HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/9/2014 - RegularDecember 9, 2014 781
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 only
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of December 2014. 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
Reverend Joseph "Joe" H. Klontz, Jr. of Northview United Methodist Church. The
Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Al Bedrosian,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Charlotte A. Moore and P. Jason
Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O'Donnell, Interim County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public
Information Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to
the Board
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Supervisor Peters requested the addition of a new business item to the
Consent Agenda, the Request to donate the Federal Emergency Administration of
Public Works Plaque from the old William Byrd High School to the Vinton Historic
Society. There were no objections.
782 December 9, 2014
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Paramedic/Firefighter David Jones of Fire and
Rescue for having received a Governor's EMS award for
Outstanding Contribution to EMS (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of
Fire and Rescue)
Recognition was given to Mr. Jones. Rob Logan, EMS Council, David
Jones, Steve Simon and Chief Burch were in attendance for the recognition.
All Supervisors offered their congratulations and thanks for a job well
done.
2. Recognition of Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services, for
receiving the Elizabeth M. Lewis Award (Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Interim County Administrator)
Recognition was given to Ms. Rosapepe. All supervisors offered their
congratulations and thanks for a job well done.
3. Resolution of appreciation from the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors to Barry L. Tayloe, Deputy Sheriff -Major, upon his
retirement after more than thirty-three (33) years of service
(Charles Poff, Sheriff)
Deputy Sheriff Warner provided the recognition. The resolution was read
by the Deputy Clerk and all Supervisors offered their thanks and congratulations.
RESOLUTION 120914-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO
BARRY L. TAYLOE, DEPUTY SHERIFF -MAJOR, UPON HIS
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN THIRTY-THREE (33) YEARS
OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Major Barry Tayloe began his service to our community and country
in 1969 when he joined the Navy and became a Hospital Corpsman. He was eventually
assigned to Charlie Company, 3rd Medical Battalion, 3rd Marine Division and stationed
in Okinawa, where he prepared to be deployed to Viet Nam. After four and a half years
of service, he left the Navy in 1973 and returned to Roanoke, where he started working
with the Roanoke City Sheriffs Office as a Deputy Sheriff Paramedic; and
WHEREAS, he also joined the Cave Spring Rescue Squad, where he
volunteered his service for over ten (10) years. In this position, he was a pioneer of
December 9, 2014 783
emergency services and helped create the advanced life support services we know
today and was one of the first three (3) paramedics in Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, in 1976, he resigned his position with Roanoke City to pursue a
degree in nursing. After obtaining his nursing degree, he worked for the Lewis Gale
Hospital as an Emergency Room nurse. It was in this position that he worked with Dr.
Richard Fisher to create the valley's first helicopter service, Life Guard 10 and was on
the original Board of Directors for the helicopter service; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 1981, he started his career with the Roanoke County
Sheriff's Office as a medical supervisor; he was also a member of the Sheriffs Office'
SWAT team for ten (10) years. During this same time, he volunteered with the Bent
Mountain Rescue Squad and flew as a Flight Paramedic with Life Guard 10; and
WHEREAS, in 1990, he left the Sheriffs Office and joined the newly created
Roanoke County Police Department as a police officer. He returned to the Sheriffs
Office in 1992, at the request of former Sheriff Gerald Holt and worked as the
Corrections Administrator for almost twenty (20) years. In 2010, he transferred to the
Court Services Division as the Division Commander and remained in this position until
his retirement on November 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, while he was with the Sheriffs Office, he spearheaded many
community programs such as the Easter Bunny Foundation events for children and the
St. Francis of Assisi events for service animals. He served on the original committee for
the creation of the Western Virginia Regional Jail. He also served on the Roanoke
Valley Prevention Council, Unified Hostile Incident Committee, and countless other
committees; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2014, Major Barry Tayloe began his well-deserved
retirement with over thirty-three (33) years of service to the citizens of Roanoke County
and a Law Enforcement career that spanned over 37 years.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
of Roanoke County to BARRY L. TAYLOE for more that thirty-three (33) years of
capable, loyal and exemplary service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing on the results of the 2015 General Reassessment
(William E. "Billy" Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation)
784 December 9, 2014
Mr. Driver presented the Board with a briefing by providing a PowerPoint
presentation.
Supervisor Church thanked Mr. Driver for pointing out the net asset group
and does exclude one (1) acre of land and our Disabled Veterans Program.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated that what stands out to him is the $1.3 million
increase. He just wanted to put notice out to the people in Roanoke County that the
government will be trying to spend this $1.3 million. He just wants to make sure that
everyone is aware.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to grant an additional half-day Christmas Holiday on
Wednesday, December 24, 2014 (Daniel R. O'Donnell, Interim
County Administrator)
Mr. O'Donnell outlined the request. Supervisor Bedrosian inquired why
this was not set with the calendar. Mr. O'Donnell responded he is not sure if this was
on the State calendar originally or if it was added.
A-120914-2
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation to
grant an additional half-day holiday. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Resolution directing the County Administrator to review various
policies, practices and procedures, assess their effectiveness and
to report his findings and recommendations (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the resolution and advised it was at the request of
the new County Administrator, Tom Gates.
RESOLUTION 120914-3 DIRECTING THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR TO REVIEW VARIOUS POLICIES,
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES, ASSESS THEIR
EFFECTIVENESS, AND TO REPORT HIS FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
December 9, 2014 785
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors desires that the County
Government demonstrate the highest of ethical standards; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors acknowledges that personnel matters are
the duty and responsibility of the County Administrator and not the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, recent events have called to question the manner in which
allegations of inappropriate conduct are reviewed, assessed and acted upon; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, during the recent process of selecting a
new County Administrator emphasized their desire that the appointed County
Administrator diligently assess the County Government's processes and practices
related to ensuring ethical behavior of all County government employees; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that ethical and fair procedures consistently
applied result in improved citizen and employee confidence in their County Government;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. That the County Administrator is hereby directed to review the various
administrative policies and practices related to human resources management in
Roanoke County and to assess their effectiveness in ensuring the highest of
organizational ethics;
2. That the County Administrator shall specifically examine the County's
disciplinary procedures as they relate to the performance of County government
employees and to assess their effectiveness in ensuring fair, equitable and consistent
treatment of all employees;
3. That the County Administrator shall develop a report to the Board of
Supervisors highlighting any specific finding, conclusion or recommendation that results
from these examinations and, as appropriate, may recommend to the Board for their
consideration, any policy action deemed advisable for strengthening the ethical
standards of the County Government.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia opposing the Mountain Valley Pipeline (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the resolution prepared by Ruth Ellen Kuhnel.
The following citizens spoke:
786 December 9, 2014
Steve Hanes stated when he read the agenda he noticed there was no
area for public comments, so he did not come prepared with a lot of comments, which is
a good thing for the Board and probably for him. You would think someone who has
lived with this threat for as long as we have known it to be a threat of the Mountain
Valley Pipeline, you would have something to say and he does. One thing the Board
must know by now of the thousands of citizens in the Roanoke Valley and on up into the
New River Valley have joined together in various groups, formal organizations, to
oppose the Mountain Valley Pipeline. Citizens in Roanoke and Floyd and Franklin and
Giles and Montgomery Counties have formed organizations and through those
organizations have joined together with existing organizations with lots of members like
Cool Cities Coalition, Sierra Club and the Blue Ridge Defense League all in support of
opposing the Mountain Valley Pipeline. We realize that the FERK, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over this and the State and the County does not
and that is too bad, but that is the way it is and we have to live with that. It's
psychologically uplifting for the citizens opposing this to understand that their elected
officials support them in this and we appreciate that and for that he thanked the Board.
By the end of 2015, we have heard that there will be maybe as many as twenty (20)
pipelines cutting through Virginia, North and South, gas pipelines coming from the coal
fields down through Virginia just by the fluke of being in a geographical location in the
center of this action, we wind up looking at these twenty (20) pipelines. Those of us
who are fighting this battle back on the home front always say, "How much is enough."
Is enough, enough?" We are going to be fighting this for years to come. So, this is the
first step in the battle, the Mountain Valley Pipeline and we are going to do our best to
do what we can to oppose this. When you get that many pipelines, you have to ask
yourself, if they are coming through Virginia, how many more are destined to come
through Roanoke Virginia. Surely, this is not the last. So, we want to set up an
organization now to fight as much as we can to keep this from us. So, we ask ourselves
every day, whose land, whose land will they try to take to do this next. We appreciate
the County's position on this, we hope, and we are going to fight and try to educate the
people of Roanoke County and hope that whatever you do here tonight will draw more
people to that cause. Tomorrow night, we are having another public citizens' meeting at
the Bent Mountain Center to help inform people as to what is going on here.
Brent Riley stated when he looks at this issue of the pipeline and what he
has been told and when he looks at the big picture, there is so much unsettled that we
don't know about our energy situation. We are in the process of trying to figure out
energy policy going into the next decade and beyond. There are so many things. Who
can explain why gas is falling. We do not know, we are in the dark. We haven't quite
figured it out. There is a big deal, a tremendous big deal, the day before yesterday
between Putin and Turkey to build a major natural gas pipeline and God smacked the
administration. They have not acknowledged that yet; everything is up in the air at an
international level. He will say this, at this point and until things get settled down, we
have to be in opposition to it until something is presented to us that something makes
December 9, 2014 787
sense and then we do what makes sense.
Freeda Cathcart thanked the Board for this opportunity. She advised that
she sent an email out this morning and did the Board get a chance to look at it? In
trying to summarize what is in my email, it was a commentary what was submitted to
the Roanoke Times that she thought would have been published before now. She has
been researching this issue since the end of October and is doing an analysis. Her
background is in reinsurance, which is the industry and insures insurance companies.
So, she was looking at it from an economic viewpoint. Why is the price of gas so
cheap? She advised it is because it is being extracted irresponsibly right now and at
the end of November there were articles in the New York Times talking about the
problems they have been having with the gas extraction in North Dakota and the large
amount of money that is costing, millions of dollars to clean up spills. She advised she
would not go into the details of that. The insurance industry is very interested in what is
happening because they are the industry that is to supposed to spread the risk and
cover it so it can be responsible and it doesn't hurt industries. What is happening right
now is there is a push back from the industry to stop being negligent with our water
supplies and our land and resources. As that push back comes and the gas companies
are more responsible in how they extract the gas, it is going to cost them more money
to do it. When it costs them more money, it is going to raise the price of gas and as it
raises the price of gas, it is going to drop the demand for it. Her projection is that the
demand is going to drop so low that there is not going to be the need for the gas to
travel through this pipeline. This information will be sent to FERK. But, what is
important for the Board, the leaders of Roanoke County, is to protect the interest of the
people in Roanoke County, the land values and attracting businesses here. If the threat
of having a pipeline come through is going to drop the land values; drop your revenue.
So, she hopes the Board will be leaders for the people of Roanoke County and oppose
this pipeline because there is also another scenario whereas if the push back with the
insurance industries takes a while and the price of gas remains low, then there is
potential that the gas could come through that pipeline. It looks like it is going to be
near Spring Hollow. She does not know of any insurance company willing to insure this
pipeline the way it is being proposed at this point. That means that the people here, the
public, would be insuring it and if the private industry is not willing to insure it, she does
not think it is good market for the public.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the resolution and Chairman
McNamara opened the floor for discussion.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would like to ask Mr. O'Donnell how many
pipelines are underneath Roanoke County right now; this was brought up at a prior
meeting. Mr. O'Donnell advised he knows there are smaller ones, one that goes
through Starkey Park that is about eight (8) inches. He is not sure of others, but there
may be. Mr. Mahoney advised there is one near Spring Hollow.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he just wanted to state there are pipes
running underneath the ground. He is going to take ten (10) minutes on this. He has
788 December 9, 2014
written down some notes and will be looking at his computer so he can walk through
some of the things he thinks are important. He would have to say that he agrees with
some of the opposition to the Mountain Valley Pipeline, but does not think we have
really clarified in our resolution what it is that we are opposed to. He feels like that is a
problem for him. So, he wants to talk a little bit about that. He wants to make sure that
he personally expresses his specific concerns. He was not invited or involved in putting
together this resolution so he thinks it is a general resolution that he thinks actually
might cause more confusion among County citizens on this picture on how America
creates energy. To America, energy is a good thing. Sometimes we talk about gas and
energy being bad, but everybody did get here today in a car that used some kind of
energy. If you have an electric car, it was still probably created by coal. The reality is
we all use energy and he thinks it is important to be specific about the project and what
our objections are. Now, he references this because a couple months ago we had a
meeting in this room and we had a lot of people speak about the pipeline and there
were all kinds of comments that were made over all types of areas and he thought some
of them were pertinent, but he did not think some were. Some of the issues that were
brought up encroached on people's liberties. So, he would like right now to itemize
some of those things and tell you the things he agrees with and the things he does not
agree with about the Mountain Valley Pipeline. He has seven categories. First, we had
speakers that came up at our last meeting that the Mountain Valley Pipeline was just
here to make money; they were not concerned about the citizens. A couple of
comments were about that. He stated he thinks it is a little dangerous when we paint
with a broad brush and state it is inherently wrong for companies to want to make
money and be profitable. He thinks that is a good thing, so when someone tells him all
they want to do is make money, well okay, when he looks around everyone pretty much
has a job, you are making money. How are you making money? You work for a living
and make money. Now to use a subjective comment like, "They don't care about the
people in the Roanoke Valley," he thinks is a little careless. He thinks we all care about
the people and we are all looking out for our self -interests, not our selfish interests, but
our self -interests and he thinks we all do that in this room. So, again, he thinks profit
and making money is a good thing and profit in a free enterprise system shows that you
are doing something that other people want and he thinks that is important too. He
added that an overwhelming amount of Roanoke County businesses and their
employees are very much in support of profit and money making. So, he thinks that
sides with the people of Roanoke County and the businesses. Secondly, comments
were made that fracking was unsafe and he thinks we just heard today about fracking.
Now, the reason that we are talking about fracking is that fracking is what is bringing the
natural gas down the pipeline to our area. Yesterday, he just heard on a local radio
station, which is not a right-wing, conservative radio station, but a moderate, everyday
radio station and there was a very positive story from conservation groups that were
very pleased with the fracking that is going on in the George Washington National
Forrest. He only heard a small portion, but it was a positive message. Again, he does
December 9, 2014 789
not think many County residents have a problem with fracking and he thinks they will
find it is a great way for America to become energy independent so that is a good thing.
Third, we had comments from citizens that were adamantly opposed to continued use of
fossil fuels. He for one feels we live in a free country where the use of fossil fuels has
done a tremendous amount of good for an overwhelming amount of people in our
Country and around the world. Many of us want to enjoy all these luxuries that fossil
fuels has brought us, even in remote areas, even on the mountain tops, we are still
enjoying all the great benefits from fossil fuels. He does not believe that personal
beliefs of the use of fossil fuels should guide us in this discussion. Again, he wants to
bring this back to Roanoke County. He thinks an overwhelming majority of Roanoke
County residents have no problem with using fossil fuels. In fact, it powers our
electricity and the overwhelming amount of SUVs and trucks that are in Roanoke
County use fossil fuels in cars. Fourth, we have had comments about this issue that
relate to fossil fuels, but touched on the issue on how fossil fuels effect man-made,
global warming. This was also brought up at a meeting we had prior. He is bringing
this all in to show you there are many different sides to this issue and thinks we need to
focus on the real issue about this Mountain Valley Pipeline. Again, he thinks man-
made, global warming is a theory and should not be part of this discussion. This issue
relates to if you look at how many people believe in it, about less than half of Americans
believe in man-made, global warming. Fifth, has to do with the fact that the pipeline
would not be a job creator for our area; this is a valid point. In fact, they said the jobs
would be short-lived, if any, and would be done by workers with a very specialized skill
from outside of our area. Again, he would ask you, how a private company wants to
operate its business is up to them. The purpose of the business is not to hire people, it
is to do something you enjoy doing and being profitable at it. Employees are hiring
when they are doing such a great job that they need help to maintain your business.
Again, he will relate this to businesses in Roanoke County. They would agree that the
amount of who and where they hire their employees is their own business and they
should have the freedom to do that. The sixth point is that the natural gas was not even
for our area. A lot of people said that they are going to bring it through our area and
they are going to ship it overseas. He thinks that is important that we all come to the
realization that we live in a global economy and if a United States company sells
products or services overseas that is okay and in fact that is good for America. What a
change that is from all the purchasing we do from China and the oil that is imported
from the Middle East. This comes down to simple economics. What is most profitable?
Again, many businesses in Roanoke County sell to other countries, states and countries
and should not be a problem. Finally, the seventh point that was brought up in
opposition to the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) was this would take away from the rail
business that was currently being used to transport natural gas. Again, he thinks that
every privately -owned business has a right to conduct their business in the most
efficient and cost-effective manner possible. If the MVP finds that it will be less
expensive to transport gas with a pipeline versus using rails or trucks, it should be left
790 December 9, 2014
up to them to make that decision. Reducing costs to produce a product is a highly
coveted and worthy goal of any business. It makes it more competitive and drives down
costs, which is beneficial to all of us. Again, on this issue, he is sure that businesses in
the Roanoke County that rely heavily on transportation want to make their own
decisions based on what is best for them and their business. Now, he took the time to
list these objections because he personally feels if these objections are the reason that
we are against the MVP coming to Roanoke, he does not think that is all right, to
demand of a business the way they want to conduct their business. So, he offers two
(2) things though, the two (2) points that he thinks are very valid and to him are
showstoppers with respect to this MVP pipeline are as follows. The first is how it effects
our water source; and he had heard this from many people and that is very valid. If you
come through an area and you start polluting the waters, none of us want that. As of
this point, he had not seen studies or any information that specifically states exactly
where it is going and how the pollution is going to happen and we cannot do something
about it or if there is a good solution for it. Again, if it is verified that there is a risk to our
water sources and the water quality, that is a showstopper, you have him. The second
one and to him the most important one has to do with property rights. The use of
eminent domain by a private company because it is for the common good does not hold
water to him. Now, the past and potential misuses of this way of thinking to him are
disastrous and we are going to pay a high price along this kind of thinking. So, he
strongly and without compromise would not support a private company, which MVP is,
disregarding the rights of property owners and using their property against their will and
that is very important. If eminent domain was not to be used though and this is why he
thinks we need to narrow down what our opposition is. If it was not to be used in this
case and it was up to the property owners to make their own decision that would be
another matter. He can see that this would also open up a can of worms to a lot of
property owners and he says this because he has had discussion with property owners
that live on Bent Mountain and has said what if eminent domain was out of the picture
and your neighbor said he loved the idea and he is going to let them come right through
his property, what would you do. A lot of people said they would fight them on them on
that, they are not bringing that up here. Really, it is not your property, it is their property
and they want to do what they want to do on their own property. It is not going to affect
you. He has had people fight against that and he says we have to be very careful about
telling someone else you cannot do that. He is opposed to eminent domain on this
issue, but if it ever opens up to where you want to make the decision as a property
owner, you have the right to make it. If you don't want somebody on your land, and
when the individuals were here last time, he asked them what if somebody says no to
you when you want to go on their property. There was no answer because he thinks we
are heading down the road to that point, the path to eminent domain and he opposes
that. So, in closing, he thinks there are many people here that oppose the MVP that
were very much in support of putting windmills on Bent Mountain. The issue of
windmills was different and he recognizes that. There was not an issue of eminent
December 9, 2014 791
domain, but there was an issue of subsidies. The government was going to subsidize
people for putting windmills on their property to make it attractive to everyone without
anybody having any responsibility if something went wrong and all of it was going to be
subsidized by the taxpayer and he thinks that is wrong. He just wanted to make that
point and to think about where you stand on it. Is your philosophy of natural sources of
using windmills, etc. override your thoughts of property rights for people? He thinks it is
very important that the Board puts together a much more specific resolution that
highlights the areas that are the specific areas and not this general thing that says we
don't want them here. He advised he thinks that is wrong and he would support it if he
could put some of these things and rewrite the resolution having all of our input. He
was never asked for any input on the resolution and he thinks it should be the input of
all of the Board members.
Supervisor Church stated since the Spring Hollow Reservoir, which is the
valley's major, principal source of water resides in his district, there is no way that he
can in good conscience support or favor the pipeline. Just a few years ago when the
valley was in a severe drought and just the thought of having precious water was so
important to each one of us. Roanoke County with significant wisdom years ago built
Spring Hollow Reservoir that would service not only Roanoke County and have our
neighbors from Roanoke City during some drastic times. As proposed, there is no way
he can support this gas line. As it is proposed, it also touches or goes close to Camp
Roanoke. We have two (2) situations, most importantly the water supply and until he
can be certain and he does not know if there ever is a way he can be certain that there
will not be a danger to the safety of our water supply. He does not see how anyone
could want to go along with this proposed route. He added that the County did not have
a decision in this, it is the federal government and no eminent domain situation. The
federal government has. He thinks it has just been hallowed ground since he has been
on this Board that in other situations and does not remember any Board has looked
favorably on eminent domain unless it is some dire, life or death situation and asked Mr.
Mahoney to confirm. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. He thinks he has
shown how he stands and if Spring Hollow as in Cave Spring or Windsor Hills, he would
feel the same way.
Supervisor Peters stated he does not have a position for or against the
pipeline, but does have concerns that this is being done outside the normal procedure
that we are opposing something that we really don't know anything about. We do not
have, if you look at any other project that comes before the County, it goes through a
public hearing, the Board knows what is going on. It is his understanding that we have
been notified that the public hearing is December 16 or 17th at the Salem Civic Center
and we do not have proposed route for it yet. He stated he feels he has been a little
taken back by why this has been pushed forward when we do not have the details like
anything else that has come before us whereby we know the details and what we are
voting on. He agrees with Supervisor Bedrosian statement that this resolution lacks
clarity that we should have before making a final decision.
792 December 9, 2014
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to point out a few things on the
resolution. First, it does not say anything about global warming. It does point out that
we are close to Spring Hollow Reservoir, which is Roanoke County's main water
source; the valley's main water source. It is close to historic Camp Roanoke, which has
camped every year for years. It is close to Bottom Creek, which is upstream from us on
Bent Mountain. It will effect as the resolution states, it may affect our streams, flood
plans and ground water. So, this is what the resolution in fact says. It is very broad, but
it does say, mainly that it does affect our watershed and that is why she is opposed to
the pipeline coming right now and as the gentleman stated earlier, if we find out more
information later as to exactly where it will be. When looking at the GIS maps, the route
goes right near the manager's camp at Camp Roanoke. As Mr. Church stated, it is near
Spring Hollow and Bent Mountain, which Bottom Creek runs all the way down to our
watershed.
Chairman McNamara stated he does not view this resolution as being an
anti -pipeline resolution in general. He views it as, "We are Roanoke Valley and we
expect to be part of this decision making process, part of this routing process." We
should have information as it relates to this pipeline. He is sure they are fine people
trying to make a living that are proposing this pipeline. The reality of this situation, out
of the chute, everything was done wrong in his opinion. We find out from our citizens
there is a pipeline coming through and he is getting calls wanting to know what is going
on. He has no idea. The Board does not approve or disapprove the pipeline; it is the
federal government. Probably if it required every jurisdiction to approve it there would
never be a pipeline or an interstate highway or a 785 kb power line. There would not
been any of these things we that we use in our everyday life. The real concern he has
and the reason he will support the resolution, whether it passes or not he does not
know, he will support because it puts us on record that we want to be a part of this
routing, we expect our concerns, ideas, thoughts, our citizens ideas, thoughts and
concerns to be heard and considered. He did receive a contact from the pipeline
company this week and met with him. The request is why don't we wait until after the
public hearings and bring up on our January meeting when we have all the information.
We can always change the resolution somewhere in the future and he is not totally
opposed to waiting until January, but the fact that the only time he hears from the
pipeline company is one day after our agenda comes out and everyone is running
around hiring consultants, lobbyists and pipeline companies to come talk to us about
postponing. Where were you the last three (3) weeks we have been calling and trying
to get information? So, for reasons, he does not think this resolution is antipipeline, it is
anti the way the process has been done. It is not paying attention to our citizens. It is
not paying attention to the Board and by not paying attention to the Board, we cannot
assist our citizens. This is why he intends to support this resolution.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would just like to make a point that every
other thing that we do on this Board we have a first reading and he has made a couple
of mistakes here where he voted the first reading down. The first reading is to actually
December 9, 2014 793
allow it to move forward for discussion and people can come and speak. We have had
one meeting where the MVP people have come. All these other meetings are starting
now, so he does find it interesting that on this, we want to squash it, and it is a private
company. By not doing this resolution, we are not agreeing that we like it or whatever,
but as supervisors it seems that we need to have an open mind and listen. Then, all
five of the Board members would actually create a resolution; that is his second part
that he does not like. He was not involved; he does not know how many people were
involved in this resolution. He then asked Mr. Mahoney how many people were
involved; did everybody on the Board have input. Mr. Mahoney responded in the
negative, a couple of Board members as well as some non -County officials and other
people that his office spoke with. It just seems strange as something as big as this,
whether you agree or disagree that we are putting this out for Roanoke County that not
all of us had an input. He does not mind losing on this as long as he was able to a part
of the discussion of this resolution, but it is just sitting here and we have to vote yes or
no. He would vote no because it is not the right thing to do at this point. He thinks you
have to let people have a discussion. We need to open this up and let's hear. His two
(2) main concerns are property rights and eminent domain and he will stick with these
two. If they are talking about eminent domain and if we just put that in we could say
refer to our resolution. Also, our water sources are very important to us. To him that
would be very powerful.
Supervisor Church stated he concurs with the Chairman with the course
and the route this has taken. He did receive a call as well and he was not available
from someone representing the MVP, but up until that time, there were no calls. This
resolution does not agree or disagree with what is going to happen, we are expressing
the sentiments of our constituents and he can assure everyone that he has not found a
single one in the Northside, Glenvar, Catawba area that is in favor of, "as proposed"
because he does not know if the Board will ever know. It is dangerously close to our
water supply, as proposed. If they are going to change the route and the parameters.
Right now we are talking about thirty-two (32) inch diameter lines proposed; seventy-
five (75) foot permanent easement and one hundred and fifty (150) foot temporary
easement. We have to start somewhere and thinks it is a groundswell of common folks
that are taking the position that no one should come into an area and take for granted
that the federal government is going to allow them to do this. They just closed their ears
to the people's voices and closed their eyes to the people that are most adversely
effected. He cannot do business that way. It is the general feeling that suddenly the
phones are ringing, suddenly people are calling when there is a possibility of opposition.
He has news for these people, there are thousands of people who are standing in the
same shadow because the fear of the unknown is a big fear here. The unknown is that
we do not know, we really don't know the details. When the proposal was made, he
was severely disappointed in the presentation, it left a lot to be desired and the room
was filled. He thinks it started the rollercoaster going downhill and it has never stopped
gaining speed since then in his opinion. It is not just one item, it is a multitude of an
794 December 9, 2014
assumption of the critical water supply of this valley.
Supervisor Peters stated as he reviews the resolution and he is glad the
other statements were made and wants to echo those statement. He thinks this has
been handled very poorly by the company who presented it to us. As was said earlier,
he does not think there is a member of this Board who did not receive a phone call
before we had somebody standing here giving a presentation. If you look at this
resolution, it is outlining the concerns that we have, Camp Roanoke and our water
supply and maybe passing a resolution would send a clear message back to them
letting them know that we want to make sure that proposed pipeline is moved and they
are touching on an area that is very sensitive to us and hopefully we will get more input
from the company.
Chairman NcNamara stated he wanted to clarify some things. The
thought is there should be a public hearing and multiple readings. He explained first
and second readings are generally for ordinances. Public hearings are generally
related to seven (7) different items, usually related to land either special use permits,
lease of County buildings or things of financial impact to the citizens or a rezoning. This
is guided by the State. To act on a resolution, from a procedural standpoint, it is very
appropriate, we have four (4) resolutions on our agenda that we are acting on. We did
afford folks an opportunity to participate. The draft agenda came out on Tuesday, the
second of December at 5:00 p.m. That is for all Board members to look at, review, see
what is new, things we may have an interest in and follow-up, ask questions, etc. We
had that opportunity. He in fact, followed up on this particular item and he believes
another Board member did as well. We have that opportunity until the formal agenda is
released, which was done on December 5, 2014. We had two days to put our thoughts
into this so he feels it is appropriate that we are acting upon it, whether we are voting up
or down is a matter of legislative will.
RESOLUTION 120914-4 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA OPPOSING THE
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE
WHEREAS, EQT Corporation and NextEra US Gas Assets, LLC
("EQT/NextEra") recently announced the construction of a potential pipeline project; and
WHEREAS, the pipeline shall be known as the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP)
and is expected to transport a natural gas supply from the Marcellus and Utica regions
to various Southeast United States markets; and
WHEREAS, the MVP is expected to be constructed between Wetzel, West
Virginia and Pittsylvania County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the MVP will be governed by the United States Natural Gas Act,
which requires a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); and
December 9, 2014 795
WHEREAS, as currently proposed, the pipeline will be up to forty-two (42) inches
in diameter and will require an approximate seventy-five (75) -foot wide permanent
easement (with an additional one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet of temporary
easement during construction); and
WHEREAS, upon information submitted by EQT/NextEra, a possible compressor
station or facility may also be located along the pipeline corridor in Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, MVP has initiated the Federal regulatory approval process to
construct the pipeline through the FERC's pre -filing review process with the pre -filing of
Docket No. PF 15-3-00; and
WHEREAS, MVP has presented statements that the engineering aspects will
include surveying and evaluating preliminary routing to help determine a final route with
the least impact to landowners, cultural resources and the environment; and
WHEREAS, MVP sent out letters on September 18, 2014, to affected landowners
in Roanoke County stating that the landowner will be contacted by a right-of-way agent
to request permission to survey and stake the proposed route; and
WHEREAS, the current proposed route includes property owned by Roanoke
County, more specifically the Camp Roanoke property (Tax Map No. 083.00-01-16.00-
0000), a longstanding County landmark facility serving our children and youth; and
WHEREAS, the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department of Roanoke County
completed an initial map analysis based upon MVP's own maps and determined that
the pipeline corridor would be "literally in the backyard of the Manager's Cabin" and all
the buildings would be within approximately a 1,200 -foot radius of the corridor'; and
WHEREAS, the current proposed route includes properties in the southwestern
portions of Roanoke County, within the Poor Mountain and Bent Mountain communities
crossing over the line into Franklin County; and
WHEREAS, the proposed route of the MVP would traverse the Bent Mountain
Community Planning Area and Glenvar Community Planning Area;
WHEREAS, the proposed route of the MVP would traverse near the Spring
Hollow Reservoir, while owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority, is a water
source for the region; and
WHEREAS, the County's Comprehensive Plan contains vision statements, goals,
objectives and implementation strategies on the protection of the County's natural,
cultural and scenic resources including the Blue Ridge Parkway and its view sheds, our
mountains and ridges, our rivers, streams, floodplains and groundwater, our historic
buildings and archaeological sites, and our agricultural, forestall, and rural areas
especially in the Bent Mountain and Glenvar Community Planning Areas2; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors opposes the construction of the proposed
Mountain Valley Gas Pipeline through Roanoke County, Virginia.
Quoting, Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department
2 See, Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan (Revised 2005)
796 December 9, 2014
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia hereby opposes the proposed route of the Mountain Valley
Gas Pipeline that is included in Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC's pre -filing request
Docket No. PF 15-3-00 with FERC due to the potential adverse impacts to Camp
Roanoke and to the Poor Mountain and Bent Mountain Communities, and the Board
further asserts that the adverse impacts to the citizens of County of Roanoke and the
public at large outweigh the economic benefit, if any, resulting from the burden placed
on public and private property by the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Roanoke, Virginia hereby directs the County Administrator, or his designee, to transmit
this resolution to FERC for inclusion in pre -filing Docket Number PF 15-3-00.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
4. Resolution electing and certifying the method for reimbursement
of revenues to the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal year 2014-
2015 (current fiscal year) (W. Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson outlined the resolution. Chairman McNamara inquired the
amount in the fuel contingency reserve with Mr. Robertson advising approximately
$254,000. Chairman McNamara stated the thought process is that fuel is expected to
stay down due to the overproduction with Mr. Robertson advising in the affirmative.
Additionally, there are additional funds in the turnover reserve. There was no
discussion.
RESOLUTION 120914-5 ELECTING AND CERTIFYING THE
METHOD FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REVENUES TO THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2014, the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Virginia amended Chapter 2 of the 2014 Acts of Assembly, which
included Item 471.30; and
WHEREAS, this item reduced State aid to local governments by $30 million in
fiscal year 2014-2015; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County's allocated reduction is $291,708; and
WHEREAS, Item 471.30 requires each local government in the Commonwealth
of Virginia to elect and certify a reduction option and to submit said election to the
Department of Planning and Budget on or before January 1, 2015.
December 9, 2014 797
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. That Roanoke County elects to make a reimbursement of State funds
directly to the Commonwealth of Virginia in the amount of $291,708 for the full amount
of Roanoke County's reductions.
2. That this reimbursement payment shall be paid to the Commonwealth on
or before December 31, 2014.
3. That to accommodate these reductions in Roanoke County's current
budget the County Administrator is authorized to make transfers between expenditure
items within the General Fund.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Morgan Ventures, LLC to obtain a Special Use
Permit for a broadcasting tower (cell tower) approximately 195
feet in height in a C-2, High Intensity Commercial, District on
approximately 1.00 acre, located at 4247 Bonsack Road, Vinton
Magisterial District
Supervisor Peter's motion to approve the first reading and to establish the
second reading and public hearing for January 27, 2015, was approved by the following
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Roger and Deborah Rardin to rezone an
approximately 8.00 acre portion of an approximately 19.44 acre
parcel from 1-2, High Intensity Industrial, District to R-1, Low
Density Residential, District and to remove a proffered condition
from the 11.44 acre portion of the property zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential, District, located west of the Norfolk Southern
Railroad near the 5000 block of Poor Mountain Road and north of
Bydawyle Road, Catawba Magisterial District
Supervisor Church's motion to approve the first reading and to establish
798 December 9, 2014
the second reading and public hearing for January 27, 2015, was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance appropriating $542,611 for the Department of Social
Services Building Renovation Project (Rebecca Owens, Director
of Finance; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. Caywood advised there were three (3) parts to this ordinance. First,
an appropriation of $542,611 to continue the work that is currently under way. These
amounts have been presented to the Board on a number of occasions and represent
rollover funding from the Department of Social Services as well as the Building Fund.
Scope of the projects is to replace the roof, relocate the cell carriers, replacement of the
HVAC system and also repair the parking lot, renovate the fifth (5t") floor of the building
and install a sprinkler system. This is funds to complete the unmodified project.
Secondly, it would authorize staff to increase the contract amount beyond the twenty-
five percent (25%) limit, which is in keeping with the feedback staff received from the
Board. Finally, authorize staff to utilize money from the Building Fund as they become
available to complete the floor by floor renovations.
Supervisor Peters asked what was the awarded contract amount with Mr.
Caywood advising just over $2.5 million. Additionally, there are expenses on top of that
for the architect and then the moving and relocation money, furniture etc. that we would
incur with the project. Supervisor Peters then stated he was confused as to why asking
for more funds when the scope of the project has already been bidded out.
Mr. Caywood advised if this is not approved, the scope of the project
underway would need to be changed. Using the Building Fund for a project like this
would be very routine as would utilization of the rollover funds. The only reason the
Board is seeing this in a carved out fashion was due to the fact that staff brought
forward the proposal to expand the project and specifically pulled those funds out of
what was already approved so they would be seen separately to see the whole project.
That may be something in hindsight that staff will do differently. Supervisor Peters then
asked so staff requested these funds before knowing the rollovers amounts would be
available. Mr. Caywood responded negatively explaining the Board has seen this
before. Supervisor Peters stated he understands the Building Fund part but is trying to
get a clear understanding of the scope of the project. If this is the original project that is
currently being worked on, we did not know that we would have $293,000 at the time of
the award. Mr. Caywood stated he did not know if staff knew that would precisely be
that amount, but staff knew they would have a similar amount.
December 9, 2014 799
Chairman McNamara stated he is in favor of the first paragraph on page
two where account balances remaining would carryover one hundred percent (100%)
and asked since it was already in there did they need to appropriate and the bidding
procedures. He stated he did not want a blank check. Ms. Owens stated the way staff
intended for it to be written would be for any funding remaining in the Social Services
Operating Account that those funds would be approved to be rolled over each year and
could be used toward the construction project. Chairman McNamara asked again if the
Board would need to appropriate. Ms. Owens stated the way it is written, staff would
need the Board to reappropriate the $542,611 and then the intent of this would be to
allow for the funding that is remaining in the Social Services Operating Account to
actually carryover, which it does now with the only difference is that we would want it to
be designated for the construction project. Supervisor McNamara asked again if he is
authorizing ten (10) years' worth of carryover, three (3) years' worth of carryover or
signifying an intent, which the Board would still need to approve and have competitively
bid. Daniel O'Donnell, Interim County Administration advised those were two separate
questions. The intent is to allow the balance of the building fund to automatically roll
over. Supervisor McNamara asked for the fourth time, suppose two (2) years from now,
$500,000 has been built up in this account. Off of what the Board has done, does the
Board still need to appropriate the $500,000 as a separate action item and if not, he
thinks the Board needs to because otherwise you could build this money up over ten
(10) years to build a Taj Mahal on an action that occurred today. Mr. O'Donnell stated if
that is an issue, since this is a first reading, you could remove that portion and then
appropriate the funds and move forward at second reading. Chairman McNamara
stated he was fine with that.
Supervisor Peters stated why would you not make the rollover just
effective for those floors and that way it is specified that once the floors were finished it
would no longer be applicable.
Chairman McNamara stated that is correct, but what is a floor, $500,000
or $3,000,000 and that is his concern.
Supervisor Church stated this is a good intentioned lapse. On November
18, 2014, there was an item on the Board that required a four-fifths vote and seeing it
was not attainable he withdrew the motion. Now, that particular item was brought at the
request of Interim County Administrator, Daniel O'Donnell and the Chairman. About a
week prior to November 18, 2014, he was in the building and the Chairman came into
Mr. O'Donnell's office and said we think we have something you might be interested in
and what they proposed made good financial sense. It was identified by Ms. Owens,
Mr. Caywood and Mr. O'Donnell since the place was in disarray, right wrong or
indifferent, the staff felt that this was going to be okay. Since he was asked to come in,
it is not in anybody's district, it is in the City of Salem, but services Roanoke City,
Salem, Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton. He thought it sounded good. To fast
forward form November 18t", we had a viable project at the suggestion of the Chairman
and Mr. O'Donnell and concurrence with everybody because they thought it would work
800 December 9, 2014
and he did too. So, how does this play into where we are now? He has had
discussions with Ms. Earl, Director of Social Services. He does not know how many
people have been up there; he does not think very many of our Board members other
than Supervisor Moore and myself have been there. You can physically see the
upsidedowness or premature movement, the staff and directors all thought they had a
workable item. Supervisor Church then asked Joyce Earl, Director of Social Services to
come forward and answer or elaborate. Currently, if you step off the fifth (5t") floor on
the elevator there are cages, construction etc. that wasn't supposed to be there. You
have the fourth (4t") floor, which is exactly the same and asked Ms. Earl to explain. Ms.
Earl advised the fifth floor is being repaired and they are waiting on that floor until the
roof is repaired because there is no point in completing that until the roof is done.
Fourth floor is part of the HVAC, and are off that floor because all of the ceiling tiles
were out because of the new HVAC and they are going to sprinkler each floor as they
move along, which is all part of the initial project. Supervisor Church then asked when
the thought to go ahead and do the entire project cause you to have the offices moved.
Ms. Earl advised staff decided the sequence of the floors that would be renovated
because at some point they will have to move folks back in and they are compressed as
much as they can be on three floors. We did move ahead with mentally where the folks
would go and how we would be able to handle even with the HVAC piece. Supervisor
Church then asked if Ms. Earl had people spread out even out of the building with Ms.
Earl responded yes in different locations. Supervisor Church then stated that the
intentions were felt to be good, he spoke with the Chairman on the phone a week ago
and suggested a substitute motion, which he is prepared to make and asked the Clerk
to distribute copies.
Chairman McNamara stated everybody knows what he is talking about.
Supervisor Church then asked Mr. O'Donnell to summarize. Mr.
O'Donnell advised this is very similar to what was proposed at the last meeting, the only
difference is that it will take two readings. Essentially, what it does is request to
appropriate $1.5 million from the capital reserve, $250,000 from the DSS Building Fund
balance and $292,611 from the Department rollover for a total of $2,042, 611. Other
portions of this proposed ordinance is that it would authorize $1.5 million as an internal
loan from the Major Capital Account to be paid over four (4) years from the DSS
Building Fund, which comes from the rents. This will be paid off in 2016, so there is a
cash flow that comes in and allows us to be able to pay off the internal debt back to the
Major Capital fund. The other thing that it does is to authorize staff to negotiate
changes to the A&E contract and construction contract greater then twenty-five percent
(25%). After speaking with Supervisor Peters and Moore, one of the concerns is if we
authorize changes above twenty-five percent (25%), aren't we giving away control to the
contractor? He stated he does not think we are, because we do have bids for the fifth
(5t") floor so we have already bid similar work that if those estimates came in higher or
not comparable to what we have for the fifth (5t") floor, we would reject those and go
back to Plan A, which would be to appropriate the $542,611 for that. His
December 9, 2014 801
recommendation has always been the same, he thinks this is the best plan because it
disrupts the building for a shorter period of time, if you have to rebid several different
portions of the work, it will be more expensive because of the cost of the bidding,
mobilization and it is also a delay in time, which is disruptive to the staff. Again, he does
recommend that the substitute motion is the way to go.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading of the substitute
motion, copies of which were provided to each Board member.
Supervisor Peters asked if the A&E work has been done on the first floor.
Mr. Caywood advised it is not fully complete; the only floor that has been done is the
fourth (4t") floor. Supervisor Peters stated he does not like this process as he is giving a
blank check to a contractor. He is going to come in with the bid and if he comes close
to what we have, we will move forward. Why would we not do a competitive bid as we
would in any other situation? He would think that with the fifth (5t") floor and the towers
being moved, all your big ticket items have already been done. To him, if he is
understanding the scope, this is more moving walls, painting, new ceiling tiles and
should be a whole lot less. On the backside of this and Mr. Church was correct he
understands the need for this, he understands what is going on there, and understands
that to do something today will be much cheaper than it will five (5) years from now.
However, he does have a concern with taking $1.5 million out of that funding because
what is going to happen if we have an economic development that wants to come in
here, where are you then going to have the money to procure whatever property or
make whatever necessary arrangements need to be made.
Mr. Caywood asked to speak briefly with regard to the construction piece
and then he would let Mr. O'Donnell speak to the economic development piece. If you
look at the scope the way it exists today, many of the expensive elements are part of
the original project, but if you have to look at what the contractor needs to do on each
floor, which is what is under way today. The fifth floor was so water damaged, it is
being gutted and that is a little different. The fourth floor looks like the rest of the
building so they have taken all the the and grids down and we had to demo a few walls
to make room for some things, but essentially what they are doing is installing duct work
and piping for the sprinkler so the staff has all left. If you follow the existing contract,
they would put all of that in and then put up new grid, new tiles, repair a little bit of the
damage and then put in the new HVAC equipment and then they would leave and go to
the next floor down the building. The reason he thinks it is a much better value for us
from a financial perspective is to go ahead and do everything now is that contractor will
leave and put things back together again, then he is going to move on and then staff will
need to be moved each time. So, if you come back with a separate operation to finish
the renovation they will go through it all again. Staff will need to move out again.
Supervisor Peters injected that he understands.
Mr. Caywood stated that is where you lose. He commented Supervisor
Peters is correct in one thought, if you had better foresight and packaged it all up in the
beginning, you might get slightly better pricing, however, the penalty you pay for doing it
802 December 9, 2014
in discreet steps is going to be far beyond. As Mr. O'Donnell mentioned earlier, we are
in the driver seat because we have the extra work that staff wants to do. It is no
different from a change on the Vinton Library project. If the price is too high, we will say
no. While you could have somebody else come in, there is so many costs associated it
is not really the best value. One last comment he would like to make about the project
is that what makes it different from some of the other capital projects the County has
done recently; he has worked around construction for twenty (20) years and this is
probably the most intricate and complicated project to figure out how to figure out
actually how to get going. It is mostly because of the stuff that was on the roof, but it
was also somewhat of an emergency that when he first came to the project, the roof
was actively leaking and not long after that we abandoned it because of the leaking, so
he did look at this as somewhat of an emergency project, where we are actively having
our building damaged and exposing our staff to poor conditions so you could have
spaced out some of the decision making and the steps a little farther, but there were so
many moving parts and pieces and with that continual damage, it was not packaged up
quite as neat as other projects. He thinks it is important to talk about that in his mind it
was almost an emergency situation since we had to run the building.
Supervisor Peters stated he gets that, but his question still remains; how
long is the construction going to last. Mr. Caywood stated if we do not change the
scope of the project, the construction under the contract we have now, will end probably
midsummer of this year. Supervisor Peters stated so that allows us plenty of time. It
has been presented to the Board as an emergency measure. The contractors are in
place and that will give us time to finish the A&E work and receive the first competitive
bid to make sure we are getting the best pricing for the County. Mr. Caywood stated the
key is that we would not be able to stop; this contractor will continue his leap frog
through the building, so we will lose that opportunity, for example, renovate the fourth
(4t") floor while it is vacant, because he will have to finish and we will have to move staff
around again so he can go down the stack so to speak in the building. This is why we
came to the Board in the fashion that we did. If we wait, we will do the work with a
different contractor, but will have to do it in the steps and incur those costs again.
Mr. O'Donnell stated we have roughly $2.5 million in major capital so there
will be a million left and there is $2.5 million in the minor capital. He does not know the
balance in the economic development fund. Rebecca Owens advised there was
approximately $2 million in economic development and another $1.5 in the CRT. He
does not see the lack of flexibility for a year because he does not think there will be
projects for these. Supervisor Peters inquired when would the funding need to take
place, the $1.5 million. Mr. O'Donnell advised staff would like to have at the next
reading so that they can authorize the design so they can move quickly. Supervisor
Peters stated that was not his question. His question is when is the payout made, i.e.
next summer? When are the actual dollars going to the contractor? Mr. Caywood
responded staff would need to negotiate because it would extend the life of the contract,
but he thinks the project would be done in calendar 2015 and be done by this time next
December 9, 2014 803
year.
Chairman McNamara asked Mr. Mahoney to verify from a procedural
standpoint if the substitute motion passes then everything is fine. If it does not pass,
can the Board go back to the ordinance since there wasn't a motion made? He stated
he probably should have waited for a motion first. Mr. Mahoney said you would need a
motion on the original item. Chairman McNamara stated so he could go back to that
with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he needed a little clarification. He wants to
go back so the viewers can understand this. When you go back to day one and this
project is in the CIP and trying to get a new building at $12 million. This is how this
process works on anything we want to do right? It is put in the CIP and then it elevates
itself up until it becomes a top project and then we do them. At that time, the Board was
not willing to do that, but they were willing to do a project for $3.1 million. Is that
correct? This got approved instead of the $12 million new building, the Board looked at
all the money we had just like a family would do and said we can do this and it is $3.1
million. Ms. Owens advised the original amount was $3 million; some of which came
from Salem and some from our reserves and then through the year-end roll over
process like we have allowed Departments to do, $126,000 was carried over from the
Department of Social Services to add to that. The current project to date is $3.1 million.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated so that was what was approved by a legislative body that
said, "yes, we have looked at all the things and this is what we are going to approve."
Then, we come to the point and maybe this is what he does not understand. This is the
money appropriated, but it is not enough to cover just doing what we were supposed to
be doing and that is what he does not understand. Why was this not enough to do what
we said we were going to do or the contractor said he was going to do with $3.1 million?
Why do we even need the $500,000? Is there an agreement that is made that says this
is the money, this is what the people on the Board has said we can do and that is what
we are going to do. Mr. Caywood stated there are two (2) things that have happened.
The first is that we did the work, because when we approved it as a CIP item, it had not
been bid by the industry and then there are two other things that happened during the
design of the project. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so you had not bid the work so you
then bid the work with Mr. Caywood responding in the affirmative. Supervisor
Bedrosian then stated so someone came in with a bid that is obviously under the
amount of money that you have. Mr. Caywood responded in the affirmative stating the
bid is not the total amount of the work. There is other work that we do either with staff
or separate contracts, i.e. computer wiring. The one thing he wants to point out though
that he would call minor scope differences from what that original CIP envisioned is the
building is leaking the whole time and we continue to damage the floor so when we bid
the project, we gave the contractor a number of line items to price. So, he did not price
the whole thing as one lump sum. So, one of the items he priced was to do a full
renovation of the fifth floor and to add a sprinkler system, but it would certainly be
required by code if you were doing a new building today, it is not absolutely required
804 December 9, 2014
when you do renovation work of the type we were doing, but certainly a good idea in a
building of that height with staff. If you look at just the absolute original scope, your bid
prices are extremely close to what was approved by the Board, but again, when we
talked about this subsequently, and in looking at the bids that came in and the revenue
that we have available in the building fund with the roll over, he thought it made much
more sense to award the other two elements; the sprinklers and the fifth floor renovation
especially given the condition of the building. The sprinkler system is something that is
very difficult to estimate in a renovation project, but staff thought it was very important to
have that for a building with that many people in in. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he did
not want to rehash everything, but is looking at the process. It seems to him that we
have committed to a certain amount of money and then we spend more than that; we
did not have. Mr. O'Donnell stated staff had a roll-over work session and another work
session where we discussed this and staff really thought they had consensus to use roll
over funds. We moved forward in order to save time and because we have a leaky roof
and people not working in the building. We felt we needed to get this done as quickly
as possible and that is why staff felt comfortable because they thought they had
consensus. Supervisor Bedrosian stated in a normal process what we would say is that
we ran out of money so at the next Board meeting, have a vote and get the approval
and then do the work. He just wants to make sure that from now on with all these things
that is the normal process.
Chairman McNamara stated he wanted to clarify one thing that he thinks
will be helpful. From a "normal" process, Department heads roll over funds have been
created by things they have done so from a "normal" process this has been done in the
County for quite some time. They generally have the wherewithal and the freedom to
do anything they feel is most valuable for their particular organization and since they
have saved the money and done good things to save that money and know best where
to use that money, again, they don't get to keep all of it, a percentage of it. The Board
has always allowed that to occur. If we did not look at changing the scope of this
project, these funds would have been allocated as part of a Board action a month and
one half ago.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated so you run out of money, the Department you
are dealing with has saved the money, they have it and they want to put it into this
project, which is the $542,000. After that, they still have to come for approval from the
Board or just do it. Mr. O'Donnell stated it is a little bit more complicated. The roll over,
fifty-five percent (55%) can be rolled over automatically and thirty-five percent (35%)
goes into one reserve and ten percent (10%) goes into a technology reserve, but the
County Administrator can choose to recommend it and it would have been automatic
had it been put in the roll over report that Ms. Owens did last month. Staff would then
have to come and ask for the $250,000 out of the balance of the building fund. This has
never been an issue before because it can only be spent for DSS purposes. Supervisor
Bedrosian stated so now we are at the point whereby we have spent that money and
now we are asking because we are there and things look like it would be easier to keep
December 9, 2014 805
the contractors there, they would not have to leave and have it bid out and somebody
else come in and we want to do some other things that were not in the original $3
million. Mr. Caywood responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so that
is the extra $1.5 million. He hears all the emotion and everything and he understands,
but it seems like if there is an orderly process to do that we ought to follow the process.
It was not part of the scope and there are a lot of projects for Roanoke County to do. It
is not that we cannot ever do that, but just wait. He just wanted to make sure that he
understands and believes it will get approved for the first reading, but he is negative on
the big dollar amount. It seems the $542,000 is fine and if we did this then everybody
that is going to do a little project, and knows the facilities building needs it and if we start
it, it keeps happening and becomes a bigger and bigger project, which it was not stated
in the beginning that it was going to be.
Mr. O'Donnell advised it was a very unusual situation. Staff saw an
opportunity to get the work done at the lowest cost by doing this for the whole building
and disrupt the operation of the department for the shortest period of time. This is the
reason he recommended this.
Supervisor Moore stated one of the questions was asking about the
construction work. Do you have a daily project manager who would act like a change
order if you want the extra work they are going to be doing? Mr. Caywood advised in
the affirmative. Originally, it was because of the complexity of the project and the
number of people in the building, but one of the things they also do is make sure that we
are working on the correct scope and we know on a daily basis what is going on with
the project. Supervisor Moore stated so staff will be able to keep track daily if there is a
change order or the cost of each floor or each item that they are going to be doing. Mr.
Caywood responded the contractor has not been authorized to do any additional work
outside of what was originally bid and awarded. Before we would give that authorization
and if the Board were to approve the expanded scope, we would have to have agreed
upon pricing with the contractor and then do a formal change order that would direct
them to do the additional work. We have made it extremely clear to the contractor that
as of today, they are to work on the work they have bid and no more and if we do make
changes they will be done formally so there is always a price agreed to before they start
doing the work. Supervisor Moore stated that is exactly what she was looking for. The
building does need renovating. She thinks it makes great financial sense to go ahead
and do the whole building. It would make is safer for the employees, the families who
have to go there. There has been a need for so many years and this project really had
been put on the back burner for many years. Certainly, staff has her approval on it.
Chairman McNamara stated he is not inclined to support the substitute
motion. The reason is that he does not think it is a terrible idea; he does not like
working outside of our basic parameters, which this will be a step away from, our basic
parameters. If we do it once, we will do it again then all of sudden we say look at all the
debt we are in. He would support the $542,000 because we would have supported that
if we had never had brought up this other alternative. This other alternative, there may
806 December 9, 2014
be some disappointment if in fact it fails, there should be some comfort from the
standpoint of now instead of $3.1 million, you ended up with $3.6 million plus a
commitment from the Board over the next two, three, four (2,3,4) years to finish off the
building. That to him is pretty good. There are a lot of other things that certainly need
to be done and could be done so he does think bringing forward the motion to look at
the entire thing is beneficial to the department of social services.
Supervisor Church stated he really sincerely is at a loss for words and the
reason being is that item was not even proposed by him. It was proposed by the
Chairman and certainly with his background in finance, he proposed the funding stream
and whatever. He asked Mr. O'Donnell to verify that he just happened to be at the
building that day when they asked him to come into his office by saying they had
something he would be interested in. He thought yes. He did not try to do some
unusual funding and did not ask for anything at all. It was a perfect opportunity, but he
wants to address a couple of things that Supervisors Bedrosian and Peters cannot
possibly know because of length of time. This is not something that we got in and
thought, wow, this is going so good, let's put another $3 million into it. That is not the
case at all. The case is as he stated on November 18th, this item had been on our
tiered system CIP, Capital Improvement Project, that we each appoint citizens to
ascertain what is important. It was number one and two for years and years and he
said quite candidly the reason it was not built years ago because the Board did not have
a choice to afford $3.1 million because the then Board put all of the money into the
Vinton library, regardless that the library was ranked #7. It is the prerogative of the
Board and they made that choice. So, Supervisor Bedrosian, please do not think we
got this grandiose idea and decided we were going to move forward. It was a well-
intentioned snafu or call it what you will. When the Interim County Administrator told
him about it he was tickled to death. Something has changed since then and he has not
heard the explanation. He knows the 4/5th vote was not going to come even by the
Chairman's own decision he was not going to support on September 18th and that is
why he withdrew the motion because Supervisor Bedrosian did not want to expend any
more funds. So, he could count to three and there were only three possibilities. The
motion would have failed and that is why he withdrew it. Now, what even baffles him
more, he worked closely with the Advisory Board members on the DSS Board and was
advised Supervisor Peters wanted to support this action. He heard this directly from
Supervisor Peters appointee to the Advisory Board and Ms. Earl can verify. With that
being said, he has to ask himself, now the questions about taking funding, not having
funding, miraculously shifted. This is one of the few items in Roanoke County that we
are doing that is not even physically located in Roanoke County. He does not think we
normally do projects that are actually setting inside the City of Salem proper. He then
asked Mr. O'Donnell to confirm. Mr. O'Donnell stated only these facilities. Joyce Earl,
Director of Social Services and Betty McCrary, former director all had their hopes up.
They had the Chairman and the Interim Administrator saying this looks good and then
suddenly the floor starts moving where people cannot stand steady. He knows of no
December 9, 2014 807
other way to put it. This is not Supervisor Bedrosian something began with a snowball
and turned into an avalanche. It's just very unusual and what bothers him most of all is
that good people are the ones being shifted around. These people that run the County,
City of Salem, who is a partner who are watching this. Our new administrator, Thomas
Gates sent an email as Supervisor Church spoke with him the day of the State of the
County. His first paragraph, "I am in support of Interim Administrator O'Donnell's
proposition on the renovation of the building that was communicated during November.
There is some urgency in terms of need. I fully support." Our new County Administrator
is one hundred percent (100%) completely in favor of trying to get this done. We are
not taking $10 million. This was a cut back project, Supervisor Bedrosian, from the
beginning. Supervisor Moore was here. Correct me if he is wrong, $9 to $10 million.
Mr. O'Donnell confirmed that the number is $10 million. His point to Supervisor
Bedrosian is we have gone in the opposite direction. We have grown downward
because we looked at options. We have to help Salem City. We are really stymied
because the Courts dictate to us that that we must have something viable, close by to
the Court System because they have child abuse situations, family members being
taken from each other and they cannot have our employees driving twenty (20) to thirty
(30) minutes. The Judges insist on something that is logical. This is a perfect example
of doing more with less. So, he is quite at a loss for words, not literally, with how this
happened. Again, this is not his proposal, the Chairman and Mr. O'Donnell brought this
to him as he was walking down the hall to make copies. He had no idea about it and
the votes have gone strangely and the people who suffer the most are those in need.
We serve all districts, all Counties. They are the ones who will be hurt, the employees
are going to be hurt big time. They are in a quandary. This is very important; we did
not just try to bump up this price. We were trying to do something good at his own
request.
Supervisor Church motion to approve the first reading and to establish the
second reading for January 27, 2015, was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, McNamara
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the granting of a non-exclusive easement,
which varies between twenty (20) and thirty (30) feet in width, to
Verizon Virginia LLC on property owned by the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 027.13-04-01.0000) for the
purpose of an underground communication system (Anne Marie
Green, Director of General Services)
Ms. Green advised there were no changes from the first reading.
808 December 9, 2014
Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on
this issue. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 120914-6 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF A
NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, WHICH VARIES BETWEEN
TWENTY (20) AND THIRTY (30) FEET IN WIDTH, TO VERIZON
VIRGINIA, LLC ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NO. 027.13-04-
01.0000) FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN UNDERGROUND
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the Map of Airlee Court Annex recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 2, page 103, established a street
designated as Nelms Lane of variable width and located along the northern boundary of
Airlee Court Annex adjacent to Lots 5, 10, 15, and 20 of said subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the area designated and set aside for public use as Nelms Lane on
Map of Airlee Court Annex has never been improved or accepted into the Virginia State
Secondary Road System; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioners, the property owners of Lot 1 and 2, Block 1 of Map
of No 1 of Woodbury Gardens, adjoining the unimproved section of Nelms Lane,
extending approximately one hundred ten (110) feet from the northern edge of
Woodbury Street, have requested the vacation of this unimproved portion of the variable
width right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the above described street or road is more clearly indicated as
"Private Lane" on "Exhibit showing portion of private lane to be vacated by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia" dated 11-11-2014, prepared by Roanoke
County Department of Community Development and attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of this
undeveloped portion of said Nelms Lane and that its current existence imposes an
impediment to the adjoining property owners making improvements to their properties
adjoining this previously dedicated but unimproved street; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioners have requested that, pursuant to Section 15.2-2272
of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended), the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, vacate that portion of this right-of-way which adjoins their property and
is designated as "Nelms Lane" on the plat of Airlee Court Annex, Plat Book 2, page 103;
and
WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected
County departments have raised no objection; and
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code
of Virginia (1950, as amended); and
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
December 9, 2014 809
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on November 18, 2014, and a
second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on December 9, 2014.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the subject real estate (a portion of Nelms Lane, a variable width street and
approximately one hundred and ten (110) feet in length) is hereby declared to be
surplus and the nature of the interests in real estate renders it unavailable for other
public use.
3. That a portion of this street known as Nelms Lane and being designated
and shown as "Private Lane" on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, said street being located
along the northern property line of Lot 15 Map of Airlee Court Annex in the Hollins
Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to
Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
4. That a variable width public utility easement is accepted, reserved and
maintained for public purposes in the area previously designated as "Nelms Lane" as
shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
5. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to
publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners.
6. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be
necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
7. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and
a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virginia (1950, as amended).
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 120914-9 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-
810 December 9, 2014
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for December
9, 2014, 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 5 inclusive, as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. Approval of minutes — October 14, 2014
2. Resolution establishing the meeting schedule for the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County for calendar year 2015
3. Confirmation of appointments to the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority
4. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $4,828 from the
Virginia Department of Fire Programs to the Roanoke County Fire and
Rescue Department for the repair of the existing burn building
5. Request to approve the loan of a 1990 Chevrolet Police vehicle for display
at the Virginia Museum of Transportation
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 120914-8.a ESTABLISHING A MEETING
SCHEDULE FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2015
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows -
1
ollows:1. That for calendar year 2015, the regular meetings of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are set forth below with public hearings
scheduled for 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise advertised.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 3 pm
Saturday, January 17, 2015 (time to be determined)
Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 3 pm
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 3 pm
Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 3 pm
Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 3 pm
Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 3 pm
Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 3 pm
December 9, 2014 811
Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 3 pm
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3 pm
Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 3 pm
Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 3 pm and 7 pm
2. That the organizational meeting for 2015 shall be held on Tuesday,
January 12, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
A -120914-8.b
A -120914-8.c
A -120914-8.d
A -120914-8.e
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Bedrosian requested an explanation for each report and
suggested that these reports be shown on air. He then moved to receive and file the
following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Outstanding Debt
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting from 7:04 p.m. until 7:48
812 December 9, 2014
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore stated five years ago Governor Kaine said that he
would honor our public safety responders who gave their lives to protect others by
building a public safety memorial. This weekend on the capital grounds in Richmond,
this memorial was dedicated. It was the first Virginia Safety Memorial ever. There were
870 names read and put on the wall. The honorees included the first recorded line of
duty desk, which was in 1823 through May, 2014. Through the encouragement and
leadership of three (3) governors and the hard work of the Public Safety Memorial
Foundation and the Board of Directors and the many donors who worked tirelessly for
five (5) years. The memorial was dedicated to the Commonwealth of Virginia and would
like to thank all of them for their dedication on this project. She stated she would like to
thank Governor Kaine, O'Donnell and McAlliffe for their persistence in making this
happen; it was an incredible ceremony and would like to thank everyone who attended.
This is the time of year when we have an opportunity to spend time with family and
friends and to express our gratitude toward them. She thanked all 900 employees who
work for Roanoke County. It is because of all of them that we continue to have a
County government that operated in continuity and serves our citizens well. She stated
she would like to name every single employee and thank you personally, but knows she
only has ten (10) minutes and knows she would not be able to do that, but she would
like to recognize six (6) of our employees who have been with us almost forty-five (45)
years: Victoria A. Webb, Charles L. Patsail, Ralph "Chuck" Mason, Jr., James M.
Harrison, Frank J. Greenway and Willie J. Bryant. She thanked all the Department
Heads and Constitutional Officers for their leadership and their staff and employees for
their dedication and service. Ms. Moore then wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a
Happy Kwanzaa.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he did want to go back a little bit to what
Supervisor Church had mentioned because he had a good point. On the Social
Services Building, it was mentioned several times that the reason the Social Services
Building was not done because of the Vinton library. The reality is on this Board, we all
have things that we vote on and years ago it was the Green Ridge Center and in his
view not what government should be spending it's money on and now libraries have
become the thing and they are multi-million dollar libraries. The other thing that I want to
state is that may be true, there may not have been money for the Social Service
building because we are building an $11 million Vinton Library; that is true, but it also
illustrates a point that on this Board, even for past actions, there are consequences on
every action that we make. Again, he is not saying whether one thing is wrong or right.
He thinks people have to vote what their constituents are talking about and asking for
and whether it is the right thing, but he does want to stress the point that there are
consequences so if we use a certain amount of money to build this building it will come
to the point whereby we don't have the money for something else unless we take it out
of money that we have been saving here in the capital projects. We would reduce that
December 9, 2014 813
by $1.5 million. The bottom line to governance is that decisions do have consequences
and ask all to really think very hard when we spend money. It is not our money; it is the
people's money, the citizens money, that they give to us to spend and we really should
be limiting it to things that are absolutely vital. When we start spending money on
things that are not absolutely vital, a nice to have project, things like the Recreation
Center, water tower. What that says is the Board is taking money away and one day
there is going to be something very, very important and we are not going to be able to
do it without borrowing money to do it. Those are the tough decisions that we have to
make. He would agree with the Supervisor from Catawba, but that is the way it is and it
makes it more difficult to vote yes on projects that we just don't have the money for.
Also, he thanked the Chairman for the State of the County address. It was good to hear
things out in the open like that and the Chairman did talk about wanting to eliminate
debt, reducing debt. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he thinks they think alike on these
things, however, the tough thing is actually doing it. We mentioned the fact that the
debt is $180 million and now we are back up to $190 million and the statement has
been made and also in the County address, if we continue on our path that we have set
up with the School system, we would basically get out of debt and not be in debt if we
followed the path. He is trying to find out how we do that. Citizens in Roanoke County
really need to think about this. Again, we spend money, when he was running for office
the number was $200 million and we started paying off the debt, which is good and
responsible. We started making the payments like we always do, some goes to interest
some goes to principal. This number got down to $170 million and then it creeps back
up and $180 million in October and went down even more, but now we added another
$20 million to it and it is back up to $190 million. He thinks there are two different things
we are looking at here. We may not go any higher than $200 million, but he cannot see
how unless tough decisions are made that we are actually going to get ourselves out of
debt and that is going to take some really strong decisions by this Board. He stated he
sees that the Board may not add to the deficit anymore and our number will stay around
$180 million to $200 million all the time, but he cannot see how we will ever get out of
debt. He thinks we need to get out of debt and wants to remind people as this is our
last meeting for the year that the reason that is so important is that we basically pay
about three to four percent (3 to 4%) interest, which is up to $8 million in interest
payments a year; $8 million of hard-earned, tax payer money that comes in and goes
out to pay interest. If any of you ever listen to Dave Ramsey, who is a great financial
guy, he says when you go into debt, it is basically because you want something and you
want it now and that is not the way we should be operating. It is nice to have things, but
when you want it and you want it now, it becomes irresponsible and it adds to debt. He
stated he thinks we need to be a lot more responsible about that. He saw in the paper
that Buena Vista just defaulted on a $10 million bond yesterday and saw the story this
morning. They built a municipal golf course years ago and now defaulted because they
cannot pay the payment on the $10 million debt. The vote was four or five to one; one
person thought they should continue to pay and do something else, but the others voted
814 December 9, 2014
no. This is getting close to home. When you think about these governments defaulting
on loans, you don't think around here, but now right here in Buena Vista. He is curious
to see how that ends up and thinks it should be a lesson to us. Hopefully, they do repay
that debt and do not default on it. Finally, it is Christmas, and it is a great time of the
year. He thanked his colleagues, stating they haven't always agreed on issues, but he
loves it, this is what a representative republic is all about. We all have the ability to vote
like we want based on our conscience and based on what we think government should
be for and we are all friends afterwards. It is a good process; it is the way it should be
done. He is thankful to all his colleagues, agree or disagree on issues that they can
stand here and work together. He is thankful to the Administration, he appreciates
everybody and he asks a lot of questions; he is not the most intelligent guy, which is
why he asks a lot of questions. He appreciates staff always finding an answer for him.
Merry Christmas.
Supervisor Church stated first of all he wanted to thank God for good
health and this Board and for the opportunity to agree to disagree. He has always
thought and he could not help when the gentleman from the Sheriff's Department talked
about being poor, but we had our mother telling us that there is never a right way to do
something wrong; always thank God for what you have. At the end of the day, we can
be passionate up here about any item we can think of, but it should never come to the
part where we want the other one to trip over a rock in the parking lot. Life is just bigger
than that. He has always said that disagreement can be very healthy. Five -zero votes
sometimes can indicate that nobody is paying attention. Good ideas come from
different people. So, we have a wonderful group of employees here. We have a good
staff; good Administration. He knows that financially we could do things left or right or a
little differently. He is thankful for all the people working for Roanoke County, for the
place that we live, which is one of the greatest places in the Country in his opinion. He
is very thankful that God has always given him the chance to be elected to serve. It is a
big responsibility and he takes it as a sacred trust; he is very thankful for that. He has
always thought like his mother said, if every season could be like Christmas, "Here let
me hold the door for you, if you need $5, here take $7." The rest of the time we don't
see that person coming into the store and falling down. We are too busy in our own
world to say, "Let me help you." Next, a zero -based budgeting with some people who
have run for office in the past well before Supervisor Bedrosian and zero -based
budgeting in his opinion and he is not a financial person, it is impossible to start at year
157 287 48 or whatever year because if we started with zero and did not buy something
or build something until we had the money, Roanoke County would be in dire shape
because he wished we could have the money to repair things, maintenance, schools,
fire trucks, police cars, whatever. If we waited until we save the money, we would
continuously be playing catch up and the money would not be used wisely. Somewhere
between that and where we are, we need to find a way to help control our debt; he does
not think we will ever be debt free. He does not think it is possible. In the world with
everything changing so much, maybe it is not possible, but to strive to do things that are
December 9, 2014 815
logical, fair and that is what he is all about. This Board is five (5) districts. Let's be sure
that we try to treat each other fair, no matter if it is a four -one majority, five -zero or any
other combination. We need to take a look and see, not about the districts but the
20,000 people in that area. Let's do what we can to make sure that they have a seat at
the table. This is important to him. Supervisor Church then asked the camera to be
zeroed in pictures of Dry Hollow Road that VDOT went over and above the call of duty
in his opinion. There has been a project there with the train trestle underpass, which
makes it totally impossible for two cars to know they are coming to meet each other.
Norfolk Southern cannot move the train trestle; millions and millions of dollars and we
did not have the money. Long story short, we went into a secondary road plan back in
1999, bottom line is he wants to thank the VDOT people. He then asked the Clerk to
get a letter ready with his signature to send out in particular he wants to thank publically,
Ken King, our Regional Operations Director at VDOT; Chris McDonald, Regional Traffic
Engineer, Raymond Low, the Assistant Residency Administrator; Pat Bower,
Maintenance Operations Manager; Brian Blevins, Area Land Use Engineer, Ann
Booker, Traffic Engineering Regional Services Manager; the entire VDOT Salem
Residency and VDOT Salem District Regional Operations; their crews performed the
field work, line painting and sign erection. From the County, Richard Caywood and
David Holliday, special thank you because this is an item that it would take in the
millions to widen and build a new road; there is no money. With some ingenuity we met
with Delegate Greg Habeeb and want to thank him for hosting the meeting. We kept
pushing and we widened a little bit at the edge and put up a barrier and a stop sign and
signals and we are still tweaking it, but these folks and he is one of the first to complain
that VDOT won't do anything, etc. Well, they did; they need to be congratulated it has
been a file that has been in the media for many years and on his watch since he got
here 15 years as the senior member; he has been after it forever and forever. Finally, is
it a total fix, no, but it is the best option we have had so far and maybe we can make
even better improvements. Now, congrats to Northside High School for a great football
season. It came to an abrupt ending Magna Vista High School on November 28, 2014;
but it is great to say that Magna Vista is playing for the State Championship so they did
not lose to any candy store team. In the meantime, Glenvar Highlanders continue to
impress. They won the first few rounds in the State playoffs defeating a good Union
Team 13-6 this past Saturday and dispatched another great team Nottoway 34-17 in the
pouring down rain, cold, driving down rain and he knows because he was there.
Glenvar will now play their first ever in their history for the State championship at Salem
Stadium, right in our own backyard. We get to go to the fancy stadium this coming
Saturday at 4:30 p.m. and we are going to be sitting on the Press Box side. We will be
playing a Wilson Memorial team who is 13-1 and we are 13-1. Coach Kevin Clifford
came out of Patrick Henry in Roanoke City and has just done a phenomenal job.
Unbelievable, the coaching staff with what they have done there. Joe Haffey, the
principal there instills "highlander Heaven" in the staff, the teachers and whatever; it is
just unbelievable. He stated he wanted to talk about how far Glenvar has come. I know
816 December 9, 2014
many of you have heard of Giles High School, three-year defending champions.
Glenvar went up to play them for first place three or four weeks ago and just got
pounded, 33 to 0. Guess who we played in the third round in the playoffs back to Giles,
who would imagine. We shut them out 35-0, which is unbelievable if you know anything
about sports. With 14 seconds left in the first half, Glenvar is winning 7-0; 14 seconds
later, it's 28-0 at halftime; three touchdowns in fourteen seconds. He was not there as
he was out of town and Giles had to have gone into the locker room shaking their heads
saying, "What train hit us?" Please try to come out this coming Saturday at 4:30.
Glenvar will play for their first championship in the history of the school at Salem
Stadium. He further advised the Clerk that he will help with the letter to thank these
people and asked Mr. Caywood to assist in getting it to the Residency and let them
know how appreciative we are they went out of their way and made a lot happen with
little monies and want them to know how much he appreciates it. Merry Christmas to
everyone; stay well and happy.
Supervisor Peters stated as many know he has been on the Board the
same length of time as Mr. Bedrosian, we were both sworn in last year and had a great
opportunity yesterday to speak to someone about his first year on the Board and his
thoughts and thought he would share a little bit of that with the audience today. One of
the first things he said was that he was a little frustrated because the Board had not
accomplished much as he would have thought, but he learned very quickly that
government moves slow. Personally, this first year has given him a great time to
understanding what goes on in the County, how it operates, what the needs are and
maybe it was good that the first year was kind of slow. Even though the Board may not
have accomplished everything as he would have liked to seen, he has to say, we have
some wonderful departments. Our CommlT has received National awards, our Fire and
Rescue has received as we have seen here again today, our Police Department under
Chief Hall, our libraries as we heard today and he was notified by email this morning
that the Virginia Recreation Parks Society awards four awards to Roanoke County
Parks, Recreation and Tourism; they went against all of their peers in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. This is remarkable, Doug, good job. He also thanked
Chairman McNamara for leading us through a difficult year. Our Administrator left, Fire
Chief gave his resignation and leading us in his opinion to pick up an extraordinary
person in Tom Gates, who will help lead the County hopefully for many years to come
and has also led us through countless distractions that have tried to take us off course.
He thanked Dan O'Donnell for stepping in when needed; you have done a great job.
Above and beyond all of that, he thanked all the employees of Roanoke County.
Because this Board and Administration cannot do anything without the employees, they
are the ones that make it happen. You come in day in and day out. You do your job
and the proof that you are doing your job is again what he mentioned earlier the awards
this County keeps receiving. As he speaks for many people as he moves all around the
County, he hears nothing but good things even down to our trash collectors. People
have told him how polite they are. Again, he just wanted to say thank you to all of our
December 9, 2014 817
employees and lastly hopes that everyone will have a safe holiday season. Merry
Christmas.
Chairman McNamara thanked Supervisor Peters for his kind words. This
is our last meeting of the year and he thinks it is kind of nice since it is earlier in the
month so that people can spend time with their families and it is not a time when people
are doing rezonings, etc. He thinks it is a new thing to have the one meeting in
December. He thinks it is appropriate. The gentleman from Vinton mentioned Tom
Gates; we are absolutely delighted and excited to have him joining us. So, at our next
meeting we will have Tom Gates sitting over in Dan's chair or over and down one and
he thinks that is going to be really exciting. We are also going to see come January a
number of things from a strategic direction as a Board. We raise a lot of good
questions. We need to decide what our priorities are. If debt is our number one priority,
we can solve that problem. If maintaining a locality of our size without having a
Stormwater Management Fee going forward is our policy, we can do that. If we want to
continue to fund schools and infrastructure improvements, we can do that. If you want
to lower taxes, we can do that. Can we do all of those things at one time without
significantly, in his opinion, seriously impacting our service level; we cannot. So, we
need to decide what is our priority and how do we want to structure how we want it to
be. Really, the success we can do from a strategic direction planning workshop and
putting together our priorities are not going to be items one, two or three year fixes.
They are multiyear fixes that will put Roanoke County in a much better position ten to
twenty (10 to 20) years from now. To pat ourselves on the shoulders, a lot of this was
done a number of years ago so not many people realize that we have capital
improvements program that is funded without our current budget for both the County
Schools and the County Administration. So, that will be completely funded this year, so
now we can decide that we can continue to incease funding for that program, which
would in effect lower debt or we can decide we want to do some other things. It is on
our schedule for January and it is pretty exciting for that. I do appreciate the opportunity
to be Chairman and lead this Board this and thank you all for your support. Our County
employees has already been said by three or four Board members already do a great
job; they always have. We are really blessed in Roanoke County to have some great
employees that care about citizens. Quite frankly, we represent some great citizens
too; just wonderful people and a pleasure to be around. Citizens that are concerned
about things and ninety-nine percent (99%) of the time wonderful to deal with so he
certainly does enjoy that. He cannot leave without touching on Dave Ramsey. Dave
Ramsey will not be his investment advisor; he does not have a lot of faith in a fellow that
suggested an eight percent (8%) withdrawal rate for retirees, which is probably double
the generally accepted guidelines or someone who has been bankrupt himself in the
late 1980's. We are going to continue to rely on good, sound financial principles and
our great finance staff and continue to get the rating agencies to give us the ratings that
they have been. It has been a good year.
818 December 9, 2014
At 6:17 p.m. Chairman McNamara recessed to the 4t" floor for work session
and closed meeting.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 6:16 p.m. Chairman McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
following the work session pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2.3711.A.3
Discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or
the disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting
would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the Board of
Supervisors (419 Library).
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYES: None
The closed meeting was held from 6:31 p.m. until 6:53 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:04 p.m., Chairman McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 120914-9 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge -
1 .
nowledge: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.
December 9, 2014
•
On Motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to provide the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) overview (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and
Rescue)
Chief Burch gave a brief overview and turned the meeting over to Deputy
Chief Joey Stump who provided the Board with a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and provided the
necessary training information.
The work session was held from 7:04 p.m. until 7:48 p.m.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
S44mitted by: Approved by:
Deborah C. J P. Ja on Peters
Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman
820 December 9, 2014
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY