Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/14/2012 - RegularFebruary 14, 2012 93 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 February 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. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER taken. Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte A. Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph B. "Butch" Church 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 invocation was given by Pastor Lynn Riddle of the Hollins Church of the Nazarene. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney requested that the Closed Session discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the Board, namely performance agreement with the Economic Development Authority and Virginia Blue Ridge, LLC be deleted as staff was not ready to move forward. There were no objections. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 94 February 14, 2012 1. Recognition of February as Therapeutic Recreation Month in Roanoke County (Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) Mr. Blount explained the Therapeutic Recreation Program. In attendance with Mr. Bount were Kari, Decker, Recreation Supervisor; Brittney Figdore, Therapeutic Recreation Programmer and Mandi Smith, Recreation Program Manager. All Supervisors offered their thanks. IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on operations at the Glenvar and South County Libraries (Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services) Ms. Rosapepe advised Glenvar has been moved into temporary quarters and continues to serve the public with only a slight decline in visitors and circulation. She advised with regard to the South County Library, the most significant item about the transition was everything worked the way it was planned. She indicated there was a fifty -six percent (56 %) in visitors and a thirty -nine percent (39 %) increase in circulation and all parts of the library have been in steady use since the opening. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution authorizing the application, acceptance and appropriation of grant funds in the amount of $100,000 from DHS administered through the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to the Fire and Rescue Department to support the Regional Technical Rescue Team (Richard E. Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue) Steve Simon presented a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and outlined what a Regional Technical Rescue Team handles. There was no discussion. RESOLUTION 021412 -1 AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION, ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND RESCUE TO SUPPORT THE REGIONAL TECHNICAL RESCUE TEAM February 14, 2012 95 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of Roanoke County, a public entity established under the laws of the State of Virginia, this application and to file it in the appropriate State Office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the National Preparedness Directorate, United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia. THAT, Roanoke County, a public entity established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereby authorizes it agent to provide to the Commonwealth and to the DHS for all matters pertaining to such Federal financial assistance and all information pertaining to these Grants as may be requested. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County authorizes the acceptance of said grant monies in the amount of $100,000 and authorizes the appropriation of said monies for the purposes authorized in the grant application. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church 2. Resolution approving the issuance of Revenue Bonds by South Peak Community Development Authority (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney outlined the resolution for $7 million in bonds for the development of infrastructure by the South Peak Community Development Authority. He explained the Authority met February 8, 2012, and approved the issuance of these bonds. There were certain parameters or limitations attached to that approval: the bonds shall not exceed $7 million, not exceed an interest rate of eight percent (8 %). Mr. Mahoney advised Mr. Penny, counsel for Smith Packett and also Mr. Sanderson, Davenport Associates are in attendance to answer any questions. Davenport will be handling the sale and placement of the bonds. Supervisor Moore disclosed her landscaping company does some work on some of the properties this developer owes and there is a letter on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors from the Commonwealth Attorney and the County Attorney stating there is no conflict of interest. She thanked the CDA Board, the Developer, staff and everyone that has been involved in this very complex document. She has reviewed, discussed with Mr. Mahoney about it and is anxious to see the project move forward. Supervisor Altizer inquired of Mr. Mahoney that the amount is quite a bit 96 February 14, 2012 less than what was proposed before. He advised he thought the amount of $13 million on a much bigger project when it was presented to the Board approximately a year ago. Mr. Mahoney responded the original proposal was for up to $16 million in bonds. He advised what is contemplated is to divide the project into at least two phases and there could possibly be two different series of bond issuances. This is the first phase. Supervisor Altizer inquired as far as the selling of the bonds, there are certain parameters even if the Board votes to approve this today that there are things that have to happen for the payback and asked Mr. Mahoney to walk through the things that would have to be in place before the bonds can be actually be sold. Mr. Mahoney responded at this point with the consent of the Board some final details would have to be resolved and would come back to the CDA Board, not the Board of Supervisors. At that point, Davenport would proceed with the marketing and the placement of the bonds. Mr. Sanderson of Davenport Associates responded if the question revolves around what would be required to be in place; much of that discussion will be up to potential lenders as they will be concerned about the credit quality of what they are investing in. In their view, having the next set of conversations with the investors is going to be dependent upon the Board's approval today. They are interested in looking at it and purchasing the bonds, however, Davenport will be asking them to put forth a considerable amount of time to understand the project and the potential repayment of their investment and in order for them to do that they are asking that the Board pass this so that they can give them some comfort that the bonds will be issued with the limitations that the CDA put into place last week. Supervisor Altizer inquired concerning the payment back of the bonds and noted Roanoke County has no responsibility to those bonds, but things do have to be in place to satisfy banks, investors, etc. You either have enough in generating revenue that you are going to receive coming back to you for that and /or for the special assessment that the developer himself would have to pay to make up the difference. Mr. Sanderson responded the investors will need to be comfortable obviously either with the fact that the incremental revenues are actually going to appear, but behind that also they are going to need to be comfortable that the developer, the property owner is of sufficient credit quality that if the incremental revenues are not produced they are still going to be available to make payment on the assessment because that is going to replace the incremental tax revenue if it does not appear. Supervisor Elswick stated he wanted to make sure citizens understand that there is no liability on the part of Roanoke County taxpayers. These bonds are being issued and will be repaid by tax revenue and will generate additional tax revenue for the County, which is greatly in excess of what is currently received. He stated assuming that everything works out the way it is supposed to and there are various LLCs associated with the project for different portions of it and he knows that the first few years that the interest payments on the bonds are probably going to be paid from the bond proceeds. What would happen after that if five or six years down the road, February 14, 2012 97 does a particular LLC repay the bonds without resorting to tax revenues? Mr. Mahoney responded in the past and this community development authority is structured on the basis of other community development authorities that have been created and developed around the Commonwealth of Virginia is that the incremental tax revenues, the new tax revenues generated from the new development, there are financial projections set out so that the new tax revenue would be sufficient to pay off the principal and interest of the bonds. If, however, those new incremental tax revenues are not sufficient then the ordinance that the Board adopted previously, in December, has a special assessment, an add -on real estate tax over and above the base real estate tax that additional special real estate tax would be imposed just on the real estate within the boundaries of that CDA which is the backup security that will pay back the principal and interest of the bonds. Ultimately, the real estate that comprises that CDA will stand for the security and that is the backing for these bonds. Mr. Penny stated if you get to the point where the special assessment is levied and then not collected, then the locality would have the authority, just like any other delinquent tax payer to foreclose on that real estate and sell it. The priority of that lien would be ahead of any other financing on that property. For example, there is a commercial office building built on one of the parcels and there is no tax incremental revenue to pay the assessment for that lot, then that property owner will get a bill for the difference. If the property owner does not pay that bill, the County can then go a tax sale of that parcel and even if that property owner had a loan from the bank, the tax lien would get paid before that. Roanoke County has a lien superior to any other lender on the property. Supervisor Elswick stated so assume the bonds are $4 million at a seven percent (7 %) interest rate that is $280,000 a year. At what point will there be $4 million worth of condominiums or whatever constructed. Mr. Penny advised the developer has continued to put its own money into the project. When he refers to the project, South Peak, it is all the parcels of land that comprise the special taxing district. The appraised value of that property unimproved is much greater than $7 million. He thinks the most recent appraisal was closer to $20 million; that is how much that raw land is worth at this point and so he thinks the value far exceeds the full $7 million. He noted another thing about the $7 million is some of that are soft costs, but over $4 million would be money that gets poured back into the raw land, which would further enhance the value, so the value of that real estate is going to continue to increase. Something that is a little bit different about this CDA than he thinks the other ones that have taken place in the Commonwealth, often you are starting with completely raw land, whereas here there has been a lot of improvements made already, which enhances the ultimate collateral, which is the real estate and the condominium buildings are already going vertical at the top of the hill. The retaining wall is going up and the roads and infrastructure going in. This project is further along, which helps the value at the end of the day, and if there is an assessment that is not paid; your collateral is quite valuable. Mr. Mahoney advised the building permit for the initial condominium structure was issued and footers were being poured a week ago. Mr. Penny advised there is private financing in place; there 98 February 14, 2012 is a loan from Carter Bank in Trust in place for the condominiums. Mr. Mahoney stated to go back to Mr. Altizer's question, what are some of the things that sophisticated investors would look at before our friends from Davenport would go out and try to place these bonds. One of the things they would look at is that kind of financing lending, looking at contracts for office buildings or condominiums or restaurants or hotels or whatever and all of that he guesses is part of the package that any investor would look at before they would make a decision with respect to placement of the bonds. Mr. Penny reiterated they would look at all of those things and they will not discount the fact that you have a local developer who has ties to the region. They will see that as value, too. Right now, they are targeting regional, local investors that are familiar with the Roanoke Valley which are also familiar with the developer. We are looking at people who have lent money for our health care facilities and other facilities so they will have comfort with who they are dealing with and people who will have seen the project develop over the years. Mr. Altizer voted yes with comment. "He stated he thinks the road was set a year ago when the majority of the Board voted to move forward with this project. He was one of the ones opposed, but today he is he happy some extra housing has been added to it, no, but having said that it is much less and gives us as a Board time to see how this develops and we are not talking about a $16 million bond issue, but a $7 million. It gives us time to see how this develops and he thinks when a signal was sent to the developer by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Board to move forward with this and he thinks they have to get behind it, support it and support those investors who are out there that are looking to do this. The developer has based on prior decisions invested as the gentleman said earlier. They have invested a lot of their money into it now and that is a good thing for the tax rolls and he thinks that is what they all want in the end." Mr. Elswick voted yes with comment. "This is a huge project; it will do a lot for the area. Visitors for the first time coming into Roanoke County will see an attractive place on the side of the mountain instead of something that was really looked fairly negative in the condition it was in and we should see a substantial increase in tax revenues." Mr. Flora voted yes with comment. "Back when this original agreement was approved, he was one that did not support it, but this body made a commitment to move ahead with this project. He feels better that it is a $7 million project to start with because that way there is an opportunity to see how that can go. He thinks more importantly is Roanoke County made an ethical commitment to move forward and he honors that commitment." RESOLUTION 021412 -2 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY SOUTH PEAK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY February 14, 2012 gg WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the "County "), has previously formed the South Peak Community Development Authority (the "Authority ") for the purpose of assisting in the development of certain infrastructure improvements (the "Improvements ") described in Exhibit B to the Memorandum of Understanding dated as of February 1, 2011 (the "Memorandum of Understanding "), between the County and Slate Hill I LLC (the "Landowner "); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, subject to the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board of Supervisors "), the Authority may issue its revenue bonds in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $16,000,000 (the "Bonds ") to finance the costs of the Improvements; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority resolution adopted on [February 8], 2012 (the "Authority Resolution "), authorizing the issuance of the Bonds in an initial series not to exceed $7,000,000 (the "Series 2012 Bonds "), has been filed with the Board of Supervisors and a copy of such resolution has been attached hereto as Exhibit A . BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: The Board of Supervisors hereby consents to and approves the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds by the Authority for the development of the Improvements, subject to the limitations set forth in the Authority Resolution, and provided that at least two - thirds (2/3) of the aggregate amount of Bonds shall be sold to investors that are not an owner, affiliate or subsidiary of the Landowner. The approval of the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds does not constitute an endorsement of the Series 2012 Bonds. The Series 2012 Bonds shall be payable solely from revenues received by the Authority. The Series 2012 Bonds shall not be deemed to constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of the County and shall not impact upon the debt capacity of the County. All acts and doings of the officers and members of the Board of Supervisors that are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this resolution shall be, and the same hereby are, in all respects approved and confirmed. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 00 February 14, 2012 1. The petition of Robert W. Blank and Anna R. Ferro to rezone approximately 12.723 acres from R -1, Low Density Residential, District to AR, Agricultural /Residential, District, located near the 7500 Block of Mount Chestnut Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District Chairman Flora moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the second reading and public hearing for February 28, 2012. There was no discussion. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending Section 30 -73 ECO Emergency Communications Overlay District of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (John Murphy, Zoning Administrator) Mr. Murphy explained the need for the ordinance to include microwave path protection, update and add new technology and line of sight with regard to rooftop systems. There will be a new map, new language and new buffers. There was no discussion. Chairman Flora moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the second reading and public hearing for February 28, 2012. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Clean Valley Council Supervisor Moore recommended the appointment of Debbie Melnick to fill the expired term of the Board Liaison. This two -year term will expire on June 30, 2013. Confirmation of this appointment has been added to the Consent Agenda. February 14, 2012 101 IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 021412 -3 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 February 14, 2012, 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 8 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — January 10, 2012 2. Request to accept the donation of a public drainage easement on the property of Dayna Lyn Cook located on Springlawn Avenue (Tax Map No. 86.12- 01 -41), Cave Spring Magisterial District 3. Confirmation of appointment to the Clean Valley Council 4. Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $2,500 from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs Mini Grant initiative for the purchase of materials to construct a May -Day Firefighter Safety Prop 5. Resolution requesting acceptance of Jennifer Court and the remaining portion of Parker Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary System On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church A- 021412 -3.a A- 021412 -3.b A- 021412 -3.c RESOLUTION 021412 -3.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF JENNIFER COURT AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF PARKER LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM 02 February 14, 2012 WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM -4.3, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements, and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the developer, whichever occurs last in time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS Supervisor Elswick asked for a work session on how we go about making contributions to charities and to define the criteria for how we go about doing that. IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The following citizens spoke. February 14, 2012 103 Mr. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frost Lane in Salem, Virginia stated he has been a Roanoke County resident since 1956. For what reason would anyone stand and present here if they did not believe the liberty of our Constitutional Republic was in danger from the UN socialist intrusion of Agenda 21 and thus ICLEI. It is easy to sit back and indicate, Oh, "It doesn't matter" "We are not going to do it" "It's a new fad" "I'm just torn." Well, momma said, "Not only is life like a box of chocolates (today being Valentine's Day), cause you never know what you are going to get." She also said if it isn't in writing you may as well throw your chocolates in the toilet. One way or the other, they are going to go there anyway. We may rest assured that Agenda 21's ICLEI has it in writing, spell checked, crossed all the tees, doted all the eyes, sugar coated, air brushed the make -up with their many millions in their money pot. Time is becoming short. We're reaching a tipping point, not of the earth's climate, but of the financial schemes that permanently divert funds from productive activities into wasteful ones, all in the name of the scam of saving the climate. The results are evident: higher levels of spending, deficits, taxes, higher prices for energy and electricity therefore for all manufactured goods, less productive activity, less employment and more misery. It seems odd that all of this is essentially based on a fake, the fake data that seem to show a warming. The Commonwealth of VA and local governments are authorized to operate under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of VA, not the Charter of a United Nations accredited "NGO" a non - governmental organization such as ICLEI. In fact, under article one section ten of the United States of America Constitution, it says, "States are prohibited from implementing foreign political initiatives through it's prohibition of States to engage in Treaties, Alliances" or Confederations. Let us think research and we will find out. Agenda 21's Socialist ICLEI must go. He is here offering to help with that effort. Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane stated Last month you voted to remain in ICLEI. Several things need clarification. Those of us involved in trying to remove ICLEI are environmentally friendly though we have been portrayed otherwise. We have researched ICLEI thoroughly, read the ICLEI website thoroughly, and read what is happening throughout the country in areas who are fully implementing ICLEI's policies. We are not on a McCarthy "witch hunt" as was implied. Our objections are based mainly on what we read from their own material and their long -term goals. These statements were made last month: "We can apply them if we want to." "No one will ever tell us how to run our county." "Nobody is going to tell me that I'm going to do this or do something that came from Bonn, Germany or New York." I had often wondered why are our goals are their goals... exactly... word for word. I found the answer after digging on ICLEI USA website. The duties of the Staff Liaison for ICLEI include: Determine most feasible way to accomplish ICLEI's Five Milestones and seek necessary support and engagement from other local government staff to implement measures and complete milestones. The duties of the Elected Official Liaison include: Report on the jurisdictions' progress as it achieves ICLEI's Five Milestones for climate protection Help build and 104 February 14, 2012 maintain support for ICLEI's mission and goals. I have a copy of all these duties for you to see. There is not a "if you choose to do so" or "if it applies to your locality" as we have been led to believe. It is not sounding so voluntary is it? It is not sounding like something we can choose to use or not use is it? Who is misleading the citizens? Then there is the RCCLEAR report. How can Roanoke County condone sending in a fraudulent report anywhere? Not one thing on that report can be documented or proved. Yet someone submitted it, in the county's name, as fact. I have never seen a government file a report without specific documentation. Is it even legal to do so? Is this accepted practice? If it is, why should the citizens believe any report from this government without specific proof of its validity? If you condone fraudulent reporting, how are we supposed to trust you? If it is not condoned, why has something not been done? It is to your constituents that you will have to answer these and many other questions. One of you said it yourself. "It's right here. The buck stops right here ". Bill Gregory stated he lives at 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke and has been a resident for 19 years. In one of the Supervisor's closing remarks prior to voting to remain in ICLEI, it was stated he does not believe that ICLEI has anything to do with the way we run our county and it never will. No matter how much we talk about ICLEI and how much we use their services or use their methods or their educational tools, they will never tell us how to run the County." On multiple occasions over the past months, we have informed the Board RCCLEAR has been voluntarily and regularly submitting documentation for ICLEI to audit to determine if our County is complying with ICLEI requirements. This is being done in order to receive rewards, i.e. ICLEI milestone certifications or certificates. It sounds a lot like ICLEI is playing the role of judge and enforcer, "you don't fulfill our requirements; you don't get your reward." It goes beyond getting their services, tools and advice. There is pressure to come up with a reduction in CO2 emissions in order to satisfy ICLEI's requirements. Do you know how the County intends to objectively achieve thirty percent (30 %) reduction in ten (10) years? Neither does he because the County's formal climate action plan required by ICLEI appears to never have been formally adopted by the County and sent to ICLEI. According to a response to one of his freedom of information (FOIA) requests this past summer what was apparently sent to ICLEI in lieu of a climate action plan was an itemization of how funds would be spent for each reduction activity the County would undertake such as the Save A Ton campaign. Surprisingly, it is his understanding that ICLEI accepted this itemized budget document as the actual climate action plan. So the question remains, how is RCCLEAR objectively documenting the County's CO2 emissions reduction. The recent FOIA request and response about how the 400 tons of carbon emissions were derived should be one clue. On a related matter, he has not received a response to his January 10 FOIA request concerning the method RCCLEAR is using to document CO2 reduction from the Save A Ton campaign and he requested a response once again. February 14, 2012 105 John Brill from Roanoke City and stated this is for the benefit of the republicans on the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Altizer and Mr. Flora. In January 2012, the Republican National Committee unanimously passed the following resolution, "RNC resolution exposing United Nations Agenda 21, WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and, WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local "sustainable development" policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other "Green" or "Alternative" projects; and WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so- called "sustainable development" views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and, WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist /communist redistribution of wealth; and, WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan; and therefore be it further RESOLVED, that the U.S. government and no state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and therefore be it further RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for "sustainable development" and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it further RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, all Republican candidates for President who qualify for RNC sanctioned debates, and to each Republican state and territorial party office and recommend for adoption into the Republican Party platform at the 2012 convention." This is not a fringe issue. It is not going away; it is about to become part of the Republican platform to get rid of ICLEI. So, he urged them to be good republicans, bring this to a vote again and vote the way you should have the first time or join the socialist and Ms. Moore's party. IN RE: REPORTS 106 February 14, 2012 Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Elswick stated he would like to make a comment about a couple of groups that have achieved reduction in energy usage. One is the Bent Mountain Women's Club and they have reduced their use of electricity twelve percent (12 %). They proved that by comparing their utility bills. There is a group from Christiansburg that has received funding and their intention is to use that funding, to put solar on people's houses, but as a part of the program they will not only study and do an energy audit of people's houses or commercial buildings they will be insist that the recommendations be implement and that there are follow -up audit to ascertain the actual amount of energy savings. To the extent that we might not have done that, he is sure we will begin to in the future. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to discuss Leisure Legacy, Inc. (Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) In attendance for this work session were Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Wendi Shultz, Tourism and Event Coordinator. The work session was held from 4:32 p.m. until 4:49 p.m. Mr. Blount explained the purpose of Leisure Legacy, Inc. and what they hoped to accomplish and advised they are ready to complete the filing on this 501(c) 3 and proceeded through a PowerPoint presentation that is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. He advised national standards for fund raising will be implemented. Supervisor Moore inquired if the schools could use this, i.e. the rubberized tracts and would the Board of Leisure Legacy prioritize the prospects. Mr. Blount responded in the affirmative saying partnerships with other entities like the schools helps. Supervisor Altizer inquired when they apply for grants do they need to be project specific with Mr. Blount responding usually a scope of the project must be February 14, 2012 107 provided. In the beginning you could propose a concept and as you go further into the grant, they will require specifics. Supervisor Altizer then asked if the Board of Directors are all County residents with Mr. Blount explaining that he thinks that is a topic for discussion because in his mind he does not think they need to be County residents because they are looking for individuals that can help with fund raising, but it is an option that can be incorporated into the organization. Supervisor Altizer then stated the organization must keep an "arms length" distance from the governing body with Mr. Blount responding in the affirmative, which is one of the reasons why they are setting up some separation with legal counsel and accounting, etc. He stated he feels by putting together a larger Board of Directors provides the manpower to create that separation. Ms. Shultz added there are some funding sources that do not require you to be as specific as when you are going after a grant, for example the Bittle Porterfield Foundation who only wants to know what you are going to do with the money. Supervisor Elswick stated there are a number of organizations and citizen groups throughout the County who would like to have funding of this nature and most of them are not as proficient in asking for grants. This could be a great focal point for all of those kinds of people who need help. Mr. Blount responded by stating nationwide a lot of Parks and Recreation Departments are struggling with projects and programs they want to be able to offer, but they do not have the funding to be able to do so. By creating either a non - profit or foundation, it is allowing them, especially on the infrastructure side, to receive land donations. Citizens would rather officially donate land to a 501(c) 3 for tax purposes and they feel more comfortable with that and in turn can be conveyed to Roanoke County as that was the purpose. Supervisor Elswick asked if they anticipate having someone from the school system be on the Board with Mr. Bount responding that was certainly possible, especially with the mutual projects. Supervisor Flora commented this was a great idea to obtain private funds. Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks these grants will enhance the "quality of life." Mr. Blount advised there were be some overlap in the beginning with Parks and Recreation staff, but the goal is to be totally self- supporting. Supervisor Moore stated she thought it was a great idea. 2. Work session on a landscaping project at the intersection of Williamson Road and Plantation Road (Megan Cronise, Principal Planner) In attendance with Ms. Cronise were Wendy Jones, Executive Director of the Williamson Road Business Association and Brian Blevins, Land Use Engineer from the Virginia Department of Transportation. The work session was held from 4:50 p.m. until 4:58 p.m. 08 February 14, 2012 Ms. Cronise went through a PowerPoint presentation detailing the project. A copy of this presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Flora asked if any contact had been made with Hollins University for a source of labor with Ms. Cronise responding a landscaping contract had already awarded with Supervisor Flora advising not to hesitate to contact them if needed. 3. Work session to review Roanoke County -owned vacant lots (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate) In attendance for this work session were Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate; B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator. The work session was held from 5:00 p.m. until 5:36 p.m. Mr. Covey presented a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the County owned vacant properties, a copy of which is on file in the office to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The first section discussed was the Palm Valley flood mitigation area in which these properties were purchases because they were in a flood plan. Mr. Goodman advised FEMA funds were used to purchase these properties and they must remain vacant. Supervisor Flora inquired when the property was purchased and the funds were obtained from FEMA, was there a requirement that the County retain ownership for a period of years with Mr. Covey responding he did not know other than nothing can be built on the property. Chairman Flora stated this was good fertile soil and could be used for a community garden. Mr. Goodman advised if the property was used for a community garden, it could be leased. Chairman Flora suggested to Mr. Goodman that staff put this out to the community to see if there is any interest. The next section discussed was the former Cave Spring Library which staff is currently working on. Next was the Westward Lake area, which Chairman Flora asked how many parcels with Mr. Covey responding seven (7) lots with an assessed value of $20,000 each. Supervisor Elswick inquired why these properties were purchased with Mr. Covey explained this was beside a former dam. Supervisor Altizer stated he thought these parcels would be good candidates to be sold. Chairman Flora stated if the County sells does it go up for auction and the highest bidder get it. Mr. Goodman responded it depends on what the Board decides. It can either be done at auction or to enter into an agreement with a sales representative and a list price. Mr. Mahoney advised after Spring Hollow was constructed there were a lot of well lots that were taken out of service because they no longer necessary. The Board then began to sell those and because they were in neighborhoods, it caused a certain amount of consternation. As a result of complaints, the Board had an unofficial policy that it would direct staff to February 14, 2012 109 run an ad in the newspaper a couple of times, send a letter to all the abutting and adjoining property owners and put a physical sign on the property stating that it was for sale and giving the date on which people who were interested could send in their bids. Then, on a certain Board date, the Board would open the bids and then award to the highest bidder. The Board should think about establishing a process on whether a sealed bid auction or turn it over to one of the auction companies. Supervisor Altizer stated if something is done on this, he does not want to see the advertisement in the legal ads, but wants to see it in the lots for sale section of the newspaper. Chairman Flora stated the Westmoreland Drive area is a possible contender for sale. Chairman Flora advised the next area, Oak Grove is isolated. Mr. Goodman advised the property was originally purchased for consideration for a future library and then the possibility of a potential fire station. Chairman Flora stated it does not have good access for a fire station, with Mr. Covey explaining there is a right -of -way there. Chairman Flora advised he thought this location could be sold as he felt it would make an excellent multi - family housing site for condominiums or patio homes. Mr. Covey advised the Sugar Loaf Mountain Road location was donated by Frank Porter and Granger McFarland. Supervisor Elswick asked what the total acreage is with Mr. Covey responding six point two (6.2) acres and the market value is $312,400 and said it could be a potential for sale. Supervisor Elswick asked if the County were going to sell pieces shouldn't they all be done at one time, with Mr. Goodman and Chairman Flora responding in the affirmative. Mr. Goodman then advised he does not recommend leasing the house in the Back Creek public safety area because of a public safety concern. Mr. Goodman then stated he did not recommend selling any of the remaining homes on County land. Chairman Flora asked staff to take another look at the parcels and where they are not tied to existing County properties, are isolated and small and compile a potential list to sell and bring back to the Board at a later date. 4. Request for authorization to apply for a Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency's Grant Program for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) (Richard E. Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue) In attendance for this work session was B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Richard E. Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue; Steve Simon, Division Chief; and Volunteer Chief Colin Gee. The work session was held from 5:37 p.m. until 6:18 p.m. Chief Burch explained this was the same grant that the Board reviewed on September 14, 2010. He addressed their overall staffing concerns. He reiterated in 2001, a significant change was made in the way they do business; ambulance fees 110 February 14, 2012 were implemented. The first year twenty (20) people were hired and the next year fifteen (15) people were hired. Through the years, they have done an excellent job of balancing career and volunteer staffing. Economic times have changed the balance. He advised he is aware it is the Board's goal not to raise taxes or have layoffs or cut services, but in the case of Fire and Rescue they have cut services in the past several years, which has happened due to the lack of volunteers. The availability of volunteers is impacting what he considered crucial response time problems. He added at a future meeting he would like to discuss station profiles. Chief Burch stated the grant will fully fund salaries and benefits for firefighters for two years; there is no requirement after two years. He advised he knows one of Mr. Goodman's concerns in his recommendation is what happens in year three. In the last three years, Fire and Rescue have lost fourteen (14) people, only one of those was a retirement. He explained there are eight (8) people, including himself that can retire immediately and there are four (4) more that can retire within the next two (2) years. So, that is twelve (12) that can retire. Their position is that in three (3) years if they are successful in received the grant, through attrition these positions could be absorbed without adding new positions or County funding. There is some associated costs of $28,000 for equipment per person; they feel they can absorb if received. Chief Burch explained the priorities of the grant: rehiring laid off firefighters, retention and finally new hires. He advised they are at a point now with staffing and in order to stay consistent with the ASL goal is within six (6) minutes at eighty percent (80 %). Currently they are at forty -six percent (46 %.) He added these personnel will serve Mt. Pleasant, but the surrounding areas to include Vinton, Clearbrook, Franklin County, Cave Spring, Read Mountain, Ft. Lewis, Backcreek, Catawba, Hollins. Currently there is a 24/7 ambulance, this grant will allow three people on duty per shift that will allow either fire truck or ambulance, not both. Chief Burch then turned the meeting over to Colin Gee. Volunteer Chief Gee stated the volunteer system at Mt. Pleasant is strong; however, economic times have caused most of the volunteers to work two jobs or extending their hours. If this grant is received, they will be two years ahead of schedule, and if not and wait two years to hire people to put there, they will be three (3) years behind schedule. He stated he feels that in two years they can absorb the personnel. Supervisor Altizer stated he understands Mr. Goodman's response and even this Board in the past got hung up with doing things that did not quite work. He stated he felt it did not work because the Board did not step in and correct. He stated he has a concern Roanoke County is heading down the road, not because of anything that has been wrong, but because Roanoke County is not in a position to do the type of hiring staff wants to do, whether it is Fire and Rescue, Police, etc. He noted this grant is better than the one in 2010 because the third year had to be guaranteed. He stated he thinks it is worth the gamble; if Roanoke County is awarded the grant put the firefighters on. He reiterated he understands Mr. Goodman's concern in putting people on and not taking them off. He has a fear that if the Board does not try to chisel away, then down February 14, 2012 111 the road, Fire and Rescue will be back in the same position as before or consideration should seriously be given to how Roanoke County is going to approach Fire and Rescue, maybe on a regional basis. Mr. Goodman advised he and Chief Burch have discussed this issue and this is why this item was brought before the Board; to provide options. His concern with the current budget is he does not know how long this difficulty with the budget will last and does not know how they are going to fund unless they cut other departments. Supervisor Altizer stated this decision has to become a Board decision. If the State of Virginia were to come back to us and say they are going to give you two more years to do VRS, we will take that, because we have a reprieve. The same would apply with this grant. The Board will have to make that decision in two years. Chairman Flora stated he thought he heard Chief Burch say there should be at least six (6) vacancies in the next three (3) years by people leaving the department. Mr. Goodman confirmed. Chairman Flora then stated he wants to make sure he understands that if Roanoke County gets this grant and six (6) people are hired and there are vacancies coming up in the next few years, the people on the grant will take those slots. Chief Burch responded they could. Chairman Flora asked for clarification by asking could or will with Mr. Goodman responding the grant would be used for two years to pay for the six (6) positions. Chairman Flora then asked if the vacancies would be held open with Mr. Goodman responding in the negative; all Fire and Police positions have been filled as soon as they become vacant. Chairman Flora inquired if Roanoke County would end up with a $300,000 bill at the end of three years that will have to be paid. Chief Burch responded it could happen because it may be the Board's decision, when year two comes around during the budget cycle and things really look bad, any open positions could be frozen until these six could fill the slots. Chairman Flora stated he thought that is what he said, with Mr. Goodman stating no public safety positions have been frozen, other than administration. Chairman Flora stated if we do not do that, Roanoke County will end up with a $300,000 bill to pay. Mr. Goodman stated freezing those positions will have an impact on service levels, with Chairman Flora stating of course it will. He further emphasized Roanoke County is in bad times, the State is cutting, but Roanoke County is not tightening its belt, except just what it takes to get by. He would be concerned about hiring six (6) people. He stated he can support as long as he knows there will not be a $300,000 bill to pay at the end of three years. Supervisor Elswick inquired if Chief Burch stated he would not fill the positions of the six (6) that were going to retire. Chief Burch stated they would fill the positions under normal circumstances, but if the County could not afford to pick the salaries up in the third year, then they would be frozen, depending upon the situation, near the end of year two. Supervisor Elswick then asked if there were other people in the County could be reassigned to Fire and Rescue. Mr. Goodman responded negatively, stating they are not certified or trained properly. Chairman Flora stated but neither are the people that will be hired. Supervisor Elswick stated he knew of some 112 February 14, 2012 that were already trained. Chief Burch advised if they continue down this path, in two or three years Fire and Rescue will need to be refigured because if you were to see the station profiles you would be able to see the problems. It may be they will need to operate from core stations and response times will be different. He stated he knows there are a lot of other departments worse off than they are. The whole station profile needs to be reviewed to see what is happening to this system. Supervisor Moore stated if Roanoke County is fortunate enough to obtain the SAFER grant, then we have two years and if at the end of two years we cannot keep, they will at least be trained and have a better opportunity to get another position. She stated she feels they should try for it and see what happens. Chairman Flora asked if it would make sense to go for the grant and get it, and in the first two years of the grant, staff will be replaced that leave or retire. In the third year, those positions would be frozen and use any opening to be filled with the six (6) paid for by the grant. Chief Burch stated he felt that was a possibility to look at, however is a little hesitant in saying that now; not knowing what three years will be like. Hopefully, in three years things will be better. Accordingly, Chairman Flora stated these positions will be funded by the grant for two years; any vacancies that are created in the third year will be frozen unless the Board of Supervisors specifically agrees not to free them. This decision will be two years from the implementation of the grant. Supervisor Elswick asked what may be a broader question than just fire and rescue and maybe they should have a closed session on personnel. Mr. Goodman advised in general personnel discussions should be done in open session. Supervisor Elswick stated he was talking about staffing and whether or not positions are frozen, not individuals, not pay. Mr. Goodman stated that must be done in open session. He stated if you are talking about an individual and performance, under the law it is allowed, but anything to do with policy needs to be in open session. Supervisor Elswick stated then it needs to be done in open session. Mr. Goodman responded staff could do the station profiles. Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks the Board should do every County department. Mr. Goodman advised they can if that is the direction of the Board. Supervisor Elswick stated they could discuss freezing versus not freezing; times may look bad right now, but they are probably going to get worse. Mr. Goodman explained staff currently has a job bank where there are approximately twenty (20) positions that are frozen and eliminated several positions over the years. Supervisor Elswick stated but what happens when there is a year that requires $20 million that the County does not have, what is staff going to do. He suggested there should be a contingency plan. What are the basic requirements of County government, who comes first in service to the citizens. Mr. Goodman stated staff could prepare a strategic plan. Supervisor Altizer stated they could lose some funding, but does not feel it would be $20 million. The Board is charged to do what it has to do given the circumstances the Board is under for any given year. If things get worse, then a lot of things go on the table, i.e. are you going to pick up garbage every week; what kind of February 14, 2012 113 service delivery is the County going to give will ultimately up to the citizens. These decisions come before the Board every year during the budget session and sometimes midyear. This issue will need to be dealt with in three years and there will be other issues along the way, but the thing that remains is that the grant is free, people will be trained and already in place. For those two years, Roanoke County will have better coverage in all areas of the County because there is more they can do. Chairman Flora stated the consensus of the Board is to proceed with the grant and in the third year, the understanding would be upfront the positions would be frozen and the Board would decide by action as to whether or not to maintain the freeze or assume that funding will be available. Chief Burch stated he sees it playing out in the budget process. Chairman Flora stated the Board needs to adopt a resolution to authorize the application and the frozen positions needs to be included. Chief Burch stated they did not need a resolution, just approval. Mr. Goodman restated that the consensus of the Board would be to apply for the grant and prepare a resolution for the next meeting. Supervisor Elswick asked Chief Burch if there were other locations in trouble. Chief Burch responded this station is not the worst case, but it is the best case for this grant. Supervisor Elswick then asked why this station would be done first if it not the worst case with Chief Burch responding the other situation involves another jurisdiction whereby they share a station. He confirms this is the best option they feel they can justify the need for the grant. Mr. Goodman advised his understanding of the consensus of the Board is to pursue the grant and for staff to write a resolution to reflect their position in the second year. Additionally, at another Board meeting, Chief Burch will bring staff in and give the station profile. Supervisor Altizer asked that when the work session is scheduled it is not included with three or four others. Mr. Goodman advised that he would put together some dates to have a meeting for work sessions and provide to the Board. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:09 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A A.1.Personnel, namely discussion concerning appointments to the Economic Development Authority; Section 2.2.3711.A.29 Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the Board, namely negotiations with the City of Roanoke and Section 2.2.3711.A.29 Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the Board, namely performance agreement with the Economic Development Authority and Virginia Blue Ridge, LLC 114 February 14, 2012 The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 6:55 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. RESOLUTION 021412 -4 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 recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Church February 14, 2012 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: Clerk to the :•. • 115 Richard C. Flora Chairman OEM 116 February 14, 2012 PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 1