Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/22/2003 - Regular August 22, 2003 727 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 August 22, 2003 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the at the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, 1020 Hollins Road, Roanoke, Virginia, this being an adjourned meeting from August 12, 2003 for the purpose of a joint meeting with the City of Roanoke to provide an update on the formation of a Regional Water and Sewer Authority. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ralph Smith called the meeting to order for the City of Roanoke at 9:33 a.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ralph K. Smith, Council Members William H. Carder, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Linda F. Wyatt MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris STAFF PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Mike McEvoy, Director of Utilities; Jesse Hall, Director of Finance; Christopher L. Slone, Director of Communications; Mary F. Parker, CMC, City Clerk Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order for the County of Roanoke at 9:34 a.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C. Flora, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. “Butch” Church, H. Odell “Fuzzy” Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: None August 22, 2003 728 STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Gary Robertson, Director of Utilities; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Roanoke County. IN RE: COMMENTS ON JOINT EFFORTS Ms. Burcham advised that at the last joint meeting in February, staff recommended guiding principles for the formation of the proposed Water and Wastewater Authority. Today, they are present to demonstrate their continued enthusiasm for the project and share details of the work that has been accomplished to date. She stated that Roanoke County and Roanoke City staffs have been meeting continuously over the past several months and will report on their activities. At the last meeting, Gary Robertson and Mike McEvoy shared details of the proposed principles of the Authority. Staff is working toward an implementation date of July 1, 2004. Mr. Hodge reported that much progress has been made and the process has been enjoyable. He noted that the concept of the Authority began with discussions regarding water, and has since expanded to include wastewater. He indicated that the process has gone very well and staff has worked to resolve some difficult issues. He advised that many meetings will need to be scheduled for the Board of Supervisors and August 22, 2003 729 City Council to provide advice and leadership. In addition, community meetings have been scheduled in each of the five magisterial districts in Roanoke County to solicit citizen input regarding the proposed Authority. He stated that in today’s meeting, key dates will be highlighted and an in-depth examination of the material will be presented. IN RE: REPORT ON REGIONAL WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY Mr. Robertson, Roanoke County Utility Director, and Mr. McEvoy, Roanoke City Utility Director reviewed the tentative timeline for implementation of the proposed Authority. Details of the timeline are as follows: ? Over 20 employee teams have been meeting to review the financial and operational details necessary for formation of the Authority. ? A monthly newsletter is being distributed to employees to keep them advised of the progress. ? Joint meetings have been scheduled in the coming months between City Council and the Board of Supervisors at which time actions will be required regarding the articles of incorporation and membership in the proposed Authority. ? Community meetings have been scheduled in each of the five magisterial districts in Roanoke County at the times listed below: Hidden Valley High School Thursday, September 11: 5000 Titan Trail - Roanoke Cave Spring High School Monday, September 15: 3712 Chaparral Drive - Roanoke William Byrd High School Tuesday, September 16: 2902 Washington Avenue - Vinton Glenvar High School Thursday, September 25: 4549 Malus Drive - Salem August 22, 2003 730 Northside High School Tuesday, September 30: 6758 Northside High School Road – Roanoke ? A development team has been established to review the integration of the utility functions, and a draft report should be available by February 2004. ? The draft rate study and asset report being conducted by Black & Veatch and Draper Aden will be available in October 2003. ? At the November 19 joint meeting, the draft rate study and asset report will be reviewed and Authority membership will need to be approved. ? In January 2004, the final rate study and asset report will be available and a draft employee benefits report will be completed. ? Joint meeting tentatively scheduled for January 15 at which time the rate study will be approved. ? The finance team will submit a draft report on bond restructuring and finance issues in March 2004. ? Articles of incorporation must be submitted to the State Corporation Commission by February 1, 2004. ? In March 2004, informational mailers will be sent to citizens and the City of Roanoke will hold public hearings on franchise agreements. ? In April 2004, the Authority budget will be finalized, the first Authority Board meeting will be held, and the by-laws and Board operating procedures will need to be adopted. August 22, 2003 731 Mr. Hall, Roanoke City Director of Finance, advised that 20 teams are involved in the formation of the Authority and this is indicative of the number of different issues that need to be evaluated. He stated that some teams are still reviewing systems and recommendations in these areas are not yet available. Most of the financial and technology services are initially to be provided on a contractual basis by one of the localities. This will reduce start up costs, enable an earlier start up, and allow for the utilization of software and processes with the best functionality for Authority needs. Financial and accounting services are to be provided by Roanoke County. These include the following: general ledger, fixed assets, budgeting, and purchasing. Human resources and payroll services are also to be provided by Roanoke County. Utility billing services will be provided by Roanoke City, and several options are being considered with regard to collections to assure convenience for customer payments. Mr. Hall reported that with regard to technology support services, both localities presently use Motorola radios. For email, the Authority will utilize the City’s Lotus Notes system. He also indicated that a website for the Authority will be developed, and Roanoke City’s imaging system will be used by the Authority. The remote monitoring systems will be a combination of both the Roanoke City and Roanoke County systems, and the network will be an integration of the Roanoke City and Roanoke County networks. In order to implement the financial and technology support services, the following actions are needed: (1) Hardware upgrade to August 22, 2003 732 accommodate billing system; (2) Expanded software license for billing system; (3) Potential staff augmentation prior to startup. Council Member Cutler questioned what were the core responsibilities of the Authority? Mr. Hall responded that the Authority will be responsible for managing and operating the Authority, while Roanoke City and Roanoke County will provide support services. Supervisor Church asked if Roanoke City’s software was sufficient to handle the Roanoke County accounts with the proposed hardware upgrade. Mr. Hall advised that an AS 400 server is used in Roanoke City for billing purposes; however, an upgrade is needed to accommodate the larger capacity once Roanoke County accounts are added. An additional AS 400 system is being considered for the upgrade, and the licensing fee is based on the number of access stations. Ms. Hyatt, Roanoke County Chief Financial Officer, reported that one of the major issues staff has been working on is the transfer of debt and the related assets to the new Authority. The City has the following outstanding utility debt and net fixed assets: Outstanding Debt Net Fixed Assets Water $ 24 Million $ 50 Million Sewer $ 14 Million $ 94 Million TOTAL: $ 38 Million $ 144 Million August 22, 2003 733 Ms. Hyatt advised that Roanoke City records the entire asset for the Wastewater Treatment Plant, even though other localities (including Roanoke County) share debt for their portions of the upgrade. All of Roanoke City’s debt is general obligation bonds which are the most flexible. As general obligation debt, there are no restrictions on the sale or disposition of the related assets. Roanoke City can enter into an agreement with the Authority to transfer the assets to the Authority, and in exchange the Authority would make payments to Roanoke City to cover the debt service. Ms. Hyatt reported that Roanoke County has the following outstanding utility debt: Outstanding Debt Net Fixed Assets Water $ 56 Million $ 82 Million Sewer $ 18 Million $ 25 Million TOTAL: $ 74 Million $107 Million Included in these numbers are $16 million of sewer debt for Roanoke County’s share of the completed upgrades to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Since Roanoke County does not currently have ownership in the Wastewater Treatment Plant, it is not included in the net fixed assets. Only a small portion of Roanoke County debt is general obligation debt, and this debt can be handled the same as Roanoke City’s debt described above. August 22, 2003 734 The majority of Roanoke County’s debt is revenue bonds, which place restrictions on the sale or lease of the assets. Ms. Hyatt advised that Roanoke County’s revenue bonds can be broken down into 2 categories: 1. Sewer debt financed through Virginia Resources Authority (VRA): Roanoke County’s sewer revenue debt ($16 million) is financed though VRA. The master indenture for this debt says that the system may be transferred and the debt assigned to another entity with the written consent of VRA. In order to give their consent, the Authority must go through the credit analysis process that the VRA requires of all loan applicants to ensure that revenues generated from the system will meet the rate covenants. This should not be a problem since staff will be addressing the issue of sufficient revenues through the rate study process. VRA requires 115% coverage of net revenues to debt service. 2. Water revenue debt that is bound by the 1991 master indenture restrictions: Roanoke County’s water revenue debt ($55 million) falls under the 1991 master indenture. This document provides that Roanoke County will not lease, sell, encumber or otherwise dispose of the system without the consent of two-thirds (2/3) of the bondholders. Through analysis of the situation, staff has determined that the volume of bondholders makes obtaining consent very difficult and therefore the best option appears to be refinancing the bonds. Ms. Hyatt advised that refinancing will save some money through obtaining a lower rate (although the recent shift in market rates will greatly reduce the August 22, 2003 735 savings) and will change the existing provisions of the indenture. These provisions were necessary when the bonds were initially sold for a proposed reservoir and distribution system; however now that the system has a proven track record over the past 7 years, less restrictive covenants can be requested. The refinancing will allow for the following: (1) Inclusion of off-site fees in the calculation of revenue coverage. (2) Transfer of assets and debt to the Authority. The VRA has advised that these goals can be accomplished through a refinancing with them. Staff is in the process of applying to participate in the Fall 2003 bond sale which will sell bonds in December 2003. Refinancing through the VRA also provides the advantage of having all of Roanoke County’s revenue debt with the VRA which will facilitate the process of transferring the debt and assets. Ms. Hyatt indicated that both Roanoke County and Roanoke City are currently in the process of finalizing VRA revenue bonds for the next phase of the Wastewater Treatment Plant upgrade. Roanoke City is borrowing $23 million and Roanoke County is borrowing $11 million. The bonds will close in October 2003 and can be transferred to the Authority as explained above. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Church, Ms. Hyatt advised that the cost to place all the debt through the VRA will be the same as the cost to issue the debt on our own. Bill Hackworth, Roanoke City Attorney, briefed the Board of Supervisors and City Council on the Virginia Water and Wastewater Authorities Act. He advised that August 22, 2003 736 no special legislation is needed to create the Authority, and that the Virginia Water and Wastewater Authorities Act has been used successfully throughout Virginia. He advised that the Authority would have broad powers in all aspects of the provision of water and wastewater treatment. He indicated that, if desired, the Authority could engage in stormwater management. The enabling legislation requires that in order to form the Authority, a concurrent resolution, ordinance, or agreement between the localities will be required setting forth the proposed articles of incorporation to be filed with the State Corporation Commission (SCC). The following must be included in the articles of incorporation: (1) Name of the Authority; (2) Names of the participating localities, as well as the names, addresses, and terms of office of the first Board members of the Authority; (3) Purposes for which the Authority is being created; (4) Number of Board members appointed by each locality. Mr. Hackworth advised that staff is recommending that the bylaws remain broad in scope to provide for a wide range of powers for the Authority. Once City Council and the Board of Supervisors adopt a concurrent resolution, the articles of incorporation will be filed with the SCC. He indicated that the enabling legislation provides for the addition of other localities once the Authority is created and would involve following the same legal process used in originally creating the Authority. With regard to membership of the Authority Board, Mr. Hackworth stated that the law requires no fewer than five (5) members and no less than one member from each jurisdiction. To maintain equal representation, staff is recommending three August 22, 2003 737 representatives from Roanoke City and three from Roanoke County. The Board of Supervisors and City Council will need to determine how they wish to address the issue of a tie vote. Mr. Hackworth proposed that the two localities jointly appoint a seventh member or establish a tie-breaker. The enabling legislation also allows elected officials from the governing bodies to serve on the Board. The initial members of the Authority Board will serve staggered four-year terms and will be eligible for reappointment. The Authority Board must elect a Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer. The Secretary and Treasurer do not have to be members of the Board, and these two offices can be combined. In addition, the Authority Board will need to adopt by-laws and staff is preparing a draft for this purpose. If a Board member resigns, the replacement will be made by the appointing locality. Board members will be eligible for compensation and the amount of compensation is set by the governing localities rather than the Authority Board. They are also eligible for reimbursement of expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. The appointment of alternates is allowed by the enabling legislation, although it is not recommended by staff. The Authority has the power to appoint a Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Hackworth stated that once created, the Authority will have a term of existence for 50 years and will be able to exercise the same powers as a corporation. These powers include the following: (1) Adopt bylaws and internal operating regulations; (2) Select the location of the Authority offices; (3) The ability to sue and be sued; (4) Acquisition of property; (5) Exercise the right of eminent domain; (6) Condemn August 22, 2003 738 property only with the approval of the governing locality; (7) Subject to land use regulations and comprehensive plan of the jurisdiction in which they may be placing a facility; (8) Build a dam or impoundment facility anywhere feasible with the consent of the governing locality; (9) Issue revenue bonds payable from the revenues of the Authority; (10) Combine the water and sewer system into a single system for purposes of operation and financing; (11) Borrow money; (12) Can be loaned or advanced money or can accept property donated by any political subdivision; (13) Fix, charge, and collect fees for both water and wastewater treatment; (14) Set connection fees for both water and sewer; (15) Implement rate/fee changes following appropriate notice and public hearings. Mr. Hackworth advised that once the Authority issues revenue bonds, they are strictly the obligation of the Authority. They do not constitute debt of either locality and do not involve the pledge of the full faith and credit of either locality. This is the reason it is important for the Authority to have the power to establish rates that will provide sufficient revenue to meet the bond obligation. In addition, the Authority will be a tax-exempt entity. Supervisor Altizer questioned how the Authority will handle stormwater management issues for residents of the Town of Vinton and how the Authority will handle the addition of localities at a later date. Mr. Hackworth stated that the Authority will not necessarily displace the existing systems, although they will have the power to purchase or contract with other systems. The Authority will have the power to require water and sewer connections or fees in lieu of connections. He indicated that these are August 22, 2003 739 issues that would need to be resolved by the Authority. Supervisor Altizer stated that it was his assumption that the Authority would have no control over residents in East Roanoke County who receive water and sewer through a contract with the Town of Vinton. Mr. Mahoney replied that there is an existing contract between the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton with respect to utility services. One of the actions of both governing bodies and the Authority will be the assignment of contracts held by each locality with respect to water and sewer. The interests in these contracts will be assigned to the Authority. With regard to stormwater management issues, Mr. Mahoney stated that staff is recommending that the new Authority have the power to deal with stormwater management issues. Council Member Cutler stated that there are two opportunities being missed by attempting to simplify the process: (1) The process of adding a locality will be complicated if it is necessary to revert back to square one; (2) What would be involved in authorizing the Authority to handle stormwater management issues? Specifically, he questioned if it would be feasible at this time to add the Town of Vinton as a participating locality and also add stormwater management as a function of the Authority. Mr. Hackworth advised that it would be easier to add stormwater management; adding the Town of Vinton would require their consent and participation in the process. He advised that surrounding localities have been extended an invitation to participate in the Authority and they have declined. August 22, 2003 740 Council Member Bestpitch asked if there would be anything in the bylaws that specifically states what the representation on the Authority Board will be for other localities that may decide to participate at a later date. He noted that in principle, Roanoke City and Roanoke County have agreed to share equal representation but this would not necessarily apply to any additional jurisdictions which join. Mr. Hackworth stated that if additional localities join the Authority, the articles of incorporation must be revised, an agreement must be reached regarding participation and representation on the Board, and operational issues must be addressed. He advised that this would be a complex undertaking. Paul Mahoney, Roanoke County Attorney, distributed a draft of the articles of incorporation and requested feedback from City Council and the Board of Supervisors on the following specific issues: (1) Name of the Authority (page 1, lines 13-15). (2) Membership of the Authority (page 2, lines 10-15). Staff is recommending six members, and the Code of Virginia requires at least five members. Mr. Mahoney noted that when the guiding principles for the formation of the Authority were adopted, the Board of Supervisors and City Council emphasized the need for equal representation. (3) Names of Authority Board members need to be determined by November 2003. The type of appointees will also need to be determined (i.e., elected officials, staff, citizens). Mr. Mahoney noted that a similar circumstance occurred with the creation of the Airport Commission which initially began with the appointment of elected officials and key staff. Once the Commission was functioning well, the August 22, 2003 741 governing localities transitioned into the appointment of knowledgeable citizens. (4) Resolution of a tie vote (page 3, lines 13-15). Staff has included a methodology that provides for the appointment of a tie breaker by the Authority Board. The appointment of a tie breaker is not required, but there needs to be a method for resolving a tie vote. An alternative would be for the Board of Supervisors and City Council to jointly appoint th a seventh (7) Board member that would serve as a tie breaker. Supervisor Minnix questioned whether the tie breaker would be a fully participating member of the Board, or if they would only vote in the event of a tie? Mr. Mahoney stated that this decision is at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors and City Council. Council Member Wyatt suggested that the Authority Board should consist of one elected official, the Utility Director, and a staff member from each locality. She further recommended that the two participating localities elect a citizen representative to serve as the Chair of the Authority Board, with this individual serving as the tie breaker. Supervisor Minnix noted that in the past, these types of Authorities or Commissions have been given the power to appoint their own Chair. He requested additional time to consider these decisions. Mr. Mahoney advised that these decisions need to be made by November in order to begin the required public notice hearing process. In January, the Board of Supervisors and City Council will need to adopt a concurrent resolution establishing the articles of incorporation that will be forwarded to the SCC in February. August 22, 2003 742 Supervisor Church requested clarification regarding the reasons for staff recommending the appointment of six Authority Board members. He stated that he did not want to limit the number of representatives from each locality, and indicated that he would prefer to see more than six representatives. Mr. Mahoney advised that in his experience with elected governing bodies in Virginia, the largest Board he has seen is 11. Supervisor Church stated that a limited number of Board members can make citizens feel excluded. Chairman McNamara requested that the Board of Supervisors and City Council address these issues in work sessions in each respective locality. He noted that in the future, other localities may wish to join the Authority and it is necessary to allow room to expand the Board to include these representatives. He stated that at this point, it would be most effective to keep the process as simple as possible. He voiced support for having an odd number of individuals on the Authority Board, and suggested th that at the first Authority Board meeting the representatives elect the 7 member. Council Member Bestpitch concurred with Chairman McNamara’s th recommendation that each locality appoint three representatives, and stated that the 7 member should be approved by a majority of the representatives from both localities (at least two representatives from each locality must approve the appointment). He stated that if an Authority Board member is appointed to only vote in the event of a tie, it will be difficult to get this representative to commit to attending the meetings if they are rarely th called upon to exercise any official duty. He indicated that the 7 member should be a August 22, 2003 743 fully participating member of the Board. In addition, he stated that the Authority Board should have the power to appoint any of the seven members as the Chair. He advised that he would like to allow each jurisdiction the flexibility to determine their three representatives on the Authority Board. Council Member Bestpitch also stated that the Authority should have the ability to establish compensation rates for the Board members. He also voiced concerns that there are potential localities who may wish to join the Authority in the future who do not view themselves as part of the Roanoke Valley. He indicated that perhaps the term Blue Ridge Water and Wastewater Authority might be viewed as more inclusive. Supervisor Minnix requested that a joint work session be scheduled to review the proposed articles of incorporation in depth. Mr. Mahoney stated that on the bottom of page 1 of the articles of incorporation, staff has included a “super majority” voting requirement. This requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the members from both Roanoke City and Roanoke County to approve certain actions (listed on page 2). Two of these suggested actions include the addition of new members to the Authority and execution of agreements with other entities. He requested that the Board of Supervisors and City Council consider the types of actions that they would like to require a super majority vote to approve. Council Member Cutler stated that it appears that the term “member” is being used in two different ways in the articles of incorporation. The articles refer to the August 22, 2003 744 participating localities as members, and the representatives of the Authority Board are also described as members. He recommended differentiating between these two references, and suggested using the term “locality” or “member locality” when referring to the jurisdictions. Ms. Burcham asked if there were any additional questions from City Council or the Board of Supervisors. Council Member Bestpitch stated that when staff reviewed the proposed timeline for implementation of the Authority, Mr. Robertson referred to upcoming community meetings in Roanoke County, one in each district, beginning in September. He stated that it was noted that in February-April 2004, there would be joint City/County community meetings. He questioned why the decision was made not to have any community meetings in Roanoke City in the fall 2003. Ms. Burcham responded that City Council has not had the opportunity up to this point to discuss this issue. She advised that the Roanoke County community meetings were discussed in a work session at the last Board of Supervisors meeting. She indicated that the Roanoke City staff clearly saw a need for either informational mailings and/or community meetings in the spring 2004. She stated that staff needs to meet with City Council to determine if informational meetings are needed in Roanoke City in the fall. She indicated that there are still questions which staff is unable to answer at this time but if City Council is interested in these types of meetings, staff will proceed with scheduling them. Council Member Bestpitch stated that he also liked the idea of establishing a website for the Authority, and voiced the need to provide hyperlinks to all August 22, 2003 745 of the participating localities. In addition, the participating localities should place a hyperlink on their websites to access the Authority website. Council Member Cutler stated that he liked the suggestion of Council Member Bestpitch to use the term “Blue Ridge” in the name of the Authority. He stated that instead of using the phrase “Water and Wastewater Authority”, consideration might be given to using the term “Water Management Authority”. This would encompass possible future areas of responsibility such as stormwater management, water based recreation, water shed management, etc. In addition, he voiced support for Supervisor Minnix’s recommendation that a joint work session be scheduled to review the articles of incorporation. Ms. Burcham questioned whether it was the desire of the City Council and Board of Supervisors to schedule an additional joint work session. She suggested that, as part of the agenda, the issue of naming the Authority could be discussed. At that time, staff could provide details regarding the names proposed by the employees. She also reported that the regional branding effort may yield a name that might be appropriate for the Authority. Mayor Smith stated that both City Council and the Board of Supervisors will make themselves available in the event that staff determines there is a need to schedule an additional joint meeting. Supervisor McNamara stated that the regional branding effort should be included in the consideration of the name. August 22, 2003 746 Supervisor Minnix advised it is imperative to keep the citizens in Roanoke County and Roanoke City involved and informed in this process. He stated that citizens stay well informed regarding local and world issues, and they must be kept updated as much as possible. This will give the citizens a sense of ownership in the Authority. Supervisor Church encouraged the staff and governing bodies of both localities to communicate with the citizens. He stated that it is important for citizens to understand the process. There was one citizen present who questioned if a citizen representative would be appointed to the Authority Board. Mayor Smith responded that at some point, this will occur. Mr. Hodge stated that the staff wanted to include a section in today’s agenda to allow for input from the citizenry and indicated that in the future, meetings will be in a less formal environment and will be scheduled at one of the Roanoke City or Roanoke County locations. At that time, citizens will also be invited to speak regarding the proposed Authority. He stated that in closing, he was pleased with the presentations that were made today and he thanked the staff for their research and guidance. With regard to other localities joining the Authority, the Town of Vinton has indicated that they wish to remain independent but would like to stay informed regarding the Authority’s formation. Mr. Hodge recommended that the process of adding other localities be kept simple. He stated that he would like to have both Roanoke County and Roanoke City staff present at the Roanoke County community meetings. August 22, 2003 747 Mayor Smith thanked the staffs for their hard work. He questioned if it was the desire of City Council to direct the City Manager to schedule hearings for the citizens in Roanoke City? Council Member Cutler indicated it had been suggested that all future meetings be joint meetings. Ms. Burcham clarified that both Roanoke City and Roanoke County staff will be making presentations together at the Roanoke County community meetings. Council Member Bestpitch stated that he felt there should be at least a couple of meetings scheduled in Roanoke City and he noted that there will be one meeting in each magisterial district in Roanoke County. He stated that as these meetings are publicized, it should be open to citizens in both Roanoke City and Roanoke County. He stated that the meetings should be truly joint meetings. Council Member Fitzpatrick concurred with Council Member Bestpitch but questioned why Roanoke City did not set up eight meetings so that they would be following the same process that is being used in Roanoke County. He stated that if Roanoke City and Roanoke County are going to jointly partner in bringing forth the formation of the Authority, they should jointly present these meetings to the citizens. He stated that a valley-wide series of meetings should be scheduled and it is important to keep the citizens informed. Mayor Smith questioned Mr. Hackworth if there were any legal considerations that would affect the scheduling of these joint meetings. Mr. Hackworth replied that there were none. August 22, 2003 748 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Mayor Smith adjourned the Roanoke City Council meeting at 11:11 a.m. Chairman McNamara thanked the presenters at today’s meetings and asked that staff convey to the functional teams the Board and Council’s appreciation for their efforts. Chairman McNamara adjourned the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting at 11:12 a.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ________________________ ________________________ Diane S. Childers Joseph P. McNamara Clerk to the Board Chairman