HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/27/2012 - RegularMarch 27, 2012 155
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of March 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,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte
A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Teresa H. Hall, Director of Public Information and
Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Eric Spano of Mount Pleasant Baptist
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of congratulations to the Hidden Valley High School
Boys Swim Team 200 Medley Relay for winning the 2012 Virginia
High School League (VHSL) State Group A/AA Championship
In attendance to accept the recognition were Team members Ben
Schmidt, Peter D'Ortenzio, Jacob Gibbs, Principal Stegall, Superintendent Lorraine
Lange and Coach Sherri Vaughn. All Supervisors offered their congratulations.
156 March 27, 2012
RESOLUTION 032712 -1 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE
HIDDEN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL BOYS SWIM TEAM 200 MEDLEY
RELAY FOR WINNING THE 2012 VIRGINIA HIGH SCHOOL
LEAGUE (VHSL) STATE GROUP A/AA CHAMPIONSHIP
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and
WHEREAS, the Hidden Valley High School Boys Swim Team 200 Medley Relay
won the 2011 Virginia High School League State Group A/AA Championship on
February 11, 2012, at the Christiansburg Aquatic Center with a time of 1:37.80; and
WHEREAS, this is the third consecutive Titan boys State championship for the
200 Medley Relay Team; and
WHEREAS, the Titans are coached by Sheri Vaughn.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the
members of the HIDDEN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL BOYS 200 MEDLEY RELAY SWIM
TEAM: Lucas Otruba, Peter D'Ortenzio, Jacob Gibbs and Ben Schmidt for winning
the 2012 VHSL State Group A/AA Championship; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes to the members of the team, the coaches and the school in their future
endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Certificate of recognition to Carolyn Bethel, Hidden Valley High
School, 2012 Virginia High School League (VHSL) State Champion
in Indoor Track; Girls 1600 Meter Race and Second in the 3200
Meter Race
In attendance to accept her certificate was Carolyn Bethel; School
Superintendent Lorraine Lange and Coach Dan King. All Supervisors offered their
congratulations.
3. Recognition of Department of Social Services Employee, Robin
Freeman, recipient of the 2012 recipient of the Golden Halo Award
(Joyce Earl, Director of Social services)
Ms. Earl outlined the award that Senior Social Worker Robin Freeman had
received. Also in attendance was Supervisor Shannon Brabham. All Supervisors
March 27, 2012 157
offered their heartfelt thanks and congratulations to Ms. Freeman.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution approving the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
Budget for fiscal year 2012 -2013 (Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County
Administrator; Jacqueline Shuck, Executive Director of the
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission)
Ms. Hyatt outlined the resolution to approve the 2012 -2013 budget for the
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission and introduced Ms. Shuck who was in
attendance to answer any questions. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 032712 -2 APPROVING THE ROANOKE
REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2012 -2013 UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS
WHEREAS, Section 24.13 of the Regional Airport Commission Act and Section
17.(a) of the contract between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County and the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission provide that the Commission shall prepare and submit its
operating budget for the forthcoming year to the Board of Supervisors of the County and
City Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, by report dated March 20, 2012, a copy of which is on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board, the Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission has submitted a request that the County approve the fiscal year 2012 -2013
budget of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia that the fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget and proposed capital
expenditures for the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission as set forth in the March
20, 2012, report of the Commission Executive Director, a copy of which is incorporated
by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk
are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any
documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said
approval.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church, Flora
NAYS: None
158 March 27, 2012
2. Resolution setting the allocation percentage for personal property
tax relief for the 2012 tax year (Laurie Gearheart, Assistant
Director of Finance)
Ms. Gearheart outlined the resolution to set the allocation percentage for
personal property tax relief for the 2012 tax year. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 032712 -3 SETTING THE ALLOCATION
PERCENTAGE FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF IN
ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE 2012 TAX YEAR
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1 -3524
(C) (2) and Section 58.1 -3912 (E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of
the Acts of Assembly and as set forth in item 503.E (Personal Property Tax Relief
Program or "PPTRA ") of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly and qualifying
vehicle with a taxable situs within the County commencing January 1, 2012, shall
receive personal property tax relief; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted pursuant to Ordinance 122005 -10
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That tax relief shall be allocated so as to eliminate personal property taxation
for qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less.
2. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,001 420,000 will be eligible
for 65.54% tax relief.
3. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall only
receive 65.54% tax relief on the first $20,000 of value; and
4. That all other vehicles which do not meet the definition of qualifying (for
example, including but not limited to, business use vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor
homes, etc.) will not be eligible for any form of tax relief under this program.
5. That the percentages applied to the categories of qualifying personal use
vehicles are estimated fully to use all available PPTRA funds allocated to Roanoke
County by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6. Supplemental assessments for tax years 2005 and prior shall be deemed
non - qualifying for purposes of state tax relief and the local share due from the taxpayer
shall represent 100% of the assessed personal property tax.
7. That this Resolution shall be effective from and after the date of its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church, Flora
March 27, 2012 159
NAYS: None
3. Resolution granting a waiver to the American Cancer Society and
Relay for Life of Vinton under Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke
County Code to the provisions of the County's Noise Ordinance,
Article II. Noise of Chapter 13. Offenses - Miscellaneous (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the resolution and the request to grant a noise
waiver. He advised representatives from the Cancer Society were in attendance to
answer any questions. All of the Supervisors thanked the sponsors for this event.
There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 032712 -4 GRANTING A WAIVER TO THE
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND RELAY FOR LIFE OF
VINTON UNDER SECTION 13 -23 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY'S NOISE
ORDINANCE, ARTICLE II. "NOISE" OF CHAPTER 13.
"OFFENSES - MISCELLANEOUS"
WHEREAS, Relay For Life of Vinton, a fundraiser for the American Cancer
Society, will be holding its annual overnight Relay For Life event at William Byrd High
School for the Town of Vinton, Roanoke County, and the general public on Friday, April
20, 2012, from 6:00 p.m. to Saturday, April 21, 2012, at 7:00 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, Relay for Life is held overnight to represent the journey of a cancer
patient, and stress that cancer continues to exist even when the sun has set. In order to
accommodate this atmosphere and bring the community together in the fight against
cancer, American Cancer Society and Relay For Life of Vinton are requesting a waiver
of the Roanoke County noise ordinance from 6:00 p.m. on Friday, April 20, 2012, to
7:00 a.m. on Saturday, April 21, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code establishes certain
standards for the Board of Supervisors to grant waivers from the provision of the
Roanoke County noise ordinance to avoid undue hardship upon consideration of certain
factors set forth in sub - section (b) of Section 13 -23 and after making certain alternative
findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the provisions of Section 13 -21. Specific acts as noise, sub - section
(5) and Section 13 -20. General prohibition of Article II. Noise be waived from 6:00 p.m.,
April 20, 2012, to 7:00 a.m., April 21, 2012.
160 March 27, 2012
2. That this waiver is granted specifically to The American Cancer Society
and Relay for Life of Vinton for the Relay for Life fundraiser at William Byrd High School
on April 20 -21, 2012.
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
4. Request for approval of agreements between the County of
Roanoke and the Western Virginia Water Authority for use of
space on tower sites for meter reading radio equipment (Anne
Marie Green, Director of General Services)
A- 032712 -5
Ms. Green explained the request for approval of agreement for the use of
space on tower sties for meter reading radio equipment. Chairman Flora commented
he feels co- location is an advantage and thinks it is a great idea. There was no further
discussion. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Altizer
5. Resolution adopting a revised schedule of ambulance transport
fees and providing for an effective date (Richard E. Burch, Jr.,
Chief of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Burch explained the resolution to adopt a revised schedule of
ambulance transport fees with an effective date of April 1, 2012. Also in attendance
was Division Chief Steve Simon to answer any questions. Chief Burch thanked Chief
Simon for his assistance in this matter. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 032712 -6 ADOPTING A REVISED SCHEDULE OF
AMBULANCE TRANSPORT FEES AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors enacted a Fee for Services ordinance as
an addition to the Roanoke County Code on May 22, 2001, which established the legal
structure for providing emergency medical transport and accompanying fees as
provided for by the Code of Virginia; and
March 27, 2012 161
WHEREAS, Section 2 -131 of this ordinance, contained in Chapter 2
Administration of the Roanoke County Code, provides that the Board of Supervisors, by
resolution, may establish reasonable fees for the provision of emergency medical
services by all emergency medical service personnel, whether provided by volunteers or
public employees, upon the recommendation of the County Administrator and the Chief
of Fire and Rescue; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution on August 14, 2001
which resolution was revised on March 26, 2002; by Resolution 032602 -2; March 25,
2003; by Resolution 032503 -8; March 8, 2005; by Resolution 030805 -3; on August 14,
2007, by Resolution 081407 -6, and on May 25, 2010 by Resolution 052510 -3 upon the
joint recommendation of the County Administrator and the Chief of Fire and Rescue for
the establishment of reasonable fees for the provision of various levels of emergency
medical services, including mileage fees for vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued
regulations, effective April 1, 2002, which establish a fee schedule for the payment of
ambulance services under the Medicare program based upon specific codes or
categories of ambulance services which must be complied with to receive Medicare
reimbursements.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The fees which shall be charged by the County of Roanoke for the
following described emergency medical services provided by the Roanoke County
owned, operated, funded, housed or permitted emergency vehicles shall be as follows:
Advance Life Support (ALS) 1 Emergency $425.00
Advance Life Support (ALS) 2 Emergency $650.00
Basic Life Support (BLS) Emergency $375.00
Mileage (loaded) $11.00
2. No recipient of ambulance services who cannot afford to pay the
ambulance transport fees will be required to do so.
3. This resolution shall be in full force and effect on and after April 1, 2012.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church, Flora
NAYS: None
6. Resolution authorizing the lease financing of certain fire rescue
vehicles in an amount not to exceed $1.6 million (Richard E.
Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue; Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the resolution authorizing the lease financing of $1.6
million for certain fire rescue vehicles and advised Chief Burch was in attendance to
162 March 27, 2012
answer any questions. She provided a brief historical outline of previous borrowings by
the Fire and Rescue Department. Ms. Owens explained she had received a request
from a Board member on March 26, 2012, to take an additional look at County reserves
to see if there was room to do in -house financing. She detailed there was one reserve,
the minor capital fund that could be utilized; however, it is still her recommendation to
go with the outside financing.
Mr. B. Clayton Goodman, III, County Administrator, advised that staff had
discussed again yesterday and reiterated it was their recommendation to proceed with
the financing from the outside party. He explained the reserves are not what they used
to be due to economic conditions.
Supervisor Moore advised approximately $17,000 is the upfront money
that the bank wants to charge to borrow this money in addition to the $2,250 if they use
any of Roanoke County's documents versus their own documents. She further stated if
her calculations are correct, about $282,000 will be paid per year in debt service and if
the money is borrowed internally and Fire and Rescue pays $300,000 back, that is
about $17,000 a year in savings, plus the upfront costs and with the economy the way it
is and department heads are laying off people, and not even hiring part -time employees,
$17,000 could be a part -time salary. She indicated she would be interested in looking
at loaning the money internally and paying it back and if the County needed to borrow
money from the minor capital later for something unexpected, the Board could look at it
at that time.
Supervisor Altizer inquired when the money for the fire trucks is due with
Chief Burch explaining they are expecting delivery in June and the funds are due upon
delivery and acceptance. Supervisor Altizer stated he knew the County has done this
before and he is not a proponent of financing fire trucks out of the health care reserve,
but knows the Chief has done this some other ways and he has paid them back in the
past. He then inquired of the Chief if a big payment was made in the current year with
Chief responding the past loan was paid off in the current year. Supervisor Altizer then
asked with the trucks not coming until June, is that generally a net 30 days? Could you
do $1.3 the first of July rather than $1.6? Chief Burch explained it all depended on the
delivery date and that fluctuates a few weeks here and there, not a month or so. Chief
Burch advised he has been told to expect delivery in June and typically when the trucks
arrive it takes a couple of weeks to go through the acceptance process. Ms. Owens
explained that historically staff has already had the financing in place. If the Board
wanted to do the internal financing, staff would go ahead and book the loan for the full
amount and then on July 1, 2012, he would have his new budget and he would make
his $300,000 payment, so the internal amount would get replenished. Supervisor Altizer
then asked with regard to the $300,000 upfront money, if the cost will change. Ms.
Owens asked Supervisor Altizer to explain further. He advised the local cost of
issuance is $17,000, which is upfront money that is built into the loan, so are those
numbers going to be different. Ms. Owens responded those numbers would change if
internal financing was used because the actual vehicles themselves are $1,582,823,
March 27, 2012 163
however the County has already incurred about $4,000 of costs that the financial
advisors as well as the bond counsel have incurred in working on this project.
Supervisor Church inquired of Mr. Goodman if this is done internally from
minor capital, what happens other than the minor capital is reduced and do the
approved projects go "back on the stove." Ms. Owens advised the amount in minor
capital that is unappropriated is $3,253,648. If these funds are used to purchase the fire
trucks, then a loan would be put against that amount so it would reduce availability
down to $1,670,000. Supervisor Church then asked Ms. Owens which Supervisor
asked her to look into alternative financing with Ms. Owens responding Supervisor
Moore. He stated he had only found out about this at 1:30 p.m. today through an email
and this Board historically does not do things this quickly. However, since Mr.
Goodman and the finance staff are recommending the Board not do this along with the
uncertainty the County is facing in the fiscal years to come, he concurs with the staff
recommendation to do the financing through SunTrust. He stated the Board cannot
start setting a habit of moving this amount of money from one fund to another. In great
times, it might make sense, but right now he concurs with the staff recommendation.
Supervisor Elswick stated he does not really understand why this is an
issue. The Board intention a year ago was to go with lease financing and we have a
recommendation from County staff, very highly qualified people to go with the lease
financing. Our Board has always tried to maintain adequate reserves as suggested by
the staff in the County who have a responsibility for advising the Board and thinks the
Board should go along with their opinion. He stated he thinks the Board should stay
with the original plan for the lease financing.
Supervisor Moore inquired if the County has the $1.6 in reserve and
further down the road, the funds are needed could staff get a loan. Ms Owens
responded it would depend on the project, however it would come with greater costs
and comes with a lot of planning and working with the outside bond counsel and
financial advisors, etc. One other thing that staff did and would have to be careful of
along the same lines, staff has made sure by doing this lease financing that it stays
within the adopted debt policy and by issuing this particular lease if the Board moves
forward in that direction, it does. Any future project would need to stay within the debt
policy.
Supervisor Church inquired of Ms. Owens if she could guarantee the rate
staff would get several years from now with Ms. Owens stating no and one other thing is
one of the reasons staff did not go with VRA was because in a matter of two days the
rates actually increased a couple of basis points. There is the uncertainty in the market.
The other quotes came with a locked in rate by a certain date.
Chairman Flora stated the County has been doing lease purchasing for
some time. How many times has the Fire Department used a lease purchase? Ms.
Owens stated since she has been with the County they have only done internal
financing. Diane Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator explained refuse vehicles,
buses and energy management equipment has been done with a lease, but fire
164 March 27, 2012
equipment has been done internally. Chairman Flora then stated he knows the County
is in tough times, but we would not be taking minor capital money and rolling it into the
budget as operating money if we needed it, so what are the plans for this money. Mr.
Goodman advised there are no plans that he is aware to allocate the $3.2 million.
Chairman Flora then asked what is the strongest reason for keeping the reserve. Ms.
Owens stated it is really one of the only reserves the County has if it had an economic
development prospect whereby some land needed to be developed and worked on.
Supervisor Church stated the recommendations from our financial experts
look at fiscal responsibility and keeping our bond ratings high. Is he correct in that
everything the County does to keep a surplus helps us in our ratings with Ms. Owens
responding the rating agencies view the reserves we have in place very favorably.
Supervisor Church explained the Board has been supportive of public safety forever
and thinks they are making a dangerous move if the Board goes against the people who
have put the County in a really good financial position. Furthermore, why would the
Board want to take a risk on this? He then inquired, it was mentioned that fire and
rescue has always come from a reserve fund. Is this correct? In 2007 and 2008, the
Board did not have the financial dilemma. He stated he highly recommends that the
Board stay with the financial staff's recommendation.
Supervisor Altizer stated he was following up with the Chairman's question
and if he heard the discussion right in the beginning it was looked at and then all of a
sudden today the recommendation changed. The statement was it changed today. Mr.
Goodman advised that statement was incorrect. The recommendation going back to
July of 2011 was to do the request for proposal. The documents were drafted and sent
to the Board in Friday's packet recommended the request for proposal. What they did
have was a request from a Board member, which he feels is a valid issue, whether we
can do something to save approximately $18,000. Ms. Owens was contacted
yesterday, staff reviewed and met midafternoon and agreed to continue with the same
recommendation. If staff has a request to look at something from a Board member, it
will be looked at. Supervisor Altizer stated he must have heard wrong. Mr. Goodman
explained the recommendation has always been to go with the outside financing. Mr.
Goodman again went through the thought process behind their recommendation and
still feels it is in the best interest of the County. Supervisor Altizer advised he is still
trying to look at $1.3 versus $1.6 million. Chief Burch explained there are no additional
funds in this year's budget. Supervisor Altizer inquired about paying the amount down
on July 1. Mr. Goodman advised they can go back and review.
Supervisor Elswick stated there are a lot of CIP projects down the road,
interest rates are not going to stay at two percent (2 %) and due to the number of CIP
projects such as improvement to Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Vinton
Library and when we get ready to do those and interest rates instead of being two
percent (2 %) are going to be four or five percent (4 or 5 %) or even more, he feels if the
County can borrow at two percent (2 %) and maintain its reserves at the recommended
levels of the County staff whom he has a lot of respect for, he thinks it is something the
March 27, 2012 165
Board should do.
Chairman Flora asked if the County financed this internally, instead of
$17,000, we will be paying about $90,000 in interest so we would actually be saving
$107,000. Mr. Goodman stated that was correct. Chairman Flora stated if we make a
payment on July 1 we will not be paying about $18,000 of that interest, so we are
actually saving, if the payment is made July 1 St , $ 89,000 over going out and paying
SunTrust Bank.
Supervisor Church asked Ms. Owens if all five Board members were
notified at the same time today.
Supervisor Moore stated to clarify she did read the Board Report on
Friday and call Rebecca because of the upfront costs as Mr. Goodman has explained.
It just sounded like a lot of upfront costs the County would never get back. So, she
advised she asked Ms. Owens if there were any funds that we could borrow from and
she advised minor capital would be the only one that she would suggest. She did ask
her to send the information she received to all five Board members at the same time.
She stated she thinks the Board has had a good discussion on it and would like to move
forward to save the County some money.
Chairman Flora commented if there is a concern about bringing something
up, can this item be continued to the April 10, 2012, meeting, would that give the staff
enough time to do what is needed. Ms. Owens responded the commitment on the rates
was good through April 4, 2012. Chairman Flora stated there was a scheduled meeting
on April 3, 2012, does staff think that the General Assembly is going to have enough of
budget for the Board to discuss. Mr. Goodman responded they hoped to. Chairman
Flora then asked the wishes of the Board.
Supervisor Church stated if the Board has a recommendation from staff,
knowing that our rates could change, he just does not understand why the Board would
want to "roll the dice." He reiterated there is a potential for saving some money, but
what happens if the County loses a prospect because the money is not available, it
does not make any sense for this Board with less than one day notice to change a
recommendation. He suggested the Board move forward with the original
recommendation.
Supervisor Moore stated with $120,000 a year in savings, plus upfront
money the County would be saving, she stated she thinks it is worth taking a risk on.
She does not see there is a big risk, if something comes up and economic times get
better, the Board can approach at that time.
Supervisor Elswick inquired of Ms. Owens if it is really $120,000 in
savings. Ms. Owens reviewed the costs, $4,000 already spent with bond counsel and
financial advisors, the savings specifically for the Fire Department would be bond
issuance costs of $17,000, the other savings were interest savings and the Fire
Department would still be paying two percent (2 %) interest on the loan just as in the
past, however, the capital fund would benefit from the interest, just like any other
internal loan that has been done. The Department borrowing the funds will pay the
166 March 27, 2012
interest and the fund that actually loans the money will get the benefit of that of $90,000
over the life of the loan. He then stated the other impact that would probably happen
assuming the County has to borrow money for some of the other projects would greatly
offset any savings by doing internal financing now. He reiterated that two percent (2 %)
was very low.
Supervisor Moore inquired what has the minor capital be used for in the in
the past because she is hearing major capital being talked about. Ms. Owens advised
minor capital has been used to provide additional funding if one of the buildings needed
a roof and a department was out of those kinds of funds. In the past, it has been used
for projects to do with architectural and engineering. She stated it was also used for the
Vinton War Memorial and a variety of projects, capital in nature. Supervisor Moore then
asked for a ballpark of how much funding went out. Ms. Owens explained the expenses
have ranged from anywhere from $3,000 up to $100,000, depending on the type and
scope of the project.
Chairman Flora advised the Board added $1.22 million to minor capital
from the previous fiscal year and have spent $57,000 since July 2011. Ms. Owens
advised the money going into this account comes in from end of year adjustments and
last year an additional contribution went into this account. There is a spreadsheet that
goes back through the past few years of everything that has been funded out of the
capital reserves if that would be helpful for the Board to review.
Supervisor Altizer advised the Board put roughly $2 million in major and
minor capital in 2010 -2011. When the Board talks about borrowing for CIP, it is
generally big projects. If you talk about Department of Social Services at $10 million
and the Vinton library is $8 million; bonds will be floated for those at probably two point
seven to two point nine percent (2.7- 2.9 %). The history tells us that we have not been
big spenders out of these major accounts other than A &E work. He advised if the Board
is going to meet on April 3 and you have a commitment for April 4 he would like to
have time to digest this. Anyway you look at it; there is $4.1 million between major and
minor accounts. The return we are getting on the money now is about one half of one
percent (0.5 %) and if we are going to spend two percent (2 %) then that is a four to one
(4:1) ratio. He stated he does not have a problem with what the Chairman suggested to
wait until next week.
Supervisor Church commented this Board has historically been
conservative in its finances and today he does not quite understand, as there seems to
be some sort of concerted effort to deviate from a possibility of taking our minor capital
or other funding down in the hopes that an Economic Development prospect does not
appear. He certainly does not want to do that. He asked Ms. Owens to confirm that
these funds are coming back into these accounts from year -end savings from each
department. He stated the Board has asked everybody in the County to tighten their
belts and now it does not make sense to him financially to take "a roll of the dice"
because the Board does not know what next year and the year after are going to hold to
save $17,000 to $80,000 where we could end up paying thousands more in higher
March 27, 2012 167
interest rates. What if we have the prospect and do not have any funds to give them.
He thinks the Board is throwing away an opportunity.
Supervisor Moore advised she concurred with Supervisor Altizer and
Chairman Flora to postpone discussion to the April 3, 2012 meeting.
Chairman Flora asked if the April 3, 2012, meeting would be held at 6:00
p.m., which Mr. Goodman confirmed. He then asked if the only item on the meeting
would be a budget work session. Mr. Goodman explained there were several individual
presentations: Cortran; Fire Department; and staff has invited the Delegates and
Senators to come to speak to the Board and there will be other budget updates.
Chairman Flora then asked if April 3, 2012, would be too late. Is the deadline with the
bank at 5:00 p.m. on April 4, 2012?
Supervisor Church then asked Mr. Goodman, Ms. Owens and Ms. Hyatt if
this item was extended to another date, he would ask that they provide to the entire
Board the financial numbers to backup the recommendations, what ifs, what it has been
used for in the past and details to explain their recommendation. He stated since this is
tax payer money, additional time should be given.
Chairman Flora moved that this agenda item be continued to the April 3,
2012, meeting and put on the agenda following the legislative debate and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the granting of a temporary construction
easement and a permanent easement to Appalachian Power
Company on property owned by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors known as Leslie Lane (tax map # 077.15 -01- 11.00),
Cave Spring Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance to grant a temporary construction
easement and a permanent easement to AEP. Proceeds will go into the capital
account. He explained the Board adopted a policy in 2007 which addressed the sale of
County property, which attempted to place a better fair market value on these
easements. AEP has offered $7,500 or $2 a square foot. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for April 10, 2012, and the motion was carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church, Flora
168 March 27, 2012
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Section 23 -3.4. "Stormwater management
facility maintenance agreements" of Chapter 23. "Stormwater
Management" of the Roanoke County Code (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney advised the Roanoke Regional Homebuilders Association
were in attendance to answer any questions. This is the second reading of this
ordinance. The first reading was held in the fall and a revised ordinance has been
presented that addresses concerns expressed by the Board to assure that when the
developer turns the property over it is in good shape, a mechanism is in place to meet
with the Homeowners Association (HOA) and security is in place for sufficient financial
capability.
Supervisor Elswick asked if at the time the builder turns the stormwater
ponds over to the HOA, does the HOA and County get involved to ascertain that the
facility meets the requirements with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative stating
Roanoke County staff would inspect to make sure it is in compliance.
Supervisor Altizer thanked the Homebuilders Association for their
involvement. He stated the way it looks to him is that funds are to be left in the HOA
account for the Homeowners Association. The transfer of the property to the HOA must
accompany a request and pass a final inspection and a request for a meeting with
Roanoke County and the HOA. He stated he thinks it is a win -win for everyone. It
provides a good opportunity for everyone to be heard, sit down at one time and move
forward. He further added he thinks this goes a long way in elevating a lot of the
problems that the County has experienced in the past.
ORDINANCE 032712 -7 AMENDING SECTION 23 -3.4.
"STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENTS" OF CHAPTER 23. "STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that many storm water detention
facilities are not being maintained and that this poses a threat to public health and
safety; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that many homeowners' associations
are not notified of their maintenance responsibilities by developers; and
March 27, 2012 169
WHEREAS, the Board finds that measures to insure maintenance of such
facilities such as notification, bonding or other forms of security would alleviate many of
these maintenance failures; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has been developed with the assistance and
recommendations of the Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is authorized by the Virginia Stormwater Management
Law in Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2011
the public hearing was held on January 24, 2012, and the second reading was held on
March 27, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follow:
1. That Section 23 -3.4. of Chapter 23. Stormwater Management be amended
to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 23 -3.4. — Stormwater management facility maintenance agreements.
Prior to the issuance of any permit that has a stormwater management facility as
one of the requirements of the permit, the permittee or owner of the site must execute
an access easement agreement and a formal maintenance covenant that shall be
binding on all subsequent owners of land served by the stormwater management
facility.
(1) Access easement agreement.
a. The access easement agreement shall provide for access to stormwater
management facilities at reasonable times for periodic inspection by the county, or their
contractor or agent, and for regular assessments of land owners to ensure that the
facility is maintained in proper working condition to meet design standards and any
other provisions established by this chapter. The easement agreement shall be
recorded by the county in the land records.
b. When any new stormwater management facility is installed on private property,
or when any new connection is made between private property and a public storm
drainage system, duly authorized employees, agents, or representatives of the county
shall be authorized to enter any public or private property at any reasonable time for the
purpose of inspection. This includes the right to enter a property when it has a
reasonable basis to believe that a violation of this chapter is occurring or has occurred,
and to enter when necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of a
violation of this chapter.
(2) Maintenance covenants.
a. Maintenance of all stormwater management facilities shall be ensured through
the creation of a formal maintenance covenant that must be approved by county and
recorded into the land record prior to final plan approval. The covenant shall identify by
name or official title the person(s) responsible for carrying out the maintenance.
b. Responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater management
facilities, unless assumed by a governmental agency, shall remain with the property
170 March 27, 2012
owner and shall pass to any successor or owner. If portions of the land are to be sold,
legally binding arrangements shall be made to pass the basic responsibility to
successors in title. These arrangements shall designate for each land owner,
governmental agency, or other legally established entity to be permanently responsible
for maintenance.
C. As part of the covenant, a schedule shall be developed for when and how often
maintenance will occur to ensure proper function of the stormwater management facility.
The covenant shall also include plans for periodic inspections to ensure proper
performance of the facility between scheduled maintenance and should also include
"failure to maintain" provisions.
d. In the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater
management facility becomes a danger to public health, safety, or the environment, the
county reserves the authority to perform the work and to recover the costs from the land
owner.
(3) Release of Performance Security:
a. Prior to the release of the performance security or bond provided in Sec. 23 -3.5
the developer shall either (1) Transfer the Maintenance Responsibilities of the
SWM facility to the HOA or (2) provide the County with a Maintenance Security.
1. Requirements for Transfer of Maintenance Responsibilities to the HOA
i. Request and Pass a final inspection of the SWM facility by county
staff.
ii. Transfer the necessary property to the HOA
iii. Provide the County with a copy of the recorded documents
establishing the HOA
iv. Provide the County with evidence that the HOA is funded. Minimum
funding shall be based on the following schedule:
1 -20 lots = $1,000
21 -50 lots = $1,500
51 and over = $1500 + 30 per lot
v. Request a meeting with the county and HOA.
2. Requirements for Posting Maintenance Security.
i. The county shall require a maintenance guaranty in the amount of
twenty (20 %) percent of the construction costs of the SWM Facility.
ii. The maintenance security shall contain forfeiture provisions for
failure, after proper notice, to complete work within the time
specified, or to initiate or maintain appropriate actions which may
be required of the permittee in accordance with the approved
stormwater management plan.
iii. If the county takes such action upon such failure by the permittee,
the county may collect from the permittee the difference should the
amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed the amount of
the security held.
March 27, 2012 171
iv. The maintenance covenant and security will be the responsibility of
the permittee or owner until such time as the permittee or owner
provides the county with the necessary requirements for Transfer of
Maintenance Responsibilities to the HOA as outlined above in (1).
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore 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 032712 -8 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 March 27,
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 4
inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — February 14, 2012; February 28, 2012
2. Confirmation of appointment to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and
Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) (appointed at large); Economic
Development Authority (appointed at large)
3. Resolution dedicating as right -of -way for public use a portion of property
owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, tax parcel #038.16 -01-
01
4. Resolution requesting acceptance of Castle View Court into the Virginia
Department of Transportation Secondary System
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
A- 032712 -8.a
172 March 27, 2012
RESOLUTION 032712 -8.b DEDICATING AS RIGHT -OF -WAY
FOR PUBLIC USE A PORTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, TAX PARCEL
#038.16 -01 -07
WHEREAS, John Richardson Road, Route 743 in the Commonwealth of Virginia
System of Secondary Roads, was closed to through traffic on September 12, 2007, due
to deteriorating conditions of a bridge over Carvins Creek, and
WHEREAS, on April 12, 2011, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
approved a resolution supporting removal of the bridge over Carvins Creek and
construction of a cul -de -sac, and
WHEREAS, the new cul -de -sac will be constructed on property owned by the
Board of Supervisors, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors as follows:
1. That the Board dedicates as right of way for public use a portion of property
owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, consisting of 0.2157 acres, and
being a portion of tax parcel #038.16- 01 -07, as shown on the attached plat prepared by
the Roanoke County Department of Community Development dated February 21, 2012,
and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County.
2. That the new right of way will be maintained by the Virginia Department Of
Transportation as part of existing Secondary Route #743.
3. That the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of -way, as
described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
4. That this Resolution shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption.
5. That a certified copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Residency
Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 032712 -8.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
CASTLE VIEW COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition 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
(VDOT) has advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by
the Virginia Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
March 27, 2012 173
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane stated on the radio this week,
RCCLEAR members said they knew of no connection between ICLEI and the United
Nations (UN). We have heard speakers from Cool Cities and the Sierra Club say that
ICLEI and the UN have no connection. I give you again direct proof that is false as well
as direct proof that the Sierra Club and Cool Cities are partnered with ICLEI and the
UN. Are these people simply uninformed about this connection or do they not want the
public to know the truth? RCLEAR goals are ICLEI milestones. ICLEI states directly that
they are implementing Chapter 8 of UN Agenda 21. The Roanoke County
Environmental Policies web page repeatedly mentions ICLEI. The Future Land Use
Plan follows the American Planning Association goals. We may not be required, but you
are choosing to implement UN goals, and this is exactly what they want. What does the
future hold? The draft International Covenant on Environment and Development is
intended to become a binding Global Treaty and the template for international law.
Agenda 21 is cited throughout the Covenant which will be presented at the RIO 20
Conference in June. ICLEI and The American Planning Association are listed as major
stakeholders. The APA has presented a paper in support of the RIO 20 goals. There are
79 articles in this Covenant. It includes everything about the way we live, and the UN
governs everything. Article 30 (p.99) - defines humans as "organisms," and continues
"Control will involve limiting the increase in numbers and spread of the organism by
appropriate elimination, removal or other measures."
174 March 27, 2012
Outrageous, isn't it? You have enabled this agenda to have a foothold in our county.
Why? One person on your staff attended a conference, learned of ICLEI, bought into
their propaganda, obviously did no research, and sold it to you. You accepted her word
for how good it was. This is how ICLEI operates and gets into local governments until
officials begin to ask questions. In Clallam County CA, as they voted to opt out of ICLEI,
one of their members stated: "its authority. That's the question. Who defines our needs?
People are concerned because ICLEI is providing administrative functions that are
rightly reserved to the people of the United States." Well over 50 local governments and
counties have already expelled ICLEI. And the pace is accelerating. Will it take
something as radical as what RIO -20 has planned before you will see what you are
doing? We deserve Supervisors who will take the time to investigate objectively, not let
their own agendas get in the way of what is right, and admit a mistake was made.
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated just prior to
the vote on January 24 ", one of the Board members stated about the authority the UN
has over the US when it comes to UN Agenda 21 "the UN has absolutely no authority,
they have virtually outlived their usefulness and they have outlived their usefulness by
the mid 1970's. They were a good organization for a while, but they have pretty much
outlived their usefulness, but I don't believe they are out there to take over the Country
by any means" I beg to differ with that observation. I do not believe they are out to take
over the Country either; however, here is just one example of many that the UN has
exhibited authority over the United States over the past few decades. Over the past few
decades, Presidents of the United States have sought UN approval before engaging in
various conflicts around the globe. They have done it at times without Congressional
approval. A very recent example of this can be illustrated during the March 7 Senate
Arms Services Committee Meeting. Here is an excerpt from that meeting where
Senator Sessions and Secretary of Defense Panetta discussed what the President can
do regarding the conflict in Syria. Senator Sessions asks, "Do you think you can act
without Congress to initiate a no -fly zone in Syria without congressional approval ?"
Panetta responded, "Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would
come to the Congress and determine how best to approach this. Whether or not we
would want to get permission from Congress. I think those are issues we would have to
discuss as we decide where we want to go from here." Session replied, "Well, I am
almost breathless about that because what I heard you say is we are going to seek
international approval and we will come to tell the Congress what we might do and we
might seek congressional approval and I just want to say to you wouldn't you agree, you
served in the Congress wouldn't you agree it would be pretty breathtaking to the
average American, would you like to clarify that." Panetta stated, "If it comes to an
operation where we are trying to build a coalition of nations to work together and go in
and operate as we did in Libya or in Bosnia for that matter, Afghanistan, we want to do it
with permissions either by NATO or the international community." Guess who the
international community is, that is right it is the United Nations. So to say that the UN
March 27, 2012 175
has outlived their usefulness by the mid 1970's and has absolutely no authority over us
is incorrect. The UN does have a great deal of authority over our Country and it is not
just as we have indicated many times here, ICLEI helped draft UN Agenda 21 for the
United Nations. Please stop the United Nations influence over our locality and end
membership with ICLEI.
Neal Ward of 5325 Flagler Drive stated he just wanted to end this
discussion once again with a comment about ICLEI. The gentleman to his left spoke
earlier about fiscal prudence. Is it fiscally prudent that this Board continues to pay a
$1,200 fee every year to this organization? We talk about budgets; things we can do to
allocate money, things we can spend money on. Is this something that the County
cannot take direction and do for itself? He does not understand the necessity for the
County to be a member of this organization. Now, it may look good on paper, but what
is its usefulness? What are we as taxpayers of this County citizens getting from this?
He stated he would like to see something we have gotten from it so far, except to
continue to spend this money every year. We in this State have a proud heritage to
follow. The lady and the gentlemen here, we sit in front of this great flag and what is our
State motto, "Sic Semper Tyrantis ". We have never taken direction from any outside
body. This is something that Virginians have been proud to do on their own; to stand
up to do what is right at the time we think it is right to do that and he stated he thinks
now would be a good time to end our membership with ICLEI and allocate those funds
we spend every year on something more useful.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Church moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of February 29, 2012
5. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of February 29,
2012
176 March 27, 2012
6. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of February 29, 2012
7. Accounts Paid — February 2012
At 4:54 p.m., Chairman Flora recessed to the fourth floor for work session.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget
development (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and
Budget)
a. Discussion of departmental budget cuts and service delivery
impacts as presented to the Board on March 13, 2012
The work session was held from 5:12 p.m. until 5:47 p.m. In attendance
for this work session were B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel O'Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget; Anne Marie
Green, Director of General Services; William Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation.
Mr. Goodman outlined the current departmental budget cuts and asked for
guidance from the Board. He advised if the Board chooses to change any of these cuts,
the funds will need to be taken from somewhere else. Chairman Flora stated he wanted
to make sure that all the departments that were effected were aware of these budget
cuts. Mr. Goodman responded in the affirmative. Chairman Flora explained there is
one thing that he noticed passed and that was under real estate valuation and no
notices have to be sent out and wanted to make sure that he is correct. Mr. Goodman
responded if there are no changes, no valuations need to be sent out. Mr. Driver
responded it was the Board of Equalization in their new legislation. Mr. Goodman
advised staff would check.
Supervisor Moore asked how the changes regarding the treasurer were
going to impact. Mr. Robertson stated that Mr. Hutchins indicated he could absorb this
deduction, but he left the caveat that if it had to go deeper it may affect services. Mr.
Goodman explained staff has asked every Director if they have to come back and ask
for more, how would it impact. At this point, staff was unsure of where the General
Assembly was going, so each Director was asked what other things could be done and
what would the impact be.
Mr. Robertson stated when the public information office set up the Budget
webpage; they did receive a number of comments with regard to General Services with
regard to the freeloader service and residential disposal at the transfer station. Ms.
March 27, 2012 177
Green, Director of General Services, advised the citizens there were still plenty of
options available.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if staff went through all departments looking at
all positions: freeze, unfreeze, eliminate. With regard to the Clerk of Court, does Mr.
Goodman have the ability to do the same with the Clerk of Court? Mr. Goodman
responded in the affirmative and specifically asked what would they do if they need to
cut more. Mr. McGraw stated he would have to cut civil personnel, as criminal is
mandated. He stated the reason Mr. McGraw picked civil is because land transfers are
still lower than they have been in the past, but if they picked back up then it would take
longer to get processed. Mr. Altizer stated he just wanted to make sure the pain was
going around. Mr. Goodman stated in Public Safety, staff has recommended the Police
Department cut four (4) vehicles, but that means they will still be buying seventeen (17).
Mr. Robertson explained this would give them just under $600,000 of annual
replacement vehicles. The budget staff did an analysis up to 2016 looking at current
and projected mileage and it appears the fleet is still in fairly good shape, even with that
change. In the Fire Department, the Board acted on a fee increase and no additional
staff is being hired, but is using the additional funds to support the budget as is and still
have a $50,000 deduction.
Mr. Goodman stated throughout the budget, staff is deferring buying
things, technology, replacements. It is going to catch up but unless we are willing to go
in and reorganize we will work within the margins.
Supervisor Moore inquired how did General Services determine that the
condominiums and town homes the service was not offered to all of them, how was the
determination made and have they been notified. Ms. Green responded that she has
not done anything yet. She indicated when the program was started several years ago,
the condominiums made the argument that because they pay real estate taxes, they did
not feel it was fair that they did not get their trash picked up, but they have dumpsters.
Roanoke County does not have a way to pick their trash up, in the negotiation with
them; the County agreed to add them to our waste management contract and pay to
have those picked up. There is only a certain amount of money, about $33,000
allocated to that and the condominiums in the program are the ones that asked to be
put into the program. Supervisor Moore asked if they had compared the prices to the
service they could get elsewhere, maybe if this comes about maybe they could ask for
an increase instead of eliminating. Ms. Green explained it is going to make some
people very unhappy. She stated she never asked for an increase because no other
condominiums have asked. Ms. Green stated it seems cleaner to eliminate.
Supervisor Altizer stated so when they leave here today, it is probably
going to happen, if the Board does not say no, with Mr. Goodman confirming.
Supervisor Moore asked if there was a written policy with Ms. Green
responding in the affirmative. Some pay extra to get an extra pickup. Supervisor Moore
stated she has received calls and emails that residents would rather pay more or pay
something per month added on to something rather than to cut the service. Ms. Green
178 March 27, 2012
asked which ones with Ms. Moore stating she did not know because she had not
spoken directly with the Homeowners Association. Mr. Goodman advised staff could
look at. Ms. Green advised there could be a charge for the freeloader, based on current
usage would be about $100 a use which is considerably less expensive than the private
sector or a smaller trailer. Private sector charges $185. She indicated it would probably
be an average of $100, maybe charging less during the week and more on weekends.
The disposal at the transfer station, citizens can still go there, but they are going to have
to pay money; most people do not pay more than $5 or $10 because $55 a ton, most
people do not have that much weight.
Supervisor Altizer asked if Ms. Green has noticed if what you have to pay
for the transfer pickup has incrementally increased since the Board did away with the
County stickers and really do not have a way to validate. Ms. Green responded the
percentages have gone down and the City's have gone up from the original projections;
not significantly but it has been adjusted. Additionally, tipping fees are down. Mr.
Goodman responded when there is a drought, the tonnage goes down and when it rains
it goes up. Supervisor Altizer commented so citizens for the most part are putting things
out at their house and they are getting picked up with Ms. Green responding in the
affirmative stating every other week.
Chairman Flora asked if the County is charging for brush with Mr.
Goodman responding in the negative. Ms. Green explained citizens get up to twenty
(20) trips a year. If this goes into effect, the citizens will be charged.
Supervisor Elswick asked if the garbage trucks run in both directions on
most every street or would it help if staff asked citizens to put their trash cans all on the
same side of the street. Ms. Green responded it would help a lot and right now they do
that on some streets, but people do not like to do it. The routes are set up so they can
try to do all right turns because it saves on fuel. Supervisor Elswick stated it would not
be hard in the rural areas because on those roads it really does not matter what side of
the road you put them on.
Supervisor Altizer asked why staff had not asked to reduce the Board
contingency fund with Ms. Hyatt responding they were thinking about increasing
because departments are going to run out of funds and will be coming to the Board
more often. Supervisor Altizer stated asking the Board to increase is just cost shifting.
Mr. Goodman explained it is really a safety net. Mr. Goodman explained the $100,000
is one of the lowest he has ever experienced.
Supervisor Elswick questioned why the County has so many take home
vehicles. After excluding the Police vehicles and is not even sure they need to do that,
he would like to see an analysis that shows who has the take home vehicles, how far
away from the Roanoke County Administration Center they live and how many times
that vehicle was used for other than coming back and forth to work. Is it really
necessary that person be provided with a take home vehicle or does the Board simply
say it is a perk and not do anything about it? Gasoline prices being what they are,
citizens seeing County employees coming home and being provided with take home
March 27, 2012 179
vehicles when they have to supply their own transportation back and forth to work,
County employees going to lunch, going home at lunchtime in a County vehicle. Private
industry says they will reimburse at the current rates for company business in your
personal vehicle. He stated he does not understand how the County got into this,
provide vehicles for County employees to drive back and forth home and knows it will
be hard to change things now, but we are saying we do not want to lay people off and
that is a big commitment on our part in this economy to say we are not going to lay
people off when everybody else is doing it. He thinks this is one area when it gets to
the point where we have to make more extreme cuts that is one particular item that we
ought to look at. Mr. Goodman stated staff is looking at it, collecting the data. Staff is
trying to create a model.
Supervisor Church asked what the distance measure was. Ms. Green
advised it was 15 miles from the Courthouse in Salem, which is the geographic center
of Roanoke County.
Chairman Flora stated he thinks paying mileage would cost more.
Supervisor Elswick stated he has counted as many as four(4) police
vehicles on Route 419, just driving, because they are not in a big hurry but if we just
parked the vehicles more than what we do instead of asking the officers to keep on the
road, we would save a lot of gasoline. Chairman Flora commented you cannot enforce
traffic laws sitting in the station; you have to be out there. Supervisor Altizer stated
presence does a lot for crime prevention. Chairman Flora stated you may want to see
how far those vehicles assigned like that can be assigned and driven home because he
knows there is one employee that did that in Craig County. Supervisor Church stated
that was a variation and needed to be reviewed.
b. Discussion of implementation of Senate Bill 497 — passing
along the five percent (5 %) employee contribution to Plan 1
employees
This work session was held from 5:47 p.m. until 6:02 p.m. In attendance
for this work session were B. Clayton Goodman, III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney. Ms. Hyatt
provided a handout of the impact of Senate Bill 497, a copy of which is on file in the
office to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Hyatt proceeded to go through the
work sheet and provided a brief history. She indicated that staff would recommend at a
minimum option #2 up to option #5 or #6 if more funds are allocated from the General
Assembly. Ms. Hyatt turned the meeting over to Mr. Mahoney to provide an update on
the General Assembly's budget process.
Mr. Mahoney explained that he had discussed with Eldon and the hope is
that the conferees can come up with a compromise budget within three (3) days. The
rules require printing and seventy -two (72) hours to vote. Under the best set of
circumstances it will be Monday or Tuesday of next week. Mr. Mahoney also advised
80 March 27, 2012
he spoke with Greg Habeeb who indicated there are several delegates that are out of
town or out of the country on vacation and they may not be able to meet that quickly.
He stated he felt it was more realistic for finalization in mid April.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if there was a possibility of a discrimination
lawsuit because of the Plan 1 and Plan 2 employees. Mr. Mahoney responded he did
not think so, but many other States have different options. However, there is a case
pending in the State of Florida.
Mr. Mahoney advised he had invited the local elected legislatures on
behalf of the Board to the work session on April 3, 2012 and has only received one
affirmative response from Senator Smith.
2. Work session to review Roanoke County debt (Rebecca Owens,
Director of Finance; Laurie Gearheart, Assistant Director of
Finance)
Due to a lack of time, this work session was postponed until April 3, 2012.
Chairman Flora opened the evening session at 7:01 p.m.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearings for citizen comment on the following items: (W.
Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
(a) Real estate, personal property and machinery and tools tax
rates
(b) General comment on the upcoming annual budget for fiscal
year 2012 -2013
Mr. Robertson reviewed the real estate, personal property and machinery
and tools tax rates and the ability to comment on the upcoming annual budget for fiscal
year 2012 -2013.
There were no citizens to speak on item (a)
The following citizens spoke on item (b)
May Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he had a couple
of comments to make about the Budget Process that the Board has been going through.
First, he complemented the Board and Staff for providing no tax increase. He stated he
thinks the Board deserves that complement especially in view of the fact that the
March 27, 2012 181
valuation of property has gone down and there could be a move to make a revenue
neutral action, which the Board chose not to do and he commended the Board for that.
Tangentially, he has been sitting in on some of the work sessions. He stated he knew
staff had done a real good job in reviewing the entails and it is not over, it is just
beginning because you do not even have the State budget yet. His second comment
may be less popular, he is here today to recommend against any kind of employee pay
raise; thinks it is premature and thinks Roanoke County is not out of the woods. While
there has been no pay raises for the last several years, there has been bonuses so the
employees have not been neglected, but the economy is still very anemic and the
private sector people are still being laid off. When do they get pay raises; some of
these people do not even have jobs. So, he thinks it is premature for the County to
make this decision. He stated he knows the Board has not made a decision in this area
so he is speaking in anticipation. The pay raises should not be made coincidental with
reduction in services. If you are cutting or planning to cut citizen services, then there
should be no pay raises. He stated he is not against the employees, he thinks they
have done an outstanding job as a matter of fact he sits on the Parks and Recreation
Commission, who lost an outstanding employee who went to the private sector during
this last fiscal year. He stated he has to ask himself, "What is wrong with that." This
Country is made up of private enterprise and the best people should be in the private
sector, not to say that we should not have outstanding people in the County and the
Board and the public sector. He is a retired employee and his wife currently works in
local government. Still he thinks it is premature. He has one caveat and knows the
County is bound by the State and we may have to make some adjustments in pay to
counterbalance the VRS situation, so he excludes any adjustment based upon those
factors, but again he asks as a citizen that you not make a pay increase.
2. Request to adopt the following tax rates for calendar year 2013:
(W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
(a) Real estate tax rate of $1.09 per $100 assessed valuation
ORDER 032712 -9 SETTING THE TAX RATE ON REAL ESTATE
SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2012
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that
the levy for the twelve -month period beginning January 1, 2012, and ending December
31, 2012, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $1.09 per one hundred dollars of
assessed valuation on all taxable real estate and mobile homes classified by Sections
58.1 -3200, 58.1 -3201, 58.1- 3506.A.8, and 58.1-3506.B of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, situate in Roanoke County.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the order, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
82 March 27, 2012
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
(b) Personal property tax rate of $3.50 per $100 assessed
valuation
ORDER 032712 -10 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON PERSONAL
PROPERTY SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR
YEAR 2012
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the levy for the twelve -month period beginning January 1, 2012, and
ending December 31, 2013, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $3.50 per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property,
excluding that class of personal property generally designated as machinery and tools
as set forth in Section 58.1 -3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and
excluding all those classes of household goods and personal effects as are defined in
Sections 58.1 -3504 and 58.1 -3505 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, but
including the property separately classified by Sections 58.1 -3500, 58.1 -3501, 58.1-
3502, 58.1 -3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service
corporations based upon the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation
Commission and duly certified.
2. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal
property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1-
3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and adopted by Ordinance No.
121592 -11, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans.
3. That the levy for the twelve -month period beginning January 1, 2012, and
ending December 31, 2012, be, and hereby is, set at fifty (50 %) percent of the tax rate
established in paragraph 1 for the taxable, tangible personal property as herein
established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by
Section 58.1 -3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated
as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the order, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
March 27, 2012 183
(c) Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.00 per $100 assessed
valuation
ORDER 032712 -11 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON A CLASSIFICATION
OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - MACHINERY AND TOOLS - SITUATE
IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 2012
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal
property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1-
3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery
and tools.
2. That the levy for the twelve -month period beginning January 1, 2012, and
ending December 31, 2012, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $3.00 per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property as
herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully
defined by Section 58.1 -3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally
designated as machinery and tools.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the order, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of the Western Virginia Water Authority to obtain a
Special Use Permit for a major utility service in an R -1, Low
Density Residential, District. The major utility service involves
the construction of a standpipe water tank approximately 102 feet
in height on 0.51 acre, located at 4968 Northridge Lane, Catawba
Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition explaining the request was to improve
water service and fire service and to replace existing tank. He advised the Planning
Commission approved with a vote of 4 -1 with four conditions. There were three (3)
citizens who spoke at the meeting.
Supervisor Church asked how the balloon test went, did it go well with Mr.
Thompson responding in the negative; it was a windy day and feels the petitioner can
best speak to that subject. It did not reflect the height of the tank.
184 March 27, 2012
Supervisor Elswick inquired if the Fire Marshall considered water flow in
the two subdivisions next to the tank or was there inadequate water flow in other areas.
He stated he believed the fire hydrants in the subdivisions are painted the color that
indicates there is a strong a flow as you can get. Mr. Gary Huffman, Fire Marshall
stated the neighborhood immediately behind the school, which runs off of Woodhaven
does have blue fire hydrants, which are 1,500 gallons per minute that is fine for
residential. The difficulties in that area with any type of commercial operations, even
when they remodeled Northside High School they had to sprinkle the building to get the
fifty percent (50 %) reduction and put in a fire pump. Also, the Verizon Wireless building,
which runs off of Thirlane have water difficulties to meet their fire flows and had to
sprinkle and put in a fire pump. Supervisor Elswick then asked what about the
Recreational Center and Gander Mountain and those other areas with Mr. Huffman
responding Gander Mountain was difficult. They overcame a lot of obstacles to get it to
pass. The Recreational Center still is a bit of a water situation. When you test the fire
pump, it is supposed to test to one hundred and fifty percent (150 %). He advised they
were never able to reach the one hundred and fifty (150 %) on that project.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Huffman with regard to Sequoia Drive, there
is a green cap, which is up to 1,499 gallons with Mr. Huffman confirming. Mr. Huffman
advised that is adequate flow for residential.
Supervisor Elswick asked if other locations were considered.
In attendance for the Water Authority were Sam Darby, the lawyer for the
Water Authority; Gary Robertson, the Executive Director of Water Operations and Bob
Benninger, Director of Water Operations. Mr. Darby and Mr. Robertson went through a
PowerPoint presentation explaining the request. A copy of the presentation is on file in
the office of the Clerk to the Board.
Supervisor Moore inquired of Mr. Robertson if the authority had checked
into the possibility of putting substations in along the way to help pump instead of using
the tank. Mr. Robertson advised there is one at Friendship lane; the issue with just
booster stations is there is no storage on the system. The other issue with operating
the whole system off of a booster system is there is not a good way to control when the
pump would cut on. As you can see from the graphs in the presentation, the system
pressure would drop to below twenty -eight (28) pounds each time the little booster
pump and Green Ridge Recreation Center cut on, which make a large booster pump
think there was a fire flow situation; the large pump would cut on and then the booster
pumps would cut off at Green Ridge and you would have pressure surges in the system
just from the booster pump. Normally, with a large booster pump operating you want to
control it by a water storage tank and doing that for fire flow would make domestic
pressures vary too much for the residents. So, they would have to leave it at the low
hydraulic grade line and put fire flows in there, which would cause surges in people's
homes when the fire flow situations came up. So, he advised he did not think it is
practical in a large scale area. It can and has been done for an individual business. For
instance, Gander Mountain had to install a fire pump. He stated he believed there was
one at Green Ridge. This can be done to obtain pressure within a building but would
not be acceptable on a mass distribution system without a storage tank. Supervisor
Moore then inquired if this tank was the minimum size height of the tank that the
Authority would feel is adequate. Mr. Robertson responded when the engineer first
March 27, 2012 185
looked at the options there, he proposed a tank to be at the 1400 elevation. The
problem with the 1400 elevation was there was no site that could maintain a hundred
(100) foot as the maximum on the water tank and we did not have a site that would
work. The other problem in the area, if they went to 1400 with the tank the lower
elevations would have excessive pressure and so that could be just as bad as having
not enough pressure. They choose 1375 as the minimum they could have for Green
Ridge Recreation Center. It is still at the point on Woodhaven Road where the black
hydrant is marginal at that point.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Robertson to explain the pumps in layman's
terms for Sequoia Drive. Mr. Robertson explained when they proposed the Whitney
Estates subdivision; hydrants could not go above the midpoint of the subdivision as that
was the highest point to obtain the necessary fire flow. The Authority required them
anytime that the domestic pressure was close to twenty (20) pounds of pressure, which
is a requirement and required an individual booster pump within the house. It is a pump
that is in the house that would be similar to a home that is served by a well, with a pump
and a little pressure tank that would turn on when the pressure is below the desired
amount and run to fill that pressure tank up to a level probably around fifty (50) pounds
of pressure and then the booster pump would turn off. Hopefully, that is adequate for
the normal domestic needs. He stated he thinks it is for domestic needs and there are
some issues if they are trying to take a shower and someone is doing something
outside, the booster pump may not provide the flow that they would desire, but it does
provide the normal minimal flows needed.
Supervisor Church stated he was here when the Green Ridge Recreation
Center was approved; there was a serious problem with water flow to even approve
this. Sequoia Drive is the first left once you take a right out of the Green Ridge
Recreational Center, that is not that much of a distance and asked Mr. Robertson to
explain why the critical need is now and your paperwork says you have been studying
this for two and half years. Mr. Robertson stated it is an elevation issue, not a flow
issue. It is a pressure issue. Green Ridge and Woodhaven Road are about the highest
elevations. They are even higher than Northside High School. He advised when Green
Ridge was constructed, there were some real issues and Mr. Huffman mentioned they
were supposed to test the fire pump at one hundred and fifty percent (150 %) of capacity
and they were never able to achieve that. He further advised the Authority has had to
make some improvements just to the distribution system. There were some places
where there were some minor ways that they were able to loop some water lines to get
a little bit more flow, but they were not able to get to the situation that they desired.
When Green Ridge was being built, the Authority acknowledged it was weak on fire
flows and the Water Authority promised the County they would work with the Fire
Department to try to come to a way to improve that system; which is what they have
been working on the last couple of years and this is their solution that they felt they
promised to Roanoke County and the Fire Marshall. Mr. Robertson stated they started
looking at this a couple of years ago and just now got it into the budget. This is almost a
million dollar project and it took a year or two to get into the capital plan. It was finally
budgeted this current year for at least the water storage tank. Hopefully, they will be
able to proceed.
186 March 27, 2012
Supervisor Church then inquired who sent out the mailings for the
neighborhoods and the citizens in surrounding areas; was it the Water Authority or
Roanoke County. Mr. Robertson responded it was Roanoke County.
Supervisor Church then advised Mr. Goodman this has been a problem
and stressed effective immediately, anything going out of Roanoke County involving the
Catawba district, include the words, "located in the Catawba district; which includes the
Northside and Glenvar areas." The reason for this is with the need for transparency,
there are still many, many people that see the word "Catawba" and think it is over the
mountain and does not affect them. Mr. Goodman responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Elswick stated since Green Ridge seems to be one of the
major users that could use a little help and the subdivisions where you are currently
planning to put the tank are in pretty good shape with the pumps in their houses, then
did the Authority consider locating this tank at Green Ridge where there are few houses.
Mr. Robertson responded they did look at an option and a tank, hydraulically speaking,
could not work on the Green Ridge site, because it would have to be taller than one
hundred (100) feet, the Stone House; could work hydraulically. There are a couple of
reasons they did not pursue that further, i.e. they did not own the property. Mr.
Robertson stated they felt it best to put a tank on a piece of property that they already
owned and had a water storage tank that had been intended for that purpose.
Secondly, his understanding is the property is not for sale currently and even it were; it
would be very, very expensive, more expensive than the Authority would choose to
spend. The third concern is that location is directly in line with runway 34 at the
Regional Airport and at a height of one hundred (100) feet our understanding it would
definitely meet opposition from the airport commission. Supervisor Elswick reiterated
that they did not ask the owners of the property if they were willing to sell and how much
they wanted for it. Mr. Robertson responded no, he had received second -hand
knowledge of the property that it is not currently for sale. Supervisor Elswick asked if
the property belonged to English Construction with Mr. Robertson stating he thinks so.
Supervisor Elswick asked if Mr. Robertson had said Northside High School has
inadequate fire flow with Mr. Robertson responding it was adequate at the time it was
constructed and it has between 500 and 1,000 gallons a minute, but he believes the
new standards that the County adopted around 2000 would require the fire flow to be
over 1,000 gallons a minute and asked Mr. Huffman to confirm. Mr. Huffman stated
when Northside did the redesign, they had to actually consider fully sprinkling the
building in order to get a fifty percent (50 %) reduction on the fire flow in order to make
that work and install a fire pump. They made it work, but it did cost more money.
Supervisor Elswick then inquired if Northside was in compliance with Mr. Huffman
responding in the affirmative.
The following citizens spoke:
Devon and Ruby Johnson who live on 7930 Sequoia Drive stated off their
front porch the water tower will be in direct view of their beautiful scenic view of the tree
line and the mountain ranges, etc. It will be quite an eyesore when you sit out in the
evenings and the mornings drinking your coffee, smoking your cigar, etc. Along with the
water tower, he has a real concern about the true resale value of the homes; with the
March 27, 2012 187
small tower that is currently there, it is below the tree lines and you do not see it and
with this one hundred and two foot tower, which will be much higher than the tree line
would definitely be an eyesore and effect the property values. Also another concern is
safety. Mr. Johnson stated with a large tower like that, right behind the middle and high
schools, kids will be trying to climb up there. What would happen if there was a
catastrophic failure on a one hundred and two (102) foot tank and all that water rushed
down into his neighbors' houses, the schools, etc. Considering the initial letter that was
mailed out to the neighborhoods, they were given the letter and it was a letter stating
just the address. Most people when you look up an address, you Google it. It showed
this water tower at Kangeroo Pouch, over by the middle school and high school. When
we thought it was over there, they were not concerned about it. At the Planning
Commission meeting, they found out that it was going to be right in their neighborhood.
During the Planning Commission, one of the ladies said "well if you would have gone to
our website, it would have clearly showed it." He stated that if they would have included
a plot map or something along with the letter it would have been a much larger turnout
in the first meeting. In the original application from the Water Authority, it stated we
would welcome the new tank because of increased water pressure. When pressed
upon this issue, they could not comment or commit to whether we at the very top would
in fact have increased water pressure. It seems to him they were saying that just to
satisfy the residents to get it approved. The other thing he stated he would like to state
is he thinks if they approve the water tower, they will be the only location with two water
towers, side by side. Lastly, if the Water Authority did not own that half acre property
within the middle of the School Board property, what would they do?
Tim Trudeau of 7914 Sequoia Drive stated Whitney Estates is a wonderful
neighborhood. We all love living there. The view from Sequoia Drive was pictured on
the front of the Roanoke Times, local section. It is an especially nice neighborhood.
The Water Authority's proposal to add this stovepipe tower will greatly detract from our
environment. This is a ten -story (if you can image ten - stories) water tower looming over
our heads and it is literally just a hundred and fifty yards away from the houses that are
closest to it. The Community is deeply opposed to this proposal of building this
stovepipe tower here. He advised he has not spoken with a single other homeowner in
the Whitney Estate area or the adjoining neighborhoods that was not opposed to it. He
has not spoken with anybody who was not opposed to it. He advised they feel insulted
as this proposal assumes that the residents at the top of the hill would be willing to
accept this monstrosity based on the fact that it would improve their water pressure
alone. The Water Authority, as we have already heard twelve (12) years ago that there
was a need to boost the pressure in this area for the nine or ten homes that are on the
top of the hill, however, the homeowners request at the time was ignored. So, each of
us, including himself, spent thousands of dollars to pay for a water pump, at least a
booster pump to stick in our houses. At this point, we say, "who needs additional water
pressure from this tower, we don't, we have already solved the problem for ourselves."
This tower will provide us with very little if any benefit whatsoever. We urge the Board
to vote no on this Western Virginia Water Authority's application and to tell them to find
another location or to go back and find another solution. Please don't make us pay the
penalty now for the Water Authority's poor planning in the past. Also, as an engineer,
he feels certain that this site was chosen as their solution because it was the lowest
88 March 27, 2012
cost option. The Water Authority anticipates a need to serve additional development in
this area, mostly commercial and they plan on making considerable revenue from
serving this new development, but they plan to do this by negating the impact of our
communities' property value. He also stated he noticed Mr. Altizer's name appears on
the application that was filed and wanted to know if there is any conflict of interest with
this matter and are there any other conflicts that need to be brought to light with the
Board. Chairman Flora advised it would be announced later.
Wilma McMann of 7917 Sequoia Drive stated she is a concerned citizen.
She objects to the rezoning of this area on many levels. When she moved to Roanoke
to retire in the summer of 2003, the top of my most desires was a screened in porch.
She was thrilled to find just what she wanted in the backyard on Sequoia Drive. She
stated they spent thousands of dollars on retaining walls and landscape. They did not
realize until autumn and the leaves fell that there was a thirty (30) foot water tank in the
back of their house. Now the Water Authority wants to place a hundred and two (102)
foot standpipe tower there. Would we have bought anyway, if we knew there was a
thirty (30) foot tank? Maybe. Would we have bought if we saw a one hundred and two
(102) foot tower? She doubts it. If this house were to go on the market, would it deter
buyers to see this one hundred and two (102) foot silo loomed over us? What will
happen to ours and our neighbors property values? She stated she objects to the
rezoning of this area and allowing the Water Authority to place their tower in our visual
space.
Thomas Kincaid of 7925 Sequoia Road stated he lives at the very top of
the cul -de -sac as well. According to the County's website, the Planning Commission
makes recommendations on land use issues to the Board. In Chapter 3 of the
Comprehensive Plan, under land use issues, item number one addresses citizen
participation in this whole process that we go through for the Planning and the
Comprehensive Plan. We have been informed and we have heard again tonight that
this process has been two and one half (2 1/2) years long. Citizens were first provided
a letter advising them of a proposal to put this water pipe in February of 2012. At the
March 6, 2012, Planning Commission hearing, staff, which we later found out to be
Roanoke County staff made a point of only ten (10) people attending the meeting. As
you have already heard not all citizens received a letter about the meeting, the Google
map, which is your second handout shows the address that many people saw and
thought it was a far cry down the hill from where it is actually going to be, especially
considering what the proposal is. The School Board told our association's President
they were not advised of the project either. They went to a school Board meeting after
the Planning Commission meeting and the school Board informed them during the
same week that they had not been given any knowledge of this project in advance. It
would appear based on tonight's comments they have been formally made aware at
least at this time. They were concerned about any sensitive issues related to a tower of
such a height at a school location and just wanted to be sure that the school Board had
an opportunity to review the plans. There were no signs posted on Woodhaven,
Sequoia or North Lakes, only on the existing tower fence, which is located in the woods.
As you know, there was a balloon test that was done during the day, most people were
at work and we did not get a chance to see it. The photograph that they saw of the
balloon test, you had to have an arrow to point out where the balloon was because of
March 27, 2012 189
the small size of a balloon relative to what this project will actually be, which is the
second photo. It shows what we were told is one hundred and two (102) foot tower. So
it is very obvious to see what that tower is going to look like at the top of Sequoia Drive
and behind our homes. At the February 23, 2012, Community Meeting at Northside Ms.
Hooker told the Water Authority she would like to see more sites explored and as you
have heard tonight, the only other one addressed that night was the property adjacent
to the Green Ridge Center and as you have heard tonight, there seems to be conflicting
stories of whether it's for sale, or not for sale and what the price would be and they have
concerns about how that could be explored differently as well. To the issue of the
airplanes and the Airport Authority, again, it was brought up as a problem, but no -one
has checked with the Airport to see if that really would be an issue. In reality we did
learn at a meeting that the Water Authority had with the Homeowners Group, there were
four sites explored and tonight have learned that you have some more information
about some of those sites and one of them, the one they called in their meeting, Plan D,
seemed to be the one that was most effective and did not have as many problems as a
lot of the others.
Cheryl Wilkinson of 7925 Sequoia Drive deferred her time to Mr. Kincaid.
Mr. Kincaid stated at the Planning Commission hearing meeting Chairman Radford
stated that this problem did not just come about now and of course now we have heard
a lot more about that tonight. The people from the Water Authority have explained to
the Board in their proposal. He did say he was also there when the Green Ridge Center
was being built. At that Planning Commission meeting, he talked about the problems
then. We are aware about other commercial properties that might be considered along
the whole Woodhaven, 181 corridor and he questioned at the time as to whether or not
something should have been done before the Green Ridge Center was built, which has
been brought out again tonight, but he did say as we have heard that it may be low, but
it does meet fire standards. Our concern is why this was not addressed before the
Green Ridge Center was built so that a solution to their problem and any future
problems could have been planned for in advance as opposed as to where we find
ourselves now. Perhaps Mr. Marrano of the Planning Commission said it best at the
March 6, 2012, meeting when he said, "the residents of Whitney Estate should not have
to bear the burden of poor planning by that commission." (the commission he is on)
Another function of the Comprehensive Plan is they are supposedly looking out fifteen
(15) years at what might be needed and had that been done, they would not be
attempting to put the tower on Whitney Estates to take care of problems that should
have been addressed perhaps beforehand. In conclusion, our concern about this in
general is that no prior citizen involvement was really solicited from what they can see,
not with a two and one half (2 1 /) year project that we have only known about a little
over a month now. We do request that the Board deny both requests, both the tower
itself and the fact that it needs shielding and they cannot provide shielding for a one
hundred and two (102) foot tower.
Barry Compton of 7929 Sequoia Drive deferred to Cheryl Wilkinson. She
stated she too has heard the Water Authority is requesting a special use permit to build
a hundred and two (102) foot high water tower in an R1, low density residential district.
In addition, they are requesting a waiver on the requirement to provide buffering. They
are asking for a special use permit because the area in which they are proposing to put
190 March 27, 2012
the one hundred and two (102) foot water tower is in a residential area adjacent to the
backyards or across the street of the residents in Whitney Estates. If this permit is
approved, when residents look out their front window or walk out their front door, or
relax in their yards instead of looking at the trees that currently exist, their homes will be
overshadowed by a hundred and two (102) foot tower that will far exceed the height of
the existing trees. The area on which the Water Authority wants to build this tower, a
tower equivalent to a ten (10) story building is on half an acre lot. The lot already
houses one water tank, a much shorter thirty -three (33) foot tank that has buffering by
the existing woods, especially when the trees are full of leaves. While the Water
Authority proposal indicated the lot is big enough to house both of these water towers, it
clearly is not. Hence the request for a waiver from buffering, which brings her to the
point of their request that the requirement of a buffer be waived. First of all, there will
not be any room on the half acre lot that already houses the water tower to also plant
additional vegetation. Secondly, there are no trees that grow in the Commonwealth of
Virginia that would even come close to growing as tall as a ten (10) story building. As
the pictures the Board has previously received of the water tower in the Hollins area
indicated, you cannot not see something that is one hundred and two (102) feet tall and
looms above the tree line. Imagine that in your backyard. Whitney Estates understands
there are concerns regarding water pressure. It was reported to us at the initial meeting
at Northside the fire department's reports the pressure meets standard. If North County
continues to grow, which is good for all of us, this will no longer be the case. We
understand there are other issues to consider, but as Mr. Marrano on the Planning
Commission stated, it is not right to solve this problem on the backs of a residential
community. He also mentioned that the next agenda item at the meeting was for a
proposal from the Water Authority for $32 million in improvements. Despite this amount
of money needed for these improvements, after two and one half years of investigating
this issue, the Authority told Whitney Estates they are currently unwilling to consider
purchasing land in another location or even genuinely looking into options for this
project of which apparently they have four (4). The Water Authority's response is they
own the land so why should they locate another one. The answer is of course a
hundred and two (102) foot tower or the equivalent of a ten story building in an R1,
residential area where screening is unachievable.
Sue Ellen Adams of 7934 Sequoia Drive deferred to Stan Adams of 7934
Sequoia Drive. Mr. Adams thanked the Board members for allowing the citizens to
speak and for all they do for Roanoke County, for your work efforts. He would also like
to thank the Board as Assistant Coach at Northside High School on the baseball team
for how the Board recognizes the student athletes in the Valley and he is sure they find
it a thrill when they come before the Board. One of his concerns, of course, is that he
teaches and coaches at both Northside High School and Northside Middle School. As a
teenager, if you are seeing something like the tower being built like that and he is
putting his mind into what they are thinking since he has a chance to work with them.
He stated he can still remember when he was a teenager and some of the pranks and
things guys would do, but that big tower and noticing it, he thinks attracts people to want
to do things. Maybe someone challenges somebody to climb it, to put their initials up
there or something along those lines. Also, heaven forbid, if some deranged person
wants to use it as a sniper up there to cause havoc at one of those two (2) schools. He
March 27, 2012 191
stated he is just trying to think when we put something up like that all of the possibilities
that can happen. The tower there now has been there so long people really do not
notice it, but it is really noticeable when that size tower is going to be put into that area.
The pressure, we water the fields at Northside and there is an irrigation system also on
the football field that comes off the same system. We have a water hose and when we
turn the water on we have to make sure that hose is on. He tried another nozzle on it
one day and the pressure was so much that the hose burst. So, he is not an engineer,
he cannot speak to the amount of psi coming through there, but he knows there was
enough pressure to burst the hose. Also, where they live, like the other residents spoke
about they have water pumps and it is adequate pressure with the water pumps. He
advised he lives at the very top of Sequoia, his house backs up to Northside Middle
School athletic field. He asked the Board to consider these issues as they have been
pointed out well by his fellow neighbors. Also, consider when voting as if your property
was located where ours is.
Jim Stroup of 7922 Sequoia Drive stated his house will have one of the
best views of the water tower if it gets built. Right up until the Planning Commission
meeting and into the meeting, he approached this with an open mind; the idea of more
water pressure did interest him. One thing that has really disturbed him about this is
how the residents were told one thing at their Community Meeting at the Northside
Middle School and at the Planning Commission were told things a lot different. The
height was never really addressed. He knows that they said they launched a balloon
early on, but we never knew that so did not get to see it. We were told at our meeting at
Northside that they would launch a weather balloon on such and such date and they
would know when it is. He works at Virginia Tech so he cannot just run home and see
how high it is. He took the day off and instead of a weather balloon; they show up with
what looked like a party balloon from Kroger that never really got off the ground. They
tried some other things that did not really work. They tried it one other time and he was
not there, but he thinks they only sent one person out there to do it when you need
three or four people to launch it with tethers so we could also see it and you need a
bigger balloon than a three -foot balloon so you have more lift. So, residents have never
really seen how tall this is. The address on the letter they sent out, when he first got his
letter he looked up the address on MapQuest and thought it was down over the hill
there; no big deal it is right by the school. When he was walking his dog back in the
woods, he noticed the signs on the fence and was like, "what, this is where they are
putting it." If would have been nice if they included a map in the letter. At their meeting,
the Authority told us they would get (he lives at the top of Sequoia, right near the cul -de-
sac) seventy to seventy -70 (70 to 75) pounds of water pressure. Then an engineer on
site told his neighbor that they would probably get sixty (60). He stated he already had
fifty -five (55) and he does not know if it is worth ruining his view for another five (5)
pounds. At the neighborhood meeting, the Authority stated the water pressure was
within tolerances of the State for the Fire Department, but that was never brought up at
the Planning Commission meeting; it was just said that there was not enough water
pressure for them. At the meeting at Northside, they said they had never looked at any
other site, but at the Planning Commission meeting all of sudden the Authority had
looked at one other site. With a two and one half (2 1 /) year study, there is plenty of
time to look at the other sites. They complained about the $300,000 cost to buy another
192 March 27, 2012
piece of property, well they have a $32 million project going on, which is really part of
this because what they really want is something to hold up their antennae so they can
have their meters. This could easily (this is one percent (1%) be absorbed into that
project. Mr. Stroup stated they were told the Recreational Center and the big sporting
goods store (Gander Mountain) is what caused the problem and he does not know why
this was not dealt with then.
Tina Trudeau of 7914 Sequoia Drive thanked the Board for listening.
When she looks out her living room window she can actually see the water tower,
especially during the fall season. We moved from Texas, from flat ground to Roanoke,
which has really grown on her. She loves the tall trees and the mountains and does not
want her wilderness to go away along with the wild animals that go with it. To make a
long story short, she advised she would give her speech. The proposal by the Western
Virginia Water Authority for special use exemption for a one hundred and two (102) foot
standpipe water tower at 4968 Northridge was presented to the Roanoke County
Planning Commission as needed to provide adequate water flows and pressure,
specifically cited were the flows at Green Ridge Recreation Center located on
Woodhaven Road and Gander Mountain commercial cites off of Plantation Road at 181.
Although an argument was made that the Fire Marshall's office requested a system
improvement, there was no documentation of this request presented during any of the
discussion and she added that Gary Huffman also said we have adequate for residential
supply. One might conclude that either there is no such request or the need is not
critical. Far more believable would be that the need for the water is based on prospects
of the future commercial, industrial development in three areas along Woodhaven Road
along either side of 1581 at Valley Point in the Gander Mountain Complex. We
concluded that this likelihood as the purpose of their request then we must insist that
building a ten -story water tower in our R1 zoning district on the back of Whitney Estates
homeowners is blatantly wrong. Is there a critical water supply and flow problem that
has been known for a long while? The Chairman of the Planning Commission stated
during the hearing that he knew there were low water pressures at Green Ridge
Recreation Center during construction. If it were critically low, would it have been
negligent to allow construction to continue? If it is critically low today, who is putting the
public in jeopardy by allowing the Recreational Center to remain open and who is
accepting that liability. She stated she does not think anyone would do this and that is
why she concluded that the need for this tower is being overstated. She stated she also
feels the Roanoke County Recreational Center is at fault for not doing enough planning
on their part, which has caused the Western Virginia Water Authority to make use of
their land directly behind Whitney Estates. This is also a lack of planning on their part,
which is why they want to put a water tower up in our neighborhood to accommodate
the low pressure. She stated she would hope that each Board member would consider
the situation as if it were in their own backyard and issues you would have. She
advised she has concerns about lowering the property values, safety and affecting their
views of nature. She would hope this Board would reconsider and both work together to
resolve this issue. There are more options available; land can be purchased near
Green Ridge Recreation Center as an alternate site. Pressure can be boosted with line
pumps, backup generators and other connectors can be built to increase pressure and
supply and she is sure Western Virginia Water Authority engineers can come up with
March 27, 2012 193
other solutions. She stated she hopes the Board can see that approving this request for
an exemption is the wrong thing to do and urged the Board, designated to protect its
citizens, to do the right thing.
Amanda Moore of 7921 Sequoia Drive gave up her time to Keith Moore.
Mr. Moore stated he is President of the Whitney Estates Homeowners Association
Board of Directors. He thanked the esteemed members of the Board for the opportunity
to speak on behalf of the citizens of Whitney Estates, for the citizens of North Lakes and
other surrounding neighborhoods in the North County area and all of his neighbors who
have given up their time to appear at this meeting and asked them to please stand to
show their support for the fight against the request by the Western Virginia Water
Authority to construct a hundred and two (102) foot standpipe water tower at 4968
Northridge. Mr. Moore then thanked Gary, Bob and the others from the Water Authority
for their patience and cooperation in explaining their request and the reasoning behind it
to himself and to others who have had a lot of questions. He also thanked them for their
efforts to achieve their stated goal in a business -like manner. They have tried to
accomplish the maximum result with the minimum of capital outlay, that is their job to try
to save us money and he believes this is where they stand; this is where they are
coming from. Here we are in this wonderful and free country, the most wonderful and
free country in the whole in the most beautiful state in the whole country in one of the
most beautiful areas in the whole state; right here, the Roanoke Valley. One of the
things that makes this area so beautiful is we have water, moderate temperatures and
plentiful rainfall make our mountain ridges green and beautiful and that rain helps to fill
up our reservoirs; Carvins Cove, six point four (6.4) billion gallons of water; Spring
Hollow, three point two (3.2) billion gallons. It is ironic that the issue before us is water
versus beauty. It is not so much about the water though; we just want to put it to its
greatest use. It is whole lot more about beauty and how to preserve the precious site
lines that have been here long before man stepped in to ruin the vista of the blue ridges
with cell towers, power lines, clear cuts and other unsightly conveniences. We need to
stop a minute and think twice about any request to do additional damage and to ask this
question. Is this truly the best that we as a community, as a governing body, as a water
authority, is this the best solution that we can come up with or maybe we just want to go
with the cheapest way. Well, he stated he is here to say "no." What is being presented
is the cheapest solution, not the best solution. The cheapest solution does not provide
the required buffering, which is necessary for granting an exemption to the zoning.
There is not enough property to provide the required screening; that is not good. Sure,
there is a lot of trees and vegetation in the surrounding areas owned by the Roanoke
County School Board though. This is the argument cited to circumvent the buffering
requirement. That would be good, but there is no guarantee that the land surrounding
the Western Virginia Water Authority's half acre will remain undeveloped. Above and
beyond that however, there are no trees in Virginia that grow to a height of the proposed
water tower, which would extend above and beyond the tallest trees by thirty to forty (30
to 40) feet. There is no way to screen a tower of this height and it reminds me of the
joke, "how do you hide an elephant in a cherry tree, you paint its toenails red." You
cannot paint this thing in any way to hide it; it does not belong in our "cherry tree." He
stated he is not against the Western Virginia Water Authority and he is thankful that he
has plenty of water and would gladly work with them to find a solution, which would not
194 March 27, 2012
require the construction of a ten - story, water tower looming over a residential area, not
just my backyard, but anybody's backyard. Let's not act hastily and approve this
without a proper examination of all of the alternatives. We do not have the take the
cheap way out, the money is there. The Western Virginia Water Authority is now in the
midst of a $32 million upgrade to a wireless, meter reading system. Let's find the
solution that is best for the Roanoke Valley, our valley. Please vote to deny the
Western Virginia Water Authority's request.
Chairman Flora closed the public hearing and opened the floor for a
response from the Water Authority. Mr. Darby replied they would not be responding to
the substance of the comments, we think they are given in good faith. He stated they
think the citizens are making genuine objections to what they are doing. They stand by
their application and assessment of the different alternatives and will be glad to answer
any additional questions.
Supervisor Moore stated she has five questions, all are related to the
questions she heard from the audience. The first question is does the Authority have
any information about any of this type of water tower ever bursting with Mr. Robertson
responding they are designed to withstand this kind of pressure and he is not aware of
this happening in his thirty -two (32) years; could there be a leak, yes but he thinks it is
unlikely that the tank would burst, but cannot say it is not possible. Supervisor Moore
than asked with regard to the top of Sequoia Drive, will their water pressure be
increased and if so, how much. Mr. Robertson responded the confusion is that between
the bottom of Sequoia and the top of Sequoia, there is so much elevation change to say
that someone is going to have a certain amount of pressure you really have to look at
the address and if the tank were installed the pressure is going to be approximately
between eight -five (85) and ninety (90) pounds at the bottom of Sequoia Drive and
approximately fifty (50) pounds at the top. In between, the pressure is going to be
somewhere within that range, but it will increase from a little over thirty (30) pounds to
approximately fifty (50) pounds if you are up in the cul -de -sac, which has the lowest
pressure. Supervisor Moore then asked what kind of safety protection would you have
around the tank to protect it from trespassing. Mr. Robertson responded the tank lot is
fenced and locked, but also there is a requirement through OSHA that the ladders do
not come to the ground and they have a lock on those. He stated he knows as the
coach had said earlier, kids can be very innovative and he cannot say that someone
could not overcome that but they are industry standard guidelines for the ladders on
them to protect them from unwanted people climbing them. Supervisor Moore then
asked if they would be willing to plant evergreens, Leland Cypress which will get about
seventy (70) foot tall either on the school property as a buffer or in the residents' back
yards, if needed. Mr. Robertson stated they would be happy to be work with them and
one of the reasons there is some tight space for buffering on the side of the property
facing Northside Middle School, but one of the reasons for requesting the waiver on the
buffer, particularly on the side facing Woodhaven or Sequoia is because most people
felt the existing vegetation that is on the Authority's property is better than what you
could put there, at least initially and it was felt it would be disruptive to remove that
vegetation to put into some new smaller vegetation. He advised they would be willing to
work either on School Board property and they have given them permission to plant
screening on their property or they would work with the property owners. Supervisor
March 27, 2012 195
Moore asked if these leaves were deciduous, the leaves fall off in the winter, so if you
planted evergreens that would provide more protection with Mr. Robertson responding
affirmatively. Supervisor Moore's last question to Mr. Robertson was is this the best
solution they could have come up with with Mr. Robertson responding in the affirmative.
He clarified the only two sites they felt had the elevation that even a hundred (100) foot
tank would work is this site and on Woodhaven Road. Either site would require a
special use permit. This site provides the best flow, the other site on Woodhaven Road
would be adequate, but it also has no screening and would be also a visible issue,
granted to a different group of people, but they would probably still have a very similar
issue if they made the request to go there. He understands their concerns, but they
would not solve the issue coming before the Board on special use permit if we were
proposing it on Woodhaven Road. We would just have a different group of folks
expressing their concerns.
Chairman Flora has heard a reoccurring theme that this is being put up to
solve the Green Ridge Recreation Center's problem and would Mr. Robertson address
this issue. Mr. Robertson stated it is not solely because of Green Ridge, no solely
because of Gander Mountain. The only residential area that has significant pressure
problems is Buckland Forrest and they have adequate fire flows. They complain, not
frequently, but periodically about domestic pressures. Gander Mountain has been an
issue. He is personally concerned with having a hydrant on Woodhaven Road that has
a black, (which means it is basically not even a usable fire hydrant) and the area around
Valley Point that was adequate at the time it was built, but does not have the fire flows
that you would desire in a current situation and those standards change. When Valley
Point was constructed it was only required to have 500 gallons a minute and those
standards have changed over the last twenty -five (25) years to have 1,000 gallons or
more. This is our goal to try to meet those new standards. Mr. Robertson stated there
may have been some confusion, but he does feel the Authority has made an attempt to
get to the residents. He knows Mr. Benninger and Sarah Bumgardner have met on site
with some of the residents a couple of times. The Authority invited them and they had
another meeting in their offices a couple of weeks ago to try to answer these questions,
or at least the confusion on different pressures that the folks may have. He hopes they
have made an attempt to at least answer their questions, maybe not solve their
concerns, but at least addressed their concerns. Mr. Moore did mention that.
Supervisor Church thanked the Authority stating he thinks they are a good
organization and do a great job for the entire community. Some statements were made
by the citizens about potential dangers, about the tank being secured, etc. He stated he
does not care what you do, what you put up if somebody wants to go to a place, they
are going to find a way, even if you put razor wire if somebody wants to do something
wrong. Is there any security or prohibition for people coming up to the thirty -five (35)
foot tank right now? Mr. Robertson responded they have intrusion alarms on all tanks
that communicate with our water treatment plants so if someone is tampering with the
tank, it would send an alarm to our water treatment plan. Supervisor Church inquired
what about someone coming up to the fence. Mr. Robertson advised not at this time, in
the future, they could have video surveillance equipment, but they do not have at this
time. Supervisor Church advised the reason for asking is that he went up on three
different occasions, drove up in broad daylight, drove right by the high school and
196 March 27, 2012
middle school, went around to the back and parked in the back lot, got out of his car and
walked up to the tank on three different days and only saw one person, the resource
officer. Supervisor Church stated it does alarm him about the possibility.
Supervisor Church then thanked the citizens in attendance and those who
could not come. A community meeting was held in the area. They did not know it
would affect their neighborhoods, which is why Mr. Goodman and probably in hindsight
he should have asked this year ago about people seeing Catawba and thinking the
"Homeplace ". From now on, we hope that will not be a confusion issue. He advised he
is holding in his hands, the names of one hundred and twenty (120) signatures in
opposition and he does not have one single citizen that is in favor. One thing which has
not been thought about is the adjoining neighborhood of North Lakes. There are seven
hundred (700) homes. This tank would set right at the back of Northside Middle School
adjoining the two neighborhoods and it just does not affect twenty -eight or thirty (28 or
30) homes. Some of the citizens have mentioned a ten -story building; that is exactly
right. It is like having "King Kong" in your neighborhood. A huge movie and all you can
see it that big object. The trees that are up there now, he disagrees with Ms. Moore
about evergreens or whatever. There would be a thirty -five (35) foot tank that the trees
right now do not even cover. He has photographs; they are not even close to the thirty -
five (35) foot. You cannot put a hundred and ten (110) or one hundred and twenty (120)
foot growth of any kind, nor should you want that. It would probably be as bad as the
vision of the tank. So, you have an R1 zoning for residential, single families and
according to County zoning, the purpose of this district is designed in zoning ordinance
as follows, "this district is intended to provide the highest degree of protection from
potentially incompatible uses in residential development of a significantly different
density, size, scale in order to maintain the health, safety, appearance and overall
quality of life existing in existing and future neighborhoods. In addition, to single family
residences only uses of a community nature, which are generally deemed compatible,
are permitted in this district." The height limitation in an R1 district is forty -five (45) feet.
This is more than double. With all due respect to the Water Authority, it is a proposal in
the wrong location and he will not question the reasons, but he is sure since Roanoke
County has since its inception, 1838, if there is a problem we will find a solution, but not
on the backs of citizens who moved into the area when the homes were built and do not
have a problem with the thirty -five (35) foot tank because even that shows when the
foliage dies down, but to walk outside your home and by the way the lower down
Sequoia Drive, the more you see it. He stated he thinks it is an unfair request to make
on this particular area. He thinks it puts undue hardship on the citizens. He cannot in
good faith support this at all. He stated he did imagine if it was in his neighborhood; he
would not want it for a minute. He stated he tries to look at that on every item he has
voted on in twelve (12) years. It is the wrong area.
Supervisor Elswick stated obviously evergreens do not get tall enough to
be anywhere near any kind of cover. He does not know of a tree that will grow seventy
(70) feet before we are all dead and done; maybe the cypress does, but wanted to
clarify on the water pressure. Those of us who live in rural areas with septic tanks and
their own wells, typically the water pressure is forty -five (45) pounds and that is good in
his house on the second story. The citizens at the top of the street stated he had fifty -
five (55) pounds of pressure by using the pump coming off the thirty (30) pounds of
March 27, 2012 197
pressure that the water line is bringing in. He does not consider that to be a problem in
terms of pressure for the neighborhood.
Supervisor Moore stated she feels this is a safety issue if the water
pressure is not there and a major fire were to break out in this subdivision it would be
catastrophic for the neighborhood. She stated she thinks it is the Board's duty to
maintain the safety of all citizens and she stated she wished there was another way that
we had the technology to get more pressure in our water flow system, but as Mr.
Robertson said they have explored this and there was no other option. In answer to
Supervisor Elswick question, she knows of Leland cypress trees that were planted
about eight (8) years ago and they are already fifty (50) feet. They did grow really fast
and it was just a question if the Water Authority would be willing to do that.
Supervisor Church stated he does not believe for one minute and he has
enough faith in the Water Authority the citizens are not going to be left unprotected.
They will not be without adequate safety. If that was the situation, there would be
alarms on front door right now and would have been down here a long time ago. The
County is not going to let the citizens be there with their house burning, Roanoke
County does not do that, we will not.
Supervisor Church made a motion to deny the ordinance. The motion did
not pass based on the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Elswick, Church
NAYS: Supervisors Flora, Moore
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Altizer
Chairman Flora inquired of Mr. Mahoney if the vote is tied, would it come
back for another vote at the next meeting. Mr. Mahoney responded, it would fall to the
next meeting in the case of an absence, but in the case of an abstention the motion
would be denied.
Mr. Mahoney advised that the earlier motion was to deny and that motion
failed, but in order to pass or adopt a rezoning or special use permit, you need an
affirmative vote.
ORDINANCE 032712 -12 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY FOR A MAJOR
UTILITY SERVICE IN AN R -1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,
DISTRICT, THE MAJOR UTILITY SERVICE INVOLVES THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STANDPIPE WATER TANK
APPROXIMATELY 102 FEET IN HEIGHT ON 0.51 ACRE,
LOCATED AT 4968 NORTHRIDGE LANE (TAX MAP NUMBER
037.06 -01- 76.00- 0000), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Water Authority has filed a petition for a special
use permit for a major utility service in an R -1, Low Density Residential, District, which
involves the construction of a standpipe water tank approximately 102 feet in height on
198 March 27, 2012
0.51 acre, located at 4968 Northridge Lane (Tax Map Number 037.06 -01- 76.00- 0000),
Catawba Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
March 6, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on February 28, 2012; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on March 27, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to the
Western Virginia Water Authority for a major utility service in an R -1, Low Density
Residential, District which involves the construction of a standpipe water tank
approximately 102 feet in height on 0.51 acre, located at 4968 Northridge Lane (Tax
Map Number 037.06 -01- 76.00- 0000), Catawba Magisterial District, is substantially in
accord with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions
of Section 15.2 -2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a
minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said
special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
a) The site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
concept plan entitled "Western Virginia Water Authority Loch Haven
Tank Site" dated December 23, 2011.
b) The proposed water tank shall not exceed a height of 102 feet.
c) Screening and buffering requirements for this site shall include the
existing vegetation, modified to construct the proposed water tank,
and the existing fencing.
d) There shall be no signage on the water tank except for the
manufacturers or installer's identification and appropriate warning
signs and placards.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The provisions of this special use
permit are not severable. Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence or
paragraph shall invalidate the remainder. The Zoning Administrator is directed to
amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, the motion failed on the
following roll call and recorded vote and the adoption of the ordinance was denied.
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora
NAYS: Supervisors Church, Elswick
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Altizer
March 27, 2012 199
At 8:43 the meeting was recessed for ten minutes; Chairman Flora called
the meeting back into session at 8:57 p.m.
2. The petition of the Western Virginia Water Authority to obtain a
Special Use Permit for a broadcasting tower approximately 120
feet in height in an AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District on
0.121 acre, located at 2857 Summit Ridge Road, Hollins
Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition; 18 citizens spoke at Community
Meeting held on March 13, 2012. The Planning Commission approved with a vote of 5-
0 with four conditions. Mr. Darby gave a PowerPoint presentation and indicated the
Authority is now proposing a hundred (100) foot tower versus a hundred and twenty foot
(120) tower.
Supervisor Elswick inquired with regard to the $32 million project, do they
have the details for the savings involved and could the Board see those if you have
them if not he can look up later. Mr. Robertson advised they have guaranteed savings
through Honeywell. They have financed the $32 million through the Virginia Resource
Authority. Their debt service is approximately $2.6 million a year and the guaranteed
savings through Honeywell is approximately$3.5 million per year so the net savings is
around $900,000 per year. Supervisor Elswick stated he is wondering where that
comes from because they stated five (5) million kilowatts and kilowatts are $0.09 per
kilowatt from the electric utility and that would $50,000. Mr. Robertson stated per his
presentation a couple of weeks ago, a significant part of the savings is that
approximately ten percent (10 %) of the water that goes through the system is not being
billed. Supervisor Elswick inquired if citizen's bills are going to be increased by $3
million. Mr. Robertson responded in the negative stating about a $1.5 million is in
electrical savings, there is consumption that is not being billed, most of that is in some
of the larger, older meters, but the residential meters tested out about ninety to ninety
three percent (90 to 93 %) and they are guaranteed with this the meters would read at
least ninety eight percent accurate. There is a situation where there are a lot of older
water meters in the system and that is how we bill the consumption is through the water
that is used. He advised they did not want the citizens that have accurate meters
overpaying. Supervisor Elswick then asked if the methane fuel generators are a part of
this $32 million project with Mr. Robertson advising in the negative stating the
wastewater plant generator is a separate project that they received a grant from the
federal government to do that with. Supervisor Elswick inquired if there was savings
associated with that as well with Mr. Robertson responding in the affirmative.
Chairman Flora inquired if there would be any personnel savings with Mr.
Robertson responding approximately thirty percent (30 %) are read by contract readers
and those contracts will not be renewed after this project is completed.
Supervisor Elswick then inquired if there would be seventy percent (70 %)
of the people that read meters that would stay on the payroll with Mr. Robertson
responding there are four (4) Water Authority employees that read meters today and
200 March 27, 2012
then the contract readers. Those four (4) employees will be reassigned to some other
tasks that they have not been able to get to.
Chairman Flora inquired on these towers that read the meters, is there a
requirement for redundancy, in other words, do you want to have two (2) towers to read
each meter available. Mr. Robertson responded the absolute minimum is one point six
(1.6). The goal is to have two or above so that you have at least two (2) towers that can
read any one water meter in case the tower goes down or there is bad weather and
their goal is to exceed 2.0 redundancy. Chairman Flora inquired if they were one point
six (1.6) with Mr. Robertson advising one point six is the minimum that you can have in
the system in order for Honeywell to guarantee the system.
Supervisor Elswick inquired what the redundancy would be without this
tower with Mr. Robertson responding he did not know how it would impact overall
redundancy, however, without this tower a significant portion of the meters in the
Bonsack area would not be read at all. So it would not be an issue of overall
redundancy, particularly in the LaBellvue area. The redundancy down on the lower
areas is much higher than it is in the higher elevations. Supervisor Elswick stated he
thinks he read in one of the handouts that without this tower the Authority would still
have ninety -eight percent (98 %) of the meters read. Mr. Robertson responded that he
is not aware of that. He stated he knows that this tower will be able to reach 21,000
meters. A propagation study was done if they did not do the tower and just put an
antenna on the fifteen (15) foot tank and it would only read 2,000 meters. If the tower is
reduced to one hundred (100) foot, which is what they are proposing today the
antennae will read between 15,000 and 16,000 meters.
Chairman Flora opened the public hearing and the following citizens
spoke.
Ken Crawford of 2850 Summit Ridge Drive thanked the Board for the
Board's time in listening tonight. He advised he first wanted to say that overall they do
not want to confuse the whole system with this one monopole. His family has no
objection at all to the overall scope of the Water Authority's remote meter reading
project, but they do strongly oppose the proposed broadcast tower on Summit Ridge
Road. They bought this land specifically for the view shed, hiking and recreational
activities in the Read Mountain preserve. They knew that broadcast towers were not
allowed in the preserve or in their neighborhood. They also knew of the Western
Virginia Water Authority easement across the street and knew that it also forbade the
construction of broadcast towers and was for water storage and distribution. His home
is completely designed around this idea, porches, facades, windows, views, everything.
Neighbors who have moved here into this neighborhood for the same reason. They felt
safe that the current view sheds would remain undisturbed and the zoning laws and
easements would be enforced and honored. This zoning variance proposal will result in
a broadcast tower that will rise visually over thirty percent (30 %) of its height of the
ridgeline that is visible from his home. When you are down slope and you look up
across it, thirty percent (30 %) will be above the mountain per the balloon test. When
you add a nine (9) foot antennae even more of that sticks up. Further, half a mile of
new trail on the Read Mountain preserve wraps around the gorge where this proposed
tower would stand. The proposed tower will be directly in a wide, panoramic view of the
Valley that now exists on this pristine trail that we and many others often hike. You can
March 27, 2012 20
see some sample photos that Ron Crawford had distributed earlier to see how that
would look. He is sure that it will affect his neighbor's property values, his property
values, and the value of the experience of hiking in the preserve and quality of life
negatively. Currently, the tower is not allowed on the proposed site by well written
zoning laws and regulations that were put in place for a reason. No one is making any
more open space or undisturbed view sheds. These laws and regulations are in place
to protect what we do have and have fought so hard to preserve. Every effort should be
made and all options should have been examined before this tower was even proposed.
There are other options, but the Western Virginia Water Authority seems to have no
interest in exploring them. We need to leave our grandchildren and beyond something
to still enjoy in the years to come; even his seven (7) year old son understands the poor
logic to this tower site choice. When he explained to him what is being proposed, he
responded, "I thought all of that was supposed to stay natural." With the Board's oath of
office, he believes all of the members to be honorable and ask that they please enforce
the current zoning and planning laws at your disposal and deny the special use request
to the Western Virginia Water Authority to put a broadcast tower on this site.
William T. Hickman of 675 Ray Street has requested that Ron Crawford
be allowed to speak on his behalf. Ron Crawford of 607 Ray Street stated during this
first three minutes he would like to spend on comments on the staff report. In item 2 —
An Analysis of Existing Conditions, Topography and Vegetation there is a statement in
there that the ridgeline should not be affected. This is incorrect. The ridgeline varies
depending upon your point of view. The photographs that were previously provided
indicate that. Under the section, Surrounding Neighborhood, the staff failed to mention
the fact this site is surrounded by a nature preserve. Hikers experience will be
diminished by the tower and again if you look at the photographs, the first two
photographs are from the trails and you can see this tower does stretch up into the
panorama. Item number 3 — The Analysis of the Proposed Development, the Site
Layout and Architecture, the final development will be nothing like the site plan that is in
the application. The application did not show how that tower is going to be sitting within
the fenced area, it will be way away from the setback that is shown. Concerning the
color of the tower, a dark tower will stand out if you are on the mountain looking from
the trails and a light tower will stand out if you are down below or from afar looking into
it. The section on economic development, the Department of Economic Development
had no objections, but it was based on the assumption that the plan conforms to the
Community Plan and is compatible with the surrounding land use. It does not conform
to the Comprehensive Plan as is stated in the study and a one hundred and twenty
(120) foot broadcast tower certainly is not compatible with the surrounding land use,
which is a nature preserve. The paragraph on greenways/Western Virginia Land Trust,
the proposed connection of the trails on the mountain to the Roanoke Valley Greenway
will be within one hundred (100) feet of this new tower and be very visible. The tower
will be within twenty -five (25) feet of the preserve border where it would be disallowed
by a conservation easement. Denial of this project will in effect allow the spirit of the
easement to prevail by keeping all towers off the mountain. In the paragraph
concerning Community Meeting, to say that the adjacent property owners were
unconcerned is an incorrect statement. The owners were there to find out what was
being proposed before they even knew what questions to ask. He talked to neighbors
202 March 27, 2012
who were there and they confirmed this misrepresentation. It was apparent the
Authority did not know that their tiny site, seventy (70) feet by seventy -five (75) feet, not
much bigger than the length of this room in each direction. They did not know it was
surrounded by a two hundred and forty (240) acre nature preserve protected by a
conservation easement. Item 4, Conformance with the Roanoke County
Comprehensive Plan, the existing tank is only fifteen (15) feet high, the proposed tower
will be eight (8) times taller and will have a ten (10) foot antenna on the top, one
hundred and thirty (130) feet. It may be lower because of what Mr. Robertson
suggested earlier, but he does not think it really is going to have much effect on the
visual of the tower. The staff report refers to a road to the tank, that road is nothing
more than an access easement across a residential lot. The proposed development
does not conform to the conservation standards of the Comprehensive Plan. The Water
Authority has no interest in looking at alternative sites for this antenna. He stated he
believes the Authority thinks their application will be approved and it is a slam dunk and
this is why he thinks this. The Authority has already started working on the site. They
have had contractors, surveyors and Miss Utility up there several times. They know
they are going to go ahead with it. On March 1, 2012, he met with the Authority and
suggested they consider a tower on Coyner Mountain to co- locate the antennae on. He
was told it would take four (4) weeks to study this location. One working day later, they
had a letter from a consultant saying he had visited the tower site and determined this
tower was not a viable option. The owner of the land happened to contact him and said
that no one has visited that tower on the days in question. They would have to go
through her front yard, through two gates and it just did not happen. He has also been
told by the owner of the tower that it would be effective on the east side of Read
Mountain, Vinton, Garden City and all areas in between, subject to further study of the
Authority's criteria, but it looks like a good possibility. Secondly, he called Mr.
Robertson on Friday, March 16, 2012, and told him he had several additional sites for
him to consider. He said he would call him the next week to set up a meeting and he is
still waiting for his call. The Western Virginia Water Authority still will go ahead with
their project without the Summit Ridge Tower and they will still get ninety -five to ninety -
eight percent (95 to 98 %) of their stated benefits without this tower. If the Board denies
the project, the Authority will have the option to operate as a hybrid system or to find
another location for their antennae. It will be their choice. In their version 3 study, they
only had three antennae's, Mill Mountain, Round Hill and Oak Grove and it covered
ninety -eight point three percent (98.3 %) of their meters and the consultant told them
that would reduce the first cost investment and enhance the Water Authority's return on
investment.
Dr. Deedie Kagey of 4496 Bonsack Road stated she looks out at the
Walmart, Lowes, Applebees and the Sonic, but one of the best views she has up the hill
is to look out at Read Mountain. As the principal that opens Bonsack Elementary, we
always considered we had the most beautiful sight ever because of Read Mountain.
She stated she could have brought some pictures that spoke to that, but she did not.
She advised she is in attendance to implore the Board to take into consideration a
different placement of the Water Authority's planned tower along the ridgeline of Read
Mountain, which lies in the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt and along the City of
Roanoke's border. For approximately thirteen (13) years, the time the school opened,
March 27, 2012 203
Read Mountain Alliance was forming and it is a non - profit organization, Ron Crawford
has been the major spearhead in that project and that organization has tried to preserve
the natural environment of the mountain. Hundreds of volunteers have developed
hiking trails to highlight breathtaking views and the fauna and floura that surround one
on a hike ascending the mountain. The Western Virginia Land Trust has assisted
property owners in establishing conservation easements. Fralin and Waldron and other
landowners have donated acreage. Roanoke County in concert with Read Mountain
Alliance has created a gravel road to provide hikers access. Many other groups have
participated, almost too numerous to mention but include the Eagle Scouts and the
Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, the latter of which will tie trails to the valley
wide greenway system. Furthermore, and you know she had to add this, Read
Mountain is historically significant. Being first named Mills Mountain for an early settler,
William Mills, who settled on the west side of the mountain. In addition, the Creely Gap
Road, now US 220 Alternate, was named for an early settler, Daniel Creely, who lived
near Cloverdale and this road connected settlers prior to 1746 and many years beyond
to US Routes 11 and 460, a five -mile stretch through the gap. In short, for all the
reasons that have been mentioned, she hopes the Board will give serious consideration
to voting no to a tower that would impede the two hundred and fifty (250) acre, pristine,
natural preserve that is probably the only undisturbed mountain in the valley. The city
has attested to how they feel that is important for them also. Thank you for your time.
She appreciates the work of the Water Authority. She knows many of these people and
appreciates all of you and Mr. Goodman and Paul Mahoney. Thank you for all you do
for the citizens of Roanoke County.
Jim Crawford of 822 13 Street in Roanoke stated he was fortunate
enough to met Ron Crawford's daughter fall in love with her and marry her. He is a
Crawford too, so it is Crawford Crawford. When they started the effort to preserve Read
Mountain, they received many letters and notes of encouragement. One in particular
note stood out and was taken as their directive. It came from Annie Dillard, Pulitzer
Prize winner for her book, "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek." As an aside, the bluegrass band
that played in Peach Bottom Boys back in '73 is mentioned in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek.
He advised he has some recordings if anyone would like to hear it. Mr. Crawford read
from Ms. Dillard's letter. "My years in the Roanoke Valley were sheltered by Read
Mountain. I learned to see in its shadow. Tinker Creek flowing at the mountain space is
only part of its beautiful world. I urge us to protect this glorious treasure, to preserve it
as it has stood for eons. Protect Read Mountain from development, for the views of it
from afar and from the vistas from its peaks. Preserve it for its natural and cultural
heritage for the sales of those who have gone before us and those who will come after
us. Please shelter it from harm." Hundreds of volunteers and previous Board of
Supervisors have done everything they could to preserve this beautiful mountain. In
1995, the Board of Supervisors denied an application for a tower on this mountain. He
stated he is a little concerned and knows everyone in the Read Mountain Alliance
supports the energy efficiency of the monitoring system as proposed by the Water
Authority and he knows we all applaud it. It is not dependent on this one tower and as a
matter of fact at the Planning Commission Board Meeting on March 6, 2012, the
engineer for the Water Authority was asked if the new remote monitoring system could
and would still be implemented and functional if the tower was denied. He responded
204 March 27, 2012
that it would still be. So, Mr. Crawford asked the Board to stand with them. He stated
he believed it was their turn to stand up for Read Mountain preserve it and save it from
harm.
Cathy Crawford of 822 13 Street stated she had three or four points that
she would like to make as a member of Read Mountain Alliance. She stated she knew
that tens of thousands of volunteer hours have gone into creating the preserve, all with
Board of Supervisor approval and encouragement and commitment to keeping
structures off this land. She advised the Board can keep that commitment by denying
this tower at this location. The volunteers who worked on this project as well as future
volunteers expect and trust the Board to keep its commitments; honor them by denying
this tower. According to the staff report, this project does not conform to the
requirements of the County's Comprehensive Plan. This is the kind of project that the
conservation standards were written into the plan for. Do not allow this variance on this
landmark mountain. Plus, approval of this tower will set a precedent that will be
impossible to undue. The Conservation Easement will keep any structures off the park
land, but most of Read Mountain is privately owned and this precedent might send out
the signal that Read Mountain is open for whatever. The land the County owns, the
Read Mountain Preserve does not allow broadcast towers, even monopoles to be built
on it. Why would the Board even consider one on a postage -stamp sized piece of land
within that preserve? Denying this application would retain the conservation
easement's intent of keeping structures off Read Mountain. It is not the Water
Authority's right to put a tower up there so please do not give it to them. The Water
Authority admits there are other solutions.
David Kyle Fitzgerald of 2837 Summit Ridge Road stated his main
objection is what it is going to do to the preserve at the top of the mountain. He stated
he moved into the neighborhood about ten (10) years ago right when the Read
Mountain Alliance and the Western Virginia Land Trust were trying to get the top of the
mountain donated to Roanoke County. He went to a few of the meetings, but basically
did not do anything. He thanked Ron Crawford and the Read Alliance and the Western
Virginia Land Trust. It is a beautiful site. He was shocked the first time he went up
there, it was gorgeous and right in the middle of Roanoke County and one side you can
see Botetourt and Tinker Mountain from the crest and the other side you can see all the
mountains on the Parkway on the Roanoke side. These people did a lot of work to keep
this preserve donated to the people of Roanoke County and he thinks it would be sin to
put this tower there to spoil the vistas and the views. There is still work being done.
They recently built a little side trail on the side of Read Mountain and he hiked it a few
weeks ago and he counted forty -nine (49) steps made out of stone; these are big rocks.
He does not know who moved them; his hat is off to the people that did that. Forty -nine
(49) sets of steps are impressive and it is really nice up there and thinks it would be a
disservice to the people of Roanoke County if the Board allows the Water Authority to
put a tower there.
Linda Van Luik of 2771 Summit Ridge Road stated she had just handed
the Clerk over five hundred (500) signatures on a petition asking that this travesty not
occur. She stated she and her husband have been there for seventeen (17) years,
which means she did a lot of trespassing on top of that beautiful mountain until the
preserve was created; now she can be a legal walker with all the other people up there.
March 27, 2012 205
She stated she has been a part of Read Mountain Alliance because when she lived
there said how could she not be involved in something that is going to preserve the top
of this mountain. Unlike something like Tinker Mountain with all these bristle things
sticking up, please; we talked a lot tonight about perspective point of view. This all has
to do with vision. She is not talking about where she stands in her driveway and see
where there is a little pink balloon bobbing up and down while they were trying to do
their test to determine exactly how the tower would show. She is talking about the
vision of the Board and the people who have worked hard to create this preserve.
Please keep the vision.
Norma Jean Peters of 8126 Hunters Trail stated she lives to think of it as
living under the shadow of Read Mountain. What she is going to say are things that
have been said, but she would like to say them again. She opposes this proposal to
locate this cell tower for three main reasons. First, the location in the preserve; the
second is the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicated that areas designated for
conservation shall have the highest level of protection and she trust the Board will do
this and third is placing the tower in that area is a very bad precedent. She stated she
fears a proliferation of other cell towers. In addition to being a concerned citizen as she
speaks tonight she is also a member of the Board of the Roanoke Valley Preservation
Foundation and she stated she thinks the Board has a letter they have sent expressing
their displeasure and their opposition to this. She urged the Board to vote no and
suggest that the Water Authority find a different location.
Roger Holnback of 3338 Hickory Hill Road in Salem stated he is a recently
retired Director of the Western Virginia Land Trust and he is here speaking as a citizen
and a resident of Roanoke County in the Catawba District off Bradshaw Road. He
stated he started working with Ron Crawford ten (10) years ago to try to preserve Read
Mountain. His job as Director of the Land Trust was a personal mission, not just an act
of the Board. He advised he is here to speak from his perspective as having been a
work to preserve Read Mountain. When he came to Roanoke, we did not have any
preserved mountains, per se. We had some city parks, Tinker Mountain with forty -eight
(48) different cell towers and commercial leases on various towers there, but Read
Mountain somehow did not have a tower on it. He thought that was pretty great. He
stated he understands that it used to have a tower on it when there was a tower for the
airport, but at one point that was removed before he became involved in conservation.
What he found in the Read Mountain Alliance was a group of neighbors who saw a
vision to preserve the one undisturbed mountain within the Roanoke Valley and to keep
the ridge top pristine. We have eight (8) landowners that all owned a piece of that ridge
top to work with. They were not all willing to talk, but the Read Mountain Alliance
persevered, the neighbors persevered. They had hike -a -thon after hike -a -thon and
public events to wash cars. This is a group that was really dedicated to preserve what
has become your county's park. The land was gifted in fee to the County with
conservation easements to preserve those two critical tracts and he hopes the
Bradshaw family who owned most of the rest of the ridge of Read Mountain one day will
see it in their best interest to participate and make a gift of their portion or at least a
portion of their lands to the County. At present, they have a $1 annual lease and they
allow the Park to exist and trails to exist on their private property. It is a very generous
gift on their part in the meantime. He asked the Board to please say no because there
206 March 27, 2012
are no towers, we do not need towers there. We need to preserve that pristine ridge.
He stated he worked very hard in his last ten years to see it preserved and he is here
tonight as just another citizen in this Roanoke Valley to say please say no to this special
use permit and deny the Water Authority's use of their property for a tower for their
system. They are good friends of mine, they have been great in conservation and they
are one of our regional groups, which is great movement for our Valley. We need more
regional cooperation at a lot of levels and he has nothing but respect for them, but he
does believe this is a time to say, "No, find a different solution" and do not damage the
pristine park on Read Mountain.
Allyson Lee of 4441 Old Mountain Road thanked the Board for allowing
time to speak and thanked the Water Authority for looking out for our environment and
our water consumption and trying to environmentally keep things in control. She stated
she appreciates it but she is requesting that the Board deny their request to put this
tower up. Read Mountain is very special to her. She spent the first twenty (20) years of
her life in Louisiana, a low - lander like the lady earlier from Texas. Mountains are an
unbelievable thing. Growing up below a river, mountains are incredible and it is the one
mountain that we have left here that we can enjoy for everything it is supposed to be
with no interruptions and she has lived in the shadow the mountain for about fifteen (15)
years. She does happen to live in the City of Roanoke. Also, one of the wonderful
things about this mountain, this is a Roanoke County issue, but this mountain benefits
Roanoke City, Botetourt County and Roanoke County citizens. We all love to live there.
We all love to be able to either look out our front windows or our back windows and
know we have the protection of this mountain. Read Mountain Alliance has worked very
long to preserve the mountain, we did a very good job with that; we worked long, hard
and we would like to keep it that way. Again, she appreciates the environmental impact
that this proposal, the $32 million proposal, will have in general, but she questions how
much this one particular tower will affect how much benefit that has. There has been
mention of letters of endorsement from several organizations like the Sierra Club. She
would ask to see if those letters are endorsements of the entire project or are they an
endorsement of this one tower that the people of Read Mountain are in opposition to.
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he lives right
down below Summit Ridge and the property in question is very close to him. My
neighbors here have a lot of legitimate concerns he thinks about what the petitioner
wants to do. He has lived in the area for thirty (30) years. He has climbed that
mountain. He gets water from the tank. He may be the one who is siphoning water
unintentionally. When he moved here in 1984 though there was already a tower on top
of the mountain. It was not down on the side like this on proposed, it was right on the
top and it was in fact a used airfield beacon light that was not operational. In his
younger days he even climbed that tower with his son. He is not speaking either for or
against it, but he did want to point that out particularly that there were improvements to
that mountain. He does not believe in NIMBY, in having improvements as long as it is
not in my backyard. He is willing to make the sacrifice for that improvement of the
infrastructure of the water management improvements that he envisions will happen.
He trusts that a lot of consideration has been made as to the location. But really, the
acid test is, "Max, would you put that tower in your backyard." He has a lot located next
to me and he could envision that tower going over there and he would be willing to do
March 27, 2012 207
that and he thinks that we all have to sacrifice at times. He thinks there will be some
diminution perhaps in that one area, but a lot of Read Mountain you cannot even see
that radio tower because it down on the side. He does not think it is going to have that
big of an effect because it not on the conservation right -of -way. He thinks the people
who spoke tonight have put a lot of energy into that and he certainly respects that. He
thinks that if he knew this was a precedent then he would not be speaking for it. Of
course, it depends on what the Board does in the future and the people who will come
and sit on the dais in the future. He stated he thinks that is something that has to be
improved along the way and the Board might have to make a hard decision in favor of it.
Chairman Flora closed the public hearing.
Mr. Darby asked to see the photographs provided by Mr. Crawford. He
saw some similar pictures at the Planning Commission meeting and they have been
photoshoped to project the image of the tower on them. He stated the Authority has
done some similar set of photographs, but does not think the photos give an accurate
representation of what the tower would look like. There are several points that seem to
be made about the conservation easement. He wants to be clear there is no
conservation easement on the Water Authority's property. Ms. Peters made reference
to a cell tower, this is a broadcast tower. Everything that the citizens said were sincere,
the Authority respects those, they just have a different perspective.
Supervisor Moore inquired in reducing the tower from one hundred and
twenty(120) feet to one hundred (100) feet and including the one inch whip antennae at
the top in what proximinity to the tree line would that be. Mr. Darby stated they think it
will crest at the tree line, about at the top of the trees. It is a little bit hard to tell because
of the slope of the mountain.
Supervisor Elswick stated by the way on the pictures and representations,
those illustrations were made by an architect. Normally, they do a good job of making
perspectives. There is a version 3 study that one of the speakers mentioned that said
without the tower there would be ninety -eight point three percent (98.3 %) coverage.
He asked the question earlier and the Authority did not seem to know much about. Is it
true or not? Mr. Robertson advised when they first started looking at the project
because anyone what hired they looked at how to do this and one of the options was a
hybrid system, having the remote capability of reading the majority of our meters and
then still manually reading the rest of them, that was what version 3 was. Part of their
agreement is they wanted a system that would read one hundred percent (100 %) of our
meters so they could give all of the customers the same level of service; provide the
ability to check for leaks and to provide monthly meter readings for all of their
customers. Also, with the hybrid system, they would not necessarily have the 1.6
overlap redundancy. The assumption would be that it would normally read ninety -eight
percent (98 %) of the meters and when it did not read them, they would be read
manually. Next, Supervisor Elswick stated one person mentioned there was an
alternate site, privately owned, and two gates to go through. Further, the authority had
someone look at and wrote them a letter saying a day and one half after the request
was made they did go there, but the landowner said that they did not. Mr. Robertson
responded they did not say they went there and the folks from H. D. Supply, Steve Clay
can come up and address that. Supervisor Elswick inquired if they visited the site with
Mr. Robertson explaining they rode up to the site but they also did this analysis based
208 March 27, 2012
on elevations and computer analysis. Mr. Clay advised he was the referred to "expert"
that visited the alternative site on Route 604. He was at the site, but was not
specifically on the grounds of the tower. His visit occurred March 5, 2012, at
approximately 11:45 a.m. It was one of the most rainy days that we had in March.
There was a tremendous fog cover in the general area, so once he proceeded up to the
general location of the alternate site with the heavy fog, the cloud cover, the existing
rain it was quite apparent that an alternate site on the East side of Read Mountain
would not trump or replace anything on the West side of Read Mountain. Most of the
Western Virginia Water Authority customers are on the West side of Read Mountain.
There is a small customer population base on the East. With the existing fog on March
5 and the heavy rainfall it was quite apparent that particular site was not an option.
Supervisor Elswick questioned on the day he went to the site, you could not see the
tower, there was fog and there was rain and yet you made a determination that it was
unacceptable. Mr. Clay explained understanding that fog and rain have a tremendous
impact, negative influence on radio frequency transmission. When you have a vision of
Read Mountain, the fog cover is dense enough that basically you are looking at a
silhouette; you do not have a full projection of the mountain, certainly it was obvious to
him. Supervisor Elswick commented there is fog everywhere.
Chairman Flora inquired how many alternative sites were looked at and
actually tested in the Bonsack area, with Mr. Clay responding he could not speak
specifically to the Bonsack area, but it is his opinion that Mr. Darby touched on earlier.
They have used fifty -three (53) existing water storage tanks in at least one propagation
study or another. There are twelve (12) third -party sites for a total of sixty -two (62) used
in one or more propagation studies. The concept that the Water Authority has not
investigated all options he feels is incorrect. So they have investigated Roanoke City,
Roanoke County, and Appalachian Power. He thinks the Authority should be
commended on the investigation process they have done. The one thing the Board
needs to be aware of is Gary Robertson and his staff at the Western Virginia Water
Authority are very aware of the aestic beauty that we have in the Roanoke Valley, so
they are not a mission to disrupt or destroy that beauty. Chairman Flora then asked
what alternative sites have been investigated that were to be used other than the one
that is proposed this evening. Mr. Clay responded LaBellvue, Strawberry Hill,
Crumpacker, RCIT Tank and Route 460. Therefore, they have considered alternate
sites in the Bonsack area. There is just not a lot of existing infrastructure there.
Supervisor Church commented he was on the Board in 2001 when the
Board helped create the conservation area. This is a beautiful area. He thanked Dr.
Kagey for all that is done in that area. Supervisor Church then asked Mr. Robertson
regarding a letter from Mark McClain, Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission and did the Authority understand this was a letter of support for the tower.
Mr. Robertson stated he felt they did not oppose the tower. Chairman Church then read
the letter and stated he was not sure how to take it. When the decision was made to
protect this area there were letters to protect the view shed from Congressman Bob
Goodlatte, Senator Bell, Delegate Onslee Ware, Delegate Chip Woodrum, Delegate Vic
Thomas, Senator John Edwards, the Sierra Club, the Appalachian Trail Conference and
Dan Brown of the US Department of the Interior and the Western Virginia Land Trust
and the County of Roanoke. As he sits and listens to the Authority, collectively they
March 27, 2012 209
spent a long time to establish something that he took pride in to protect view sheds and
conservation areas. The beauty surrounding our Valley cannot be underestimated; it is
what sets us apart. It is one of few places you can actually look down on an airplane.
He is concerned about the talk of a road. When he visited the site, it looks like mixed
gravel going across a side of a private citizen's easement. He does not classify that as
a road. There are a lot of people who have their "lifeblood" in this, thousands upon
thousands of volunteer hours. Supervisor Church asked for clarification that this is a
seventy (70) foot by approximately seventy -five (75) foot spot with Mr. Robertson
responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Church stated he is just not comfortable
looking at the history. History is important to him and maybe he takes it overboard, but
takes it as somewhat of a promise to the people. He stated he admired what has been
done; it is a beautiful area, but cannot support this proposal.
Supervisor Elswick commented he has a tremendous amount of respect
for the Read Mountain Alliance, Ron Crawford who has worked so hard as well as a lot
of other people who have. This is an incredible endorsement for the kind of people that
live in Roanoke County and the Board appreciates what they have done to get the
mountain preserved for those that follow us. It is a shame that some other mountains
have all kinds of things on top of them that were not carefully thought out. He stated we
should use more co- location. Just because one company wants to put a tower up does
not mean we should not ask them to merge and cooperate and let other people use that
tower so there is not such a proliferation of things on our mountain tops. The citizens
that do the kind of participation and volunteering that they have done, if it could be done
throughout the County, this place would be much better of an asset and the County
would save a lot of money as a result. They did not expect the County to give them
things, did not expect they deserved something, they said this is something they want
and they are going to do it and he appreciates that. In his estimation there is a
possibility there are alternative locations and Ron Crawford has shown him a couple of
those and thinks they should be thoroughly researched before the Board approves any
other site.
Supervisor Moore states she certainly understands everyone wanting to
preserve this beautiful mountain; it is gorgeous. When she met with Mr. Crawford a
week or so ago, she noticed there was a big bare spot on the mountain, right in front of
the tower and asked him what it was thinking it may be a road that the Water Authority
wanted to use to access the tank. Mr. Crawford explained it was a house being built
and a house beside it and now there will be a house, if constructed, in front of the water
tank and this tower is going to be on that water tank. Now the Water Authority has
stated they are reducing the height by twenty (20) feet, which will put it about tree line
and at six and one half (6 1 /) inches, where she was standing and preserve is just
beautiful and she walked and rode around and rode to the Route 460 site and from
every location, she just does not think that a six and one half (6'/) inch antennae near
the tree line will be that noticeable. She further stated she thinks this will help our
precious commodity, water, in the future. If we have any leaks, it will be determined. It
will get a lot of vehicles off the road and supports this project thinking it is a good project
and really does not think it would be that obstructive because there are already houses
and this will not be on the ridgeline, it will be to the left of the preserve.
210 March 27, 2012
Chairman Flora stated his biggest concern is in talking with at least a few
people that live not necessarily in the shadow, but have an interest in it; the concern is
that there has not been enough study of alternative sites. He began to get that
impression this evening that perhaps there might be some alternatives out there. He
does not want to see a tower go up at this location unless it is the only place in the
valley that an antennae can be put that will do what needs to be done in terms of
reading the meters. He stated he thinks the project is an excellent one and commends
the Water Authority for looking at how they can save money and the payback is less
than twelve (12) years. The location the Authority has picked is a landmine and they
are about to step on it. He agrees with Supervisor Elswick and hates to think the Board
would approve something when there is another viable alternative. He stated he does
not have a problem in giving the Water Authority another thirty days or to the second
meeting in April to go out and do exhaustive research and look at locations and if they
come back and tell the Board there is no other location that they can use to get the job
done then the Board will have to make a decision. To approve or deny something
without knowing it is the only alternative makes him a bit uncomfortable. He stated he
grew up in the shadow of Read Mountain; he was born and raised on the other side of
the mountain and sits on his patio and looks down on Tinker Creek and knows all about
the pilgrimage on Tinker Creek because it came right by his house. It is a beautiful
mountain and he hopes that nothing is ever put on the West side of that mountain. He
knows it is going to because it is all privately owned and it is incredibly good
developable land up to the point that it gets so steep that you really cannot develop.
Unfortunately, on the East side the development went way too high to start with. It
proves though that you can develop almost any topography. If his colleagues would be
willing to delay the final decision until the end of April and come back and either say
they have found another site that might work or no they have not found a site and this is
the only alternative then the Board will have to make a decision.
Supervisor Church stated if the end result is a different area he is in
agreement, but cannot support it. He stated to Mr. Robertson and Mr. Benninger for
anyone to think that this Board, speaking for himself, would do anything purposely to
create a "wildfire" is a misnomer. Those two gentlemen are two of the most respected
gentlemen. They are doing their job and just happened to walk in the line of fire. Thank
you to what you both do.
Supervisor Moore stated the Board will not know if they find an alternative
site until it is investigated and researched. She stated she is in agreement to postpone.
Chairman Flora stated it may end up that it is the only site and may end up
dying anyway. If the Board votes with a two to two decision, it is a dead issue. He
stated he has talked to some of the people up there and if they have done their due
diligence and this is the only site, they may soften their position. They will not come out
in favor, but they may soften their opposition to it. He stated he would like to at least
give the Authority that period of time to do their investigation and come back and tell us.
Supervisor Elswick stated if the Board postpones it, would really rather
not, but if the Board does he would like to ask that evaluations be made by an
independent party and specifically that fog and rain cannot be used as an excuse for not
transmitting and that the alternative sites that the citizens know about be included in the
evaluation.
March 27, 2012 211
Chairman Flora stated he does not have a problem with that. Chairman
Flora moved to postpone the second reading to April 24, 2012, to enable the authority
an opportunity to look at alternative sites and if so, notify the citizens of the alternatives
sites so they will be aware of.
Chairman Flora moved to postpone this item to the April 24, 2012,
meeting for the Water Authority to look at alternative sites and notify the citizens. The
motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane and Roanoke County resident since
1956 stated have you been doubting what I have been saying, then read about The
Club of Rome. Consider this quote by Alexander King, "and ... GOD father, so to speak
of sustainability ", co- founder of the Club of Rome made back in the 1940's: "In
searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the
threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All of
these dangers are caused by human intervention; the real enemy then, is humanity."
This is a Scotsman that studied at University of Munich. What does that say? No
wonder this man thought such, born 1909 died 2007. He lived through all the World
Wars in European Communities, Had the blind person and tunnel vision about the future
and his work is somehow some sort of Political Socialist gospel of today's ilk as the UN
Agenda twenty -one's ICLEI. Political Socialist for sure; saying "We the People" are too
stupid to self govern at our local levels. We can do it, I know we can. We do not need
these deceivers in our midst. Do these scenarios sound familiar? Water shortages,
famine, global warming are all in the news daily; all to make humanity the enemy of
Mother Earth ", "Gaia "... "WE ARE" of the Earth. We are constantly being bombarded
with news stories (like the threat of global warming) that make man the evil doer, a
cancer on the face of the earth in spite of evidence to the contrary. Why do we
continually allow these globalists to roll their Trojan horses in? They want what we have.
They want to be here. We do not need them or what they have. They continue their
"OCCUPY EFFORTS ". Why can we not see this; or is it that we are so ignorantly, fat
and happy. We cannot see "Our Train Wreck" in our face. Our forbears left from over
there to come here to get away from them, fought and died for Liberty from them. Now
their words are woven into our documents. "Get the ilk out ", such as ICLEI with no
future funding of membership.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church thanked all the citizens that came out and spent the
212 March 27, 2012
night with the Board. It is sincerely appreciated that you take care of your particular
area and do the best they can and give the Board their very best efforts.
Supervisor Elswick stated he appreciates what the Water Authority is
doing, they are running their business the way they think it ought to be run and doing
the best it can to be efficient for the County taxpayers. He wanted to make sure they
understood that. He stated, he would like at some point in time not sure if it would
require a work session or not. He has had two neighbors who have lost calves on the
mountain from coyote attacks and had put away seven or eight himself around his
house and at some point the Board may want to entertain putting a bounty on coyotes.
It would not cost a lot of money because there will not be that many that people will be
able to kill. Other counties do it and it could become a very serious issue when the
coyotes attack people, cats, dogs, etc and have rabies.
Supervisor Moore congratulated the Cave Spring boys' basketball team;
they had an exceptional year, they played with fortitude and style and made it all the
way to State contention. Congratulations to them. She then congratulated and thanked
all of the heroes that were nominated this morning and received awards for the Red
Cross Heroes Breakfast and would also like to take a moment to brag on the new South
County Library. They have been notified the new library has been included in American
Libraries magazine annual design showcase issue. The American Libraries national
publication launched the showcase as a way of recognizing innovation in modern library
architecture and services. From among hundreds of new and renovated schools,
special, university and public libraries across the country, South County was recognized
in two categories, service flexibility, especially with an innovative commons area and the
shape of things for its uses of space and display. They understand the building also
earned very high scores in other categories as well. Thank you to everyone, the Library
Board and everyone who was involved in setting high standards for the library.
Chairman Flora thanked everyone who was still in attendance for their
patience and perseverance; it has been a very long night. This is the first time we have
had one this late for quite a while. Government in action. He commented on what
Supervisor Elswick had said with regard to coyotes. The coyote problem is a serious
problem in the rural areas. When you are in the urban areas you do not notice it
because coyotes are so skittish of people that they just don't come down into the
subdivisions, but there was a recent article in a journal that talked about the impact that
the coyotes are having in the Southeast on the deer population. Apparently, if they
cannot get a fawn, then they go after sheep. If they cannot get a sheep, they go after
calves. There are no counties around us that actually have bounties. The State does
permit a bounty on them, but he is not aware of anyone that has it. If we could get the
surrounding counties to participate because what happens sometimes if one county has
a bounty, there is no way of knowing which county that coyote came from, so for
example, they kill it in Craig County and bring them to Roanoke County to collect the
bounty. But he does know people who kill 30 to 50 each year in Craig County, which is
just a drop in the bucket.
March 27, 2012
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
213
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 10:29 p.m. to a special work
session to be held on Tuesday. April 3. 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the Training Room of the
Roanoke County Administration Center.
Submitted by:
Deborah C. Jack
Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
Richard C. Flora
Chairman
214
March 27, 2012
1
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
1