Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/20/1990 - Special February 20, 1990 115 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 February 20, 1990 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the third Tuesday, and a special meeting for the purpose of a public hearing. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Robers called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard Robers, Vice Chairman Steven A. McGraw, Supervisors Lee B. Eddy, Bob L. Johnson, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development; Don M. 11 6 February 20, 1990 - Myers, Assistant County Administrator for Management Services; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board; Anne Marie Fedder, Information Officer - IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING 290-1 Public Hearing to elicit public comments with respect to the proposed Consolidation Agreement between the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke County Attorney Paul Mahoney presented the history and background leading up to the public hearing. He advised that in February 1989, petitions were collected in the City of Roanoke and County of Roanoke requesting that the issue of consolidation be brought to the voters in the referendum. Fifteen percent of the registered voters from each locality was required to bring the issue to referendum. Since that time, negotiators from the County and City have been meeting to develop the proposed plan and charter agreement. Community meetings have been held, a public hearing was held on the charter agreement and following this public hearing, if both localities execute the proposed agreement, it will be brought to the voters for referendum. The following citizens spoke concerning the proposed consolidation agreement. 1. C. E. Stewart, Jr., 462 Cameron Drive, Vinton, Va. spoke on behalf of certain residents in East County. He February 20, 1990 11 7 presented pr..t:it:in",. ShOWil1g tIn.. æaJerity ot ~hose re~llltmL~ are opposed to becoming a part of the Town of Vinton if consolidation passes. 2. Mary L. Via, 3627 Kentland Drive S. W. was opposed to the agreement because of concern over school districts and the start-up costs. 3. winton Shelor, 4348 Shelor Farm Lane, Salem, representing the Fort Lewis Civic League spoke in opposition and asked that they be given an opportunity to become a part of Salem if consolidation passes. 4. Don Terp, 5140 Appletree Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed agreement. 5. Athena Burton, 4835 Glenbrook Drive S. W., spoke in opposition to the plan because of the loss of valuable land to Salem and because of the school district lines and service districts. She recommended going to the General Assembly to change the forms of government in the state. 6. Kenneth Tully, 8853 Bradshaw Road, spoke about the possible loss of hunting rights and other laws that are unique to rural areas of the County. 7. Roger Walker, 5444 Lamplighter Drive N. W., spoke in opposition and suggested that the entire Catawba District should have an opportunity to join Salem if consolidation passes. 8. Fenton F. Harrison, 1638 Weaver Road, a coach and teacher at Glenvar High School expressed concern about the electric power in the area that might join Salem, because Salem 11 8 February 20, 1990 - nas ~ts own electric company. He also asked why the dirt was - being taken from the fields at Glenvar High School. Assistant County Administrator John Chambliss advised that the dirt is being used to fill other fields including Green Hill Park fields. 9. Charles Landis, 5268 Glenvar Heights Road, Salem, spoke in opposition. He asked for an update on the agreement from Roanoke City that they would have the start-up costs. Supervisor Johnson responded that they had received a memorandum of understanding that Roanoke City agreed has to fund its share of the start-up costs. In response to a question from Mr. Landis regarding the right of the new government to issue bonds without a referendum, Mr. Mahoney advised that the issue has passed through the House of Delegates and will next be heard in a senate subcommittee. 10. C. Thomas RObinson, Executive Vice President of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce presented a resolution of support for consolidation from the Chamber. 11. Lela C. Spitz, 1971 Oak Drive Extension, Salem, representing the Hanging Rock taxpayers League spoke in opposition to General Obligation Bonds being approved by the governing body rather than by voter referendum. She urged the Board to vote for the plan so that the voters can turn it down. 12. Cecil Bollinger, 3689 Rutrough Road, spoke in opposition to the Town of Vinton expanding its boundaries if the plan is approved by the voters. February 20, 1990 11 9 13. Donna Dean, 258 Spring Grove Drive, was opposed to consolidation because the quality of education in Roanoke County might decrease. Supervisor Nickens requested that a letter be entered into the record from Jerry Anderson 4207 Sharolyn Drive S. W., who was opposed because of the start-up costs and the fact that under the plan the old city would have a majority on the school board that would determine attendance zones and the superintendent. Supervisor McGraw advised that, while he supports the concept of consolidation, if he votes for the proposed plan, it will be to put the issue before the voters, not because he supports this particular plan. Supervisor Eddy read a prepared statement in which he advised that he could not support the present plan because of the way in which the service districts and voting districts are arranged around the old city and old county boundaries with a majority of the representatives from the old city. He expressed concern that Roanoke County will not receive improved services under this plan. Supervisor Johnson advised that he would support going forward with the plan because he was opposed to sending the agreement to a citizens committee. He advised that he will not campaign for the plan but felt it was the best plan that could be negotiated. Chairman Robers thanked the members of the negotiating 120 February 20, 1990 - team tor their nara worx over the past year in putting together the proposed agreement. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 8:50 p.m., Supervisor Nickens moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote. Richard w. RObers, Chairman