HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/9/2015 - RegularJune 9, 2015 285
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June 2015. 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 Pastor
Ken Nienke of Fellowship Community Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by
all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 3-01 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman P. Jason Peters, Supervisors Al Bedrosian,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Joseph P. McNamara and
Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Thomas C.
Gates,
County Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell,
Assistant
County
Administrator; Richard
Caywood,
Assistant
County
Administrator- Paul M.
'7
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 Bedrosian requested that an additional briefing be given on the
Western Virginia Water Authority rates. There was no discussion.
286 June 9, 2015
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the Roanoke
County Pipeline Advisory Committee (PAC) (Richard L. Caywood,
Assistant County Administrator; Roberta Bondurant, Vice -
Chairman, Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee; Ruth
Ellen Kuhnel, Senior Assistant County Attorney)
Mr. Caywood provided the Board with a PowerPoint presentation and
turned the briefing over to Roberta Bondurant.
Supervisor Moore inquired who would monitor the roadways, how many
times you cross a waterway, silt debris, reports and how often. Mr. Caywood advised
that the Department of Environmental Quality has a lead role but have publically stated
they do not have the resources and that is a concern. Staff recommendation will be to
consider as part of our legislative initiatives for the upcoming session. If the State does
not have the resources, is that something that the County could do with delegated
authority. This would be the most significant land disturbing item in our region since the
construction of 181.
Supervisor McNamara commented he appreciates all the involvement. He
then questioned what will happen if it is not used in the future. It is interesting that the
federal government could approve something and not take care of same down the road.
Supervisor Church commented this is a huge undertaking with no good
feel of assurance.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented he appreciated all the work being done
as there is a lot to sift through and decide what is best for the area. He added that he
had voted no on the first resolution, because we opposed it but likes the comments and
would like some answers. He stated he feels that there should be some positives to
this. If we never did any of this, how would America grow? Mr. Caywood responded
this is the vehicle you would use to find out the answers. He added that they would add
the economic benefits. Supervisor Bedrosian asked the reaffirmation section be
deleted.
Chairman Peters stated he also appreciated the work being done and
agrees with Mr. McNamara with regard to decommissioning.
Ms. Kuhnel added there is a regulation that goes through an abandonment
of the pipeline, but has not had time to see if it is adequate. Chairman Peters remarked
that our planning process did not matter if FERC decided it did not matter. Ms. Kuhnel
stated there is no permitting process for the pipe, but a compressor station would be
through a special use permit. She stated there are certain laws that if your State laws
require deference to local zoning laws, then they have to be recognized. She advised
she believes there are certain things that we will be able to do, but is still researching.
June 9, 2015 287
2. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the rate increase
by the Western Virginia Water Authority (Thomas C. Gates,
County Administrator)
Mr. Gates advised that the Board had approved the joiner with the County
of Botetourt on May 26, 2015. After that date, questions had been raised concerning an
increase in rates. Mr. Gates met with staff and discussed. The rate changes are not
related to the joiner. The new rates were advertised on May 24, 2015, with the rates
anticipated to be $0.50 on water $1.00 sewer. The final approval will occur in June with
the cost anticipated to be $1.50 for a normal household.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution affirming the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee's recommended comments to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the scoping process of the
Mountain Valley Pipeline (Richard L. Caywood, Assistant County
Administrator; Roberta Bondurant, Vice Chairman, Roanoke
County Pipeline Advisory Committee)
Mr. Caywood outlined the resolution.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if the section that the Board is reaffirming
Resolution 120914-4 dated December 9, 2014 can be removed. He stated he would
have to vote no if it is kept as is. On December 9, 2014, the Board of Supervisors
opposed the construction of the pipeline. It does not seem like we need to ask
anybody any questions if we are just going to oppose it. If we are going to ask
questions because we really want answers. A gas pipeline coming through and
bringing energy to different parts of the County or selling it or whatever it does for the
economy is good. But if we are just going to oppose it right from the start without
finding if there is a possible way of doing this without disturbing things, for example the
pipe being moved from the water quite a distance was good. So, he just wants to bring
that to the committee. He added that his biggest opposition to the pipeline has always
been the eminent domain issue. He would like to see that addressed, but that is
probably not a thing you would address with FERC, but that has always been his
biggest issue. Nobody has the right to go on anybody's property if they do not want
them on their property. He reiterated that he would like the reference to R120914-4 be
removed and then all we are doing is saying these are the Committee's recommended
comments and we are affirming those comments to pass on.
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to reiterate that the resolution the
Board approved was not approved without just cause. It was stated in there that it
effected Roanoke County and Roanoke County citizens. It effects Bottom Creek on
Bent Mountain and things like Spring Hollow Reservoir and we explain that in the
288 June 9, 2015
resolution. She stated she is still a believer that we should keep the resolution as it is
and feels it is most effective in letting people know that we do oppose it for these
reasons.
Supervisor Church stated he too goes back to the December 9, 2014,
meeting where we had a room full of people and we don't need to go back and review
every detail. We had the MVP people come that could not quite frankly answer
anything. The Board opposed this for a variety of reasons. This is our community; this
is where we live- this is where our basic water supply, in this opinion, is endangered.
This is a basic p�emise of his, when you are told that a certain organization is going to
do one thing and then do the opposite more than one time. They are providing
numbers that are not verified. They are saying economic benefit. They are saying no
impact. They are saying limited liability. Anybody can give you statements; numbers,
but he has asked all along to have something verified. He does not know of anything
that is provable and they cannot verify it is an economic benefit. He understands that it
is going to be connected locally; but he challenges that. You can say all you want to.
All the information that he has studied this as soon as the news hit this area is that it is
going someplace else. It is probably going out of our County. So, what we are doing
here is allowing an organization to give you a synopsis of what it is going to do for you,
but it cannot be verified. The information from Pennsylvania and Ohio is that the
information is not the same. He thinks the Board is right in opposing this. He thinks we
should stay where we are with the opposition in there.
Supervisor McNamara stated we passed a resolution of opposition
because the Board was not getting answers. So, we still are not getting answers. So,
his feeling is quite simple. He is against something until they answer the questions. If
somebody has a rezoning and they are only telling you a part of what they are going to
rezone, guess what, we are against it. We may not end up being against it when they
answer questions and address concerns and then decide it is in our best interest as a
community. But as of right now, nothing has changed with his feeling that we are not
getting answers, that we are utilizing the best methods available at our disposal to try to
get those answers. He stated he feels the resolution is appropriate.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he is hearing the Board say that if things
change maybe we would approve it if we had the answers we are looking for. He then
asked Mr. Mahoney, if we are in a negotiation with somebody and we always tell them
we are in opposition but we want to negotiate, he is not going to agree with you. He just
does not know what the basis is if we are telling them that we oppose them. Is that the
way we negotiate with anybody. We just tell them right up front. If the wording was,
i4we may change if you can answer these questions." he could understand. M r.
Mahoney responded in reviewing the language in the December resolution, the Board
had indicated its opposition, at least as he recalls, based upon some potential adverse
impacts. First to County property, i.e. Camp Roanoke. In addition, some potential
impacts to Poor Mountain and Bent Mountain communities. In addition in reading the
resolution as a whole, he thinks its raises those questions that the Board at that time
June 9, 2015 289
due to a lack of information and a lack of answers. So, the December resolution was
very narrow and targeted to one area. The more critical part in the current resolution
and particularly with respect to the listing of the criteria that is attached to the exhibit.
Those issues were issues that number one are the criteria that FERC would use when it
analyses this approach in the scoping process. Secondly, it reflects the hard work of
the citizens' advisory committee.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated so why don't we have this stand-alone
instead of referencing back to a negative.
Supervisor Peters stated the way he looks at it is that on December 9,
2014, the Board was voting in reference to what was proposed to us by EQT. Based on
the information they were giving us- very little information. He was asking very pointed
questions that night. He asked if &s was being set up to go outside of the Country. Is
this for this or that purpose? He got no answers. So, the way he looks at this resolution
that is being presented today, it is basically EQT versus FERC. We prepared our
opposition based on the Company that was here and that we do oppose what they
presented to the Board. They gave us no answers. They went on our citizens'
property. We found out about this after the fact. They did not notify us first and stood
before the Board and said we will do a better job. We will tell you. We had the same
incident a month and a half later. Today, he feels like the Board is sending a message
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission saying we understand this is coming, but
here are our issues and we would like for you to help soften the impacts or work with us
in this regard because we do understand it is coming.
RESOLUTION 060915-1 AFFIRMING THE ROANOKE COUNTY
PIPELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDED COMMENTS
TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)
FOR THE SCOPING PROCESS OF THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY
PIPELINE
WHEREAS, the pipeline known as the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) 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 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
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has passed two (2) prior
resolutions regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline; and
WHEREAS, those resolutions are hereby incorporated by reference and are
known as "Resolution 120914-4 of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia opposing the Mountain Valley Pipeline" adopted December 9, 2014, and
"Resolution 042815-5 petitioning the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold an
additional scoping public hearing in Roanoke County and to extend the public comment
290 June 9, 2015
period during the scoping phase for the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project" adopted April
28,2015 -and
WIHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors created the Pipeline
Advisory Committee ("the Committee") by Resolution 031015-1; and
WHEREAS, the Committee met on June 1, 2015, and voted to submit additional
comments to FERC on its behalf- and
WHEREAS, those comm�nts are attached as Exhibit A and titled "Comments
from the Pipeline Advisory Committee Recommended for adoption by the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors for submission to the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission) Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Scoping Comment Period."- and
WHEREAS, the Committee seeks approval of those additional c�mments and
their subsequent submission as allowed during the scoping process.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 . That the Resolution 120914-4 dated December 9, 2014 is hereby
reaffirmed.
2. That the Resolution 042815-5 dated April 28, 2015 is hereby reaffirmed.
3. That the comments of the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee
which are attached as Exhibit A, known as "Comments from the Pipeline
Advisory Committee Recommended for adoption by the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors for submission to the FERC (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Scoping
Comment Period" are hereby affirmed.
4. That the County Administrator is hereby directed to file a certified copy of
this Resolution along with the attached exhibits with the Federal Energy
Regulation Commission by the June 16, 2015 project scoping deadline.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- Supervisor Bedrosian
Exhibit A
Comments from the Pipeline Advisory Committee
Recommended for adoption by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
For submission to the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Scoping Comment Period
June 9, 2015
Potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife:
1. Percina rex, Roanoke Logperch is an Endangered species found in the Roanoke
River that will be impacted directly by disturbance during construction and
June 9, 2015 291
chronically by increased siltation following construction.
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E01 G
2. Noturus gilberti, Orangefin Madtom is a Threatened species found in the
Roanoke River that will be impacted directly by disturbance during construction
and chronically by increased siltation following construction.
http://www.dqif.virginia.gov/wildlife/virginiatescspecies.pdf
3. Clemmys muhlenbergii, Bog Turtle is a Threatened species inhabiting the high
elevation wetlands of Bent Mountain in Floyd, Roanoke and Franklin Counties. It
will be directly impacted during construction and will continue to be impacted by
the altered hydrology of the wetlands after construction.
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C048
4. Glaucomys sabrinus, Northern Flying Squirrel is an Endangered species
inhabiting the forests of Montgomery Co. and may be directly impacted during
construction and maintenance of the pipeline.
http://www.dqif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=050068
5. Myotis sodalis, Indiana Bat is an Endangered species inhabiting the forests of
Montgomery Co. and may be directly impacted during construction and
maintenance of the pipeline.
http://www.dqif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=050023
6. Buckleya distichophylla, Pirate Bush is an Endangered species inhabiting Poor
Mountain and will be directly impacted during construction of the pipeline. The
Poor Mountain population of the Pirate Bush is the largest known population of
the species. http://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?svmbol=BUDI
Potential impacts to water resources and wetlands:
1 . Spring Hollow Reservoir is the primary drinking water supply for residents of
Roanoke County.
http://www.westernvawater.org/85256a8dOO62af37/vwContentBvKey/N2628RP6
374PLESEN The proposed pipeline route will pass within 500 feet of the
reservoir and the construction area will be well within the drainage are of the
reservoir increasing silt loads into the reservoir.
2. Poor Mountain, located in western Roanoke County, is the primary water source
for much of the Roanoke Region. Water flows from Poor Mountain in all
directions through surface run-off, creeks and small streams such as Bottom
Creek, a Virginia Tier III stream used for recreational purposes and home to
endangered species, and through underground aquifers throughout the
mountain's karst topography. The Poor Mountain watershed is critical to
supplying clean water to Roanoke County, and the Cities of Salem and Roanoke,
and to rural areas of Montgomery and Henry Counties.
3. The entire 40 river miles reach of the Roanoke River downstream of crossing of
proposed pipeline and above Smith Mountain Lake is part of the Roanoke River
Blueway. http://rvarc.org/blueway Construction and maintenance of the pipeline
will increase silt loads into the river causing the water to be muddy creating
292
June 9, 2015
hazards for canoeists, kayakers, swimmers, tubers, and standup paddle
boarders and making the river less aesthetic for users.
4. Bottom Creek is a world class whitewater destination drawing paddlers from
around the United States and other countries. Disturbance during construction
and maintenance will increase turbidity compromising the safety of paddlers.
Flows will be compromised by altering the hydrology of the headwaters. In a
recent study in nearby West Virginia, whitewater recreation was found to
contribute over $50 million annually to the economy and provide over 1400 jobs
within the state.
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content=iki/stewardship: recreation economi
cs
5. Over 25 miles of Greenway are in the Roanoke Valley primarily along the
Roanoke River downstream of the Roanoke River crossing of the proposed
pipeline. http://roanokevalley.org/progress Over $20 million have been spent
constructing these Greenways to enhance the quality of life for the residents of
the Roanoke Valley. Construction and maintenance of the pipeline will cause the
water along these Greenways to be muddy compromising the experience of
Greenway users.
6. The proposed pipeline route traverses native Brook Trout streams on Bent
Mountain and crosses the Roanoke River just upstream of the VDGIF trout
fishery in Salem and Roanoke. http://www.dqif.virginia.gov/fishing/trout/area-
maps/map3.pdf The United States Fish and Wildlife Service estimates for 2006
indicated that trout fishing contributed >$20 billion to the US economy, created
109,000 jobs, and created >$1.7 billion in tax revenue.
http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/52 Virginia has
800,000 anglers and fishing has contributed $1.3 billion dollars to the VA
economy. http://www.dqif.virginia.gov/fishing/benefits/
7. In total, outdoor recreation is responsible for 6.1 million American jobs with
138,000 of those in Virginia, and contributes $646 billion to the American
economy with $13.6 billion of that in Virginia. Almost 3 times as many Americans
work in the outdoor recreation industry as work in the oil and gas industry, and
Americans spend more annually on outdoor recreation than they do on all forms
of energy combined.
http://outdoorindustry.org/advocacy/recreation/economy.html
8. Vegetation- The high and steep slopes of Poor Mountain are characterized by
oaks, hickories, table mountain pine and a unique stand of sugar maple
reminiscent of New England forests. The ericaceous understory consists of
azaleas, mountain laurel, doghobble and rhododendron. The cove hardwood
community includes tulip poplars, cucumbers and Fraser magnolias. The alder -
leafed viburnum, common to northern forests, inhabits the shrub layer. The Poor
Mountain forest is a unique meeting place of the Northern California hemlock and
the southern Carolina hemlock, both of which host the globally rare Piratebush.
June 9, 2015 293
Poor Mountain hosts a remnant population of the American Chestnut, comprised
of saplings that have sprouted from adventitious buds on the old roots of original
trees whose trunks and limbs were killed in the early 20th century. Scientists
interested in restoring the chestnut to the Appalachians anticipate this population
may produce offspring with a natural resistance to the fungus that killed the
original population.
9. Airborne species- Migrating upon on the isolated ridgetop of Poor Mountain
includes 12,000 raptors observed in the 2007 season, and 2700 raptors between
September 22nd and 23rd, 2009. Poor Mountain is recognized as a hawk
migration site by the hawk Migration Association of North America - the second
best hawk migration site in Virginia.
10. There are four tree bat species- the evening, silver -haired, red and hoary, which
would inhabit large tracts of Roanoke forest during the warmer months which
would migrate south in winter. Because it is extremely difficult to do a census of
tree bat populations, scientific evaluation of these species requires undertaking
before any environmental stressors are introduced to populations already
threatened (up to 95% of Vermont bats has been lost to white nose
syndrome).Both the Virginia Big 'Eared bat and the Indiana bat have been found
in Highland and Botetourt County and those counties south of Roanoke— as the
migration from hibernacula to summer habitats can range to 320 miles, scientists
would conclude that they use the Blue Ridges and surrounding area as migration
routes, according to the Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries.
11. Other unique species include the Appalachian cottontail, woodland jumping
mouse, spotted skunk and the long-tailed shrew, because of its unique habitat,
possible residents include rock voles, Allegheny Woodrats, and Northern Flying
Squirrels.
Potential impact to geology and soils:
1 . Poor Mountain, located in western Roanoke County, is the primary water source
for much of the Roanoke Region. Water flows from Poor Mountain in all
directions through surface run-off, creeks and small streams such as Bottom
Creek, a Virginia Tier III stream used for recreational purposes and home to
endangered species, and through underground aquifers throughout the
mountain's karst topography. The Poor Mountain watershed is critical to
supplying clean water to Roanoke County, and the Cities of Salem and Roanoke,
and to rural areas of Montgomery and Henry Counties.
2. Poor Mountain, at 2938 feet in elevation, is the highest mountain to Roanoke
County, and its peaks and ridges are easily visible from Salem, Roanoke, the
Blue Ridge Parkway, Montgomery County, Floyd County, Henry County,
Botetourt County, and it is on the ILS6 flight approach to Roanoke — Blacksburg
Regional Airport.
3. Due to Poor Mountain's value as a primary watershed, its geography, vegetation
and wildlife, vistas and recreational activities, including but not limited to Bottom
294 June 9, 2015
Creek Gorge, and considering Poor Mountain's natural beauty, the cumulative
negative impacts of major construction as would occur with then building of the
MVP over Poor Mountain is of great concern to us.
4. Although MVP may view the construction of the pipeline as presenting low
potential for harm, the fact remains that we who live here perceive the potential
for serious and long-term negative impacts to Poor Mountain and the surrounding
Roanoke Valley as inevitable and unacceptable should construction proceed as
planned.
5. Many sections of Poor Mountain exceed 50 degrees in slope. Environmental
scientists have told us that disturbed soils will not adhere to grades of 50 degrees
or greater, which could result in the long term sloughing off of disturbed soils and
ground cover within the MVP's large construction corridor . Since Spring Hollow
Reservoir and the Roanoke River are at the bottom of the north face of Poor
Mountain, our water supply, and the many recreational activities associated with
the beautiful Roanoke River would be at great risk.
6. Trenching and blasting across the Poor Mountain watershed could forever
disrupt, block and reroute underground aquifers which supply the hundreds of
springs and wells which are the only water sources for the many Roanoke
citizens who live in the rural communities surrounding Poor Mountain.
7. The cumulative negative and irreversible impacts created by MVP's construction
of the pipeline along the currently proposed route over Poor Mountain create
conditions we believe are so potentially damaging to Poor Mountain and our
community, they are unacceptable to us. We therefore urge MVP to develop an
alternative route away from the Poor Mountain watershed. Additionally, we urge
the FERC to direct MVP to alter its proposed route to avoid Poor Mountain in
Roanoke County.
Potential impacts to cultural resources:
Potential Environmental Impact of the Mountain Valley Pipeline to Prehistoric Cultural
Resources in the Roanoke River Floodplain
1 . The southern portion of Virginia has been occupied for at least 11,500 years and
the Roanoke Valley and surrounding area are a rich source of prehistoric
archaeological resources especially along the Roanoke River.
2. The Buzzard Rock (44RIN12), Thomas -Sawyer (44RN39), and Graham -White
(44RN21) sites are notable examples in the Roanoke River floodplain of Late
Woodland settlements (ca. A.D. 900 to 1700); with the latter two sites associated
with European trade goods.
3. The proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline corridor is located south of the Thomas -
Sawyer site, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) has
conducted no archaeological surveys of the Roanoke River basin or its tributaries
south of that site. Therefore, as yet undiscovered sites are not in the State
Database.
June 9, 2015 295
4. Salem DHR Archaeologist, Tom Klatka, estimates that there is a "high
probability" of unearthing further evidence of Native American settlements
wherever a pipeline corridor might intersect the floodplains of the Roanoke River
or its forks.
5. Socially complex Mississippian sites (including temple mounds) have been
identified in Southwest Virginia in Lee and Scott Counties, and currently a
Paleolithic site is being excavated in the Smith Mountain Lake area.
Investigating the extent and range of such occupations could potentially be a
focus of future archaeological exploration along the Roanoke River as well as in
the mountains (which were the source of lithic materials and game for thousands
of years).
6. Many will say that the pipeline excavation will be an opportunity to make new
discoveries, but this will be contingent upon careful, unrushed examination of the
evidence by experts in this area's prehistory and artifact assemblages not by
private out-of-state archaeological surveyors (hired by the pipeline company)
who are unfamiliar with Virginia's prehistory—and perhaps in a rush to return to
their homes.
7. DHR will be involved, but only in the capacity of reviewing the private surveyor's
findings. "DHR will not make site visits," said Tom Klatka.
8. Due to the high likelihood of significant prehistoric sites, Phase III full-scale
mitigation (with excavation) should be the anticipated level of archaeological
investigation of sites along the Roanoke River – not just Phase I survey or Phase
11 test pits. Therefore, pipeline engineers must factor this into their schedules
and not be assuming one to two year completion dates for the project.
Information -rich archaeological features like burials, trash pits, ceramic kilns, and
roasting hearths can be lost in one swipe of a bulldozer's blade.
9. The Roanoke River basin bears significant archeological resources that are both
finite and fragile. Once disturbed, the history and its lessons are lost if they are
not thoroughly investigated at the time that they are unearthed.
Potential impacts to socioeconomics:
1 . In order to avoid steeper terrain and forest impacts, many sections of the corridor
within Roanoke County pass through working farms. Many of these farms have
been in single families for generations.
2. Temporary and permanent disruptions to these farming operations may have
financial impacts for these families and threaten the continued viability of
individual farms.
3. This appears to be a disparate impact on a select group of individuals who are
primarily older and lower income than the community as a whole.
Potential impacts to air quality and noise:
1. If Alternate 110 is selected it is presumed that there is a high likelihood of a
compressor station being located in Roanoke County. If a compressor station is
296 June 9, 2015
even considered for Roanoke County we believe that the following issues would
need to be carefully analyzed -
a. A detailed noise analysis that takes into account both topography and tree
cover should be performed. This analysis should consider both occupied
dwellings and businesses as receptors as well as resource receptors such
as the Appalachian Trail, Camp Roanoke, and the Roanoke River etc. as
appropriate based on the location under consideration.
b. Light pollution needs to be considered and analyzed.
c. Emissions are a specific concern. The Roanoke Valley is essentially a
bowl that can trap pollutants. The Roanoke Valley Metropolitan Area is a
marginal air quality attainment area that was previously bordering on
becoming a non -attainment area. While regional cooperation has helped
to maintain attainment area status, additional emitters have the potential
to change this.
2. Loss of gas either intentionally through "venting" or unintentionally through
leakage is a significant concern. While this concern is most pronounced relative
to any potential compressor station, leaking may also occur from the line itself, at
valves, or other mechanical connection.
3. Noise impacts during construction area a concern. We would recommend that
FERC apply Roanoke County's local noise ordinance to construction activities.
Potential impacts to cumulative impacts:
1. There are at least three, if not more similar pipeline projects crossing Western
Virginia under consideration today. They are the Mountain Valley Pipeline, The
Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Appalachian Connector Project.
2. FERC should require that a comprehensive study be made of the cumulative
impact, and purpose and need of these three projects and any similar projects.
Potential impacts to Public safety:
1 . The proposed route of the MVP pipeline, especially alternate 110 is largely
located in portions of Roanoke County that are very remote from Fire and
Rescue resources. While there are small outlying fire stations that may have
reasonable response times to the pipeline, the bulk of the County's response
resources are 30 — 45 minutes are farther from much of the proposed alignment.
2. Additional training and equipment along with associated ongoing funding will
likely be required to prepare to respond to potential accidents and emergencies
associated with the pipeline project.
3. We recommend that the applicant study potential Fire and Rescue impacts and
provide required resources to mitigate these impacts.
4. Police resources are likely to be impacted during construction due to the
presence of large numbers of temporary workers many of whom, according to
MVP's filings, will reside in RVs or other temporary housing.
5. At the end of its useful or economic life, what is the plan for removal of the
pipeline? A 42' pipe simply left in situ to rust will eventually create a sunken area
June 9, 2015 297
4-5 feet deep where the pipe once existed. This is of particular concern in areas
where blasting into bedrock was used as an installation method. This would
present both public safety and water quality issues.
6. Several areas of the proposed pipeline are in flood plain areas. How will the
pipeline be protected from fast moving mountain streams and rivers? How is
related erosion controlled? What impact will construction have on existing water
quality and quantity issues?
Potential impacts to land use, recreation, and visual resources:
1 . The original route crosses Camp Roanoke which is a 700 acre outdoor
experience camp operated by Roanoke County. This camp has been in
operation since 1925 and elements of the camp may also qualify as historic
resources. Recent MVP filings to FERC incorrectly state that the route does not
pass through the camp. To the contrary the originally proposed alignment is a
few feet away from the manager's cabin. According to MVP, the icon on a
Google Earth map was used as the location of the camp which is at the location
of the entrance road. This overlooks the fact that the camp is a 700 acre site
with numerous features. The offset shown for the alternate alignment 135 is
incorrect for the same reason.
2. Alternate 110 directly impacts multiple parcels of the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority which owns and operates the regional landfill at this location off of
Bradshaw Road. Not only does alternate 110 cross future expansion area for the
landfill, it also crosses the rail yard that is up to 5 tracks in width where trash
trains to / from downtown Roanoke are assembled and disassembled.
3. The proposed crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway is located in an area with
prime, historical, farmland.
Both the pipeline route itself, and its associated above ground facilities and access
roadways will be built on land that within Roanoke County is largely covered by dense
forest. Permanent removal of these trees will create visual scars that in many cases are
visible for many miles. A comprehensive analysis of the impact of this tree removal
should be made with particular emphasis on the Blue Ridge Parkway.
2. Resolution approving the execution of a contract among the
Counties of Franklin, Henry and Roanoke and the Cities of
Martinsville and Roanoke and The Interstate 73 Coalition, LLC for
pursuit of construction of Interstate 73 in the Commonwealth of
Virginia (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator)
Mr. Gates outlined the resolution to pursue funding for Interstate 73.
Supervisor Moore indicated that she hoped the impact to the Clearbrook area will be
looked at. Chairman Peters commented that he is in support.
298 June 9, 2015
RESOLUTION 060915-2 APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A
CONTRACT AMONG THE COUNTIES OF FRANKLIN, HENRY
AND ROANOKE AND THE CITIES OF MARTINSVILLE AND
ROANOKE AND THE INTERSTATE 73 COALITION, LLC FOR
PURSUIT OF CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE 73 IN THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, on October 12, 1993, November 22, 1994, and March 24, 1998, the
Board adopted resolutions in support of the construction of the proposed Interstate 73
(1-73) north -south interstate connecting Detroit, Michigan to Charleston, South Carolina
through the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 1998, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
adopted Resolution 090898-1 which reaffirmed its support of the Interstate 581 (1-581)
and Route 220 South corridor for the proposed 1-73- and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2000, the B�ard adopted Resolution 120500-2,
which reaffirmed and amended Resolution 090898-1 supporting the 1-581 and Route
220 South corridor for 1-73 through the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has previously selected
alternative corridors, which generally follow Route 220, the proposed "Smart Highway,"
and Route 460 to the West Virginia state line west of Narrows as the location for the
proposed 1-73 north -south interstate connecting Detroit, Michigan to Charleston, South
Carolina- and
�;HEREAS, 1-73 would link the nation's regions and support economic growth
while also addressing safety concerns in south-western Virginia while providing an
economic advantage to the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Cities of Martinsville and Roanoke and Counties of Franklin,
Henry and Roanoke have joined together to hire a consultant to assist them in
advocating for Federal and State legislation and funding to construct 1-73.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 . That the contract among the Counties of Franklin, Henry and Roanoke
and the Cities of Martinsville and Roanoke and The Interstate 73 Coalition, LLC for
pursuit of construction of Interstate 73 in the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and hereby
is, approved for execution- and
2. That the County Administrator or his designee is hereby authorized to
execute this contract on behalf of Roanoke County, upon such form as approved by the
County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
June 9, 2015 299
Chairman Peters apologized that he had forgotten to allow the citizens to
speak on the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The following citizens spoke.
Susan Worrell thanked Supervisor Church for his earlier comments- she
lives in the Catawba Magisterial District. She is a resident of the beautiful Cat�wba
Valley that Roanoke and Montgomery Counties share is being coveted by these
Mountain Valley marauders as a chosen place for their 31,800 horse power compressor
station. Her dad served our County in the United Stated Air Force and she wished he
was here with us to tell the Board his thoughts on this extremely dangerous game of
Russian Roulette that these Mountain Valley Pipeline are putting upon us. This is their
first attempt ever of a construction of a pipeline and they have chosen one of this
magnitude. They seem quite adept however in the fabrication of their pipeline. Our
Catawba Valley they would forever steal from us. It is home to Spring Hollow Reservoir.
Are they even aware there is an existing pipeline underneath the reservoir that is
operated with no issues whatsoever? What will all the blasting and construction do to
that pipeline? Do they even know that it is there? To her, this recklessness is akin to
domestic terrorism. The unclenching thirst of this Mountain Valley "fracking" Pipeline
and thieving licensed limited corporation has for the ruination of the Valley's drinking
water. If her dad were here today, a former Air Force man, he would tell you that no
matter what your pipeline is carrying, i.e. oil gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, what have
you, concealment of the location of the pipelines is a key component to the safety of our
troops abroad and is essential to the safety of our citizens at home. This Mountain
Valley Pipeline seems to have a different kind of concealment on their agenda. There is
no American need for this gas. This is only being proposed for corporate greed. This
Mountain Valley "fracking" pipeline is a forty-two (42") high-pressure line purely for
transmission. It will be destruction and nothing else. There will be a three hundred
(300) mile path clear-cut of all overheard canopy for the one, two, three, four
compressor stations and a clear-cut path one hundred and fifty (150) feet wide. This
will be clearly visible from the Valley floor, from the air and it will be clearly visible from
space and it will open us up and subject us to terrorism for something that want to take
overseas. Finally, the MVP would maintain a seventy (70) foot wide permanent
easement on our properties with twenty-four seven (24/7) access. They will be able to
trespass on the property of the rightful owners of the land at any time they want. They
can bush hog, spray their herbicide that they claim will not drift in the air and will
contaminate our groundwater and they can come anytime they want to run some type of
text and to monitor their pipeline on your property. They may use helicopters and
unmanned drones, if they get FAA approval. She stated she thinks this is domestic
terrorism.
Randy Ughetta stated he would like to ask the Board to due diligence and
look at this project both on the economic impact, how it matched to your economic
development plans and whether or not it is an affordable process to interconnect to this
particular pipeline. What value does it bring for the economic development of the area?
300 June 9, 2015
The second request to have an independent assessment of what the impact is for the
tax base and be able to articulate that in an independent way so that we understand
where we are. There will be devaluation in property. Does that offset what happens for
the pipeline revenues? Will we be able to sustain that on a long-term basis versus the
amount of time that the pipeline is being used? He would ask the Board to consider
funding an independent assessment to guide the Board as it goes through the process.
Jim Woltz stated that although he is a member of the Advisory Committee,
he would like to share a couple of things. First, it was a good idea. He stated he thinks
it gave them an opportunity to dig deeper into a lot of the facts. So, he is going to
present just a few things that will help the Board as they go through and analyze the
pro's and the con's for this and just share some observations about this. There has
been a lot of information about the pipeline from the people about how great it is going
to be. They talk about the job creations. He stated he thinks it is important that the
Board understand they are boasting thousands of jobs, however, if you read deeper into
their paperwork, they are saying that ninety percent (90%) are going to come from other
parts of the County. We will end up with five or ten permanent jobs here and that is
based on their own information. The economic boost is another political hot button. If
you look a little deeper into that, it is a $500,000 connect fee, a $5 to $8 million transfer
costs to make a transfer station. The person using it will use 2000 cubic feet per day
and the pipeline will cost about $1 million a mile to move it to a place of use. Those are
a few facts. The true need is something that we need to understand how they calculate.
He was talking to Ruth Ellen Kuhnel earlier about asking how they calculate the true
need for this gas. There are three more speakers he understands that are coming right
behind him, so this might be your first dance, but you might have a couple more coming.
We hope it is not just a measure to get it to the coast and he agrees that eminent
domain is a somewhat of a concern. Here we have a private company that is making
their application through FERC, but they are able to utilize FERC's eminent domain and
they are using that to gain access for the pipeline. It is okay if it is domestic, but if just
to ship it overseas, he thinks it is wrong to use eminent domain to move their product to
the coast to sell it. He thinks right now they use flow meters, but there is some new
technology coming. Another real important concern is the water quality; we have
touched on it in certain statements that have been made about topography, etc. He
stated he has lived forty-one years on Bent Mountain, He has about forty springs that
flow off of his property. It is the watershed that goes to Franklin County, Roanoke
County, Roanoke Valley, Smith Mountain Lake and well beyond. The blast could
damage that and that is the big concern. It is not whether it comes through here, it is
where it goes and if there is a better route to take that would protect those type of
things. If you want to get a good idea of that carve -out looks like, the next time you are
going from Roanoke to Christiansburg, look at the interstate width and that is not as
wide as the corridor is going to be. The compression station has the same horse power
as a 767 jet which has a 60,000 horse power engine. Stand behind one of those. Not
to mention, the preservation of the environmental impact it might make. He was part of
June 9, 2015 301
about 6,000 acres worth of conservation easement that have been placed on Bent
Mountain and that area. The pipeline and the alternate go through more than 1,000
acres that he gifted, personally. Those are just some thoughts that might help you
through the process.
Betty Kelly stated she was back again, but did not bring her replica of the
pipeline today. She stated she is from the Catawba Magisterial District and just wants
to list several reasons to resist the MVP and thanked the Board for their efforts in this.
This is a partial list. It will threaten our wells, streams, rivers, wetlands, soils and
forests. While under construction, possible blasting could affect our wells and
foundations. It will provide few permanent jobs. It will decrease property values,
probably as much as she has read about thirty percent (30%). Neighbors of properties
where the pipeline is constructed get no compensation or have much say in this
process. She spoke with a landowner in Blacksburg that owns two hundred acres and
most any of the routes suggested will now come in the middle of their land, but in order
to get to their land, they have to use their neighbors' right-of-way. So a lot of problems
right there. This will probably create 1,100 to 1,200 foot areas of total destruction. Fire
and chemical leaks present dangers to our community. The light and noise will be
twenty-four seven (24/7) from compressor stations and dangerous cancerous chemicals
will be emitted into the air. People with COPD and asthma cannot live near it like her
granddaughter or sister-in-law will not be able to visit because of all of the chemicals in
the air. It is going to damage our local water, bridges and roads. It will delay people
going to work. Maybe it will perk people up. It is going to destroy habitats and changes
in land use after construction. A pipeline of this magnitude has never been done by
EQT. She has researched it and over the last five years, they have had eighty
environmental citations in Pennsylvania alone for the fracking corporation, which is the
beginning process. Do we want a company like this come to our pristine County, she
does not think so. She stated no local household access is allowed by the interstate
pipelines, she has no knowledge of any local contracts for use of this and it sounds
super expensive and not like something we want to tie into. Someone talked about the
fire companies, our rural fire company could not handle a leak. It burns out, but what
about all the homes and people in the area, which would be herself and her neighbors.
Let's talk about the reasons to endorse the Mountain Valley Pipeline. (silence)
Michael Mayo stated he is behind the eight -ball because everybody else
has talked about what he wanted to talk about. He will be brief. He advised what he
would like to start off with something that he is very proud of. He is a proud member of
the Rotary Club in Salem, Virginia and thinks the four-way test that we go by speaks
volumes to what we are talking about today and would like to read the test to the Board.
This is a four-way test by Rotary International about the things we think, say or do.
"First, is it the truth? Second, is it fair to all concerned? Third, will it build better
friendships? Fourth, will it be beneficial to all concerned." The reason he referenced
this is because he would like to talk about the economics behind this project and what
has been printed so far. There have been several articles written and one that he is
302 June 9, 2015
offering is Anderson, as you well know, his editorial. There was the CEO of Roanoke
Gas as covered by Aaron Martin of WSILS presented to the Kiwanis Club, the recent
Chamber of Commerce announcement. There are a couple of common threads with
these articles. One, they are all for and tout the benefits of a pipeline. Another is that
there are no resources given as to where they obtained their information for the
economic benefit, tax benefit, jobs, etc. What he did was to actually reach out to Aaron
Martin of WSILS and he was nice enough to take his call and asked him if he knew the
resources behind Mr. D'Orazio's information that he presented to the Kiwanis Club. He
advised that he did not and there were no resources given in his presentation. With that
being said, he decided to do a little research on his own. He looked at some things on
the internet and found an article from the Monroe County newspaper of record, the
Mountain Messenger. In that article, there is an article called "EQT, Waging a War of
Misinformation." Basically it says in a nutshell that EQT and this particular project, MVP
is going to bring in $1.7 million annually to Monroe County in tax revenue. When their
County Tax Assessor looked into, it appears that it is only the pipe that can be taxed
and they are looking at $8,000 to $9,000 annually at best and that would depreciate
over a thirty-year period. With that being said, he also had a conversation with Shawn
Posey of MVP, he is the Senior Project Manager. He openly admitted they would hire a
company to do this work from out of town that was experienced, for safety reasons.
There would be very little local jobs and the local asphalt companies would get some
jobs here, but there would be few local jobs. So, he would ask that the Board, like
Randy said earlier, please do not take the easy way out and go by what the pipeline
company says and if you do it, we will live it, but at least you can sleep at night knowing
that you did the research that you should have done for the citizens of Roanoke County.
Chairman Peters commented that is why we are where we are because
we are not getting any answers.
3. Resolution encouraging the political parties to choose an
alternative method for selecting candidates for public office other
than a primary election; waiving Roanoke County fees for use of
public facilities for such alternative method (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the resolution, which is at the request of Supervisor
McNamara.
Supervisor McNamara commented this was a commonsense resolution.
He stated he feels firehouse primaries are efficient and cost effective. He advised it
does not make sense that we charge an organization of volunteers who are conducting
a process that saves the taxpayer so much money; totally counterintuitive. He added it
was a good resolution that makes sense.
Supervisor Peters stated he understands from a local level, but how does
it affect the election today. Supervisor McNamara stated he used as an example.
June 9, 2015 303
Supervisor Bedrosian asked for clarification, but could today's election
bypassed the primary. Mr. Mahoney responded in the negative stating there are
situations that the candidate can request. Any Statewide office would not be effected,
only local.
Supervisor Church asked if there was a downside. Mr. Mahoney
responded that he does not anticipate a downside; the only downside would be the lack
of fees generated by the routine rental.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated staff is not saying they cannot, but this is an
incentive to choose an alternative.
RESOLUTION 060915-3 ENCOURAGING THE POLITICAL
PARTIES TO CHOOSE AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR
SELECTING CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE OTHER THAN
A PRIMARY ELECTION; WAIVING COUNTY FEES FOR USE OF
PUBLIC FACILITIES FOR SUCH ALTERNATIVE METHOD
WHEREAS, primary elections impose significant local costs and expenses upon
the County's taxpayers since Section 24.2-518 of the Code of Virginia requires the
Treasurer of the County in which primary elections are held to pay the costs of primary
elections- and
W�EREAS, on May 12, 2015, the Board of Supervisors was required to transfer
funds in the amount of $18,910 to pay for the Republican primary for the 17 th House
District- and
��HEREAS, primary elections for local candidates from Democrat and
Republican political parties are sparsely attended; and
WHEREAS, encouraging the political parties to avoid holding primary elections
would save public funds; and
WHEREAS, Section 24.2-509 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the duly
constituted authorities of the state political party shall have the right to determine the
method by which a party nomination for an elected office shall be made.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 . That Roanoke County would waive the fees that are imposed upon the
political parties for the use of public facilities if all of the political parties agree to select
their candidates through methods other than a local primary election. In addition, no
State or Federal primary election would be held for this fee waiver to be applicable.
2. That Roanoke County would reimburse the local political parties for fees
imposed upon the political parties for the use of Roanoke County public school facilities
if all of the political parties agree to select their candidates through methods other than
a local primary election. In addition, no State or Federal primary election would be held
for this fee reimbursement to be applicable. This reimbursement shall be at the same
facility rental charge applied uniformly to other rentals.
304 June 9, 2015
3. That the Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors shall send a certified
copy of this resolution to the Chairman of the Roanoke County Democrat and
Republican parties.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section
3.07 of the Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3
of the Code of Virginia (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the first reading of this ordinance
Supervisor Bedrosian stated this is definitely something that sticks in his
craw that the Board is voting for its own salary increase. Even though this is the first
reading, he thinks it needs to be put out there that he thinks this is an appropriate. We
need to find another way to do this. We have talked about how to do voting so we can
save money and thinks it's a great idea. When we talk about salary increases, he asked
Mr. Mahoney, we discussed at times how to do something different and one of the
thoughts was to do a referendum. Let the voters decide, they are our bosses. We keep
saying the voters are our bosses and then we give ourselves an increase in salary. He
just does not understand. It is something that really gives us a bad name and it
shouldn't. There's nothing wrong with having a salary increase if it is appropriate, but
thinks there is something terribly wrong for the individuals that are going to get the
salary increase to do it themselves. He is just going to go back. He asked for some
research how many times it has been increased? Basically in the last fourteen (14)
years, if we do it this year, the Board will have raised it ten (10) times. This is totally
inappropriate. He stated that over those years, his calculations are that we raised it
$4,500, from what it was back in 2002. He further added that the Board needs to find
another way to do this. Let someone else, our bosses, give the Board a raise if they
think it is deserved.
Supervisor Church stated he thinks all of the Board are uncomfortable. He
added that he does not understand what the outcome would be to give ourselves a
raise. In his notes, he shows it would give him $16.82, gross, a paycheck and $12.60
net. He can do without it and would rather not be in this situation.
Supervisor McNamara stated Supervisor Church made a very good point-,
he would rather not be in this position of voting for our own raise and everyone on the
June 9, 2015 305
Board is uncomfortable with that and he would say that is a very accurate statement.
He does not personally view it as raising the rate for us; it does increase our pay by two
point five percent (2 1/2%). We were hired to do a job and we knew what it cost. He
hears the argument, but does not feel the argument is valid. There is change in price
levels in the world. So, we were hired to do a job at a certain dollar amount that
equated to dollar amount and that dollar amount changes with inflation, which is
reflected in our employees pay and it seems logical to change the Board of Supervisors
at those increments as well. But, the point he would make is that he does not see us
making that decision for ourselves, we are making this decision for the citizens of
Roanoke County. He is sure there are some out there saying that he is raising his pay
and somehow it is for them. If the Board does not raise our pay this time, it will not
make any difference probably as Supervisor Church alluded to in our quality of life as
individual Board members. It will not change anything he does, nothing. We don't need
to give ourselves a raise for next year and then it might be another $12 to $17, but it
won't make any difference to what we do. But, over time it will make a difference and
that difference is going to impact our citizens negatively because he thinks the General
Assembly is a good example. Some may argue that the General Assembly is perfect
and some may argue that it is not perfect, however, he will argue that the General
Assembly has not increased their pay in thirty (30) years and they are not going to
increase it this year and they are probably not going to increase it next year. He may be
wrong with the number of years, but it has been a long, long time. What was $20,000
twenty to thirty years ago is a third of what is was then and will be half of that in ten or
fifteen years. So, you are going to get to a position where whether we like it or not, like
McClellan who wrote a book on human motivation. Humans are motivated by power,
prestige or money or some combination thereof, accept for the Board who are motivated
by taking care of our citizens and doing the right thing and being good people, but the
people after us may follow McClellan. Once you take all the money away from those
positions, you are left with power and prestige and he wants Board members to make
money. He wants the General Assembly to make quite a bit more money than they
make. They are very excellent people committed to the common good, but you almost
have to be a lawyer so you have partners taking care of you and from a pure financial
standpoint, you are one hundred percent (100%) motivated by power and prestige the
only way it makes any sense from a financial perspective is you are getting something
on the backside, whether it is fifteen to twenty (15 to 20) years of VRS that you can now
turn into a full-time job, a judgeship or some other activity that makes sense. If we don't
approve this increase this year, we won't approve it next year and we will start
ourselves down the path and thinks it is a very bad path. He is not voting for this for
himself, but for the citizens of Roanoke County.
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to echo Mr. McNamara's
comments. She has read in the paper on those officials voting to give themselves a
thirty to fifty percent (30 to 40%) raise because they have not done it in small
percentages year after year or every two years. She looks into the future and looks for
306 June 9, 2015
a viable candidate for Roanoke County to work for our citizens and at a local pay
increase slowly rather than wait until we have to increase something really large later on
just to get viable candidates to represent our citizens.
Supervisor McNamara's motion to approve the first reading and to
establish the second reading and public hearing for June 23, 2015, was approved by
the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
2. Ordinance to approve Amendment No. 1 to an
intergovernmental agreement for the Workforce Investment
Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Charter Agreement
(Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Jake Gilmer, Director
of Partnerships and Development, Roanoke Valley -Allegheny
Regional Commission)
Mr. Gates gave a brief overview and introduced Mr. Gilmer who advised
he is also Acting Director of the Workforce Development Board. He explained the chief
local elected officials is a group, which designates City and County managers to serve
on. Their role is to guide them and provide oversight of the workforce investments we
are making in the region. The Workforce Development Board has over $1 million of
federal funding to provide workforce training services in our region.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked for clarification what does $1 million coming
into this area for workforce development mean. Mr. Gilmer advised that as part of the
Opportunity Act, Congress designates dollars to go to the States. It is flow-through
dollars that comes through a State agency. The Governor of each state is designated
as the workforce Chairman for that state for those funds.
Supervisor McNamara asked where does the funding come from with Mr.
Gilmer advising it comes from the Department of Labor (federal government).
Supervisor McNamara encourages everyone to be very diligent in monitoring what we
are pushing so that we can maximize the benefit.
Supervisor Bedrosian's motion to approve the first reading and to
establish the second reading and public hearing for June 23, 2015, was approved by
the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
3. Ordinance authorizing the vacation of an existing twelve foot
(12') public utility easement located along the side property line
on the property of James Barry Echols (lot 29) and Richard G.
June 9, 2015 307
and Shelia B. Huffman (lot 30), block 11, section 3 of Beverly
Heights North (plat book 8, page 16) tax map numbers 044.03-
03-41.00-0000 and 044.03-03-42.00-0000), Catawba Magisterial
District (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development)
Mr. Moneir outlined the ordinance advising it was a vacation of a utility
easement. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Church's motion to approve the first reading and to establish
the second reading and public hearing for June 23, 2015, was approved by the following
vote -
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia providing for the Economic Development Authority of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia to issue Lease Revenue Refunding
Bonds to refund outstanding Lease Revenue Bonds (Public
Facility Projects), Series 2008 (Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
Ms. Owens advised there were no changes from the first reading. She
further advised she would update the Board with a report upon finalization.
ORDINANCE 060915-4 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PROVIDING FOR THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TO ISSUE LEASE REVENUE
REFUNDING BONDS TO REFUND OUTSTANDING LEASE
REVENUE BONDS (PUBLIC FACILITY PROJECTS), SERIES
2008
The Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the
"County") has determined that it is advisable (i) to refund all or a portion of the
Economic Development Authority of the County of Roanoke, Virginia's $58,595,000
Lease Revenue Bonds (Public Facility Projects), Series 2008, issued on March 27,
2008 (the "Series 2008 Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain facilities for the
County consisting of the acquisition, construction, furnishing and equipping of various
capital projects including a library, a recreation center, a fire -station, a fleet maintenance
facility and radio equipment and (ii) to obtain financing to refund all or a portion of the
308 June 9, 2015
Series 2008 Bonds through lease revenue refunding bonds (the "Bonds") to be issued
by the Economic Development Authority of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the
"Authority"). The Bonds will be payable solely from the revenues derived from the
Financing Lease dated as of March 1, 2008 (the "Financing Lease"), as amended by
the First Amendment to Financing Lease, between the Authority to the County (the
"Amendment to Financing Lease") pursuant to which the County will agree to make
rental payments, subject to annual appropriation, sufficient to pay the principal of and
interest on the outstanding Series 2008 Bonds and the Bonds.
The Bonds will be issued pursuant to the following documents- (i) a First
Supplemental Indenture of Trust between the Authority and U.S. Bank National
Association, as successor trustee (the "Trustee"), with the form of the Bonds attached
thereto, supplementing an Indenture of Trust dated as of March 1, 2008 between the
Authority and the Trustee- (ii) the First Amendment to Lease between the County and
the Authority amending & Lease dated as of March 1, 2008, between the County and
the Authority- (iii) the Amendment to Financing Lease- (iv) a Modification Agreement
among the A�thority, the Trustee and certain substitute �Ieed of trust trustees amending
(1) the Leasehold Deed of Trust and Security Agreement dated as of March 1, 2008,
between the Authority and certain deed of trust trustees and (2) the Assignment of
Rents and Leases dated as of March 1, 2008, between the Authority and the Trustee,
both securing the Series 2008 Bonds; (v) a Preliminary Official Statement (the
"Preliminary Official Statement") and an Official Statement (the "Official Statement")
with respect to the issuance and sale of the Bonds; (vi) a Bond Purchase Agreement
(the "Bond Purchase Agreement"), among the County, the Authority and an
underwriter or a group of underwriters selected by the County as described below; and
(vii) an Escrow Agreement between the Authority, the County and the Trustee, as
escrow agent. All of the documents listed above, except the Bonds, the Preliminary
Official Statement and the Official Statement are referred to in this Ordinance as the
"Basic Documents."
The first reading of this ordinance was held on May 26, 2015 and the second
reading of this ordinance was held on June 9, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA -
1 . Issuance of Bonds. The County requests the Authority to issue its Bonds
in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $45,000,000 in one or more series at
one time or from time to time as may be requested by the County's Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator or the Director of Finance (each, an
"Authorized Representative") for the purpose of refunding all or a portion of the Series
2008 Bonds and financing costs of issuing the Bonds. The principal of, premium, if any,
and interest on the Bonds shall be paid from revenues derived from payments made by
the County pursuant to the Financing Lease, as amended by the Amendment to
Financing Lease.
June 9, 2015 309
2. Authorization of Basic Documents. The execution and delivery of and the
performance by the County of its obligations under the Basic Documents to which the
County is a party are authorized. The Basic Documents to which the County is a party
shall be in such forms and contain such provisions as the County Administrator or the
Director of Finance, or his or her designee, shall approve, such approval to be
evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Basic Documents to which
the County is a party.
3. Execution of Basic Documents. The Authorized Representatives, or any
of them, are authorized to execute on behalf of the County the Basic Documents to
which the County is a party, and, if required, the County Administrator and the Clerk of
the County Board are authorized and directed to affix or to cause to be affixed the seal
of the County to the Basic Documents and to attest such seal. Such officers or their
designees are authorized to execute and deliver on behalf of the County such
instruments, documents or certificates, and to do and perform such things and acts, as
they shall deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the transactions authorized by
this Ordinance or contemplated by the Basic Documents; and all of the foregoing,
previously done or performed by such officers or agents of the County, are in all
respects approved, ratified and confirmed.
4. Sale of Bonds. The Authorized Representatives are hereby authorized
and directed to (i) select an underwriter or group of underwriters to underwrite (the
"Underwriter") the sale of the Bonds, (ii) consent to the terms of the sale of the Bonds
by the Authority to the Underwriter and (iii) execute and deliver the Bond Purchase
Agreement, provided that (1) the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not
exceed the amount set forth in paragraph 1, (2) the refunding achieves an aggregate
net present value debt service savings of not less than 3% of the refunded principal
amount, (3) the sale price of the Bonds to the Underwriter shall not be less than 98% of
the aggregate principal amount thereof (not taking into account any original issue
discount) and (4) the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than the final fiscal
year in which the Refunded Bonds (as hereinafter defined ) mature. The approval of
such Authorized Representatives shall be evidenced conclusively by the executive and
delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement.
5. Refunded Bonds. The Authorized Representatives are hereby authorized
and directed to select the Series 2008 Bonds to be refunded (the "Refunded Bonds")
and to cause the refunding of the Refunded Bonds pursuant to the terms of the Series
2008 Bonds and the documents securing the Series 2008 Bonds.
6. Disclosure Documents. The Authorized Representatives and such other
officers and agents either Authorized Representative may designate are hereby
authorized and directed to prepare, execute, if required, and deliver an appropriate
Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement or such other offering or disclosure
documents as may be necessary to expedite the sale of the Bonds. The Preliminary
Official Statement, Official Statement or other documents shall be published in such
publications and distributed in such manner, including by electronic distribution, and at
310 June 9, 2015
such times as the Authorized Representatives shall determine. The Authorized
Representatives and such other officer or agent either Authorized Representative may
designate, are hereby authorized to deem the Preliminary Official Statement "final" for
purposes of Securities Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12.
7. Costs and Expenses. All costs and expenses in connection with the
undertaking of the refinancing of the County's obligations under the Financing Lease,
the refunding of the Refunded Bonds and the issuance of the Bonds, including the
Authority's fees and expenses and the fees and expenses of bond counsel and counsel
for the Authority, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds, or other legally available
funds of the County. If for any reason the Bonds are not issued, it is understood that all
such expenses shall be paid by the County from its legally available funds and that the
Authority shall have no responsibility therefor.
8. Nature of Obligations. Nothing in this Ordinance, the Bonds or the Basic
Documents shall constitute a debt of the County and the Authority shall not be obligated
to make any payments under the Bonds or the Basic Documents except from payments
made by or on behalf of the County under the Financing Lease, as amended by the
Amendment to Financing Lease. The County Administrator is directed to submit for
each fiscal year a request to the Board of Supervisors for an appropriation to the
Authority for an amount equal to the rental payments coming due under the Financing
Lease, as amended by the Amendment to Financing Lease for the next fiscal year. The
County's obligations to make payments to the Authority pursuant to this Ordinance shall
be subject to and dependent upon annual appropriations being made from time to time
by the Board of Supervisors for such purpose. Nothing in this Ordinance, the Bonds,
the Financing Lease or the Amendment to Financing Lease shall constitute a pledge of
the full faith and credit of the County.
9. Tax Covenants. The Authorized Representatives are hereby authorized
and directed to execute and deliver simultaneously with the issuance of any series of
Bonds the interest on which is intended to be excludable from gross income for federal
income tax purposes a tax certificate or agreement, or both (collectively, the "Tax
Agreement") setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the
Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to comply with the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Tax Code"),
including the provisions of Section 148 of the Tax Code and applicable regulations
relating to "arbitrage bonds." The proceeds from the issuance and sale of any such
series of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in the Tax Agreement
and that the County will comply with the other covenants and representations contained
in it.
10. Further Actions. (a) The Authorized Representatives and such other
officers and agents either Authorized Representative may designate are hereby
authorized and directed to take further action as each deems necessary or appropriate
regarding the issuance, credit enhancement and sale of the Bonds and the refunding of
the Refunded Bonds, including, without limitation, (i) purchasing of one or more credit
June 9, 2015 311
enhancements for any series of Bonds if market or other conditions so warrant, (ii)
entering into supply arrangements relating to the investment of the proceeds of any
series of Bonds, (iii) applying for CUSIP identification numbers and the execution and
delivery of replacement bonds in connection with any partial refunding of the Series
2008 Bonds, and (iv) selecting a verification agent and escrow agent in connection with
any series of Bonds.
(b) All actions taken by officers and agents of the County in connection with the
issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed. The officers and
agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to take such further actions as
each deems necessary regarding the issuance and sale of any series of Bonds and all
actions taken by such officers and agents in connection with the issuance and sale of
any series of Bonds are hereby ratified and confirmed.
11. Exercise of Discretion and Authorizations. Any authorization of an officer
of the County under this Ordinance entitles such officer to exercise his or her discretion
in taking action on behalf of the County, unless expressly provided otherwise. For any
authorization of the Authorized Representatives, it shall be sufficient that either
Authorized Representative act in order to bind the County. The authorizations granted
in this Ordinance to the County Administrator, the Director of Finance or the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors, or any combination of the foregoing, may be carried out by any
Acting or Assistant County Administrator (with respect to authorizations granted to the
County Administrator), Acting or Assistant Director of Finance (with respect to
authorizations granted to the Director of Finance) and any Deputy or Assistant Clerk
(with respect to authorizations granted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors), in the
absence of the primary officer.
12. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYES- None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution approving the Secondary Roads System Six -Year
Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2016 through 2021, and the
Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal
year 2016 (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the resolution. Mr. Thompson went through the
projects covered under this improvement Plan.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no citizen to
speak on this matter.
312 June 9, 2015
There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 060915-5 APPROVING THE SECONDARY SIX-
YEAR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2016
THROUGH 2021 AND THE CONSTRUCTION PRIORITY LIST
AND ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
WHEREAS, Sections 33.2-331 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended)
provides the opportunity for Roanoke County to work with the Virginia Department of
Transportation in developing a Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, this Board had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of the
Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement Plan, in accordance with Virginia Department
of Transportation policies and procedures; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing which was duly advertised on the proposed
Secondary Six -Year Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2016-2021 and Construction
Priority List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal year 2016 was held on June 9, 2015, to
receive comments and recommendations on Roanoke County's Secondary Six -Year
Road Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2016-2021 as well as the Construction Priority
List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal year 2016;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does
hereby approve the Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement Plan for Roanoke County
for fiscal years 2016-2021 -7
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does also hereby
approve the Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal year 2016;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be
forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency
Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Roanoke County Secondary Six -
Year Road Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2016-2021 by the Deputy Clerk to the
Board.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
June 9, 2015 313
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 0605015-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows -
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 9,
2015, 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 4 inclusive, as follows -
1 . Approval of minutes — May 12, 2015
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Linda Bolen, Records Technician 11, upon her retirement
after more than thirty-three (33) years of service
3. Request to approve the Fiscal Agent Agreement with the Regional Center for
Animal Control and Protection
4. Confirmation of appointment to the Board of Zoning Appeals (appointed by
District)
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
RESOLUTION 060915-6.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO LINDA BOLEN, RECORDS TECHNICIAN 11, UPON HER
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN THIRTY-THREE (33) YEARS
OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Linda Bolen was employed by Roanoke County on November 23,
1981 and has served as Data Entry Operator, Police Records Clerk, Records
Technician I and Records Technician 11 during her tenure-- and
WHEREAS, Ms. Bolen retired on June 1, 2015, �fter thirty-three (33) years and
six (6) months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Bolen throughout her employment with Roanoke County, has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County; and
314 June 9, 2015
WHEREAS, throughout Ms. Bolen's career with Roanoke County, she was an
active party and witness to the expansion and growth of the Police Department. Ms.
Bolen experienced the transition from Sheriff's Office to Police Department. With the
expansion and progression of the Department, she also experienced the technology
changes throughout the years that greatly affected her duties as a Records Technician.
Ms. Bolen was able to adapt to the changes in technology as well as the increase in the
number of officers. Ms. Bolen was widely respected by her co-workers in the Records
Unit as well as by officers and supervisors of the Department. Ms. Bolen, while
maintaining a high level of professionalism and job knowledge, was always quick witted
and humorous in her interactions. This attitude made her easily approachable for all
Department personnel. Ms. Bolen's personality, attitude, job knowledge and never
ceasing smile will be missed in the Roanoke County Police Department.
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 LINDA BOLEN for more than thirty-three (33) years of capable,
loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County- and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors do�s express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
A -060915-6.b
A -060915-6.c
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara Peters
NAYS- None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Outstanding Debt
At 5-42 p.m. Chairman Peters recessed to the fourth floor for work
sessions.
June 9, 2015 315
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss the Western Virginia Regional Industrial
Facility Authority Site Study Results (Beth Doughty, Executive
Director, Roanoke Regional Partnership)
Beth Doughty provided the Board and staff with a PowerPoint
presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board. This work
session was held from 6-28 p.m. until 7-02 p.m.
2. Work session to discuss Roanoke County's Legislative Program
and preparation for the 2016 session of the Virginia General
Assembly (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney discussed the 2015 Legislative Program and discussed
BPOL, highway funding, Department of Social Services, legal ad requirements,
enforcement concerning weeds, workforce training and that board member salaries was
removed. For 2016, discussion ensued concerning voting machines, highway funding -
revenue sharing, financial disclosure statements, CDA's, the flexibility at local level to
raise taxes and fees (tobacco products), local taxing authority, holding public hearing in
locality not just letter to property owners, body cameras, DEQ not overlooking the
pipeline installation, but will audit localities with regard to stormwater. Mr. Gates noted
a future work session would be held concerning changes that need to be made
regarding stormwater and erosion. Mr. Mahoney indicated he would start discussion
with Eldon James late in June or early July.
Supervisor Moore asked requested the BPOL be changed to a base fee
versus what we currently have as small businesses are suffering.
The work session was held from 7-02 p.m. until 7-34 p.m.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church stated he wanted to say publically to
those at home and the County employees that we have some really great people in
Roanoke County. With the situation with his little buddy and Virginia Tech hospital
giving him thirty (30) days to live and he has received a huge outpouring of support of
the County employees- thank you. He has gotten a lot of phone calls and a lot of cards.
It means a lot when y�u are losing a "family member" that has been given thirty (30)
days. It has been tough since he has never been sick a day in his life. Thank you.
Supervisor Moore thanked Jacob Stritsky for attending the Board meeting
today as he is working on his Eagle Scout recognition. We enjoyed having him.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated we talked about two very important things.
316 June 9, 2015
One was the pipeline issue and that always brings out a lot of people which is great.
The discussions were good today. I'm kind of going back on the track of finding our
concerns and presenting concerns for FERC to answer. Maybe, there are some
resolutions to some of the issues we have out there. He stated he appreciates that.
Sometimes, he looks at this and we always look at the negative on these things and
would assume all over the country, looking at maps of pipelines all over the country, we
do this all over the country because it's one of the most efficient ways to move product,
whether oil or gas or whatever from one location to the other. It is tough when it's in their
area because no one wants it in their area and he understands that too. We have a little
battle there because we don't want it in our area or we don't want it the way they are
looking to do it. He appreciates the discussion. He is on the outside and hesitant to be
in total opposition to it until he learns the facts and learn answers to all the questions he
has, but appreciates the conversation. The other is, the pay raise. He did not get a
chance to mention when the Board was talking about it. He keeps bringing up the fact
that we should not be voting for our own pay raise. All of the answers that he hears on
the Board does not address that question. They talk about how small it is, if we don't do
it the guy thirty (30) years from now when everybody else is making $300,000 is going
to make $15,000 or $17,000. That is not the issue he is bringing up. The issue he is
bringing up is whether we should be voting for our own pay raises. He had thought
when he first came on the Board that we should be doing it as a referendum. Let the
people of Roanoke County vote and let them see that we make $17,000. What is the big
deal? If they think that's too much, they won't give us a raise. If they think we are doing
a good job we deserve it, they will give us a raise. It's not an issue of the money. It is the
issue of should "we"? Unless you are the owner of a company, you are not going to be
giving yourself a raise. So, that means we are saying we own Roanoke County
because we will dictate that we should get a raise and he thinks that is really wrong and
really gives a bad impression to people. Again, it is not the fact that we shouldn't get a
raise, it is who should be doing it. He is stating we should get a system in place, a
referendum would be a good one, and let the people decide to give us a raise, which
would be great.
Chairman Peters thanked Doug Blount, who is not with us today but he
wanted to thank him on his efforts of the school surplus that we've had such an issue
with the latter part of last year. It is moving very nicely and that building is being cleared
out at a rapid pace. He has been very pleased to see that. Also, he wants to mention
that Explore Park is in the news a lot. He has had a lot of people approach him and tell
him what a great area that is and he is looking forward to seeing it take shape over the
next few years. If you're one of the people waiting for Chick-fil-A on Rt. 460, it's coming
on June 25. Last week, Roanoke County graduated their class of 2015, he wants to
congratulate all the students who graduated. Now they are either heading to the real
world or to school, or they are at the beach right now. We hope they all get home safely.
The last thing he wants to talk about, my wife is a realtor and sometimes it's fun to look
over her shoulder because without doing that he would not learn half of the stuff. He
June 9, 2015 317
stated he would like to comment on some things he copied off of her computer. First, he
was amazed the awards that Roanoke is getting. The first was the top market for
starting a business. Roanoke was ranked among top markets for starting a new
business. It was ranked 22nd out of 183 metro markets considered. Roanoke was the
top market in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Roanoke was also named top 10 US
mountain biking destinations. The Roanoke region was 3rd on the list of mountain
weekend getaways. Roanoke was named top job market in Virginia. They ranked 7th in
the recent ranking of 100 largest job markets in the southern US. Three other cities
appeared in the top 20; Richmond was number fourteen, Danville was 17th. They
analyzed the hiring demand trends and determined the cities had emerged as leaders in
terms of hiring demand in the first quarter of 2015. We also ranked best vacation towns
to live in year-round. The only other southern town was Greenville, South Carolina. The
last one was we were in the top 10 of the affordable retirement areas. The selections
came from Kiplinger. They placed emphasis on regional price tags for two of the
biggest retirement budget busters, health care and housing. They also looked at state's
tax burden on retirees. He brings that up because we spend so much time talking about
taxes and burdens and we spend very little time talking about this is a great place to
live. He thought it was very interesting that other people are noticing. We are getting
good recognition. His last comment is again to our employees and the County. He
commended them for doing a wonderful job for us. Without you, we would not go far.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
borah C. a k P. Jas 4Peters
1tv C
Deputy Clerk t e Board Chairman
�Vmlrol
NALO-1
June 9, 2015
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY