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