HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/19/2016 - Regular
July 19, 2016
333
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 third Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July 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 3:03 p.m. Chairman
Peters announced that County Administrator Thomas Gates would not be in attendance
due to a family issue. 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:
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: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing: Mountain Valley Pipeline Project(Richard Caywood
Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. Caywood provided the briefing. Supervisor McNamara inquired if they
have provided the locations for the public hearing with Mr. Caywood responding in the
negative. Supervisor McNamara indicated this was indicative of the entire project; lacks
good faith.
July 19, 2016
334
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution approving recommendations from the Pipeline
Advisory Committee for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline project
(Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator)
There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 071916-1 APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THE PIPELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FILING
WITH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGARDING THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE PROJECT
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2015, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
authorized County staff to file the necessary motion to intervene with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission in the Mountain Valley Pipeline proceedings; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
issued a “Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Mountain Valley Pipeline
Project and the Equitrans Expansion Project”, which indicated the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission’s intent to issue the project’s Draft Environmental Impact
Statement in September 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission also indicated that it
intends to issue the Final Environmental Impact Statement on March 10, 2017, which
will initiate the 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline ending on June 8, 2017;
and
WHEREAS, the issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will
represent one of Roanoke County’s last significant opportunities to provide input to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project; and
WHEREAS, in order to make appropriate comments to protect Roanoke County
and its citizens’ interests in the project, County Staff, the Roanoke County Pipeline
Advisory Committee, and citizens must be able to reasonably review the Mountain
Valley Pipeline Project record; and
WHEREAS, under the Natural Gas Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission is responsible for compiling the “consolidated record” which serves as the
basis for final decision making by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other
regulating agencies; and
WHEREAS, the current project record has been created and is being maintained
in a manner that is extraordinarily burdensome for citizens and staff to review; and
WHEREAS, examples of issues with the current record include the following:
July 19, 2016
335
On April 21, 2016, Mountain Valley Pipeline filed data responses in the
form of 126 individual files spanning hundreds of pages with generic labels
such as “MVP DR2 042016 PUBLIC Part 1 of 126,” “MVP DR2 042016
PUBLIC Part 2 of 126,” etc. No index to these files was provided. In order
to locate Roanoke County related items, for example, each file had to be
downloaded and reviewed page by page. Many other project filings have
been made in a similar fashion.
The resource reports originally filed by Mountain Valley Pipeline have not
been updated in a fashion that would allow a reviewer to determine the
current status of many critical issues without making a complete review of
the entire project record. In many cases, a reviewer would need to search
out and locate multiple filings made months apart to understand the status
of a single issue; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has broad authority to
require the project record to be presented in a manner that is transparent and
reasonably accessible to County Staff, the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory
Committee, and the public; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee met on July 18,
2016, to review these matters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, that the Board of Supervisors accepts the recommendations of the
Pipeline Advisory Committee as presented on July 18, 2016, and directs staff to take
the following actions:
1) To file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in consultation with
outside counsel, an appropriate motion detailing Roanoke County’s concerns
with the proposed Environmental Impact Statement development schedule
and the organization of the project record. Consult with and, if possible, make
this filing in concert with other affected localities;
2) Request the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to conduct one of the
proposed draft Environmental Impact Statement public hearings in Roanoke
County;
3) To work and collaborate with the Pipeline Advisory Committee to create and
make additional filings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
supporting past Board actions and direction as review of recently posted
Mountain Valley Pipeline materials are completed.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
July 19, 2016
336
2. Resolution authorizing the execution of support and service
agreements in connection with the bond issue by the Roanoke
Valley Broadband Authority through the Virginia Resources
Authority (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the request for the resolution.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented he is the lone person that voted against
broadband and would like to go over some of the things that got us involved in this in
the first place. He thinks it is good to understand this and why he will be voting no today
to approve this. This started back in 2014, when a similar discussion came up and we
invited private enterprise to come in and talk about what they were doing in the
broadband market and we came away from that meeting says no we are not going to
put up any money. At that time, it was $2 million we were looking at for the Broadband
Authority. Now, 2016 and the money is up to $3.5 million plus operating and the same
questions came up as last time and he wants to walk through some of these claims and
what we found out in our meeting that we had in the Training Room and why a lot of
these questions we had really were not questions anymore because they answered
them and they answered them to the point that he thinks indicated that this is really not
needed to spend $3.5 million capital and $1.8 of operating expense. The reason he
thinks it is important to walk through this is that this money that we are about to spend
that the rest of the Board is going to authorize takes money from County taxpayers and
allocates it to this specific project. So, when other projects come up, things that are
needed desperately, that money is no longer available because it is not like we have
unlimited funds. We have to pick wisely the things that we do. Today, we are about to
commit ourselves to this and when we don’t have money for other things, we will look
back to see if this was a wise decision. The first reason we thought we should get
involved with the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority in terms of providing money was
that we were going to help unserved areas in Roanoke County. We found out that was
untrue. Twenty-five miles that this money is to be spent for goes right to the areas that
already have broadband. This was discussed upstairs in the Training Room long and
hard; we are not going into the rural areas and helping residents. This is not about
residential at all. We are not going out to some area that does not have broadband right
now and lay fiber. No one disputes that. This was an impression in the beginning and
that was what we were going to do and use taxpayer dollars. The next idea was we
were going to be helping residents, people that did not have good broadband
connectivity. This has nothing to do with this; it is about business areas and nothing to
do with residential. Another claim that was we need to look to the future and we were
going to have this infrastructure in place so that future businesses and maybe someone
looking at Roanoke down the line would come to Roanoke. This was also answered.
July 19, 2016
337
Cox has already laid fiber at our Industrial Park in the Dixie Caverns area and they have
two customers, but there are four areas that are ready to go and have been sitting there
for several years and we have no businesses that have come. So, the fact that if you
just put it out there then somebody is going to come automatically is not true and was
talked about. The next claim was there was not enough fiber throughout the County
and again through multiple discussions we found out that Roanoke County has plenty of
fiber. We were disputing whether maps that were a couple of years old were showing
the right thing. We found out that for example that Cox is Cox Cable and although they
lay fiber it was showing up as cable and not broadband. These are some of the
reasons why he thinks it is important to walk through this. This next claim was that we
were putting down the latest and greatest fiber and that there was a difference in fiber.
We found out that fiber is fiber, it is all the same. It is the technology on either side of it,
which all the companies have. We were also told that we do not have 10 gig service in
Roanoke; well we found out by the providers they are already providing and have been
for several years; 10 gig service is already here. He brings up these points but this is
why we got into this and he thinks it is important that the citizens of Roanoke County
know why we are spending the money. Everything that he has told you here shows that
everything we thought we needed it for, we really did not. We have had plenty of
discussions on this. The final thing that really makes him nervous and he brought it up
in the last meeting is that the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority is not a transparent
organization. We were just discussing the Pipeline and how untransparent they are
being; they were going to be open and everything talked about and then we find out no,
they try to make things hard to understand. They send you 132 pages of answers, but
they don’t label them and we think that is wrong. Well, he approached the Roanoke
Valley Broadband Authority and asked about the two customers that just pulled away
from the private sector. What kind of deal did they negotiate with them; crickets, no one
will speak. No one is being transparent and he thinks the taxpayers in Roanoke County
should know how their money is being spent. He thinks that is very, very important, so
he just wants to make sure it is on record of why he is voting against this, even though it
has been approved and today is just a formality. We are now taking $5.5 million of
taxpayer dollars; money that we will need in the future and we won’t have it and will
have to borrow more money. We are doing a project that is really not needed in
Roanoke County.
RESOLUTION 071916-2 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
SUPPORT AND SERVICE AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE BOND ISSUE BY THE ROANOKE VALLEY
BROADBAND AUTHORITY THROUGH THE VIRGINIA
RESOURCES AUTHORITY
A resolution authorizing the proper officials of Roanoke County, Virginia (the
“County”) to execute a Service Agreement (the “Service Agreement”) among the Cities
July 19, 2016
338
of Roanoke and Salem, Virginia (the “Cities”), the County, the Roanoke Valley
Broadband Authority (the “RVBA”) and the Virginia Resources Authority (“VRA”), and a
Support Agreement (the “Support Agreement”) among the County, the RVBA and VRA,
subject to certain terms and conditions and authorizing the County Administrator to take
certain other actions in connection with the Support Agreement.
RECITALS
WHEREAS,the RVBA was created by the concurrent resolutions adopted by the
City of Roanoke (September 3, 2013), the City of Salem (September 9, 2013), Botetourt
County (September 24, 2013) and the County (August 27, 2013); and
WHEREAS, heretofore, the RVBA issued its revenue bond in the original
principal amount of $5,780,000 (the “Series 2015 Local Bond”) and sold the Series
2015 Local Bond to VRA pursuant to the terms of a Local Bond Sale and Financing
Agreement dated as of April 10, 2015 between the RVBA and VRA (the “2015
Financing Agreement”) to finance the original design, engineering and construction of
an approximately 47-mile metropolitan, suburban and rural fiber optic
telecommunications network with single ring architecture in the Roanoke Valley area,
including related landscaping, infrastructure and issuance costs (the “Original Project”);
and,
WHEREAS, RVBA has determined that, as allowed by Section 15.2-5431.11 of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Virginia Code”), it is in its best interest to
design, construct and operate an approximately 25-mile extension to the Original
Project (the “Roanoke County Extension,” and with the Original Project, the “Project”) to
be located mostly in the County and to issue its revenue bond in the original principal
amount of $3,000,000 plus amounts for a required Local Debt Service Reserve Fund,
administrative costs and costs of issuance (the “Series 2016 Local Bond”) to be sold to
VRA pursuant to the terms of a Local Bond Sale and Financing Agreement dated June
17, 2016 between the RVBA and VRA (the “2016 Financing Agreement” and, with the
2015 Financing Agreement, the “Financing Agreements”); and,
WHEREAS, VRA has required, as a condition of its purchase of the Series
2016 Local Bond, that the County enter into the Support Agreement to be executed and
delivered to VRA by the County; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem (the “Cities”), VRA and the
County have considered that the County’s obligation under the Support Agreement will
be limited to (1) the amount of the debt service on the Series 2016 Local Bond and (2)
one-third (1/3) of the Operation and Maintenance Expenses (as defined in the
Financing Agreements) and other payments due and owing by the RVBA under the
Financing Agreements, and that the Cities’ respective obligations under the 2015
Support Agreement, as amended by a first amendment (the “First Amendment”), will
each be limited to (1) one-half (1/2) of the debt service on the Series 2015 Local Bond
and (2) one-third (1/3) of the Operation and Maintenance Expenses and other
payments due and owing by the RVBA under the Financing Agreements, and the form
of the Service Agreement embodying such terms has been presented to this meeting.
July 19, 2016
339
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors has determined it is in the best interests of the
County and its citizens for the County to enter into the Service Agreement
and the Support Agreement to reflect that thenon-binding obligations
described in the above recitals will apply to the Series 2016 Local Bond and
the Financing Agreements to reflect the issuance and sale of the Series 2016
Local Bond and the financing, operation and maintenance of the Project.
2. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors or County Administrator, either of
whom may act, are each hereby authorized to execute and deliver to the
other parties thereto the Service Agreement and the Support Agreement
substantially similar to the above mentioned Service Agreement and Support
Agreement, which documents are dated as of August 1, 2016, and the Board
of Supervisors further approves the Service Agreement and the Support
Agreement, with such completions, omissions, insertions or changes, not
inconsistent with this resolution, as may be approved by the Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors or County Administrator. The execution of the Service
Agreement and the Support Agreement by the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors or County Administrator will be evidence of his approval of such
completions, omissions, insertions or changes. The form of any such
documents shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
3. As provided in the Support Agreement, the Board of Supervisors authorizes
the County Administrator to make a request to the Board of Supervisors to
appropriate to or on behalf of the RVBA such amounts as may be requested
from time to time pursuant to the Support Agreement, to the fullest degree
and in such manner as is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The Board of Supervisors, while recognizing that
it is not empowered to make any binding commitment to make such
appropriations in future fiscal years, hereby states its intent to make such
appropriations in future fiscal years, and hereby recommends that future
Boards of Supervisors do likewise during the term of the Support Agreement.
4. The Board of Supervisors acknowledges that VRA considers the Support
Agreement as a “local obligation” pursuant to Section 62.1-216.1 of the
Virginia Code. In the event of the failure of the County to make a payment
under the Support Agreement, VRA has the right, and is obligated under the
Indenture (as defined in the 2016 Financing Agreement) to institute the
“state-aid intercept” process set forth in Section 62.1-216.1 of the Virginia
Code under which the Governor could cause the Comptroller to withhold all
further payment to the County of funds appropriated and payable by the
Commonwealth to the County until the unpaid sum is obtained; provided,
however, that in the event VRA determines to institute the “state-aid
intercept” process, and so long as there are adequate amounts in the Local
July 19, 2016
340
Debt Service Reserve Fund (as such term is defined in the Financing
Agreement) to cover any Local Bond debt service payment then due and
payable and due and payable in the following sixty (60) days, it will give the
County sixty (60) days’ written notice before instituting the “state-aid
intercept” process. If the Local Debt Service Reserve Fund is not sufficient
for such purpose, then VRA may institute the “state-aid intercept” process
without such notice. The funds so withheld would be directed to VRA to cure
the nonpayment.
5. Nothing herein contained is or shall be deemed to be a pledge or a lending of
the credit of the County to RVBA, VRA or to any holder of the Series 2016
Local Bond or the Series 2015 Local Bond or to any other person or entity,
and nothing herein contained is or shall be deemed to be a pledge of the
faith and credit or the taxing power of the County, nor shall anything herein
contained legally bind or obligate the Board of Supervisors to appropriate
funds for the purposes described or mentioned in the Support Agreement.
6. The County Administrator is authorized to take such further actions and
execute such further documents as may be necessary to obtain, accept,
implement, administer, and enforce the Support Agreement, with any such
documents to be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
7. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
Resolution establishing a Legislative Committee of the Board of
3.
Supervisors of Roanoke County(Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County
Attorney)
Ms. Kuhnel outlined the request for resolution. Chairman Peters
commented that he thought this was a wonderful idea.
Supervisor McNamara stated he thinks tax rates impact legislative actions,
but he does not feel it involved Economic Development and wondered if Ms. Loope,
Director of Economic Development, keeps getting put on these items, is it going to
benefit economic development or stretch time constraints. Ms. Loop advised there were
several initiatives Economic Development could be working on, i.e. GOVirginia.
There was no further discussion.
RESOLUTION 071916-3 ESTABLISHING A LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY
July 19, 2016
341
Whereas, the Roanoke County Code, Section 2-126, allows the Board of
Supervisors to establish and appoint committees as needed to assist in the conduct or
operation of County business; and
Whereas, the Board of Supervisors desires to formalize a year long process in
developing and implementing a legislative strategy to benefit the Roanoke County
citizens, as well as the Greater Roanoke Valley; and
Whereas, an important step in this process is to appoint a Legislative Committee
(the “Committee”) tasked with the responsibilities of development and oversight of a
legislative agenda; and
Whereas, the Legislative Committee will be comprised of the Board of
Supervisors and appointed staff positions.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors of Roanoke Virginia, that:
1. A Legislative Committee is hereby officially established;
2. The Board in its entirety shall serve on the Committee;
3. The County Administrator, the County Attorney, the Assistant County
Administrators, the Director of Management and Budget, the Director of
Economic Development, the Deputy Director of Planning, and staff as
required for operational support, shall serve on the Committee;
4. The Committee is tasked with developing and advocating for a legislative
agenda;
5. The Committee is tasked with the oversight of proposed legislative actions
of the General Assembly which impact the citizens of Roanoke County
and the Roanoke Valley;
6. The Committee will meet a minimum of three (3) times per year with the
year beginning July 1;
7. The Committee may not act for or bind the Board unless authorized by
specific Board action;
8. That term of the appointment will be year to year unless otherwise
amended; and
9. This resolution is effective retroactively to July 1, 2016.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Assaid and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
July 19, 2016
342
1. The petition of Stephen Hartman to remove all proffered
conditions from property zoned C-2CS, high intensity commercial
with conditions and special use permit. The property is
approximately 0.459 acre in size and is located at 7637 Williamson
Road, Hollins Magisterial District. The proffered conditions deal
with the use of the property, lighting, screening, signage and
hours of operation.
Supervisor Bedrosian’s motion to approve first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for August 9, 2016, was seconded by Supervisor Peters and
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the relocation of the following polling
places pursuant to Section 24.2-306, 24.2-307 and 24.2-310 of the
Code of Virginia, as Amended: (1) Bonsack Precinct (402); (2)
Catawba Precinct (101) (Judith Stokes, Registrar)
Ms. Stokes outlined the ordinance. Chairman Peters asked if the Vinton
Precinct was moving into Hollins with Ms. Stokes advising no it must be within one mile.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked what is next in the process with Ms. Stokes
advising notification would be mailed to each person.
Supervisor Peters’ motion to approve first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for August 9, 2016, was seconded by Supervisor Hooker
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing and approving amendment of a Lease
Agreement between Roanoke County and GrainComm, Inc. for a
communications facility on Barrens Road, adjacent to the Hollins
Fire Station(Rob Light, Acting Director of General Services)
Mr. Light advised there were no changes from the first reading. There
was no discussion.
July 19, 2016
343
ORDINANCE 071916-4 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING
AMENDMENT OF A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
ROANOKE COUNTY AND GRAINCOMM, INC. FOR A
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY ON BARRENS ROAD,
ADJACENT TO THE HOLLINS FIRE STATION
WHEREAS, in 2004, Roanoke County entered into a ground lease for
approximately 3,400 square feet of property on Barrens Road in Northwest County,
adjacent to the Hollins Fire Station with PCS Alliance (“NTELOS”) for purposes of
installing a wireless communications tower; and
WHEREAS, the terms of the lease provide substantial revenue for the County
both in rent from the ground lease tenant and from the tenant’s sub-lessees through
revenue-sharing provisions in the lease and such proposed amendments will not affect
the revenues received by the County; and
WHEREAS, the successor-in-interest to NTELOS is GrainComm, a private equity
firm; and
WHEREAS, GrainComm has requested amendment of the terms of the lease to
reflect its interest in the lease and to facilitate financing for its operations; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment to the lease does not affect the
substantive rights of the County or the substantive obligations of GrainComm under the
lease; and
WHEREAS, the County also modified a term of the lease to facilitate the tenant
and sub-lessees keeping the property free of debris that might otherwise wash onto or
spill over onto the Hollins Fire Station after routine installation and maintenance
activities; and
WHEREAS, the terms of the existing lease require that GrainComm’s proposed
amendments be approved by the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 28,
2016, and the second reading was held on July 19, 2016.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The 2004 ground lease between Roanoke County and PCS Alliance be amended
to reflect GrainComm as the successor in interest to PCS Alliance and that such
other amendments as requested by the County and GrainComm be approved.
2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is hereby
authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and take such further
actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be
upon form and subject to the conditions by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
July 19, 2016
344
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount
of $166,259 from the Virginia Information Technology Agency
Public Safety Access Point (PSAP) Grant Program(Bill Hunter,
Director of Communications and Information Technology)
Mr. Hunter advised there were no changes from the first reading. There
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 071916-5 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $166,259 FROM THE
VIRGINIA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGENCY PUBLIC
SAFETY ACCESS POINT (PSAP) GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Virginia Information Technology Agency has provided funding for
several Public Safety Access Point grants throughout the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, advances in location technology offer an opportunity to streamline
regional data management and access; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Department of Communications and
Information Technology has been awarded a grant from the Virginia Information
Technology Agency Public Safety Access Point Grant Program
WHEREAS, these funds are specific to creating and establishing a regional
dataset used by Roanoke County, the City of Roanoke, and the City of Salem Public
Safety Access Points; and
WHEREAS, the grant will provide $166,259 in state funds and does not require a
County match; and
WHEREAS, this project will support PSAP readiness for future technology and
enhance the current efficiency of each PSAP; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on June 28, 2016, and the
second reading was held on July 19, 2016.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $166,259 is hereby accepted and appropriated from the
Virginia Information Technology Agency to the Department of
July 19, 2016
345
Communications and Information Technology; and
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 071916-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 19,
2016, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – May 10, 2016
2. Confirmation of appointments to the Court Community Corrections
Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) Policy Board; Court Community
Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board;
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission; Roanoke Valley Cable
TV Committee and Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Steve A. Carper, Jr., Combination Code Compliance
Inspector, upon his retirement after thirty-two years of service
4. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Doris B. Hamilton, Sr. Self Sufficiency Specialist, upon
her retirement after more than thirty-seven years of service
5. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Marvin E. St.Clair, Building Maintenance Technician II,
upon his retirement after nineteen years of service
6. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $14,386.70 to the
Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal
year 2016-2017
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
July 19, 2016
346
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
A-071916-6.a
RESOLUTION 071916-6.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO STEVE A. CARPER, JR. COMBINATION CODE
COMPLIANCE INSPECTOR, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER
THIRTY-TWO YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Steve A. Carper, Jr. was employed by Roanoke County on July 2,
1984; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Carper retired on July 1, 2016, after thirty-two years of devoted,
faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Carper served as Combination Code Compliance Inspector,
during his tenure with Roanoke County and has served with professionalism and
dedication in providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, during Mr. Carper’s time serving the citizens of Roanoke County, he
worked with home builders; developers; home owners and County engineers on variety
of road projects and building project as construction inspector; was certified as
Residential Electrical Inspector, Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector and trained as
Stormwater Management Inspector.
WHEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the
STEVE A. CARPER
appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to for thirty-two
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, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 071916-6.c EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO DORIS B. HAMILTON, SR. SELF SUFFICIENCY
SPECIALIST, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN
THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS OF SERVICE
July 19, 2016
347
WHEREAS, Doris B. Hamilton was employed by Roanoke County on June 1,
1979; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hamilton retired on July 1, 2016, after thirty-seven years and
one month of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hamilton served as Sr. Self Sufficiency Specialist, during her
tenure with Roanoke County and has served with professionalism and dedication in
providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, during Ms. Hamilton’s time serving the citizens of Roanoke County,
she spent her career stabilizing the lives of the children she worked with in the many
roles she had at social services. She started her career on the foster care team which
included on call for CPS and APS intake. Doris was certificated through the circuit
courts of Virginia for custody mediation, she completed home studies and she
conducted family therapy while at social services. As one of the first child care workers
in the department, she played an integral part of the overall development of the
program. Over the years, Ms. Hamilton became a mentor to her coworkers; always
offering help and advice for new staff. Doris was dedicated to improving the lives of
children and her passion will be missed at social services.
WHEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the
DORIS B. HAMILTON
appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to for more than
thirty-seven 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, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 071916-6.d EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO MARVIN E. ST. CLAIR, BUILDING MAINTENANCE
TECHNICIAN II, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER NINETEEN
YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Marvin E. St.Clair was employed by Roanoke County on June 30,
1997; and
WHEREAS, Mr. St.Clair retired on July 1, 2016, after nineteen years of devoted,
faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. St.Clair served as a Building Maintenance Technician II, during
his tenure with Roanoke County and has served with professionalism and dedication in
providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and;
July 19, 2016
348
WHEREAS, during Mr. StClair’s time serving the citizens of Roanoke County, he
was an integral part of ensuring safe and functional facilities for County operations and
provided leadership in implementing high-tech solutions for facility management that
have provided utility and cost benefits including integration of building automation
systems in major buildings and modernization of lighting and plumbing equipment.
WHEREAS, Mr. St.Clair consistently applied his ingenuity to solve complex
facility system and component issues.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
MARVIN E. ST.CLAIR
of Roanoke County to For nineteen 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, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
A-071916-6.e
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke:
Cathy Chandler stated she has not been here before and appreciate the
chance to speak. She is here to put a personal face on pipeline and survey issue.
Briefly, she will say that she represents herself not just a landowner, but a homeowner
because she actually lives on the parcel that they are interested in and consider it not a
traditional neighborhood but a non-traditional neighbor and when she found surveys
there last summer as she said to them. You are not on my land, you are in my yard. It
may not look like it from where they stand, but this is our space and is our personal
space. She does not have a second home anywhere, no house at the lake or the
beach. She stated she would like to briefly touch on survey activity, letters of notice, the
statute, personal property and police support. We sit at a very unfortunate position, of
90 degrees of where the corridor comes through her yard a couple of hundred feet in
front of her house and then last summer found surveyors on their property. She will
highlight two survey issues, which illustrates somewhat why she is sensitive about
certain surveyor letters of notice. Last summer she came home during the middle of
July from taking the kids for a swim and found nine maybe ten vehicles parked at the
corner of her property at least 15-18 people that she was able to count coming out of
the woods and over her yards to which her children asked, “who are these people” and
July 19, 2016
349
some of them refused to speak to her, but she did find one woman who identified
herself as a biologist and she came out of the woods and let her take a picture of her
phone, because it had an intended access road for Green Hollow Drive on Bent
Mountain and she asked if anybody had told me this and she replied, “no, they have
not.” What is remarkable about that event is that the certified letter identifying any dates
for any surveying on her property arrived the day before so that we had not yet had a
chance to respond to that letter, but it also identified a date eleven days into the future.
So, not only were they there without notice, they were clearly there well ahead of the
time they said they may be. They had been there for a least six hours by the time she
came. So, as she tried to gauge the reasonableness, she went home and got her letter
and talked to the crew chief and will say she actually plain lied about having had
permission from our neighbor to come and survey. She advised she is not included in
that permission and you need to go through us just to get to that neighbor. Long story
short that left her disenchanted to say the least. They finished the day and a biologist
gave me information about the extensive wetlands that we have on our property. Not
only are we in the corridor, but it would other points on Green Hollow as well. With that
said, we let it sit and followed different barrages of notice letters throughout the year
and when they would come often saying, “It does not suit for me at this time” all for
th
different reasons. On June 27, we received eight certified letters on a single day in the
post box identifying multiple intended dates of entry, some of which overlap and
different parcels that we have and at that point, she declined stating they have activities
going on our property (She was resurveying done on their behalf to make sure what our
boundaries were) and they were going to be out of town. She does not really share with
people that they are going to be out of town because we are in a very remote area.
However, they entered on Monday, despite the fact that they had declined by certified
mail and other activities have transpired on the mountain that have not affected her
parcels, but she did ask neighbors to watch, to call the police. The police responded
and this is a concern that she is bringing forward today because there is an
interpretation of the statute that if MVP has given notice and letters of intent to come on
certain dates, then she as the landowner have been appropriately notified. That is the
interpretation of the statute. Locally, it has been interpreted that the Police have the
responsibility to go to the scene, take names and she will say only if they can catch
these people because they are pretty quick about scrambling, but they will not be
allowed to ask them to leave the property unless the landowner is present. She went
through an event on Monday, by phone, with a neighbor who represented them, a police
officer at the scene, spoke with the County attorney and Chief Hall and she has had a
lengthy discussion. She is here to let this be known to other people in the pipeline fight
and that is why she is here to talk to the Board and she is so thrilled that anybody here
tonight can hear her story because it is not adequate representation for an absent
landowner to be told, “I am sorry you are not here, so even though I know that I am
speaking with you on the phone, I will not ask them to leave.” The young officer on
Monday engaged in hours of conversation with an MVP Field Director trying to interpret
July 19, 2016
350
a statute. She thought he had a court order. She was talking to her on the phone while
she could hear him in the background stating, “It is not a court order, it is a statute.”
This statute is being interpreted as a law and a body of knowledge in and of itself and
she feels, it has a personal meaning to her, not in favor of a landowner at the local level
and it is simply an interpretation of a statute. It is a piece of law as she understands it,
but she is not an attorney, that can be read with the body of common law and includes
common property, personal property rights, landowner rights and she feels that those
things are not being incorporated. The statute is being looked at in favor of MVP and
not in favor of the landowner. After an assurance on Monday evening last week that
everybody would know it is her and yes the local people that she knows are aware that
she is out of town, if it happened again, she would probably be represented, but come
Thursday and it happened again. Officers went to her home to make sure that she
really was not there and she had a conversation with another officer saying, “Yes, I
understand that you are not here and there is no physical way to get there, but I have
been told this is what he has to do.” So, having engaged in conversation again with the
County Attorney and with Chief Hall, Mr. Caywood knows the story, she is here to say
that there is no way a property owner can guard their property 24-7. No landowner
should be accountable to their property and to defend their home without the ability to
go to work, to school, children to activities, etc. and it is physically just not possible. If
someone believes she is herself and she ask them to leave and that is all she is asking
for. Her choices are to file a report with the police, take it to court or be unruly at the
scene and that has not been her style and it not really the style of the community
members to become unruly to make a point. She does not want to go to the personal
expense of going to court and the folks that are interpreting this statute need to
understand from a personal standpoint, so much is at stake. This is her future equity, it
is her home and the resale value, the idea of dynamite a couple of hundred feet from
her house potentially fracturing the well, irrevocable timber eradication along the
corridor, wetlands that would be destroyed forever, the equity in her home, the ability for
resale, the insurability of her house, a trench that is eleven feet deep and forty feet wide
with the 125 feet on either side. Many of those in the pipeline fight know these little
facts on the back of their hands. She feels that somebody else needs to know. She is
okay with the fact that our survey counts are behind in Roanoke County; she is really
not keen on MVP connecting all of the dots. The minute a police officer is unable to
disengage those surveyors from our property they gather information, which is her
personal information. If you came into her home and gathered personal facts about her,
you come onto my property is just as personal. It is intellectual property to her, it is her
space and it is not really anything that she has given permission to share with anyone
else. Then there is the question of what is done with that information afterward and she
can tell you that the scientists who surveyed last year and sent the reports to Pittsburgh
have had quite a hard time. They sent in freedom of information requests and
Pittsburgh has not been forthcoming. There is quite a lot more to this story and she is
asking everyone to please be thoughtful and reconsider a policy where Police could
July 19, 2016
351
say, absent a landowner, but respecting their wishes that these people need to step
aside. It also influences your ability to negotiate in the future. Simply saying we have to
get these survey done impacts her ability to come to a reasonable conclusion about her
property in the end game if it gets to that point. But, we are not to that point and it is not
inevitable, this pipeline. She really hopes for the sake of Roanoke County that it does
not and admittedly for herself she hopes that it does not. Are there any questions or a
point that she did not make clear.
Roberta Bondurant stated she did not want to take a lot of your time, just
want to follow and certainly assure Mr. Caywood there would not be new information in
here today. So, in coming to listen to Mr. Caywood’s presentation was her original
purpose, but she wanted to follow through on some of the issues as she was privy to
the survey issue that happened that Ms. Chandler and several other people’s property
both on Green Hollow and Poor Mountain and encourage you folks that we continue to
talk with the County Attorney and the Police Chief and to the extent needed the
Commonwealth Attorney in working out this situation. Ms. Chandler did a terrific job in
explaining the nature of one of the major issues involved and we are asking the Police
to look at the adequacy of landowner identification. This has been a problem that
several have raised and so to the extent that has been accomplished in a prima facie
way. For example, this week there is really no doubt that they spoke with Ms. Chandler
on the phone from a distance and she made her way up the chain to several people
who she thought could help her and her family. So, there is that question, presence or
not. It was not a question as Mr. Caywood explains as simply keeping the peace and
addressing the issue. Is it safety or a question of identifying the landowner? We would
ask the Chief to consider the second. At the top of the list, what we are asking is
consideration of immediate injury to the landowner. As Ms. Chandler explained, with
the survey schedule involved is under and authorized entry there is a very narrow
exception to the trespass statute. You see in provision D, “any authorized entry shall
not be a trespass.” So, what the legislature clearly intended to write was a narrow
exception to the trespass law and so all forms of trespass, they don’t accept civil or
criminal and when you go back to paragraph c, it asks the officer to be sure of or the
surveyors represent by certified mail sets forth the date of intended entry, made not less
by 15 days prior to the date of mailing. What in question is the circuit courts of Virginia
now and has actually not been answered by circuit court of Roanoke County, but has
been addressed by Rockingham County and Nelson County. There are very
contemplative of the position and the rights of landowners and actually pretty thorough
and methodical in that it talks about specificity of notice because it recognizes as Ms.
Chandler discussed that the long-time rights in the Constitution, the big one, and our
Constitution in Virginia and in common-law it discusses landowner rights and the
contemplation there is that landowners have a right and a responsibility for example
under our homeowners insurance to know who will enter the property and she will not
touch on the fact that we have no identification of individuals. By comparison, Dominion
has nametags and apparently has vetted its surveyors. If you are not able to get that
July 19, 2016
352
information unless the Police Officers take that information. So there is that issue. The
question again is to what extent does the Police have the power and authority to
request surveyors to leave. To what extent how would that operate? So, we continue
to talk with the Police and the County Attorney in suggesting that the Police have an
immediate contact with the survey crew chief and at that contact would be the sufficient
contact in order to mandate a disbursement of the parties and so she would be glad to
discuss that further if there are questions. As a practical matter, that question of
logistics and the police support and the question of how would one officer at the scene
handle that one half hour from Roanoke without other support, which she thinks is fairly
easily answered. It is a good question and initially good concern for the Chief and
others. She thought out that this weekend, it that a question of support for these folks
and she understands that but she thinks what we have seen over the course of the last
two years is what we have asked these folks to consider with us. Again, to understand
it in the context of the larger FERC process and not to abdicate the power that we do
have to participate in the process is important to landowners to understand that when
the surveys happen the application gets checked off and where the landowners have
the power to ask for enforcement so it is not just a public safety question, it is a question
of appropriate enforcement of the statute that has been blessed by the Supreme Court.
Yes, the Supreme Court has said the rights of surveyors exist, but the question in
particular of enforcement under the notice provisions are protections for the landowner.
Lastly, she spoke of how to read that in context of other law, there is a question of
notice. Is there no notice? Are there no letters there? Is there a rolling notice where
the notice has been blanketed by a series of days? We have suggested to the
authorities that those rolling letters equate to no notice. Where there is a question on
the ground, most importantly, she would ask is that we have long-time residents. At this
weekend, she was at the top of Poor Mountain with a landowner whose family has been
here for six generations. We are committed. You have our commitment to this place.
What we are asking is that the Police Department and the officers on the scene if there
is a question at hand, you don’t have to litigate, you don’t have to mediate, but if there is
a question as to how any engagement of assistance should go, believe one or believe
another, we would ask that the landowner be accommodated in these situations and if
there is a situation to bring to the courts that we certainly be allowed to preserve that
situation and bring it there. These situations won’t be litigated by a money-damage suit,
which is not the goal. The goal is to excuse the surveyors and immediately attend to
the unwanted entry on a landowner’s property, the taking of data and the taking of
sometimes archeological artifacts.
IN RE: REPORTS
July 19, 2016
353
Supervisor Peters moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara Peters
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt
3. Resolution No. 336 from the Board of Directors of the Western
Virginia Water Authority honoring the service of John B.
Williamson III as a representative of Botetourt County
4. Proclamation declaring National Disability Voter Registration
Week in the County of Roanoke signed by the Chairman
th
At 4:11 p.m. Chairman Peters recessed to the 4 floor for work session.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss draft Community Strategic Plan (Daniel
R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. O’Donnell went through the PowerPoint presentation. Supervisor
Bedrosian commented there are no price tags attached to anything. He advised Public
Safety is number one and then they should be rated from there. He just wants caution
as it relates to cost.
Supervisor Hooker commented now that we know what the citizens want,
the Board has a better idea of how to prioritize.
Supervisor Peters commented the Board has not had a direction and now
it does.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented it does not provide him with a direction.
Supervisor McNamara disagreed; looking back twenty years ago, there
were no greenways, and there was a need for soccer fields. We met that need and
have done so in a lot of other areas. Where do we go now? Connectivity is what our
citizens want.
The work session was held from 4:27 p.m. until 4:51 p.m.
Chairman Peters called the evening session back into order at 7:01 p.m.
with all members in attendance.
July 19, 2016
354
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Kate Madison Properties, LLC to rezone
approximately 0.99 acre from R-1, Low Density Residential,
District to C-1, Low Intensity Commercial, District on property
located at 3746 Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District
(David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Assaid moved to postpone this item until August 9, 2016, at the
request of the petitioner. Mr. Peters seconded the motion and it was approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara Peters
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Refuge Church to obtain a Special Use Permit in a
C-2C, High Intensity Commercial, District with conditions for the
operation of religious assembly on approximately 1.92 acres,
located at 4145 and 4173 West Main Street, Catawba Magisterial
District (David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Holladay outlined the petition. Supervisor Hooker asked how long the
property has been vacant with the petitioner responding just under two years.
Chairman Peters open and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
speak on this issue. There was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 071916-7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE OPERATION OF A CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS
ASSEMBLY ON APPROXIMATELY 1.92 ACRES, LOCATED AT
4145 AND 4173 WEST MAIN STREET, CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE PETITION OF REFUGE
CHURCH
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 28, 2016, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on July 19, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on July 5, 2016; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That said real estate being rezoned is more fully described as follows:
July 19, 2016
355
A parcel described as Tax Map Nos: 054.04-01-14.00-0000 and 054.04-01-
13.00-0000 and located at 4145 and 4173 West Main Street, Catawba
Magisterial District.
2. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit is appropriate
for the church’s use of religious assembly and is hereby approved.
3. That this action is taken upon the application of Refuge Church.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed.
5. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to
reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Assaid and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Bedrosian mentioned Cathy Chandler brought out a point. WE
have been talking about this for a while, but she make the point to say that she wanted
to put a face on what we are talking about. We keep talking about land and property
owners, etc. This was her home. He is in agreement with that. He is somewhat
disturbed about the fact that we allow people to come onto other people’s property
without their permissions. We may disagree; there are a lot of things he loves about the
Mountain Valley Pipeline; he loves the free enterprise and all that, but his thing is that
you should always have the consent of a property owner, homeowner to have someone
come onto their property and the fact that we allow private companies to come on
people’s property without their permission is really not good. He appreciates her
coming here and putting another face to that and to talk about some of the issues that
have gone on about going onto people’s property and not going off and she has been
away. It really needs to be fixed. Finally, he always likes to nudge the United Way
away from giving money to Planned Parenthood and would like to make that plea with
them again and he does that each time he is here because we do help facilitate the
United Way and he reminds people that this United Way here in Roanoke is one of only
five percent (5%) of all the United Ways across the country. Out of 1,200 only five
percent (5%) give money to Planned Parenthood and this is one of them and he would
strongly urge them to continue to do the things they do well and all the other
organizations that they support and to stop supporting Planned Parenthood.
Supervisor Hooker has a couple of positive comments to make. She has
had a couple of ride-alongs with the last couple of weeks and one was with the Solid
Waste Department and it was actually very good and very enjoyable. She came away
356 July 19, 2016
with appreciating the professionalism of our staff and the service they were giving to our
citizens in attempting to serve them all well and going out of their way to serve them all
well. She was also able to take a tour of the police academy and better understand that
process and that training and how we are sharing some of that facility with Roanoke
City and that was good for her and she went on a ride-along with an office and was
impressed once again with that level of professionalism and what they do for our
community, especially in today's day and climate. She was just really impressed with
our people.
Supervisor Peters thanked all our employees for what they do. Special
thanks to all of our public safety for keeping us safe in the midst of a lot of things going
on in our country, we obviously extend our thanks to all police and sheriff deputies out
there. Again, he also asked everyone to remember the Gates family and again Mr.
Gates father had a kidney transplant in the wee hours of the morning and the last he
heard he was doing very well and hopes that continues.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
IL_iiii, -
AV
Deborah C. J.; ' P. Jaso Peters
Chief Deputy ( -rk to the Board Chairman