HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/26/2016 - Regular
January 26, 2016
35
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of January 2016. 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 a moment of silence was
observed. 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 George G. Assaid,
Al Bedrosian, Martha B. Hooker and Joseph P. McNamara
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 and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the
Board
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Gates added a briefing as agenda item D.3, a briefing from Virginia
Department of Transportation on snow removal during last week-end’s storm.
Mr. Gates also removed agenda item F.1, Ordinance amending Article IV.-Self-
Insurance Program, Section 2-83 of the County Code clarifying the current practice that
Fire and Rescue Volunteers are covered under Worker's Compensation, and that other
Volunteers remain covered under a Blanket Accident Policy and/or General Liability
Policy until February 9, 2015. There were no objections.
January 26, 2016
36
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of the Roanoke County Police Department and
Emergency Communications Center for receiving re-accreditation
through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) (Susan A. Slough, Assistant Director of
Communications/CommIT; Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police)
Chief Hall outlined the recognition. In attendance with Chief Hall were
Susan Slough, Assistant Director of CommIT; Aleta Coleman, Chief of Emergency
Communications; Assistant Chief Jimmy Chapman; Commander Matt Viar; Allina Engle,
Office Support Specialist and Police Officers Victoria Schmitt and Adam Grubb.
Supervisors Bedrosian and Peters thanked the group for their work.
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to Woodrow Henderson,
Volunteer Fire Chief of Fort Lewis Fire Department, upon his
retirement after forty (40) years of service (Stephen Simon, Chief
of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Simon outlined Chief Henderson’s career. The Clerk read the
resolution. Each Supervisors offered their thanks and congratulations. Leadership staff
from Ft. Lewis was also in attendance.
RESOLUTION 012616-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO
WOODROW HENDERSON, VOLUNTEER FIRE CHIEF OF FORT
LEWIS FIRE DEPARTMENT, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER
FORTY (40) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Chief Henderson joined Fort Lewis Fire Department in September
1975; and
WHEREAS, Chief Henderson retired on January 1, 2016, after forty (40) years of
devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Chief Henderson, rose
through the ranks serving as a firefighter, lieutenant, assistant chief and then most
recently as chief for the past twenty-three (23) years; and
th
WHEREAS, Chief Henderson became the fourth (4) Chief of the Fort Lewis Fire
Department in 1993; and
WHEREAS, Chief Henderson served on a number of noteworthy boards
including: the Roanoke County Chiefs Board for twenty-nine (29) years, Chairman of the
January 26, 2016
37
Roanoke County Fire Chiefs Board for most of his twenty-three (23) years as Chief,
member of the Virginia State Firefighters Association for thirty (30) years and member
of the Virginia State Fire Chiefs Association for twenty-four (24) years, served on the
LOSAP/VIP Board of Trustees for more than fifteen (15 ) years; and twenty (20) years
on the Virginia Association of Hazardous Materials Response; and
WHEREAS, Chief Henderson also held a number of certifications while
volunteering including:
Firefighter 1, 2 & 3
Fire Instructor 1, 2 & 3
Fire Officer 1 & 2
Confined Space
Trench
Rope 1 & 2
Hazardous Materials Awareness, Operations, Technician, Specialist &
Instructor
Ariel Operator & Instructor
Emergency Vehicle Operations Course & Instructor
Highway Safety Management
WHEREAS, Chief Henderson also taught firefighter certification classes in many
of the above subject matters for forty (40) years to an estimated six thousand (6,000)
students; and
WHEREAS, Chief Henderson served with, supervised, trained and mentored
over two hundred (200) volunteer firefighters since 1975; and
WHEREAS, Chief Henderson served during many memorable incidents including
mountain fires, water rescues, train derailments and the December 19, 2009, historic
snowfall that resulted in sixteen (16) inches of snow, which paralyzed traffic and
stranded sixty-three (63) motorists, who were shuttled to the Fort Lewis Station to stay
overnight.
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 Woodrow “Woody” Henderson for forty (40) years of capable,
loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
January 26, 2016
38
3. Recognition of the Roanoke County Sheriff Department for
receiving re-accreditation status with the American Correctional
AssociationCorrectional Association (ACA) (J. Eric Orange,
Sheriff)
Sheriff Orange outlined the ACA reaccreditation. Holly Jones, Office
Support Specialist and Deputy Sheriff Denise Ory handle all the work associated with
this.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Presentation of the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
for fiscal year 2017-2026 (Thomas C. Gates, County
Administrator; Christopher Bever, Director of Management and
Budget)
Mr. Gates gave a brief overview and turned the meeting over to
Christopher Bever, who provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file
in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. McNamara asked about the $1.26 general fund transfer, which Mr.
Bever explained was part of the basic budget. Supervisor McNamara asked if it was
different from the debt fund, with Mr. Bever advising in the affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked how the budget was done ten years ago,
which Mr. Bever responded by stating the same as we do now.
Supervisor Bedrosian thanked Mr. Bever for all of his work with this. He is
always fearful for the debt and the opportunity we lose on interest payments. He also
commented not to forget the debt to the water authority.
2. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on Virginia
Department of Transportation House Bill 2 Projects (Richard L.
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. Caywood provided the briefing. Supervisor McNamara asked what is
staff going to do in order to work with the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr.
Caywood advised that the challenge is how to make a project more competitive.
3. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors from Virginia
Department of Transportation snow removal (Dan Collins
Mr. Collins provided the briefing. Chairman Peters asked Mr. Collins to
review Montgomery Village in Vinton.
January 26, 2016
39
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution establishing an Audit Committee of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County (Tanya Catron, Internal Auditor)
Ms. Catron outlined the request for the resolution. There was no
discussion.
RESOLUTION 012616-2 ESTABLISHING AN AUDIT
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, during the mid-1980’s Roanoke County created an audit committee
pursuant to Roanoke County, Virginia Code Section 2-126 Creation of Committees,
Boards and Commissions; and
WHEREAS, the audit committee was established, the committee’s
responsibilities, organization and member appointment were not formally defined by
resolution or ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the formation of the County’s internal audit function prompts formal
establishment of the audit committee and the committee’s definition of responsibilities,
organization and member appointment; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the audit committee is to serve as a liaison between
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and staff; and
WHEREAS, the audit committee has the responsibility to assist the Board in
carrying out its policy setting role as it relates to financial and reporting practices,
internal control, compliance with policies and reliance on the work of independent
auditors; and
WHEREAS, the audit committee will be comprised of two Board of Supervisor
members appointed by Board for a one (1)-year term commencing January of each
year; and
WHEREAS, audit committee members appointed by the Board may not act for
or to bind the Board unless authorized by specific Board action; and
,
WHEREASthe audit committee will meet a minimum of three (3) times annually
for the following purpose(s): (i) to advise the Internal Auditor and County Administrator
on responsibilities and obligations for the Internal Auditor as defined by the Internal
Audit Charter; (ii) to advise and comment on the annual Internal Audit Plan to be
implemented by the Internal Auditor; (iii) to advise and comment on the budget and
resource requirements of the Internal Auditor necessary to carry out assigned
responsibilities; (iv) to receive communications from the Internal Auditor on activities
and performance relative to the Internal Audit Plan; (v) to receive communications
from the independent external auditors related to the annual financial statements audit;
and (vi) to make inquiries of the Internal Auditor.
January 26, 2016
40
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke Virginia, the audit committee is officially established and that:
1. The Committee is to serve as liaison between the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors and staff and to assist the Board carry out its oversight role;
2. The Committee will be comprised of two Board of Supervisor members
appointed by Board for a one year term commencing January of each year;
3. The Committee members appointed by the Board may not act for or to bind
the Board unless authorized by specific Board action;
4. The Committee will meet a minimum of three (3) times annually; and
5. This resolution is effective immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Request to approve the Amended and Restated New River Valley
Commerce Park Participation and Revenue Sharing Agreement
(Jill Loope, Director of Economic Development)
A-012616-3
Ms. Loope outlined the request. There was no discussion.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to approved the Amended and Restated
New River Valley Commerce Park Participation and Revenue Sharing Agreement and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Article IV.-Self-Insurance Program, Section
2-83 of the County Code clarifying the current practice that Fire
and Rescue Volunteers are covered under Worker's
Compensation, and that other Volunteers remain covered under a
Blanket Accident Policy and/or General Liability Policy (Daniel R.
O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator)(POSTPONED AT THE
REQUEST OF STAFF)
January 26, 2016
41
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Section 2-115 “Rules of Debate” of the
Roanoke County Code to provide for the requirement of a
“Second” for all motions before debate at the Board of
Supervisors Meetings(Requested by Supervisor Joseph P.
McNamara)
Dale Thompson stated he is in the Hollins District and here to speak on
the big change proposed to the system and the ordinance that the Board debates with.
He always comes here trying to raise the level of debate so he is going to ask some
questions. The way he thinks about what the Board is expecting to do tonight, with
either a yes or no vote is a system that he uses anytime he has to come up with a big
decision. He thinks this is a big decision. He wished the television cameras would have
stayed because he thinks this may be as important as they came here to televise. The
first question he has is why change the system now? Every time you get to a point
when you are changing something big you have to say why now. What was it that
prompted this? What was it that actually started the process of somebody thinking?
What was the catalyst? What happened in the recent past that has cause you to
believe that you need to have a second for any supervisor to bring something to the
table for debate? He does not know the answer to that and the only thing that he knows
is that there is only one word in the resolution that talks about making sure that things
are germane to the conversation. Roberts Rules of Order, if you are reading them is
probably a great way to fall asleep at night. Use the seconding of the motion to ensure
that only germane business is before the session. That led him to understand that there
must have been something in the recent past that was not germane. He would love to
know what that is because he has been here pretty regularly over the last nine months
and he thinks everything that the Board has been debating has been germane to the
citizens of the County of Roanoke. The other thing that he does is try to figure out what
was the original system and why did people set it up that way, so when he read the
original documentation and came to Item I, and read no second motion shall be required
in order for the Board to consider the motion; this seemed great to him. You are
opening debate and making sure that everything one supervisor believes is germane
actually gets to the Board to be debated. He thinks that was great. He would love to go
ask the people who created that rule why it was there. The other thing that he does
when he has big changes to make is to take it to an extreme. What happens if you say
yes to this proposal, what that means that you are basically reducing the space for
debate because one district, who many have some issues that are not relevant to the
other districts, cannot bring that to debate because they need a second. He added that
he knows what they are going to tell him, they are going to say you will support the
other supervisor member, but remember this is extreme. What if you don’t and the
January 26, 2016
42
district says they want to talk about this and they don’t get a second, you don’t have
debate. You are either going to vote yes or no and what we will learn from this is do
you want to widen the debate and bring more citizens into the process or do you want to
narrow the debate and dim the lights in this room.
Supervisor McNamara moved approval as it was amended between first
and second reading.
Supervisor Peters requested that Supervisor McNamara withdraw his
motion because he would like to have the two items voted on separately.
Supervisor McNamara stated the motion could be severed and have two
votes. He stated that there needed to be a vote on the division.
On the motion of Supervisor Peters to separate the items into two
separate items, the motion was approved;
AYES: Supervisor Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara and Peters
NAYS: None
Supervisor McNamara asked if he could speak to both together. He
guesses the reason that cameras are not here is because he does not think it is a big
change; a big thing. Why would we look at making a change to our Board’s Rules of
Organization now, is that we make them somewhat frequently? We made some
changes two years ago, we made changes to how we are dealing with a commerce
park a couple of items ago. We added an Audit Committee, so we always make
changes he hopes to become more efficient, more effective. He personally does not
see how either section stifles citizen’s involvement in the process whatsoever. This is
specifically to the Board’s operations and procedures. It has nothing to do with the
citizens coming to speak. He was actually surprised that a number of the emails came
out. The seconds is the way every Board he has been associated with except this
Board. Roanoke County School Board has seconds. The Ft. Lewis Fire Department,
which we honored here, he did not ask them specifically but would venture to say that
they have a second at their meetings. The gentleman from Vinton is on the Fire
Department and he would be interested if they have a second. Roanoke City, Town of
Vinton, City of Salem, the Roanoke County Republican Party, Leadership Roanoke
Valley, every organization has seconds so he thinks we are kind of falling in line with
virtually every organization that is out there. The Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional
Commission has a second. Many of your churches, your church boards have seconds.
So he cannot follow the step that it turns into stifling citizen debate; he does not get that
at all. He has never heard anyone say that citizen debate has been stifled by our
School Board, Roanoke City or any other board that he has served on.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would like a comment about what other
organizations do. They are private organizations. When he looks at Roanoke County
government, this is really the closest you get to the people of a community. So, he
thinks we should almost fall over backwards to keep it as open as possible, when there
January 26, 2016
43
really does not seem like a reason to change it. Even the citizen that came up spoke
eloquently about it. What is the reason to change it; if there is not a reason to change it,
why would you do it. That has to be a consideration. Why would you do it? Even when
that individual came up, he thought what if we had to second him in order for him to
speak. He, from his district would feed up to the person that represents him and the
other people in that room feed up to the person that represents them. So, what if we
knew he was going to speak about a certain subject and did not give a second. Well,
we have a representative republic, we do not have a democracy. It is a representative
republic, we represent the people, so if they have something they bring it to us and we
are their outlet to bring it up in a discuss right here. So, he does not see anything to
bringing it to the County or this Board. The funny thing is that is a solution speaking
about a problem. We are trying to search for a problem on this; there is no problem.
Bring it up, debate it without a second and if you don’t agree with it, just vote no. There
is already a solution in effect for that. If he brings up something and you don’t like it,
vote it down. That is great. Why stifle it before it even is allowed to be spoken. It is
really about the citizens of Roanoke County. We are their representatives, we get what
they say and we bring it up to the Board. He has had issues. He would be curious as
to what issues we wouldn’t second. He has talked about voting on salaries, well is that
germane, voting about our own salaries is something that he thinks they should talk
about. He has talked about the abortion issue, United Way and Planned Parenthood.
Just listen to the news. You will hear that is talked about almost every day on the news,
even on a National level. It is germane, people are discussing these things. You may
not think they are, but people are discussing them. Budgets increasing, debt increased
are those issues we would not second. What is the issue we would not second? Again,
why are we having a solution for a problem that does not even exist? Let the debate go
on. Are we scared of the debate? What is it that makes us timid about debate?
Debate is great and most people he talks to think it is great. Have a debate; vote no if
you don’t like one side or the other. It exposes it and lets people hear it. If we stifle the
debate before we even start it, he thinks that is where we really lose out. It is
interesting, we have five Board members here and every one of us was voted by the
citizens in their district, 18,000 citizens he thinks it is, voted for that representative. You
can like him, love him, hate him or her whatever. They voted for that person. They
have a right not only to be heard themselves, but to have their representative, the one
they voted for speak. They can retire him or her at the next election, if they want, but
they have every right to not have that representative be like a child and have someone
else agreed with him in order for him or her to say or bring up something to be debated
upon. He thinks it is somewhat childish. We are all adults here. None of us should
need another person to tell us that our idea is warranted or not warranted. Let the
citizens decide that.
Chairman Peters commented this about the business of the people and
whether there is a second or not, he thinks is a moot point.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated that he thinks the comment that it is a moot
January 26, 2016
44
point whether you have a second or not is not appropriate. If a member of this Board
and he has agreed with many things on the Board, he thinks that every member of this
Board should have the opportunity to be an adult and present their opinion of the item
on the agenda without having to have another elected officer say it is okay to present.
He does not think it is a moot point.
Chairman Peters stated that a year ago he was asked to put the Board on
his email list so that they could all be informed and you have yet to do that. You said
anybody could be on it and we formally asked. He received a copy of the email and he
disagrees because he thinks any citizen has the right to come here. If you remember at
the last meeting, there was a motion to have a second to have an item put on the
agenda and he does not agree with that because it does limit. Any of the five Board
members should have the right to put something on an agenda. He feels that the
citizen has the right to come and stand before us. He has been very open about that.
He let Mr. Thompson speak. Our rules stated he is not supposed to speak until citizen
comments. He just does not feel this limits as you feel limits your voice in government.
He disagrees.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated that he has not put the Board on the email list
is because of the conversation we had about not having all five. He felt that the emails
were getting out and felt it would be conflict of interest if the five of us are conversing
outside of a meeting. He felt that the citizens could send it out if they want. The other
thing is that you don’t want a second to put it on the agenda, but what is the difference.
We don’t need a second to put it on the agenda, but it gets put on the agenda and has
to have a second to have a debate. He would say that they are identical. If you going
to say, you don’t need a second to put it on the agenda, but when it actually gets on the
agenda you need a second to debate it that is a moot point. Just have a second to put
it on the agenda. What difference does it make? Both points are bad and should be
removed. So, great I don’t need a second to get it on the agenda, but now you need a
second to actually talk about it. We are splitting hairs and that is dangerous. He thinks
that everyone that votes for having a second to have a debate about it is actually voting
to have a second to put it on the agenda.
Chairman Peters commented his statement was incorrect. The agenda
item will still come up and speak to that motion. It is not like it is quashed before it is
even talked about or even read. The agenda is a public item; that is why he is opposed
to it; it is a public document. The citizens that have that concern will see it on there and
hopefully will have conversations about it.
ORDINANCE 012616-4 AMENDING SECTION 2-114 “AGENDA”
AND SECTION 2-115 “RULES OF DEBATE” OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REQUIREMENT OF A “SECOND” FOR ALL MOTIONS BEFORE
DEBATE AT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETINGS
January 26, 2016
45
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believes that it is in the public interest to
clarify its Rules of Board Procedure to specify that a second is required for any motion
raised in a session; and
WHEREAS, the Rules of the County Board Procedures are located in the
Roanoke County Code, Article V, Chapter 2; and
th
WHEREAS, Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 11 Edition (RRO)
provides guidance for the use of the seconding of a motion to ensure that only germane
business is before the session; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of the ordinance was held on January 12, 2016, and
the second reading of the ordinance was held on January 26, 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors as follows
that:
1. Within Section 2-115. Rules of Debate, Roanoke County Code, Article V,
Chapter 2, new section “i” will replace, in its entirety, former section “i” to
read:
“All motions shall require a second. After another member seconds the
motion, the chairman shall state the question on the motion, and then the
motion shall be open to debate. At the conclusion of the debate, the
chairman shall put the question to the vote.”
2. This ordinance shall take effect from and after January 26, 2016.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian
Chairman Peters read the motion that is on the floor.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would bring up the same points. Things
change over time and you may change your mind. He just finds this a solution looking
for a problem. If something is important enough and you think it was brought up six
months ago, but we really want to look at that again because conditions have changed
and we don’t allow it. He has been on the Board now for two years, is this a problem?
Have we had a dispute over this before; it is almost comical. None of the things we
ever had a dispute before has caused a problem, but we want to add another line in
government to make another hurdle to go over, which actually wasn’t a problem. Are
people repeatedly bringing up items to be voted on repeatedly over the last two years?
Again, just finds there is no need for it if that is what the Board wants to do. Why do it,
but if we want big government, he suggests that we do add another line in and make it
more difficult.
January 26, 2016
46
Supervisor McNamara commented at our last Board meeting, the
Supervisor from Hollins thought it was already in there and did not have a problem with
it. He thinks you have these things because he recalls several meetings where he was
lectured during Board member comments that a certain member of this Board at every
single meeting as long as he is on this Board. Is it a problem, could be. Is this part of
good government, in his opinion it is.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he feels it is important to note that he thought
it was already in there, but he did not vote for it. He did not have a problem doing it
because he thought the Board has already voted on when we brought all these new
rules and regulations. The other thing is that he has ten minutes at the end of each
meeting that he can talk about whatever he wants. Has he ever brought something up
to be voted on again, again and again? History is a good indication of what a person
will do. For those that bring up things like this is a good indication of what will be
brought up again and again and again to stifle. He has always allowed people on this
Board to speak, never, ever tried to stop debate from happening, never, ever tried to
bring someone from bringing something forward to the Board. Everybody on this Board
talks about the same thing over and over at every meeting. Everybody has something
that they love to talk about and they do, that is fine. He brings up his issues within his
ten minutes. He has never brought up things to vote on again and again. We don’t
need to do this.
ORDINANCE 012616-5 AMENDING SECTION 2-114 “AGENDA”
AND SECTION 2-115 “RULES OF DEBATE” OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REQUIREMENT OF A “SECOND” FOR ALL MOTIONS BEFORE
DEBATE AT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believes that it is in the public interest to
clarify its Rules of Board Procedure to specify that a second is required for any motion
raised in a session; and
WHEREAS, the Rules of the County Board Procedures are located in the
Roanoke County Code, Article V, Chapter 2; and
th
WHEREAS, Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 11 Edition (RRO)
provides guidance for the use of the seconding of a motion to ensure that only germane
business is before the session; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of the ordinance was held on January 12, 2016, and
the second reading of the ordinance was held on January 26, 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors as follows
that:
1. Within Section 2-115, Rules of Debate, Roanoke County Code, Article V,
January 26, 2016
47
Chapter 2, new section “h” will replace, in its entirety, former section “h” to
read:
“Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any member of the board
from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent
meeting of the board, provided the existing Board has not acted on the
same or similar motion in the last twelve (12) months.
2. This ordinance shall take effect from and after January 26, 2016.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 012616-6 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 January
26, 2016, 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 4 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – October 27, 2015
2. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $9,268 to the
Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal year
2015/2016
3. Donation of a Police Dog to the Roanoke County Police Department
4. Confirmation of appointments to Court-Community Corrections Alcohol Safety
Action Program (ASAP) Policy Board; Court-Community Corrections Program
– Regional Community Criminal Justice Board; Roanoke Valley-Alleghany
Regional Commission (Regional Stormwater Management Committee),
Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization, Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission, Social Services Board, Virginia Association
of Counties, Virginia’s First Regional Industrial Facility Authority and Western
Virginia Regional Jail Authority
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
January 26, 2016
48
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
A-012616-6.a
A-012616-6.b
A-012616-6.c
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Peters moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Outstanding Debt
5. Accounts Paid – December 31, 2015
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
December 31, 2015
7. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of December 31, 2015
8. Treasurer’s Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of December 31, 2015
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would like to talk about something he
brings up at every meeting, the United Way. He loves that he can speak freely now and
does not need a second when he speaks at the end of a meeting. Halleluiah, still have a
little freedom. He does want to thank the Board. Last time we had a United Way
resolution and asked that they not fund Planned Parenthood and this Board did pass it.
He did not like the watered down version, but it did pass it. He then asked the Clerk
what was the plan for presenting that resolution to the United Way, when do we do that.
The Clerk responded that it would be mailed out this week. It was not the way he
wanted it, but thanked the Board as he is willing to work with the Board and whatever
gets passed is good. He reminded everyone on this Board that this is the big issue, the
big issue of the citizens in his district about funding Planned Parenthood and that was
brought up by the citizens to be brought up by him to the County and to talk about. This
January 26, 2016
49
is a reminder that the lives of 813 every year are taken at this Planned Parenthood in
Roanoke. It is not a National issue, but is right here in our backyard. He also wants to
clarify something with regard to the debt in Roanoke County. He went back and looked
at some of the notes he had. Just so that you will know, sometimes it is hard looking at
the past and the future and trying to see where these debt numbers are. Our debt in
2004, these are some notes he took during a work session, was a little over $200
million. Then it dropped to $127 million in 2005; that was the number he was trying to
get to. The water authority was formed and roughly $70 million worth of debt was
transferred over to the water authority and taken off of our books. It went down to $127
million. Please correct him if he is wrong. Then the debt started to climb again and
reached a high of $223 million in 2009. We were at $201, dropped to $127, but really
because we offloaded debt to the water authority. If you think we got rid of that debt,
you are now paying the interest on that debt because the water authority has to relieve
that debt and it is built into their cost structure now. It is not like this is gone, we just
transferred it over to another group to bring to the citizens of Roanoke County. At the
end of 2013, it went back down to $184 million and he thinks today it sits at $177 million
and it is going to climb back up with the schools. He just wants to warn everybody as
we look to the future, it is very easy to say debt is going to go down, it will be down to
$150 in ten years. He does not know if anybody is going to be on this Board in ten
years, but that is the future. It always works out that something comes up and we keep
borrowing money and it will go way, way back up. That is the recent history here in
Roanoke County. We are very lucky to offload a lot of that debt and then we started
ramping up in debt again; that is usually the system of government. The debt just keeps
rolling and getting higher and higher. So, he would be very skeptical in the next several
years that we will find a way to increase our debt. Some percentages we used today
we also have to be a little careful of, the percentage in comparing our debt to
expenditures. If we actually as a County spend more money, our debt ratio looks
better, which is kind of strange. If we keep spending more money and out debt climbs
with it, it could be a smaller ratio because our spending is going way high. To him that
is a little deceiving ratio. You could actually have a very small ratio because you are
spending a lot of money. The only funding source available on this planet is you and
himself. Government does not get its money any other way; through taxes, grants, you
can call it whatever, but it is through the citizens. His vision for Roanoke County is to
have a very prosperous community and a small limited government. That is balance he
loves. He wants people to be prosperous, have lots of extra money and not have the
tight budgets they have. Happy people that way and a smaller government.
Supervisor Hooker stated she had two issues. Speaking to things that were
mentioned, the first on our vote on requiring a second for debate. She just wanted to
reiterate that it is a protocol for many of our boards. Our citizens will still be heard; we
are still looking to hear from our citizens and is curious if the same thought process is
with our State legislature. Is there a thinking that debate is being limited because the
Board requires a second? She does not follow that reasoning. It looks like simple
January 26, 2016
50
Robert’s Rules protocol in her opinion. The second issue is regarding the resolution.
She wants to reiterate also that was accepted as written, just as a note of clarification.
Supervisor McNamara stated we recognized VDOT and the budget and what a
good job they did, but did not remember anyone mentioning Parks and Rec. He did
not remember Parks and Rec. He is one of the rare people that really likes snow and if
it is snowing and he cannot drive a car, by definition, if he drives a car and gets stuck
three or four times, because he has been stuck more than that, but if he cannot take a
car, he will be walking down the road. So, he was over here Friday morning and there
is Parks and Rec out with their snow blowers on Friday. It was very difficult late in the
day on Friday to get to this building, but if you got to the building, the building was
plowed, everything was perfect and he thinks that holds true for all the County facilities,
the libraries, etc. They did a nice job, got on it early, stayed on it and wanted to thank
them for that.
Supervisor Peters stated we are about the business of the people and
prosperity of our people as Mr. Bedrosian just mentioned is about creating jobs,
economic development. He thinks that is important to our citizens as well. They
understand investments need to be made in order to do that. Would like to recognize
from the storm not only our Parks and Rec, our public safety, fire and rescue, police, our
Deputy Sheriff’s, County Administrator as he saw he had a 5 o’clock conference call in
the morning. He was glad he had to do that. Everybody efforts to continue to run
smoothly. He appreciates everything you do. The last note is a somber note, many
folks know Terry Franklin who is a member of our community and very active passed
away this weekend and would like to publically tell Linda and his family that we are sorry
for their loss. He was a good man and a good activist for the community.
At 5:15 pm Chairman Peters recessed to the fourth floor for work session.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discussion an Amendment to the Erosion and
Sediment Control Ordinance, Stormwater Management Ordinance
and Design Manual and proposed Memorandum of Understanding
with the Town of Vinton (Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development)
Mr. Covey and Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development provided a
PowerPoint presentation to the Board outlining stormwater management. It was the
consensus to move forward. The work session was held from 5:34 pm until 5:51 pm.
Chairman Peters asked about the Homeowner’s Associations with regard
to enforcement and education, which Mr. Covey outlined.
January 26, 2016 51
2. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the mid-
year fiscal year 2015-2016 revenues and expenditures
(Christopher Bever, Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. provided a second quarter update advising the Board members that
the numbers were right where they need to be.
The work session was held from 5:52 pm. until 6:04 pm
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 6:04 p.m.
• bmitted by: Approved by:
,4 /,,„, 400i ,/,
1
(-- ...dmih„.......
4111011111111 At AlII - -41-'AA 4FirrallO
I-borah C. -,Fs P. Jas. Peters
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman
January 26, 2016
52
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY