church left the meeting due to illness. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review the status of fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget development including an overview of the proposed State budget (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) 28 January 10, 2012 The work session was held from 5:27 p.m. until 5:40 p.m. Mr. Goodman provided an update on the Governor's budget and pointed out the Virginia Retirement System number of $1.9 million and stated the school will have a corresponding number. Supervisor Altizer inquired if Roanoke County was required to obtain the life. Ms. Diane Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator responded in the affirmative commenting that once you start you are locked in. She also stated she expects the rate to change because if the State lowers it for themselves, the localities will also be lowered. Mr. Robertson indicated for the most part the numbers in the Governor's budget were fairly benign. He indicated the January 24 meeting will be a revenue meeting during work session and the Christmas 2011 sales numbers will not be in until February. Supervisor Altizer inquired if we received the ten percent (10 %) reduction in aid to the State with Mr. Robertson responding this was for 2013 and expects an overall number between $50,000 and $55,000. This year he expects a $25,000 increase. 2. Work session to discuss the Glenvar Community Plan (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning; Amanda Micklow, Planner II) The work session was held from 5:41 p.m. until 6:20 p.m. Mr. Thompson gave a brief overview and turned the meeting over to Amanda Micklow. Ms. Micklow reviewed the draft Glenvar Community Plan through a PowerPoint presentation and explained the community was greatly involved in the process and the driving force of the Plan. I copy of the presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Altizer inquired if water and sewer go all the way out with Ms. Micklow responding they have water all the way out, but not sewer. Supervisor Elswick commented the development areas had been cut in half with Ms. Micklow responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Elswick asked with the intermodal yard coming in would there be an increase in need for houses and subdivisions. Ms. Micklow then went through the changes to the development areas. Supervisor Elswick then asked would the rural village areas allow for housing with Ms. Micklow responding in the affirmative. Chairman Flora noted everything was all very consistent, but noted one of the dilemmas is the view shed is not that good; unattractive and how can some of this be cleaned up. Ms. Micklow responded a zoning sweep was done a year ago and expects after the widening project is completed they will see the changes in the community. Chairman Flora indicated that are some sites that hinder development and they may want to look at neighborhood revitalization and not sure if available for grants. January 10, 2012 29 3. Work session to discuss the status of the former Library Headquarters Building (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator) The work session was held from 6:21 p.m. until 6:28 p.m. Mr. Goodman provided a brief update concerning this building and advised the building could not be mothballed until after March due to the primary elections. He stated staff is looking at other options, i.e. selling, leasing, and relocating other offices. He stated staff would be coming back to the Board with further information for their recommendation. He also indicated this location would not be used as a branch library. Mr. Goodman then advised that Supervisor Moore had requested an additional discussion concerning the moratorium on streetlights if the Board was in agreement. Chairman Flora advised Supervisor Moore to proceed. She explained here is a street — Merriman Road in her district that some elderly people live on. It is very unsafe. She indicated it passed the criteria and there is already an AEP pole there and would not cost anything to put the light up. Chairman Flora inquired how many other streetlight requests that fit the criteria are being held. Arnold Covey, Director of Community development advised there are 8 received and six that are eligible. Mr. Goodman explained a moratorium was placed two years ago because of budget issues. He indicated the County is currently spending approximately $128,000 per year on these lights and the budget amount is only $104,000. Supervisor Altizer inquired as to the cost for all six of these lights with Mr. Goodman responding approximately $500 per year. Chairman Flora indicated if one is done, all must be done and suggested that the Board approve the seven (7) and then immediately put another moratorium on and revisit lifting it in two or three more years. Mr. Mahoney inquired of Mr. Goodman whether an appropriation was required and suggested it be done out of the Board Contingency Fund with Mr. Goodman responding that could be done at the next meeting. Chairman Flora inquired if it would be a transfer or an appropriation with Mr. Goodman responding an appropriation. Supervisor Altizer advised he did not think that an appropriation needed to be done because everything does not come to the Board for appropriation. Mr. Goodman then responded that an appropriation was not needed. It was the consensus of the Board to proceed with the lights that are currently in house and then reinstitute the moratorium. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION 30 January 10, 2012 At 6:41 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. RESOLUTION 011012 -10 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act: and WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. 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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 6:42 p.m. Approved by: Richard C. Flora Chairman Clerk to the Board