8/13/2013 - RegularAugust 13, 2013
325
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August 2013. 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: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by Muttur
Sharma of the India Heritage Society. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all
present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
taken.
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer; Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch"
Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Richard C. Flora and Charlotte
A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; and Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to
the Board
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Altizer added a new item under new business, an
announcement of a company relocating to Roanoke County. Additionally, Chairman
Altizer deleted the second closed session item. All of the Board members were in
agreement with these changes.
326 August 13, 2013
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request for authorization to execute a performance agreement
between the County of Roanoke, the Roanoke County Economic
Development Authority and Ardagh Metal Packaging USA Inc,
Hollins Magisterial District (Jill Loope, Acting Director of
Economic Development)
A- 081313 -1
Ms. Loope outlined the request for the performance agreement.
Supervisor Flora commended the Economic Development Department for their hard
work and noted it was the largest, single economic development project in Roanoke
County history.
The remaining Supervisors offered their thanks and congratulations to the
Economic Development Department.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation to execute
the performance agreement. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Announcement of new business (Jill Loope, Acting Director of
Economic Development)
Ms. Loope announced that Canline Systems would be locating to
Roanoke County and employing approximately 25 people by October 1, 2013. She
further thanked the Regional Partnership for their work with this project.
3. Request to approve an increase in funds to $20,000 for a
Commercial Matching Grant Program, and transfer previously
appropriated funds from the Community Development Planning
account to the Economic Development Authority (Jill Loope,
Acting Director of Economic Development)
I_QII* K1(i b&+
Ms. Loope outlined the request for new signs and entrance plans for the
Richfield Retirement Community and advised Lee Wilhelm, Richfield Senior Director of
Campus Development, was present to answer any questions.
Supervisor Church commented this will be a nice new addition to the new
Glenvar community. There was no additional discussion.
August 13, 2013 327
Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation to
approve the additional funds. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
4. Request to transfer previously appropriated funds in the amount
of $7,993 for the assessment of Appalachian Power Company
(APCo) negotiations (Anne Marie Green, Director of General
Services)
A- 081313 -3
Ms. Green outlined the request to transfer the funds for the APCo
negotiations. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the staff recommendation to
appropriate the funds. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
5. Resolution approving the execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between Roanoke County and the Town of
Vinton providing for stormwater management facilities post -
construction inspection services to the Town of Vinton (Tarek
Moneir, Deputy Director of Development Services)
Mr. Moneir outlined the need for the resolution and Memorandum of
Understanding with the Town of Vinton for post- construction inspection services. There
was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 081313 -4 APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN
ROANOKE COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF VINTON PROVIDING
FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES POST -
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES
WHEREAS, Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton desire to work
cooperatively to provide an optimum level of customer service to the development and
construction community and to streamline the review and post- construction inspection
process; and
328 August 13, 2013
WHEREAS, Roanoke County recognizes that, in order to maintain a high quality
level of customer service to its development /construction community and to comply with
federal, state, and local requirements for the stormwater management regulations, a
close working relationship with the Town of Vinton is desirable and will be made
possible through the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Memorandum of Understanding for providing stormwater
management facilities post- construction inspection services to the Town of Vinton is
hereby approved.
2. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized to
execute the Memorandum of Understanding and any other necessary documents to
accomplish this action, all to be upon a form approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
6. Resolution approving the execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between Roanoke County and the Town of
Vinton providing for stormwater management (Tarek Moneir,
Deputy Director of Development Services)
Mr. Moneir outlined the need for the resolution and Memorandum of
Understanding with the Town of Vinton for stormwater management. There was no
discussion.
RESOLUTION 081313 -5 APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ROANOKE
COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF VINTON PROVIDING FOR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW
WHEREAS, Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton desire to work
cooperatively to provide an optimum level of customer service to the development and
construction community and to streamline the review and post- construction inspection
process; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County recognizes that, in order to maintain a high quality
level of customer service to its development /construction community and to comply with
federal, state, and local requirements for the stormwater management regulations, a
close working relationship with the Town of Vinton is desirable and will be made
August 13, 2013 329
possible through the execution of a Memoranda of Understanding for providing
stormwater management plan review services to the Town of Vinton.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Memorandum of Understanding for providing stormwater
management plan review services to the Town of Vinton is hereby approved (Exhibit A).
2. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized to
execute the Memoranda of Understanding and any other necessary documents to
accomplish this action, all to be upon a form approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 20 "Solid Waste" of the Roanoke
County Code to establish requirements for the trading in of
secondhand articles, to require a permit for certain activities, to
provide a penalty for violations and to impose a permit fee (Due to
time constraints, it is requested that, upon a four - fifths vote of the
Board, the second reading be waived and the ordinance adopted
as an emergency measure.) (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the need for the ordinance and explained the
request to waive the second reading as an emergency measure. He explained the
Virginia General Assembly adopted legislation that amended various provisions in Title
59.1 of the Code. He indicated staff has been working with the other jurisdictions to try
and simplify this process. Certain requirements are placed on purchasers of these
secondhand materials; requiring a permit and that permit requires a criminal
background check. The permit process is somewhat time consuming because there is
also a fingerprint requirement. The State Code allows local governments to trigger a
permit fee up to $50. He advised the Board could have a lesser fee. Based on his
staff's discussions with County staff, there is a significant administrative burden involved
in this process. The difficulty the County Attorney's office has found is trying to
coordinate the local activities in Roanoke County with what is occurring in the
neighboring localities. The legislation did become effective on July 1, 2013, and his
office has been advised by many people who are involved in this business that they can
go ahead and engage in the trading of these kinds of materials until County staff was
able to bring to the Board this ordinance to try and implement this State legislation. The
ordinance in large measure incorporates by reference those provisions of the State
330 August 13, 2013
Code that were involved in this new legislation. One item that he would like to bring to
the Board's attention is on page two (2) of the ordinance, item number 2. Generally the
permits are good for one (1) year. Because of the delay that government has incurred,
staff feels it would not be fair to citizens to have that permit expire on December 31,
2014. So, the suggestion is that if any citizen comes in and secures a permit, assuming
the Board adopts the ordinance, the permit would be good through December 31, 2014;
thereafter would be 365 days from the date the permit is secured.
Supervisor Flora inquired if the legislative language says we may enact an
ordinance or we shall enact? Mr. Mahoney advised as they read the legislation, this
legislation imposes the regulatory requirement on the locality. So, for the first step he
believes Roanoke County would need to adopt an ordinance in order to implement the
permit process so the citizens can start engaging in this kind of trade. What staff has
heard is some of the larger scrap dealers will not buy the scrap without a permit. Part of
the legislation involves a requirement on those dealers they have to take a photograph
of what was brought to them and they have to hold it for a certain period of time and is
very similar in its legislative approach to some of the obligations that pawn brokers
have. A local ordinance is required to provide the mechanism for the permit in order to
allow people who are involved in this type of business to continue their business.
Secondly, his view is that staff administratively cannot impose a permit fee; must be
done by action of the governing body.
Supervisor Flora then asked if he is cleaning up around his property and
he had a bunch of gutters that were pulled off and replaced and want to take them down
and pickup $10 instead of taking them to the recycling bin, then he would have to buy a
$50 permit. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Flora stated this
should help the solid waste authority because a lot of metal is going to end up there that
would normally have gone to the recycling bins at one of the major dealers. He knows
where they are coming from as a lot of stuff has been stripped out of buildings, stolen
and sold as a result of the poor economy or just as a result of criminal activity. He
stated he thinks they have put a huge burden on the people. He stated it sounds to him
that the General Assembly just "threw out the baby with the bath water." Mr. Mahoney
stated when he was first asking questions back in June, he had some questions of the
Police Department and was asking what type of law enforcement are they engaging in
with this. Are they going to write somebody up for a misdemeanor violation. If people
are breaking into houses and stripping the copper tubing and wiring out of the house,
they are not going to worry about having a permit, they are going to be worried about
getting caught and prosecuted for a felony.
Supervisor Moore thanked Ms. Jones and Mr. Craig for all their hard work
on this issue.
Supervisor Elswick commented this is terrible legislation. The State has
no idea what it is like to salvage material and they do not understand that there are
certain individuals who take used appliances to the scrap yard who are now going to
dump them in a hollow somewhere. It is so stupid. On the other hand, what do you do
August 13, 2013 331
if somebody goes to a scrap yard and they buy material. They are on their way home
with a pickup truck full of material that they bought from the scrap yard. What is the
officer supposed to do? We are putting the Police in a terrible situation, because they
cannot determine whether something is illegal or not. He stated he wonders if the
problem was serious enough for what it is going to cost people to implement this
legislation. He advised he goes to two scrap dealers all the time. He accumulates
metal from any of his neighbors that are going to throw it away and he takes it to a
particular scrap yard and many times he comes home with stuff that the scrap yard had
that he thinks he needs. At this scrap yard, he sees no evidience of huge piles of
copper and aluminum that looks like it might have come from houses that had the wiring
ripped out and if you are a felon you cannot get a permit; they will just get a buddy to
get the permit and let them take the material to the scrap yard. There are so many
loose ends in this legislation that our General Assembly ought to be ashamed of
themselves and we ought to let them know that. He thinks we need to write the people
at the State who are responsible for this kind of legislation and let them know what our
opinion is about it.
Chairman Altizer stated he wished the Chief of Police were in attendance
because he would like to know the statistics on how many bathtubs we have had stolen
in Roanoke County. He stated he agreed with Mr. Elswick, this has got to be some of
the worst legislation he has ever seen come out of Richmond. In item two, "Permit
required. - It shall be unlawful for any person to offer for sale or acquire any
secondhand heating or plumbing fixtures or supplies, electric fixtures or any wiring, gas
fixtures or appliances, water faucets, pipes, locks, bathtubs, gutters, downspouts." So a
person who is having a yard sale, have renovated their house and they have a bathtub
out there that they want to sell or they have some door locks they have changed but are
still good. So, are we now going to expend Police time to go through every yard sale in
Roanoke County to check for bathtubs, light fixtures, etc.? This is ludicrous. Mr.
Mahoney advised there is a exemption in the State code for a homeowner selling it on
his or her own property. Supervisor Altizer stated on the piece of paper he is looking at
it says, "it shall be unlawful for any person to offer for sale or acquire secondhand
heating, bathtubs, etc." Mr. Mahoney advised staff did not include all the exemptions,
the exemptions are included on the webpage and the application and there is a long
laundry list of exemptions. Chairman Altizer then asked if all the things listed in item
two (2) are in the State Code with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative. Chairman
Altizer stated if it would not cause so many problems for people who really need the
money, legitimately trying to make a little money to make ends meet, he would probably
make a motion to show a little civil disobedience and give the General Assembly
another year to get it straight like we did UDA's. This is ludicrous, he does not see how
we are going to enforce it. He stated he thinks we all know that we have problems,
people are stealing stuff, etc. The ones that want to steal will go to the unscrupulous
dealers that buy and sell and they don't care whether they have a permit or not, but it is
the multitude of decent, everyday citizens who are going to be penalized by this and the
332 August 13, 2013
criminal element will always find a way around it. He stated we are going to have one
more "bite of the apple" with our legislative agenda and he would think we would add to
it that our disgust and appall of this State legislation and ask our State legislators go
back and fix it.
Supervisor Elswick stated he believed the scrap dealer keep a log of what
comes in already. So if some individual is bringing in a lot of copper and aluminimum,
which are the two primary metals that thieves get, then the evidence is already there for
who the thief is. All we have to do is go to the scrap dealers and have them tell them
who has been bringing in copper and aluminum and then keep an eye on that person.
This is overkill. Mr. Mahoney stated the legislation includes placing a burden on the
dealer. They have to keep an electronic record of what any person would bring in.
Supervisor Elswick stated they already do that. When you take something to Cycle
Systems, i.e. an old car, they keep a record of it with the tag number and they know
who you are and they give you a receipt. If you wanted to go after the thieves, and that
is the route that should have been taken, and not punish the everyday citizen who is
trying to clean up around their house, the environment and get material recycled rather
than throwing it in a ditch or over the hillside. He stated he thinks the Board ought to
object strongly to the State.
Supervisor Church stated in addition to everything fellow Board members
have said, we are asked to do this as an emergency measure.
Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens
speaking on this issue.
Supervisor Flora asked if the fee for $50.00 exceeds the estimated
administrative cost to issue that permit? What is the estimated cost? Mr. Mahoney
advised generally to run a criminal background check could run from $25 -$30; the
fingerprint check is $5. Part of our struggle was that each of the Treasurer's office,
Sheriff's office, Police Department has to touch this process. Administratively with
potentially three different departments coupled with Ms. Jones' hours responding to
citizens concerns and questions. He advised he does not have a good administrative
cost, but he would guess it would be anywhere between $20 and $40 involved just in
administration, not counting the fingerprint and criminal background check. Supervisor
Flora stated if the out -of- pocket cost is $30 to $35 then the $50 fee probably will not
cover the total cost of the permit.
Chairman Altizer inquired why a yearly fee? Mr. Mahoney advised the
legislation talks about an annual fee. One of the difficulties staff had was that some
jurisdictions interpret the State code as the scrap metal person has to obtain a permit in
each locality. Initially, he had thought about it as similar to the old decal for your car.
One decal was good in Virginia. However, some localities have interpreted the
legislation as if you are trading in these kinds of materials, you have to get a permit in
each and every jurisdiction you function in. There are a lot of questions with respect to
the legislation, but one part does state an annual permit. Chairman Altizer stated this
really does penalize the good people. Is there anything that says they have to go
August 13, 2013 333
through a background check and fingerprinting every year or initially? Mr. Mahoney
stated when they looked at it they were trying to figure out a way to just do it one time.
But, if you are a bad guy and think you can get your permit today and then tomorrow
commit a felony so we would not catch it unless and until the next year when you went
through the permit application process. He stated he thinks that was the mindset of
what the General Assembly was thinking about; annually revalidate and see if you have
had a disqualifying felony sometime during that period of time, so you would not get a
permit the next year.
Supervisor Moore stated for reclarification if someone is remodeling their
house; have storm damage and they put their gutters out to the curb in order to take it to
recycling they have to get fingerprinted, etc. to get a permit. Do they come to the
County building to do that and then go to the Police Department? Is there a process set
up? Mr. Mahoney responded the process is set out on the website. The application
can be obtained in several different places; you can download it off the website, come to
the Administration Building, come to the Libraries, the Commissioner's office, the
Treasurer's office and the Sheriff's Department. You go to the Sheriff's office to get
fingerprinted. You pay the Treasurer's office and they let folks know they can run the
criminal background check and staff is thinking that might take about ten (10) days.
Staff is trying to expedite the process.
Supervisor Elswick stated so if you want to take a load of household items
that is worth about $20 to the scrap yard, you have to go to the Sheriff's office, come
back to the Treasurer and you are going to spend $20 worth of gas and a lot of time.
He stated he seriously thinks we ought to tell the State that the Board represents our
citizens and this is not good for our citizens. We are primarily responsible to the citizens
in Roanoke County and let the State know this is not something we want to implement
until the routines are simplified, all the loose ends are taken care of and we are not
implementing until made simpler and does not effect our citizens as much as it does.
Kathy Jones, Senior Assistant County Attorney added with regard to the
question regarding whether or not you have to be fingerprinted and have a criminal
record each year after the permit expires; there is only one -time fingerprinting as
fingerprints will not change and they will have to update the criminal history every year.
Also, if you are doing your own yardsale, items from your own house and you are selling
them on your property, there is an exception. There is no permit required. Aluminum
cans do not require a permit.
Supervisor Elswick said except for the person leaving your property with a
truckload of items that you sold them. What is the poor policeman doing to do when he
sees that truck coming down the road without a permit. Is he going to believe the
person? We are putting the officers in a terrible position. The person buying the stuff at
the yardsale has to have a permit to buy from me? Ms. Jones advised affirmatively.
Supervisor Elswick asked what happens if you go to Hillsville to the mile -long yard sale
with 40 million vendors there selling stuff; thousands of people buying stuff. All of those
people going to Hillsville for the annual flea market are going to have to have permits.
334 August 13, 2013
Ms. Jones confirmed he was correct. Supervisor Elswick advised we should ask the
State people to come to Hillsville.
Mr. Mahoney advised Roanoke City would be considering this the first
week of September. Ms. Jones advised she had spoken with the Danville Chief of
Police today and it is running real smoothly there. They were the first one. Each
locality is using Danville as an example and they are elated with it because it going
really well there.
Supervisor Elswick stated can you imagine how many tickets a Police
Officer could write for all the traffic coming out of Hillsville; thousands. They are asking
us to intentionally break the law because this cannot be enforced.
Chairman Altizer stated this needed to be added to our legislative agenda.
He is not even against inviting all of our area legislators that voted for this to come and
explain to us why.
Ms. Jones advised she had been advised by citizens that they had been
calling the legislators and not getting their phone calls returned. They are not happy.
Supervisor Church stated with all the confusion and chaos are we
sincerely ready to pass this today as an emergency measure? Mr. Mahoney responded
that they have heard that some of the dealers are refusing to buy these materials
because the citizen is unable to show the permit. Supervisor Church stated he feels we
are sending the wrong message. Prior to the State of Virginia initiating this requirement,
the same dealers had no qualms; business was taking place. He stated he believes this
chaos has been entirely created by the State of Virginia. He advised he is not that
comfortable putting something out that could adversely effect a large number of people.
Supervisor Flora stated we are in a "Catch 22" situation; the State has
mandated that we adopt an ordinance and do this. He stated he would love not to do it,
but thinks that would probably create as much confusion as doing this. He does agree
with Mr. Church and is not so sure that moving ahead as expeditiously as we are doing
is in the best interest of the public. He would suggest that we approve on first reading,
close the public hearing but continue until the next meeting to allow people who might
want to sign up and speak on this item to speak on it. It is a big issue. He advised he
thinks the Board sees the picture a lot better than the general public does because they
have debated what all the pitfalls might be. He does not know that the people out there
that want to get rid of some of the junk they have around realizes that the only way they
may get rid of that junk is to take it to the recycling station off of Rt. 460 /Orange Avenue.
He stated he does not know if we have a real option. We could kill it. It is putting the
burden on the people who are actually buying the materials to make sure that
whomever is selling to them has a permit and people who do not have a permit are
going to be turned away and they will need to go get a permit and then come back
again. Taking pictures is wonderful, but when you have a pickup truck with a hundred
feet of copper tubing and the next person comes along and has ten feet of copper
tubing that looks exactly the same as the one who has the hundred feet of cooper
tubing. He is not sure what the picture does except identifying that someone did have
August 13, 2013 335
some copper tubing when they brought it in. You cannot identify if it came from 127
Maple Avenue. His suggestion is to move it forward to the next agenda, allow anyone
who wants to speak on this item do so because it is a big item. He just thinks you need
to give people the opportunity to have that second chance at speaking to the Board.
Chairman Altizer asked where the onus of the requirement to be licensed
by a scrap yard. Is it on adhereing to State law, or County or City law. The State law
was enacted on July 1, 2013, is this correct. Mr. Mahoney advised there was existing
provisions already in place for several years. On July 1, 2013, there was new
legislation that expanded some of the application of the previous existing statute. So,
the State made a lot of this activity unlawful and placed the burden on either the local
Sheriff or local Chief of Police. Chairman Altizer stated so if there is a scrap yard in
Roanoke County that buys scrap, he is going to have to purchase a license from us.
Mr. Mahoney advised the State legislation imposes two penalties. First, it imposes a
civil penalty of not to exceed $7,500 for each violation on any scrap metal purchaser.
Second, a scrap metal purchaser who knowingly violates the State code provision also
is guilty of a Class I misdemeanor; a double hit, a criminal penalty and a civil penalty.
At that point, double jeopardy would apply and if convicted could only be convicted of
the State law or the local ordinance. Chairman Altizer stated he felt we ought to wait a
couple more weeks and buy a little time. Let's do it in the right way.
Supervisor Elswick asked if prior to the meeting when we do the second
reading could we express our questions to someone at the State and ask them to give
us an answer and perhaps have someone from the State actually come and speak and
answer the questions in public ?.
Chairman Altizer stated he thinks that would be a grand idea, but as we
heard today, nobody will return the phone calls of everyday citizens who are calling
about this.
Supervisor Elswick inquired what happens if we tell the State we are not
going to do this. What do they do? Mr. Mahoney advised he would give that advise to
the Board in closed session. Mr. Mahoney stated in response to Mr. Flora's comment
was to reinforce Supervisor Elswick's comment. We have people out there that want to
do the right thing. Unfortunately, this legislation in his opinion makes it more difficult for
people to do the right thing. Unless you are doing it all the time in order to defray the
costs involved, what is going to happen is exactly what Mr. Elswick said, the person that
is just doing this one or two times a year is not going to pay $50 to do it and the stuff is
going to end up over the side of the hill in Crowell's Gap. How many times has the
Board appropriated funds to clean up illegal dumping on Crowell's Gap. He stated he
thinks that is the unfortunate unintended consequence and exactly what Mr. Flora and
Mr. Elsiwck are saying. People want to do the right thing, unfortunately, this legislation
makes it that much more difficult for people to do the right thing. As the end of the day,
people are just going to dump it on the side of the road. Mr. Mahoney advised he would
be out of town at the next meeting and would not like to dump this issue on his
assistants. He hates to delay it too long because he knows there are citizens who want
336 August 13, 2013
to get permits and get involved in the business, but would suggest the first meeting of
September for the second reading. This may pose a hardship to some citizens.
Supervisor Moore inquired if the State code put a quantity of metal or does
Roanoke County have the option of saying if we put a quantity or tonnage, pickup truck
load or square footage of metal. Mr. Mahoney advised there is a provision in State
code that does have a quantity amount and also it has a number of combined
transactions annually. Again, as Mr. Elswick points out, how is a Police Officer
supposed to know that you are not more than 600 pounds or the twenty -six (26)
combined transactions annually. There is a loophole there. There is a huge difficulty in
practically enforcing.
Chairman Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and another public hearing for September 10, 2013. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
1. Ordinance appropriating $10,000 to General Services from the
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for fiscal year
2013/2014 for the purchase of bear resistant garbage containers
(Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services)
Ms. Green outlined the need for the ordinance. Supervisor Elswick
inquired what the cost would be with Ms. Green responding approximately $250.
Supervisor Flora inquired when the "do it yourself' instructions would be
posted to the website with Ms. Green responding tomorrow.
Chairman Altizer inquired if it was a kit, with Ms. Green responding in the
negative.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and another public hearing for August 27, 2013. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance approving a telecommunications and facilities
licensing agreement with Lumos Networks at the Social Services
Building, 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia and appropriating
$900 annually in lease proceeds to the Salem Bank and Trust
Building Account (Anne Marie Green, Director of General
August 13, 2013 337
Services)
Ms. Green outlined the need for the ordinance. Chairman Altizer inquired
if staff was renegotiating new leases as they come up for renewal. Ms. Green
responding these were inherited leases and not up for renewal anytime soon. There
was no further discussion.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and another public hearing for August 27, 2013. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance appropriating $9,583.15 to the Social Services budget
for fiscal year 2013 -2014 for additional State funds to be used for
training as a result of exceptional departmental performance
(Joyce Earl, Director of Social Services; W. Brent Robertson,
Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson briefly described the need for the ordinance and stated this
was for the SNAP program (food stamps). There was no discussion.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and another public hearing for August 27, 2013. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance renewing a contract to provide Commonwealth
Attorney's services to the Town of Vinton for the 2013 -2015 fiscal
years and appropriation of $10,920 for each year (Rebecca
Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the ordinance and advised this was the second
reading of this ordinance. There have been no changes from the first reading. There
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 081313 -6 RENEWING A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE
COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY SERVICES TO THE TOWN OF
338 August 13, 2013
VINTON AND APPROPRIATE $10,920 EACH YEAR FOR
FISCAL YEARS 2013 -2014 AND 2014 -2015
WHEREAS, since July 2004, the Commonwealth's Attorney office has provided
service to the Town of Vinton through a contractual arrangement to handle the
prosecution of criminal cases, including traffic infractions, misdemeanors and
preliminary hearings of felony cases; and
WHEREAS the Town pays a fee to the County, which is then distributed as a
supplement to the Assistant Attorneys in the Commonwealth Attorney's office; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on July 23, 2013, and the
second reading was held on August 13, 2013
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the contract for the Commonwealth's Attorney Office to provide legal
services to the Town for fiscal years 2013 -2015 is approved.
2. That the sum of $10,920 is hereby appropriated from the Town of Vinton.
3. That this ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2013, for fiscal year 2013 -2014
and July 1, 2014, for fiscal year 2014 -2015.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance accepting the conveyance of a parcel of real estate
adjacent to the Roland E. Cook Elementary School (Tap Map #60-
16-19-39) from the Roanoke County School Board to the Board of
Supervisors (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the need for the ordinance and advised this was the
second reading with no changes from the first reading. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 081313 -7 ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF A
PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE ADJACENT TO THE ROLAND E.
COOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (TAX MAP #60.16- 09 -39) FROM
THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
WHEREAS, at their meeting on July 11, 2013, the County School Board of
Roanoke County declared a parcel of real estate adjacent to the Roland E. Cook
August 13, 2013 339
Elementary School to be surplus property, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to
obtain ownership of the property upon approval of this ordinance and recordation of a
deed; and
WHEREAS, the County School Board desires to transfer this real estate to the
Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 22.1 -129A of the Code of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on July 23, 2013, and the second reading and
public hearing was held on August 13, 2013.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acquisition from the County School Board of Roanoke County of
real estate adjacent to the Roland E. Cook Elementary School identified as Tax Map
#60.16 -09 -39 is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the proceeds of any sale of this real estate shall be shared equally
with the School Board, and be paid into the School Board's and the County's capital
facilities accounts and expended solely for the purpose of acquisition, construction,
maintenance or replacement of other capital facilities as provided in Section 16.01 of
the Roanoke County Charter.
3. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrators are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance appropriating the Local Government Challenge Grant
in the amount of $5,000 from the Virginia Commission for the Arts
(W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson outlined the ordinance and advised this was the second
reading with no changes from the first reading. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 081313 -8 APPROPRIATING THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CHALLENGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$5,000 FROM THE VIRGINIA COMMISSION FOR THE ARTS
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has been awarded the Local Government
Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts in the amount of $5,000.
340 August 13, 2013
The Commission will match up to $5,000 (if full funding is approved) of any donation the
County makes to qualified art organizations in the valley; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of the ordinance was held on July 23, 2013 and the
second reading was held on August 13, 2013.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of ($5,000) is hereby appropriated from the Virginia
Commission for the Arts as follows:
County VCA Total
Historical Society of Western VA —
0. Winston Link Museum $2,400 $2,500 $4,900
Roanoke Symphony $4,800 $2,500 $7,300
$7,200 $5,000 $12,200
2. That this ordinance shall apply to fiscal year 2012/2013.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Economic Development Authority (EDA)(appointed by District)
Chairman Mike Altizer has recommended the reappointment of Stephen
A. Musselwhite to represent the Vinton Magisterial District for an additional four (4) -year
term. Confirmation of this appointment was placed on the Consent Agenda.
Vice Chairman Charlotte Moore has recommended the reappointment of
Billy Branch to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District for an additional four (4)-
year term. Confirmation of this appointment was placed on the Consent Agenda.
2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed
by District)
Supervisor Elswick has recommended the appointment of Atul Patel to fill
the unexpired term of Mr. Shah. This term will expire June 30, 2015. Confirmation of
this appointment was added to the Consent Agenda.
August 13, 2013
341
3. Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action
Roundtable (RCCLEAR)
Supervisor Richard Flora has recommended the appointment of Nadean
Carson to represent the Hollins Magisterial District to a three year term to expire August
31, 2013. Confirmation of this appointment was placed on the Consent Agenda
4. Roanoke County Stormwater Advisory Committee (appointed by
District and At Large)
Supervisor Moore has recommended the appointment of Leonard
Firebaugh to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District. There is no term limit on
this appointment. Confirmation was added to the Consent Agenda.
5. Social Services Advisory Board (appointed by District)
Supervisor Flora has recommended the appointment of Mike Bailey to a
four -year term to expire July 31, 2017. Confirmation of this appointment was placed on
the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 081313 -9 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J- 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 August 13,
2013, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — July 9, 2013
2. Request to amend the scope of services for the A/E contract with Holzheimer,
Bolek and Meehan for additional design work to upgrade flooring and prepare
designs and bid documents for an outdoor picnic area at the Glenvar Library
3. Confirmation of appointment to the Economic Development Authority (EDA)
(appointed by District); Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission
(appointed by District); Roanoke County Stormwater Advisory Committee
342 August 13, 2013
(appointed by District and At Large); Social Services Advisory Board
(appointed by District)
4. Request for appointment of representative to the Roanoke County
Community Policy Management Team (CPMT)
5. Request to approve the donation of seized Roanoke County Police
Department vehicles to the Town of Pulaski
6. Resolution initiating a rezoning of two (2) parcels of real estate located on
Westmoreland Drive and owned by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Cave Spring Magisterial District
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
A- 081313 -9.a
A- 081313 -9.b
A- 081313 -9.c
A- 081313 -9.d
RESOLUTION 081313 -9.e INITIATING A REZONING OF TWO
PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON WESTMORELAND
DRIVE AND OWNED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Section 30 -14 of the Roanoke County Code and Section 15.2 -2286
of the Code of Virginia provides that whenever the public necessity, convenience,
general welfare, or good zoning practice requires, an amendment to the zoning
regulations or district maps may be initiated by resolution of the governing body; and
WHEREAS, the Board requests consideration of this amendment in order to
facilitate the possible sale of two parcels of real estate located on Westmoreland Drive
in the Cave Spring Magisterial District.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia:
1. That a rezoning of two parcels of real estate located at 3319
Westmoreland Drive (Tax Map #77.13 -5 -31) and 3323 Westmoreland Drive (Tax Map
#77.13 -5 -30) from R -1, Low Density Residential to C -2, General Commercial is hereby
initiated in order to better conform the zoning classification and use of this property to
the adjacent commercial property and to better market this property for sale by the
County; and
2. That this request for rezoning be submitted to the Planning Commission
for its review and recommendation, which shall then be forwarded to the governing
August 13, 2013 343
body. Further this amendment shall be scheduled for public hearings before the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors at the earliest practicable dates
consistent with public notices as required by law.
3. That the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning
practice requires this amendment.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizen spoke.
Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia stated if carbon
dioxide - Co2 was so terrible for the planet, then installing a carbon dioxide generator in
a greenhouse would kill the plants. But scientists and even governments actually
recommend supplementing Co2 in greenhouses in order to boost plant growth and food
production. The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation as a nutrient on plant
growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood
for many years. Co2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour.
Some ways in which productivity is increased by carbon dioxide include earlier
flowering, higher fruit yields, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers and
those less ignorant know carbon dioxide as a nutrient for plants. Increasing the Co2
level to 1,000 ppm does increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient Co2
levels. In fact, as recent scientific studies have shown, the slight rise in carbon dioxide
levels of the atmosphere has actually helped regreening deserts and arid areas
accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs and grasses, which produce the oxygen human
needs to breathe So why the lies from such UN non - government organizations? Why is
this another facet of UN Agenda 21? Why is ICIEI, The International Council of Local
Environmental Initiatives promoting such nonsense as if we all will believe Carbon
untruths while drinking their green coolaid. It's all about a scheme to have a carbon tax
and control human population. When in fact reforestation and regreening needs
approximately five times more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than the present
approximate 400 ppm. One can work safely in a mine at 5000 ppm. Mine safety limits
are 7500 ppm; that is the time the canary may get a little tipsy. Why is this being
ignored? The why is a carbon tax for the tax to tax -on -spend industrial government tax -
n -spend complex. Taxes -n -more taxes; next is the rain water tax. After that will be the
air we breathe tax. After that will be the being alive tax. It never stops. It is cloaked in
citizenry safety to deceive. Tax, tax stifle this. Defund ICIEI and let us stop this
ignorance now.
344 August 13, 2013
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Report of Claims Activity for the Self- Insurance Program
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to take a moment and thank all of
our members of RCCLEAR; for their dedication and service especially Jim Vodnick, he
does an incredible job and the Board appreciates his work.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss alcohol ordinance change for Roanoke
County facilities (Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and
Tourism)
In attendance for this work session was Doug Blount, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism; Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services and B. Clayton
Goodman III, County Administrator. The work session was held from 5:00 p.m. until
5:30 p.m.
Mr. Blount explained that in the last twenty -four (24) months, Roanoke
County has had a number of opportunities that they were unable to compete with
because there needed to be alcohol. He advised staff feels with the proper criteria,
these events can be held. For example, the Library can host upscale events as in wine
tastings, etc. Parks and Recreation has turned down such events as the "Dirty Girl
Run ", "Party in the Park." etc.
Supervisor Church commented he is not opposed to taking a look, but
make sure that all due diligence is done. He inquired what type of revenues with Mr.
Blount responding the last one was $15,000 and there were other opportunities on a
smaller scale, but there are several opportunities to raise funds.
Chairman Altizer commented there are some areas where this would
make sense.
August 13, 2013 345
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Goodman if this was done in other areas
with Mr. Goodman responding in the affirmative stating it would need to be well
regulated, with controlled access and a limited amount of alcohol. He stated he was to
make sure that families are protected and is not for every place owned by the County.
Supervisor Flora stated he was in favor as long as you can control the
crowd.
Supervisor Elswick stated he endorsed moving forward and would suggest
dispensing with the security deposit. This was not agreed with the remaining Board
members.
It was the consensus of the Board to identify several properties that would
automatically be done with everything else coming before the Board. As a history is
built, more locations could be added.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:45 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A 1., Personnel,
namely discussion concerning appointments to the Roanoke County Stormwater
Advisory Committee
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 5:36 p.m. until 5:49 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 5:49 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 081313 -10 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
346
August 13, 2013
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
itted by: Approved by:
eborah C. Ja Michael W. Altizer
Clerk to the Board Chairman