Loading...
2/27/2018 - Regular February 28, 2018 85 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February 2018. 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 of. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hooker called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. Chairman Hooker then read the attached prepared remarks: Statement on Behalf of the Board of Supervisors Concerning Roanoke County School Safety The tragedy that unfolded in Parkland, Florida on February 14th, has been on our minds. Every parent, every citizen, every school administrator, every community leader feels the loss of innocent young lives. We seek to make sense of this needless loss of life. We also seek to take those actions that will ensure, as best we can, that no such thing happens again. In our community, there has been much talk about how we should work together to protect our children. There has also been much talk about those actions that should be taken to further secure our schools. As members of the Board of Supervisors we hear this discourse and we applaud the passion of those who not just ask, but demand a safe environment for our kids. The trained and skilled members of the County Police, Fire, and Emergency Communication Departments, who bear responsibility for the protection of all in our community, are, and shall remain, at the forefront of all efforts to safeguard our children. Roanoke County’s Public Safety staff pursue this goal by working closely with school administrators to ensure security plans and procedures are routinely practiced, and meet regularly to review them. Public Safety staff work with teachers, students, parents, and other members of our community to teach valuable lessons in school safety, February 28, 2018 86 respond quickly and effectively to reported concerns, engage with the community to identify collaborative solutions to complex challenges, and provide many other services during the course of their duties. This Board is proud of the work Roanoke County first responders do every day, and we are confident in their ability to keep our schools safe. As we know from Public Safety experts here and elsewhere, we cannot mitigate every risk we face by simply implementing a few new security procedures. The circumstances that allow for tragedies such as in Parkland, Newtown or Columbine are complex and multifaceted. Our response must be comprehensive and thoughtful. Our objective should not simply be to stop someone in the act of doing harm; rather, we must improve our ability to see the warning signs while simultaneously putting in place effective deterrent strategies. To do so will require not only our Public Safety experts, but our mental health professionals, our social workers, and every citizen of our community. In the coming days and weeks, as our opportunities to improve the safety of our students is discussed and clarified, the Board of Supervisors will work in partnership with the School Board as we seek our shared objectives. We will commit our experts, our time and the resources necessary to meeting the obligation we have to our children, to keep them safe. We ask that our citizens likewise commit to helping to secure our schools by communicating with a Police Officer, or a teacher, or even a County Board member should you have a specific concern. We will address school and student safety in the same manner as we address all of our most pressing challenges: with openness, diligence, and effective collaboration. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Martha B. Hooker, Supervisors George G. Assaid, Phil C. North, Joseph P. McNamara and P. Jason Peters MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Daniel R. O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer; Madeline Sefcik, Deputy Clerk to the Board and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the progress of the I-73 Corridor (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; John T. Stirrup, Alcalde & Fay) February 28, 2018 87 Briefing was given. Mr. Stirrup provided the Board members with a presentation; a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor McNamara asked who was working on this in Richmond, with Mr. Stirrup responding he and his partner Rob Catron. There was no further discussion. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to approve renewal of the Interstate Coalition contract for pursuit of construction of Interstate 73 in the Commonwealth of Virginia (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator) A-022718-1 Supervisor McNamara stated two years ago when this came up he supported this contract given the thought process if we don’t have someone “banging on the doors” up in Washington, will we be competitively disadvantaged. A year into the contact when it came up for renewal time and he surveyed a powerful Congressman from this area with whether it was a good use of our funds. He surveyed his office, not the actual Congressman. The person that he spoke with did not think it was a good use of funds. Then he went to the General Assembly and talked to people he knew on what was being done. The message that he was receiving back was primarily trying to lobby support to get an increase in tax similar to the tax that you have in Northern Virginia and the Tidewater region to go 5.3 to 6.0. Last year he voted against it and there was some talk about seeing if there was any progress next year. He is not seeing anything other than the CTB people fighting for us. He is not sure it is worth our $24,000, so he is not going to support. There was no further discussion. The motion of Supervisor Peters to approve renewal of the contract for pursuit of construction of Interstate 73 was seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors North, Peters, Hooker NAYS: Supervisor Assaid, McNamara 2. Resolution approving a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the County of Roanoke and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to establish a cooperative relationship in connection with the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) Project (Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County Attorney) February 28, 2018 88 Mr. Caywood outlined the request for the Memorandum of Understanding. Chairman Hooker advised there were several speakers signed up to speak on this agenda item and that she would allow them to speak before the item was discussed. Ann Rogers of 6347 Back Creek Road, Boones Mill in Roanoke County. As a member of the Pipeline Advisory Committee, she requests that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors give serious consideration to the history of environmental violation perpetrated by Precision Pipeline, the firm that has been contracted to build the Mountain Valley Pipeline through Roanoke County. In January of 2015, Precision Pipeline was contracted to build a pipeline in West Virginia called the Stonewall Gathering Pipeline. Six months later, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEQ) personnel conducted an inspection of the Stonewall Gathering Pipeline construction pipes. During the inspection, violations of dozens of different sections of West Virginia legislative rules and the pipeline’s permit were observed and documented. She provided each Board member a copy of the April 2016 report on these violations issued by West Virginia DEQ. She has also provided each Board member a copy of a report on the Stonewall Gathering Pipeline issued by environmental scientist, Autumn Bryson issued in July 2015. She turned Stonewall Gathering Pipeline construction sites with Autumn Bryson and several other women in July 2015. What they saw was frightening; literally heartbreaking and all she could think was why are we trashing our beautiful, irreplaceable Appalachian rural lands like this. Why? She would ask the Board to consider the following eye-witness reports of the Stonewall Gathering Pipeline construction sites appearing in Autumn Bryson’s report. Failing silt fences were observed at Goosepen Run Stream crossing along the pipeline route allowing sediment to enter the nearby stream. The sediment and erosion measures were inadequate for the amount of exposed soil and high precipitation events. Along Sleep Camp Run Road, soil was piled high on steep slopes above the road. Silt fences were the only method used to hold the soil in place. Along Copley Road, sedimentation was observed in the stream; the silt fences were overflowing allowing the overflow to empty into the nearby stream and an illegal stream crossing was observed where the Stonewall Gathering line crosses Elk Lick. It appeared that heavy equipment was being driven directly through the streambed and there was no permit signage in place and no sediment and erosion control methods were used. She saw this and much, much more with her own eyes and there is no way to put into words the magnitude of the environmental devastation that she witnessed that day. So, she is asking the Roanoke County Supervisors, the County staff and County citizens to work together in all earnestness to build a fortress of defense to make sure this kind of thing does not happen in our County. February 28, 2018 89 She understands that County staff now seek the Supervisors’ approval of a Memorandum of Agreement as a tool to insure that this process goes as well as possible and she would love it if the Board, staff and citizens of this County could work together to make sure that the MOA is saying exactly what we need it to say in light of the near certainty of environmental damage that will result from Mountain Valley Pipeline’s contract with Precision Pipeline, the same company whose work she just described. She closed by saying she is so grateful to Roanoke County for the wonderful tools that the County has put into place, the creation of the Pipeline Advisory Committee, the creation of the wonderful map of the Mountain Valley Pipeline that is on the website and the recent addition of LIDAR imagery showing stream crossings, the County’s forcefulness and consciousness are very much appreciated on this and not only the strong Administrative record on Section 106. She will close by requesting the Board’s wholehearted commitment to the arduous task of safekeeping Roanoke County’s irreplaceable waters. Roberta Bondurant renewed her request that this item be taken off the docket. She then processed to supply the Board with documentation. She notes right now the Board has a press release from DEQ that says they will report to the Board and the public as soon as they have an erosion and sedimentation control plan. The th request by Administrator Gates on October 13 was for ninety days to respond. If the Board signs this memorandum of agreement you won’t have that time to review and reflect before you give your signature essentially in agreement that some broad agreement to when the project ends. There is a significant clause there and the other significant clause as to the opportunity as practical to tag along on inspection visits. One of the things that is most crucial to insuring inspection capability is that ability to ensure erosion and sedimentation inspection. We don’t know right now who is going to pay for it. We don’t know whether those inspectors will be independent and what you have is an October (and she would ask that you pay particular attention to this) as you are looking at the map of our perched watershed and concerns about the watershed run all the way over to (and this woman is in the room) Ms. Carol Cunningham from Meacham Road has a well, drinking water concerns, that the Virginia Department of Health has claimed responsibility for and in a significant memorandum, December 9, 2016, have claimed responsibility for securing water resources. So, you have so many questions with regard to drinking water, erosion and sedimentation, etc. She asked that the Board join her afterwards, she will hang around after, to talk. These issues are too important not to give this consideration. You can do a bond, $136 million in Yadkin County, Ms. Kuhnel has confirmed is available. The Board of DEQ has full discretion to order the things that are necessary to ensure safe water resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia. February 28, 2018 90 Again, Dodd’s indicates, they agree with Mr. Henderson that number one, there will be a certainty of some damage; there is a basic admission on that and secondly, the County cannot provide water up 4,000 feet to the plateau of Bent Mountain. So, she implored the Board to read Mr. Henderson’s comments to DEQ. Who has authority in the off row sections of the Pipe. Who has erosion and sedimentation authority? James Golden, Director of Operations, indicated they were struggling with that question. There is, as yet, unreleased information from the Attorney General as to who has the authority to inspect those properties and for enforcement provisions of erosion and sedimentation. As this point, there is something in this for just about everybody but the landowner. There is an agreement basically to export this gas and that benefits investors. State mitigation funding benefits the State agencies. The County, she understands will earn perhaps a million dollars in taxes, MVP promises. Eminent domain attorneys commonly accept for their strong work a 1/3 off the top of the last offer, while landowners pay taxes on their property and they will pay the federal tax for capital gains for property that is being taken from them. You have folks in the audience, which she will name, from Epperly to Cunningham to Terry, Chandler. These folks oppose this across your County. A string of potentially 23 to 30 landowners who are opposing this. As she said, Chairman Hooker, Mr. McNamara, you represent our district and appreciate you have a lot of work to do. Mr. Assaid, Mr. North, she has not had an opportunity to speak with you before. These are grave concerns. Ms. Rogers and herself have brainstormed that they would like to meet with DEQ as they release their erosion and sedimentation plans. We are asking you to pause and that is not so far from where Mr. Caywood and Ms. Kuhnel are. We have worked in tandem on this, but we are asking you to pause and there is a fund of knowledge that the folks before you will bring to you and with that reminding you that your signature on this is the power that you have. There are reasons DEQ and MVP need your signature. We are asking you to consider that seriously. Linda Majors stated she lived at 2620 Mt Tabor Road in Montgomery County and is speaking on this MOA because they convinced their county to not sign this or approve this. She would ask the Board for the same, rather than be complicit in this horrible destructive project for our whole area. DEQ, Ben Leach, has told her that this is an awesome opportunity for us to re-establish meadows that we lost in Virginia. She lives at the base of Brush Mountain and she cannot imagine what he is possibly thinking when you have 125 foot swatch down a steep mountain that you are going to reestablish a meadow there and she should be happy about that. This is an agency that she does not think the Board should be in any way joining up with. We have dye tracing results at the base of Brush Mountain; she lives in the Slushers Chapel conservation area. DCR has done dye tracing from the pipeline path and they live on karst and the dye is going directly into Slushers Chapel Cave, which goes into Mill Creek, which goes into the North fork of the Roanoke River, which is the water supply for Salem and Roanoke. February 28, 2018 91 They have said there is no problem with any of this, this won’t be a problem for the Western Virginia Water Authority or Salem or anybody, but yet, they bought all kinds of mitigation credits from the Roanoke River WaterShed because there will be damage and then not only that, but the Governor made agreements for mitigation payments for the damage this is going to cause. You have to understand. Do not join up with the DEQ on anything here. They have not done their job and they are not going to do it. Don’t be complicit with them. Tina Smoosh stated she is a physician and spent most of her career in emergency medicine and before becoming a physician, she worked in public health doing community health education. So, her background has been really important she thinks in working on trying to keep people safe in the context of this pipeline threat. She really wished they had built their house now on the Roanoke County side of her property rather than Montgomery County, especially after going to that public education session that you had earlier this year. She was so impressed with the work that Roanoke County has done researching all facets of what life can be like if they build this pipeline and involving the Fire and Rescue. We learned a whole lot from that and took extensive notes and really appreciates the extraordinary amount of work that was done. Also, with the website and the one number to call when people are having issues. Thank you for all of that as that benefits other counties by seeing what we are doing. This pipeline is an extraordinary threat to our safety and just want to highlight one feature of it that brings that home. If someone in this room smelled a gas leak, they would say there is a gas leak and we would all know and if we smell it we know it is a problem and that is because there is mercaptin in just about every gas pipeline that you have ever walked over, next to, coming into your house and it is everywhere and we all know the smell of leaking gas. There is no mercaptin in the Mountain Valley Pipeline. They have chosen not to put an odorant in this gas. They have not given a good explanation for this. FERC also addressed this because many people has asked why and their response was it is not necessary. There are different reasons why they may not want it in there, but the fact of the matter is if there is a leak, especially out in our rural areas, our citizens get no early warning. The pipe is already degrading; it was purchased well over a year before FERC approved the pipeline and the lead engineer has talked about how they are having to rotate the pipe in the pipe yards to keep it from degrading because the sun is hitting it, the epoxy coatings are degrading and she has heard that in two different court hearings. She is going to ask all of our counties to ask Mountain Valley Pipeline that they add mercaptin, add an odorant to that pipeline. It is a simple measure and not that expensive. Thanks for all you are doing. February 28, 2018 92 Cathy Chandler stated she lives at a physical address of 10890 Green Hollow Drive in Roanoke County. She wants to echo again some of what some other folks have said; mostly asking you to table the MOA. She disagrees strongly with Mr. Caywood that approval or disapproval has any influence. She believes that signing it at this point has very little difference than what we faced in October and those reasons still stand, other than, yes they have FERC approval, but they have many other pieces that are not in place. Mostly, they do not have E & S plans, stormwater management plans and some other things. They are really not ready to go. The reasons in October included, and the language of the MOA has not changed, it only invites Roanoke County to come along. It does not really give them any prerogative. She honestly believes after all this process with the Board that if she found property damaged, she might find you guys more accessible to me than the only two inspectors, which might be anywhere on a spread and she would be more likely to call a neighbor who might feel more inclined to help us than a stranger from DEQ, whom she does not know at all. However, to jump the gun and sign just because we anticipate construction, were nd exactly the words on October 2 and construction has not come yet. It is simply the matter of a signature and a movement of paper and you are ready to go. Mr. Caywood already has a staff, which he has hired, in place. So, that is not a time crunch. Pam Dodds has various reports for Roanoke County and the FERC filing process along the way. We live in the Mill Creek watershed, discrete 15 to 16 watersheds on Bent Mountain, which all serve Roanoke, Franklin, Salem and our water. She has also included, fault lines. We have seismic fault lines on Bent Mountain. To the mercaptan risk, she will add and she spent both sets of DEQ hearings testifying and has been to VMRC with the same facts and different outcome for the DEQ water hearings for MVP victims. The issues are the same; they don’t have erosion and sedimentation in place and have not provided stormwater management and we don’t have flood plan mapping that we brought to the attention of the PAC in October. GIS maps are awesome in Roanoke County. She held up a flood plan map of the Backcreek School area showing in dark blue and 100 year flood plan in light blue overlaying. This flood plan mapping stops less than a mile up the road at Countrywood. There is no mapping from that point to the top of Bent Mountain and yet we sit in a perched aquafer, which means we have bedrock and a very shallow amount of dirt and all of the water sits on top. Dodds has more than described this and on the stand in the January 12 and 13 hearings in federal court testified that damage will happen with the blasting that will need to occur to put this pipe in the ground. This damage is a fracturing of the bedrock, a redistribution of the ground water that is our public water. Anybody with a well or spring, she says will face water damage. It will not happen right away, but it will happen. There is no infrastructure available to us if our drinking water resources are gone. Mr. Henderson testified to that very elegantly at the DEQ hearings for MVP. The FERC solution to that is a water buffalo, imagine please you getting your water at a truck to run your household. That is impossible and means your water heater, your dishwasher and your laundry and a shower are not available to you. Citizens of Roanoke County face that February 28, 2018 93 risk and signing this MOA to walk along with them and observe is an unnecessary step at this juncture. The MVP people have not done their jobs. She showed a GIS map of the overhead mapping of their intended access road of Green Hollow, which is in the historic apple orchard district. This road is the oldest piece of the Roanoke to Floyd highway still in use today, from the early 1800’s and we have mapped it along the water forms as far as 1865 since this highway has existed. This is a protected resource and Roanoke County has done a great job of standing up for 106 and we are asking them to stand up for our water. This is not a story. It is not a theory. It is a real threat to the citizens of Roanoke County when the ground water evaporates and on the surface as it runs downhill for the rest of the valley. This underreporting of that access road is exhibited by a tiny crimped line on Green Hollow. They cannot make this road forty-feet wide as Robert Cooper testified in his deposition and on the stand. When TetraTech came through on her property unannounced and they have mapped the wetlands, this little segment of green is only a partial exhibit of what wetlands were mapped by them. A separate mapping by wetland scientists of the same road, would represent the tiny bit of green and all of the 20 acres of wetland and is unaccounted for by MVP; that is mitigation credits to somebody, $75,000 an acre, but that is not paid to the landowner. The mere estimates, now called appraisals for first the nine and now the many as the rolling appraisals are going through in the eminent domain process, woefully underrepresenting what a landowner is going to receive out of any of this and when you add to that no water and then value of your home is gone. You stood for us in 106, you have listened to this throughout 3 ½ years. This is not the time to give up. They haven’t done their work. Don’t sign an MOA, which makes you look eager for construction. We are twenty minutes away at most. It is all a movement of paper and it implies that you are endorsing something that has not adequately been prepared. Grace Terry stated she is representing her family who lives on Bent Mountain and in the path of the pipeline. She would also like to thank Roanoke County for the work they have done to help them. In addition to that, she would like to point out that some of the people in this room are probably the most educated on this issue and she would like to thank them too, Bert Bondurant, Ann Rogers, Cathy Chandler and more, all the previous speakers for the work they have done to help families like hers to support them and to help them understand this process. They have done it all as a volunteer, all of it, not just serve on the PAC committee, but much other work. So, again, she would like to echo the other speakers to please withhold any action on signing this agreement. In addition to the items discussed, an additional problem that she sees with this is that it talks about notifying the County Engineer two days before a planned inspection and it really does not specify who, but the County has the responsibility of assisting in the field of inspections, there is no information in the MOA about what follow-up actions would be taken and important to her family is that there is no specifics about landowners and these inspections. February 28, 2018 94 We are sitting ducks for again more people who don’t identify themselves for entering their property, which is a very insecure situation and she sees nothing in this agreement that protects them from continuing to be in that position. In addition to that, she would like to point out there is still information on water quality in Roanoke County that is coming in and she has information that the Board does not even know about because it was just given to her family on Friday. This information, tables about the monitoring sites that DEQ and the US Geological Service installed real time water monitoring devices in Bottom Creek. Both of her brothers have a real-time water monitoring device in the creek on their property. Why, because it is one of the highest quality water streams in the whole State. It is called exceptional waters. So, they have placed these devices on her family’s property and these results are outstanding. One of them is a table of the fish community. They shocked the waters and sampled fish; they are native brook trout and that is an irreplaceable resources, just like many other resources to be destroyed. Before the last Board of Supervisor election, there was a candidate that was defeated and they said to us at a Community Meeting that the Board is going about this all wrong. If the fish cannot survive in the water, then neither can they. This is water that her family drinks, the water that is feeding their well and all this information is publically available, will be, it is not on the DEQ website yet, but the monitoring devices th have been in place since September 30. They take a reading every 5 minutes; they have collected over 50,000 readings so that is not quite 6 months of data, but she is just saying the preliminary work to prove you have a priceless resource there is not completely done. You are being asked to sign this MOA very prematurely. All the information is not in about what could be damaged in Roanoke County. Once it is damaged, it is gone. Supervisor North inquired of Mr. Caywood if the language was boilerplate or if other localities would be using with Mr. Caywood responding in the affirmative. Supervisor North then asked if Mr. Caywood would define the boilerplate MOU as being something that we need to do now to have a door that we can work through any concerns that come up moving forward. Mr. Caywood stated his recommendation to go ahead and enter into this now is primarily for the purpose of allowing staff to have time to meet with DEQ to work out the plan of action as to how we will coordinate with one another when construction begins and the agreement is not going to be changed, it has been made very clear to us. It does not matter whether we do it today or tomorrow, but by doing it now, it will give us a better opportunity to have “our act together” if construction does start as they have been told probably in April, if not, early May. We would like some lead time to be able to coordinate before that happens. There was no additional discussion. RESOLUTION 022718-2 DENYING THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ROANOKE COUNTY February 28, 2018 95 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 Code of Virginia clearly grants authority to DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) to administer and enforce the Erosion and Sediment Control Law (Code of Virginia §§ 62.1-44.15:51 et seq.) and the Stormwater Management Act (Code of Virginia §§ 62.1-44.15:24 et seq.) for linear projects constructed subject to approved standards and specifications; and WHEREAS, DEQ has agreed to offer the Locality an opportunity to review and comment on the site-specific erosion and sediment control and stormwater plans for construction activities in the locality related to the proposed MVP project; and WHEREAS, DEQ has also agreed to offer the Locality an opportunity as practicable, to accompany DEQ on regular compliance and inspection site visits, and emergency or complaint-based compliance and inspection site visits, to construction sites in the Locality related to the proposed MVP; and WHEREAS, the Locality designates the County Engineer to serve as the Locality Inspection Contact for the purposes of receiving notification on behalf of the Locality for the compliance and inspection activities described in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, this Agreement shall be effective upon its execution by both DEQ and the Locality and on the date specified below; and WHEREAS, the Locality may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to DEQ. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: The Memorandum of Agreement between the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and Roanoke County be, and hereby is, approved; and That the County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement on behalf of the County. On motion of Supervisor Assaid to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor North the motion was denied by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North NAYS: Supervisors McNamara, Peters, Hooker 3. Request to approve the Cable Television budget for fiscal year 2018-2019 (Elaine Bays-Murphy, Director of Cable Access) A-022718-3 Ms. Murphy outlined the budget request. There was no discussion. February 28, 2018 96 The motion of Supervisor McNamara to approve the Cable Television budget for fiscal year 2018-2019 was seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker NAYS: None IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1. The petition of Diana England to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R-1, Low Density Residential, District to obtain a multiple dog permit for seven (7) dogs on 1.18 acres, located at 4579 Layman Road, Vinton Magisterial District Supervisor Peters’ motion to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for March 27, 2018, was seconded by Supervisor McNamara and approved by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of $368,730 to Roanoke County Public Schools (Jeff Terry, Chief Information Officer and Susan Peterson, Roanoke County Public Schools Director of Finance) Mr. Terry outlined the request to appropriate funds. There was no discussion. Supervisor McNamara’s motion to approve the first reading and set the second reading March 13, 2018, was seconded by Supervisor North and approved by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker NAYS: None February 28, 2018 97 IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 022718-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February 27, 2018, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2 inclusive, as follows: 1. Confirmation of appointment to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Heathcare Board of Directors; South Peak Community Development Authority 2. Confirmation of appointment terms of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission and The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor North the motion was approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker NAYS: None A-022718-4.a A-022718-4.b IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker NAYS: None 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of January 31, 2018 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of January 31, 2018 5. Accounts Paid - January 31, 2018 February 28, 2018 98 IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Assaid requested that the opening statement that Chairman Hooker made regarding school safety be forward to the School Board Chairman and ask Mr. Gates to forward to Dr. Killough. Supervisor North stated first he would like to salute the Northside Viking boys varsity basketball team players and Coach Bill Pope for a successful regular season as they continue in the playoffs. Their total record at this time is 27 wins against no losses. Northside is set to play Spottswood at Patrick Henry High School at either 7 or 7:45 p.m. this Friday. He would check the paper Friday morning to make sure that time is correct. What a great record, wish them all the best as they go forward. Also, Last Friday, he attended the dedication of the newly renovated Dana Science Buildings at Hollins University. There were some new labs for all the sciences, physics, biology, psychology and chemistry. They were most impressive; they are state-of-the-science labs and he has passed this information on to some of our School Board members as well as some administrative staff to see if there is an interest in taking a tour themselves and have been invited by Hollins to do so. If would probably be good to do that because you can then get a good idea for future renovated labs in Roanoke County schools might need to look like. On another matter, he would like to remind everyone to check the Roanoke County website at www.roanokecountyva.gov under Hollins Center community rd meetings. Beginning this Saturday, March 3, from 9-12 at the Hollins Library as well as th next Thursday, March 8, from 4-7 p.m. We would like to invite everyone to join us in the community meeting to reimagine the Hollins area. Roanoke County is developing plans to increase multi-modal connections within Hollins and enhance this important commercial center. The open-house style meeting will be held twice in March so you can drop by anytime this Saturday between 9-12 at the Hollins Library to provide any questions and input. He plans on being there at that time as well. Last, but not least, th starting on Sunday, March 11, the Hollins Library will open for the first time from 1-5 p.m. to serve the Hollins community for your library, internet and other service needs. Thanks to Shari Henry, our Director of Library Services and her staff and his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors for this special occasion. Supervisor McNamara stated he had one point. We are now two months into the year and we have gotten a lot accomplished. We are halfway through the budget and a number of new initiatives that have been started or worked on and there is a number of ongoing problems that we have worked on. He wanted to thank the Board for their hard work and especially the Chair for her leadership and staff. We are about half way through a budget and that is probably the most difficult tasks for the year, but it has been a lot of fun. Chairman Hooker stated she had one thing, a workshop, and the first of its th kind on Broadband for Business. The workshop is going to be held on March 8, from 9- 10:30, only ninety minutes long at the South County Library on Merriman Road and it February 28, 2018 99 looks like some very interesting things that are going on that would be useful to many and especially to business owners. Thank you for the information, Jill Loope. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:20 p.m., Supervisor Hooker moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A A.1, Personnel, namely discussion concerning appointments to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission and Section 2.2-3711.A.8, Consultation with legal counsel employed or retained by a public body regarding specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel, specifically as it relates to Roanoke Valley Resource Authority contracts The motion was seconded by Supervisor McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker NAYS: None The closed sessions were held from 5:49 p.m. until 7:09 p.m. At 4:21 p.m. Chairman Hooker recessed to the fourth floor for work session and closed sessions. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the County Administrator's Proposed Fiscal Year 2019 - 2028 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Christopher R. Bever, Director, Management and Budget) Mr. Bever went through PowerPoint presentation and turned the session over to Rob Light, Director of General Services to discuss the Public Service Center Capital Project. Supervisor Assaid asked Mr. Bever to confirm this was borrowing in fiscal year 2019 and not borrowing in fiscal year 2020. In the policy that the Board looked at and the Policy that we asked for was a borrowing policy, not a spending policy. Mr. Bever responded that is correct and is the staff recommendation. Supervisor McNamara inquired as to how many times staff was going to keep recommending it. Mr. Bever responded staff feels it is important. Supervisor McNamara commented the Board stated they wanted to follow a 10-10-10 model. Mr. Bever stated staff feels it is important to begin this in July 2019. He added they have had internal conversation where we think we can keep the total project cost where it is right now $13.05 million that we have already put in. February 28, 2018 100 To follow that policy and not initiate any work with the borrowing until fiscal year 2020, is going to delay it 6 months and at that point in time we really need to add inflation on it. Mr. Light has done the A&E work this week with potential vendors and they commented on the price of construction. Supervisor Peters stated it is going to inflate, there is some shortsightedness with this Board. There are two things that he deals with every day in his job. In a good economy, bonds are around 4 to 5% and we refunded those to get them to 3%. For every 1% we go up in our costs, there are two pieces of the puzzle. One is the construction cost and two is the borrowing cost. If the interest rate goes up 1% it is going to cost taxpayers $1.5 million in interest. So, bickering over what month it is in does not make a whole lot of sense. He looked at the cost of the Hollins library the other day. At $11.5 million today, by pushing it out it will be $16.5 million; plus the increased borrowing. He does not disagree with having a borrowing plan as far as limiting ourselves to a timeframe, but we also need to be conscious of the cost of that money. It is not just 10-10-10; you are going to keep pushing things out that ultimately are going to cost us more money. Supervisor Assaid inquired if Supervisor Peters was calling for a tax increase because the more we borrow the more we have to pay back and we have to pay it back. So, with the revenue that we have right now, the $10 million every year in borrowing and what money we have going into is covering it right now. We are going to have to come up with more money to put into it and to borrow more money. Supervisor McNamara stated he did not understand what is so vitally important with this Public Safety Center that we cannot follow our policy and delay it a couple of months. Mr. Gates stated you will see when we get into the balance of this discussion, you will see that we have in fact removed all the other projects that were scheduled into the appropriate year according to the direction the Board gave at the last discussion relating to this matter. This project started last year with the agreement of the acquisition of the cold storage facility and the funding necessary for the A&E. So, this one, unlike the others, we have been engaged in the project. The strategy that staff has put forward here is designed really to avoid the delay in construction of 6 months and arguably meet the intent of the Board. As Rob has pointed out, staff is very concerned that even a six month delay in the project in order to meet the bond market in 2020 will not allow staff to write construction projects until November or December of fiscal year 2020 and therefore cost us and the citizens more, some measure more. Supervisor Assaid inquired why is there a delay in the project? There is just a delay in the borrowing. You can use cash to front the project and start the project when you want. Mr. Gates stated there was not enough cash to write the construction contracts. You must have an appropriation in order to write the construction contract. Supervisor Assaid asked why can’t we do the same thing that this Board does for the School Board? Mr. Gates stated what we did for the Cave Spring High School project was in fact move all the appropriation into the prior fiscal year. February 28, 2018 101 Supervisor Assaid explained that the borrowing does not happen in 2019 and that is not what is reflected. This says 2018, not 2019. It is very misleading. Mr. Gates added the borrowing in this case would be taken up in fiscal year 2019. We go through the exercise in the spring pool of fiscal year 2019 to secure the bonds necessary. You would not draw down on those bonds, write a construction contract or incur any debt payments associated with those bonds until fiscal year 2020, July 1, 2019, which is in keeping with the model. The reason that we would want to do that is because if we don’t do that we will likely move into the fall bond pool, which would put us into the fall of fiscal year 2019 or early 2020 before we could let a construction contract, which we have concerns would drive the price up. So, cognizant of the Board’s desire to incur the expense of the bonds issuance until 2020, staff is simply proposing that we go through the mechanics of the exercise to issue the bonds, but not actually act upon those until we are into fiscal year 2020, which is what the Board has directed. The only other alternative to this would be to delay the process of the bond acquisition until fall 2019, or first quarter of 2020 and then from there move to the construction contracts, which creates a delay and associated expense with that. Supervisor Assaid asked how does this differ from what we did with the schools? Why can’t we do that same thing? The schools are not borrowing until fiscal year 2019. What is the difference between what the schools can do and what the County can do? They are providing cash to the project to get the project started. The appropriation is there, but the borrowing does not incur until later that year. Mr. Gates stated he does not understand the question; there is insufficient cash available for us to front the expense associated with the construction contract. In this case, we are in fact proposing to expense $1.5 million in cash and draw from the Capital Reserves, which we have determined to be reimbursed from a future bond issuance. In order to address the PRT aspect of this, we would use cash, but there is insufficient cash reserves available to us that would allow us to proceed. Mr. Assaid stated the schools are going to start Cave Spring High School presumably in June of this year. They are not borrowing until November. What is the difference? Mr. Bever stated the schools have $7.5 million in cash going towards that project. Mr. Assaid stated but it is not covering the $30 million in construction costs. Mr. Bever stated it would cover that period of time if any expenditures go out the door. We have no additional cash, what we are asking for is actually a bond reimbursement resolution so that we could pay back our capital reserves. Supervisor McNamara stated he has said this about three to five times. If you start opening the door and let little chinks in these programs. We did it a couple of years ago when we cut the amount of money going into the program. We get off the schedule and just move things up for a couple of months supposedly for some emergency, which he does not see as an emergency. February 28, 2018 102 His support is fiscal year 2020 borrowing, that is it and if there is a way we could start it sooner without fiscal year 2019 borrowing then fine, but he is not interested in fiscal year 2019 borrowing. He has said that from the get go, he thought that was the direction this Board gave at the last meeting and that is not what is represented here; this if fiscal year 2019 borrowing, which he thought the Chairman had provided some documentation. We provided documentation and this is not reflecting that documentation. Supervisor Assaid stated he had one other question going back to a previous slide and moving forward so he understands. On side 4, staff is showing $12.3 million. Is that the project cost, then we go to page 8 and that is showing $11.5. Mr. Bever responded $12.3 was $11.5 for the Public Service Center and $800,000 for sports field lighting and that is the bonded portion of the project. Mr. Gates stated he understands the point that is being made and all he is saying is that it is staff’s recommendation that we at least be prepared to issue the debt and secure that debt as early in fiscal year 2020 as early as possible in order to avoid further delay in the construction of the project and greater cost. It is arguable as to whether this meets the test. Obviously, some think it does not, but there is a fiscal consequence for the further delay in the construction of the project. This strategy does not cost us anything and to that extent, he believes it is consistent with the Board’s direction to not incur the expense of borrowing until 2020. This proposal does not incur the expense until 2020. It does in fact require the Board to take the actions necessary to allow us to move forward as early in the fiscal year as possible in order to avoid future expense. If the Board is not inclined to do that, we will change the schedule and presume the borrowing in the fall of 2019 or the first or second quarter of fiscal year 2020, depending on what is available through VPSA and then we will make modifications to the project cost. Supervisor Assaid commented he thought that was the direction that was given. Supervisor McNamara commented we could use the same argument, why don’t we borrow in fiscal year 2018, it is cheaper now. At the end of the day, it is discipline and we are not exhibiting discipline when we need to as a Board. Mr. Gates responded that he thinks staff understands that point and we have also had quite a bit of conversation in this room around this particular point about discipline, what constitutes fiscal accountability and fiscal responsibility and we are all very aware of exactly how our borrowing models have played out over the past 10-15 years. He personally does not think this is a departure from what the Board intended. The Board in the discussion we had most recently was very specific about not incurring those expenses and this does not incur these expenses. Again, ultimately this is a Board decision so if you would like us to move the bond acquisition process to fiscal year 2020, we will do that and just wants the Board to understand that will have a fiscal consequence on the cost of the project. All for what amounts to a few months. February 28, 2018 103 Supervisor North inquired if there was a summer pool of bonds in July 2019, fiscal year 2020 that you can apply for then. Ms. Owens responded sometimes, depends upon a number of applications. Supervisor North commented it is supply and demand, wait and see. What is the exact cost of delay; has it been quantified? He hears cost of delay, but has not heard any numbers. Mr. Light responded they will have to go back, probably 5% higher. Mr. Gates stated obviously the challenge is trying to project what a cost would be 18-22 months in advance. So, what we think we know is that construction costs will likely rise in the next 18-22 months and it is entirely possible that the cost of borrowing will also likely rise in the next 18-22 months. These are macro-economic issues that we don’t control and we are uncertain about them, but conventional wisdom suggests both of those things are likely to be true. If that is the case, there is also the logical conclusion that expense will rise and we think we are advantaged by moving more quickly in the construction market rather than later, but all of that is built off of what we currently see and understand. Supervisor Assaid stated after we get the facility study back, this project may go away because it may not be the highest use of project need for Roanoke County; we do not know and that is one of the reasons we are asking for a facilities study. The quicker that gets done, the quicker we will have identified. Chairman Hooker inquired about the time line for the facilities study. Mr. Gates responded we do not have a source of funds available and he has asked staff to determine what that might cost and how we afford it. Supervisor Assaid responded we were going to take the cost out of C & P, $52,000. There is some money there and is sure the Board would put a few “bucks” into it. Supervisor McNamara stated at the end of the day, the Board needs to give direction; he thought we gave them direction and if the Board has changed their mind, fine, he will be quiet. Otherwise, we need to have this redone. Chairman Hooker stated she was in agreement and feels it is important to hold true to what’s the Board’s intention. She understands where Mr. Gates is going and his process, however, she thinks it is really important at this time to be to the leader and adjust to that. Supervisor North stated it is better to be conservative and stick to the plan as much as you can. It might cost a little more and it may mean we don’t need some of the things in there. He noticed in the sheet Rob sent the different scenarios and the cost structures and the $12 million was the lowest. You never know what is going to come up between now and next months or six months from now that may need our attention and our dollars. February 28, 2018 104 He has one question, he heard we don’t have money in the cash reserves. Mr. Gates responded he stated we did not have enough money in cash reserves to allow us to let a construction contract of the size we are talking about. We do have, as you know, about $4 million in capital reserve monies and that is why we propose to pull about $1.5 million out of that to accommodate the PRT portion of this project should we find something suitable between now and whenever the time comes when we build the project. We would replenish with a reimbursement resolution for the bonds. He supposes we can still do that, but even that will be delayed. Mr. Bever stated staff needs to look and see if there is a timeframe on the reimbursement of cash expended. Hearing what the Board has said, the question that we have to answer is this proposed $11.5 million in bonds, staff recommendation that we would spend in fiscal year 2020. If you want to stick to the 10-10-10 plan and reduce that to $10 million, we can do that, we just need to find $1.5 million in cash sources to replace the $1.5 million in borrowing at the current project level. Mr. Gates commented the last conversation we had around this issues was since we did not fully utilize a full $10 million in our last round of borrowing, those monies would be available from a bonding perspective to apply to this. If that is different, he would like to know. Supervisor Assaid said it is different because it starts at the date of adoption of the policy. Mr. Gates stated so the Board’s position is that the bond proceeds that were not utilized in the last round of borrowing cannot be applied to this and staff will need to reduce the bond funding to $10 million. Supervisor Assaid stated he thought it was pretty clear. Mr. Gates stated what was written is not the discussion they had. Supervisor McNamara stated you don’t necessarily need to back away from $11.5, you may have to stage some of it, but you are still going to have two year- ends between now and the completion of the building, which typically have some money. Mr. Gates, as you know, we program out assumptions about cash reserves available to apply throughout the 10-year CIP. So, no matter what cash would be available at the end of this fiscal year or next fiscal year, as Mr. Bever points out; would need to compete with other things in the capital program as being cash funded; a majority of which are CMP projects. So, you can cash out, but that will reduce the ability to do other things. Chairman Hooker stated so your thought is if we back it up and say we will just have the bond for a flat $10 million and look for another year or whenever the next cycle is for another bond to get it started. Supervisor McNamara replied $10 million is what is in the plan; there is flexibility in the plan. So, next year we are going to have year-end dollars or we have to decide what we are going to do with the year-end dollars and there you have your $11.5 or we can go with $11.5 because we think we are sticking to the plan because we only used $6.4 in 2017. February 28, 2018 105 Mr. Bever stated he just wants to be clear, because we are hearing stick with $10 million and now we are hearing $11.5. What we want to do is to be able to come back to you with a balanced budget. Supervisor McNamara stated you need to look at $10 million in borrowing. Mr. Bever stated one of the reasons we do the multi- year planning is to make sure that the projects that are in there we can fund with reasonable expectations. Potentially funding those with money that may or may not be there has the effect of delaying the project even more. We can schedule that out or we can discuss $1.5 million in cash you want to pull out of the CIP and apply to this project. This project has been planned, it is the third year in the CIP. Whether this falls on the priority list of all the things we need to do in the County, this is a building that floods and every time it floods, Mr. Light has to go in, clean up, make repairs, staff needs to come out; the need is there. We are giving you the cash option as well because we would like to have that cash available to take advantage of the PRT facility when and if it becomes available. Supervisor Assaid stated he expects it will be a priority and thinks it will be a facility that needs to be addressed, but we don’t have the facility study. We need that facility study to be able to plan for the future; that is important. Mr. Gates stated he does not disagree with a facilities study, but would again reiterate that this project has been underway. This project has been funded. We have spent $1 million to acquire a facility to allow for this project to move forward. We have spent money for A&E to move the project forward. This is a little bit unique in terms of all of the projects that are included in the CIP and so again he completely respects and will honor the Board’s direction, but this one is different. It is not like all of the other ones; we have not touched in the CIP. This one has been underway, which is where we are with respect to our recommendations. Chairman Hooker stated she understands and believes the Board has spoken its preference. Supervisor Peters stated again he wants to say that the Board is being short-sighted and nobody is taking into effect the cost of construction. He deals with this every day and he will be curious to see what Cave Spring comes in with. If you look back 10 years ago and the construction companies that we had versus what we have today. There is conversation out there now that if an infrastructure bill is passed, then everybody is going to flock for those dollars; you have limited companies out there that can do the work. All it is doing is driving the prices up. It does not make any sense to him if we are not expending any dollars until 2020. Again, he respects the $10 million, but if we are not going to spend anything we are going to push this off another 6 months at least. He thinks that we are going to see construction costs go up. He thinks 4% is off the mark based on what he has seen. Mr. Gates responded that he thinks Supervisor Peters is right. February 28, 2018 106 Supervisor Assaid stated he did not think Cave Spring would be a good indicator as they are relying on design professionals to come up with cost estimates, no contractors. You just never know. Right now, you don’t have plans on a building yet. Mr. Gates stated he did not necessarily understand that. He understands that the proposal for Cave Spring is $30 million. Supervisor Assaid responded it is a cost estimate and not a bid. So, when talking about costing more if we hold off for six months, we will never know what the number really is because we did not do a bid six-months prior. Mr. Gates explained that is his point, we are making cost estimates too about the Public Service Center and all things that we understand about the market is that from a construction perspective, it continues to rise. So, if there is a cost estimate for Cave Spring and it comes in higher than what was anticipated in the original cost estimate, he does not understand why that does not reflect what the market is doing from a construction perspective. Supervisor Assaid stated because it is a design estimate and not necessarily what is really going on. You just never know, speaking from experience, when you have a designer coming up with the cost estimate it is not the same thing as a contractor. It is a huge difference; they are apples and oranges. Yes, they are designing to a number. Mr. Bever stated that 2023 would be our next year’s for borrowing and everything on this plan has been in the plan for three years except for the Bent Mountain Community Center. Is there anything this Board does not want to do and want removed from the CIP. Supervisor McNamara stated he thinks that is why we need the facilities study for. Supervisor North stated this is a placeholder going forward; those things that you have in here beyond fiscal 2019 are placeholders and with the facilities study could change, sooner or later. Mr. Bever responded they cannot come sooner unless we find some cash. Supervisor North stated but the facilities study can say they need to. Mr. Bever asked if there was any desire to keep the projects in but align them with the 10-10-10 plan for now, take all the projects out because we don’t have the facilities study. Staff can do whatever the Board needs to do. Supervisor McNamara stated he personally does not pay attention to the out years because there is so much change from year to year in the out years. He thinks we need a facilities study that we can then at that point put together a rational path forward. So, he is not personally concerned with what we do in the out years. Chairman Hooker responded that placeholder is a good word, with Supervisor North in agreement. Mr. Gates stated he is not trying to be argumentative, but there has not been that much change in the out years for the last three years. We did add the Bent Mountain Community Center, but everything here on this list and in the CIP has been resonant in the CIP for the past three years. Chairman Hooker responded that the facilities study should either confirm that or move it or change it. February 28, 2018 107 Supervisor McNamara stated so what is important is the 2019 fiscal year cash-funded projects and the importance of those or can some of those be delayed. So, find your cash for your Center next year. Supervisor North inquired how close is the Mt. Pleasant Library to the new library. He did not know there was a Mt. Pleasant Library. Chairman Hooker responded about 20 minutes. Mr. Gates replied it is much closer to the Vinton Library than it is to South County. Supervisor North asked if the structure was two mobile homes put together. Mr. Light responded it is a cinder block building, an old hair salon. Supervisor North joked that he wanted one for his street. He does not understand why we have something so small in a small community when we have a nice one in Vinton. This is an example of what we have to start thinking about; consolidating or reorganizing things in the County whether it be a library or something else. We cannot be everything to everybody. Supervisor Assaid asked with regard to the unrestricted cash ($2.4), Mr. Bever apologized, as he had skipped over a slide. Supervisor Assaid stated unrestricted cash sources could be used to start the project and these projects would only be delayed whatever that time frame is from the borrowing. Mr. Bever stated if you wanted to move $1.5 million in unrestricted cash into 2019 to have that available for PRT, you certainly could do that. Supervisor Assaid responded that was not the question. Why can’t this money be used when you are ready to sign with the contractor. Mr. Bever stated it could be used, but he would not recommend. Even if you did the appropriation in 2020, for the bonds, we know we are not doing the bonds until the fall. This is coming from your Budget Director, he would not want to do that because you then still have to take action on a resolution to issue the bonds. There is no guarantee when we start in July and spending that cash in advance of getting the bond funding that we will actually get the bonds. Mr. Gates replied you need to have the full appropriation. Supervisor Assaid responded that is different than what the schools do. Mr. Bever stated he would not want to do anything until he had all the cash in hand for this project. Supervisor Assaid stated with that statement is Administration recommending waiting on Cave Spring High School until those funds are borrowed? Mr. Gates asked if the school bonds require the Board authorize them once the appropriation is complete or do you need additional authorization? Ms. Owens stated there is one action that we will bring back to this Board to actually authorize the VPSA bonds to enter the pool. Mr. Gates responded if you will recall with regard to the Cave Spring issue, we proposed to move the appropriations into fiscal year 2018 so that the School Construction contract could be let immediately upon the conclusion of the School year and be ready to go. Supervisor Assaid stated but the borrowing is not happening until fiscal year 2019. February 28, 2018 108 Mr. Bever responded the approval will come in April to issue the bonds; which is what the difference is. From what he is hearing, we are not going to take any action on bonds until fiscal year 2020; we can go that. We can align the project with that and make sure that the project has resources, but you will need to take that action in fiscal 2020 and he would not want to start spending funds until we know those bonds are pretty much 100% issued and that is the difference. Supervisor McNamara stated he liked that because he would not spend it unless he had it. Mr. Gates added that has always been staff’s disposition. To be direct about it, the discussion about approving bonds that have already been authorized in a budget action is a nuance that has arisen in the last year or so. Prior to that, his understanding and his experience has been, if the action to appropriate the dollars associated were approved in the budget, then the issuance of the bond was a mechanical implementation of what was authorized to the budget. Last year, the Board specifically sought that discussion around bond issuances that had previously been approved in a budget document. Supervisor Assaid commented that the process was so much better. Mr. Gates said he thought so too. Supervisor Assaid continued that for the schools it does provide a nice planning document and then shows how it is going to be funded. Mr. Gates commented that is the purpose of the CIP. Supervisor North asked about the $1.6 million in unrestricted capital reserves and then you show $4.4 for the CIP for 2019 through 2028, the ten-year view. Mr. Bever explained that for fiscal years 2019 and 2020, he makes a planning assumption that by that point in time we will amass additional capital reserves. Supervisor North stated the first thought that came to his mind is that we have things budgeted and planned for so tight that is a small figure in the grand scheme of things ($4.4 million) or even if you look at just one year ($1.6 million) is not a lot of cushion and in Mr. Bever’s opinion do we need to be addressing that going forward and bolster those cash reserves because you never know what is going to come up. Mr. Bever responded that in the past those have been bolstered through year-end action of the Board so that is up to the Board. He thinks $4 million is a pretty good working number. We have planned that $4 million over 7 ½ years and we do that so if an opportunity does come up like we had with the SCBA replacement, we had some cash available to take advantage of that grant match and eliminate $1.6 in borrowing. Supervisor McNamara inquired if the Broadband item is the payment on the note with Mr. Gates confirming. So, the operating costs of Broadband is in our operating budget with Mr. Bever responding in the affirmative for the last 2 years. Supervisor McNamara stated staff was better suited to prioritize the cash funded projects. Mr. Bever stated if the direction is to put $1.5 million in cash into the public service center, OMB staff will work with staff and the County Administrator to come up with options to show what this will look like and it will not be pretty. Chairman Hooker stated she thinks that is what we need. February 28, 2018 109 Supervisor Assaid inquired if we had given guidance to the County Administrator regarding the policies. Chairman Hooker advised within a week. Mr. Gates advised staff is working on taking what they sent him and turning it into a policy. It is our intention, unless you direct otherwise, to incorporate that into the Comprehensive Financial Policy that we have proposed and show that as the debt policy and bring it back for action by the Board. Chairman Hooker stated to be helpful and make sure, the Board would like to see the verbiage to make sure it is correct before it comes back for Board action. Supervisor Assaid stated another thing back on January 9, 2018, at a work session, he had requested a list of CMP projects and an update on what has been done and what they were. Mr. Bever apologized stating he did not understand that was a request for now. Supervisor Assaid stated it would be nice to see what has been accomplished. Mr. Light explained they have that information with a before and after picture and will be happy to share with the Board. Supervisor Assaid stated there is a lot of work that goes on there and thinks it important that the Board see. Supervisor McNamara stated from a background perspective, it was funded with year-end dollars and they had to approve them all. So, from a habit standpoint, we used to see what was being done. Mr. Gates commented staff has done capital project updates through the year. The work session was held from 4:37 p.m. until 5:44 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 7:09 p.m., Supervisor Hooker moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. RESOLUTION 022718-5 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies; and 110 February 28, 2018 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor North the motion was approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Assaid, North, McNamara, Peters, Hooker NAYS: None IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hooker adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. bmitted by: Approved by: AAP da s -- /2 %Alp A,/ r,04,,t7kg-- Deborah C. J. , artha B. Hooker Chief Deputy ( - to the Board Chairman