9/17/1982 - Regular
I
I
I
9-17-82
1 ")
.. H ~
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
430 E. Clay Street
Salem, Virginia
September 17, 1982
The Board of Supervisors of ~oanoke County, Virginia met this day in
open session in the conference room located in the County Administrator's
Office at 430 East Clay Street, Salem, Virginia, this being the continuation
of the adjourned meeting of September 14, 1982.
MEHBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Athena E. Burton and Supervisors May W.
Johnson, Gary James Minter, Robert E. Myers, and Harry C. Nickens.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
,
I
I
I
i
i
i
:1
I
I
'I
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Burton at 8:15 a.m.
Chairman Burton stated the purpose of the meeting was to consider
an application for Community Development Block Grants.
Supervisor Myers, at this point, stated thCl.t since the meeting
on September 14, he had received some questions of concern from citizens
about the grant and the intended project and that there were some questions
that he could not give the answers to. He then directed his first
question to the County Attorney and asked if the grant in question could
be used for any other property. The County Attorney stated the form that
the grant is presently in is asking for a grant to develop the particular
land in question. He also stated, that in the past, state and federal
grants had been amended, so that if the grant is approved an amended
application could be submitted to make the funds available for some other
similar project, and that assuming that this is true of this grant, it is
filed and the money allocated and finding that there is a better site
I
1
.
I
I;~
~
9-17-82
lRd
available for the funds it is entirely possible that the funds could
be used for a different site.
Supervisor Myers then stated that the request had come up rather
suddenly to the Board of Supervisors without much time to know all the
ins and outs. He then asked Mr. Flanders how the area in question
originated.
County Administrator Flan~ers stated that he was called by
Mr. Smith and Mr. Saul of the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce and
Appalachian Power Company, respectively, as to the possibility of
coordination of efforts between the City and the County in industrial
development. He stated he met with them and they advised him as to the
area that was to be optioned by the City of Roanoke for Industrial
Development and that it might be well for the County to determine the
feasibility of acquiring the adjoining property immediately east of the
City owned property, which is about 53 acres that could be used in
coordination of efforts in the industrial development promotion program
with the City. He also stated that if the County were to proceed in
this area it would assist in giving a united view to the entire promotional
efforts of industrial development in the Valley. He then stated that
following that meeting and discussions with the planning staff, he took
the Chairman of the Board, Mrs. Athena Burton out to the site. Mr. Flanders
explained he then proceeded to do further evaluation of the site and the
considerations of what the City was proposing relative to the area. He
received a call from Fralin and Waldron who had acquired the property by
auction and was advised the property would be available to Roanoke County
for purchase for land development. He stated he had negotiated an option
with a representative with Fralin and \Jaldron and submitted this to the
Board for consideration.
I
I
Supervisor Myers asked what price Fralin and Waldron paid for
the property. Mr. Flanders stated he was not familiar with it and as
far as he was concerned the value on the land is based on the value of the
adjoining property that the City optioned. Mr. Flanders stated the
County had an option at $6,000 per acre and thought that Fralin and
___ Waldron's price was ~2,300, but he was unsure of this price. Supervisor
I
~
~
9-17-82
1 8 [)
Minter asked why the property was so much more, in that Fralin and
Waldron paid $145,000 at auction and a response was made that the property
next door sold for $6,000 an acre. Supervisor Minter asked if this
I
automatically inflated the cost, in that they are making two or three
times their money. He also stated it is using tax money that a private
developer or speculator would make a fortune on, and this has happened
in the past in different places. He reiterated by stating his main
question was the fact of the big difference in prices for the land, this
being a question which kept corning up time and time again by concerned
citizens, and he could not give a good answer. Supervisor Johnson
responded saying the fact that the property next door was sold for
$6,000 an acre was a good answer, and that land is worth what people wi:l
pay for it. Supervisor Minter asked if a private enterprise would
pay that amount, and remarked that he doubted they would.
Supervisor Nickens remarked that if the group was familiar with
I
other potential signs of development in Roanoke County a private enterprise
is willing to pay $6,000 an acre. Supervisor Minter asked if anyone had
offered this kind of money for the land in question, or similar property.
Mr. Flanders answered Supervisor Minter's question saying the
value on the land, once it is developed as an industrial park setting, would
be sold at a much higher price than the $6,000. Supervisor Minter acknow-
ledged this fact affirmatively, but remarked that Fralin and Waldron had
done nothing to the land.
At this point, Chairman Burton stated the land was put at public
auction and anybody could have bought it for that price and taken the
I
chance on its future valuation and that is what land development is all
about; buying property and taking a chance on its future value. She
also stated that whether or not Fralin and Waldron knew this other
property was going to be bought by the City of Roanoke and developed, and
someone pay $6,000 or $8,000 an acre, she did not know; but the fact
did remain they bought the land with the idea of its future valuation, not
to keep if for the County or anyone else or until it was needed by someone ---
....1
r
9=17-82
1 Q ~
else and have that person pay the same price for which it was bought.
Supervisor Minter remarked, he felt that from $145,000 to
$320,000 was a phenomenal increase. Chairman Burton stated it was certainly
not unprecedented in the free enterprise system. Supervisor Minter stated
this was different from free enterprise, it was public money being
discussed. Chairman Burton questioned whether or not free enterprise was
not to be considered when talking about the public sector buying from the
private sector. Supervisor Minter said he was discussing the negotiated
price, it was not the free market constitution for pricing and he had not
seen anyone else in private enterprise offer that kind of money for the
land or anywhere near that price, that anyone could have bought the land
at any time.
I
Supervisor Nickens then stated it seemed strange to him this
same discussion did not ensue 8 days ago, and that his second question
raised at that time was what about the difference in price. He said
it seemed a big jump that the public would be concerned about, that the
County had the opportunity to buy the property at $150,000 and was now
paying $300,000. He remarked that the rules change, the County had that
option, the Board knew it, and they had a discussion in that area, and
he felt it inappropriate at this time to discuss whether or not the
County pay $300,000 for the property, because somebody paid $150,000
for it 3 months ago. Supervisor Myers did not feel the value had increased
today. If the property had been bought 5 years ago, and had been built on
then the gain on it would be fine, but when you buy in this short a period
of time and try to sell it to the people of Roanoke County, with a two-fold
profit, then he felt the Board should look at the price very carefully.
Supervisor Minter then stated he was not saying there was anything wrong,
that it just looked bad when one parcel more than doubles, and that just
because the City is paying it, that did not mean the land was worth it.
I
I
Supervisor Johnson commented that either the Board made a big
mistake or they are being taken. Supervisor Minter continued by saying
___ governments, especially when talking about Federal grants, will go ahead
~
9-17-82
187
and buy because it is federal money, adding, that it being tax money
would not raise the tax base, but sometimes he felt governments get a
little lax when it comes to keeping prices down, and you have a developer
I
possibly making $150,000 or more, by not doing a thing. He also added he
was not expecting the investor to lose money, but it seemed like an
exorbitant amount. Supervisor Minter continued saying he was a little
bit disappointed and questioned the Board members if they had seen the
land. Supervisor Johnson remarked she had been called and she had seen
the land and she had described the property to someone.
Supervisor Minter, at this point, stated Mr. Davis had requested
a copy of the grant. He had been promised one and had not received it yet.
Chairman Burton stated it was not an official document until the Board
adopted it and it was not the application until the Board decided what went
into it and if anyone wanted a copy of the draft copy it was available.
I
Supervisor Johnson then introduced the subject of 105 acres
across the road and questioned if it had been bought. Mr. Gubala stated
the land is zoned as residential estates. Supervisor Johnson then asked
the County Attorney where in the contract with Roanoke City it stated
they provide the County with water, as this seemed to be a concern. County
Attorney Buchholtz stated that under the contract the City has agreed to
sell so many gallons of water per year to the County and there is a range
and within that range they are required by contract to deliver the water
upon request by the County.
Supervisor Johnson stated she had been asked by citizens what it
was going to cost the County to develop the site. The County Administrator
I
replied that the cost to the County would be basically underwritten by
the Federal Grant and by the purchase of the property by users, and
anticipated no actual end dollars being involved, but the County would
certainly have some upfront dollars involved in the actual development
of the property in conjunction with the Federal Grant, but that in the
long run, after the development of the property, he could see no net cost
I
I
I
I
I
I
to the County at all. He also stated that the matching funds in the
I~
"...--
188
9-17-82
grant application showed only a $70,000 figure, cOl~pared to a total of
$700,000 federal funds and that obviously the County's investment would
not be sizable at all, and amounted to less than or a little over $1,400
per acre.
I
Supervisor Johnson then directed her question to Mr. Gubala
about a concern she had heard from Mr. Buddy Davis, a citizen, that there
would be no way that the County could screen the property from the people
living in LaBellvue. Mr. Gubala stated that Mr. Davis was an adjacent
owner and it would be difficult to screen his property. She proceeded
to ask how many adjacent properties there were and was informed there
would be at least 10.
The County Administrator remarked he could understand the
concern of the residents in the area if they have to drive by the
Statesman Industrial Park. He stated he had been involved in industrial
development for a long time and he would never take a potential industrial
client past the Statesman Park, as it is not a well planned industrial
park. He continued by saying the park that the County would develop
would be a credit not only to the County Board of Supervisors, but a credit
to the residents in the area. He also stated that industrial parks from
the inception have changed greatly; the intents changed greatly. Mr.
Flanders continued saying a Technology and Development Center such as
is being discussed would probably add value to the adjoining property.
Supervisor ~1inter asked for an example of things being contemplated and
Mr. Flanders indicated engineering firms, and electronic assembly
operations; this type industry has a high degree of professional employment
and a setting is needed to secure the greatest output from the workers
that are contained there. He stated he was working with industrial
prospects at this time and the prospects are most impressed with this
area for several reasons; one being the fact that the area has excellent
higher education facilities that can train people right on site, and also,
that the area has the environment which is incomparable and the people
with great technological knowledge and a willing work force. Mr. Flanders
also stated the County had a "heads up" opportunity to compete in a
I
I
~
~
9-17-82
l89
I
I
I
professional research concept with North Carolina and other parts of
the East and South, and as a result of that opportunity to develop and be
ready when the economy turns around. He added he is impressed with the
concerns and interest of the public and certainly something would be
put on the site that would be a credit to the County.
Supervisor Minter remarked that one thing that kept coming up
is that people realize there is nothing in writing, no maps, no guarantees
of what would be on the property and he can understand the citizens being
upset. Mr. Flanders stated the property had not been purchased and at
the time the property would be purchased detailed covenants would be
developed, which would control and citizens could provide assistance in
the development of the covenants. He also stated he wanted to emphasize
the difference in industry today compared to 10 or 20 years ago, that most
industries today were concerned about the asthetics around their facility,
and wanted to make sure their neighbors within an industrial park keep
the property up, clean, well maintained, and not littered with trash
because of the considerable investment in the property. Supervisor Minter
stated the Valley had one bad example like Statesman Park, that no one
wanted and questioned Mr. Flanders as to an example in the Valley of what
would be called a good industry. Supervisors Nickens directed a question
to Mr. Flanders asking if with the 53 acres there could be no more than
maybe two developments. Mr. Flanders stated what the County is looking
at is a technological center that would have maybe 3 to 4 facilities in
the park.
I
i
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
Supervisor Myers expressed his opinions by stating he did not
approve of the proposed site for industry, that it is in the neighborhood
of homes. Mr. Flanders replied Supervisor Minter had asked for an
example of an industrial setting. After discussion by the Board it was
agreed that settings such as the Allstate or Atlantic buildings are
good examples of the landscaping desired.
Supervisor Nickens stated another concern of the Board, which
should be kept in the forefront, was the fact there are currently about
~
"...- .
9-17-82
1 q ()
8,000 unemployed citizens who can not pay taxes nor buy their groceries.
Chairman Burton then stated she felt the basic issue was
whether or not the County was going to try to find means for providing
extra jobs for the development to be in a controlled setting and the
I
example of Statesman Park is not what the County would want. She continued
by saying it is within the poter.tial of the County's control to develop
something that would be a credit and have the opportunity for the expansion
of the area to provide the means for people to make a living. She stated
the County would be faced with this decision time and time again as to
whether the County would make available to the citizens greater
opportunities economically.
Supervisor Minter stated he felt the main problem was that more
time was needed and the voting was sudden. Chairman Burton remarked that
with time the basic facts were the same, no different information will
available for sale, and that once the adjacent property is developed as
I
be gleaned from the situation; the property is there and going to be
industrial that would limit that particular land to no development in
its present zoning. Chairman Burton continued by saying with the purchase
of the land by the County they would be in a position to prevent a
duplication of the eyesore that is now the concern of the citizens of
that area.
Supervisor Nickens stated to the Board that there were two
grants to consider. Chairman Burton responded by stating the Board had
passed the grant for the water. Supervisor Johnson stated that a resolution
had to be prepared. Supervisor Myers then stated there were citizens in
the meeting who wanted to speak and might have something to add to the
I
discussion.
Marilyn Cockfield (2859 Greggin Dr. NE,Roanoke of the LaBellevue
subdivision) read a prepared statement relating facts in reference to the
Bonsack area. She described the terrain of the area and noted the average
-
price of the area homes. She also mentioned the proposed Roanoke City
~
..,
9-17-82
19 1
Industrial Park and her opposition to it. She requested assistance
from the County to help save the community from the City's industrial
sprawl.
I
I
Chairman Burton then recognized Hilda Gibbs (2336 Sourwood St.,
NE, Roanoke) who stated her question concerned the industrial develop~ent
on the 53 acres and she asked if the Board was saying that no one would
want houses on the property across the road from the proposed industrial
development and industry would have to be built there. Mr. Gubala stated
there were no plans to jump Ruritan Road for industrial development and
there was vacant land in the area in the same category zoned for
residential estates. Supervisor Nickens informed Ms. Gibbs he felt the
County was making an attempt to look at some long range planning so that
anyone could know where potential development is going to be, and
unfortunately the planning sessions in that area had not had good response
from the citizens. Ms. Gibbs stated she did not feel this situation was
long range planning. Supervisor Nickens replied that the recently
scheduled meeting in that area was for citizen input into long range
planning.
Supervisor Nickens th~l talked about the long range cost of
I
education and stated that without relief the County could not continue
to provide even the services now being provided just in the education
area, and increasing the tax base is a reason the County is trying to
get industry into the Valley. Supervisor Nickeils continued by commending
the citizens for expressing their opinions and said he felt that he and
the Board would do everything they could to try to maintain the integrity
of the area. He continued by expressing his personal belief that the
worst t~ing he could do was to let the emotion of a situation cause him
not to vote what he felt was the best for the entire County.
Chairman Burton then acknowledged citizen Joyce Johnson (2706
Greggin Dr., NW, Roanoke) who expressed her feeling that this was not
a new thought. She said that in LaBellevue there had been discussions
regarding the need for schools and a fire station, parks and a library.
She stated a petition had been submitted to the School Board in May
explaining the needs and these needs are still not planned to be met.
i-
li~
,...---
19 ;~
9-17-82
Chairman Burton informed Ms. Johnson that the needs mentioned
were certainly recognized by the Board and the administration of the County
and that they had been looking at properties in the area appropriate for
the needs mentioned. After some discussion concerning this matter,
I
Chairman Burton reminded the group that they were 8etting off the subject
and this was not related to the decision that was basically before the
Board. Supervisor Johnson informed citizen Joyce Johnson the land had
been rejected by the School Board and not by the County Board of Supervisors
Chairman Burton stated there were quite different uses for land when you
consider the development of a technological park and for a school. After
some discussion concerning School Board business Chairman Burton stated
the County Board of Supervisors had no authority or jurisdiction over
purchase of land for a school and it was the School Board's legal authority.
Chairman Burton then reminded those present that the Board was
there to consider application for a grant for the development of a tract
of land for industrial purposes.
I
Chairman Burton then recognized Peggy Looney (1945 Ruritan Road,
Roanoke) who stated the citizens were requesting, at this time, that the
Board vote no and not to apply for the application for the grant.
The Board then recognized Kenneth Gibbs (Sourwood St., Roanoke)
who said he could understand the County's desire to develop an industrial
park, but he felt that rather than the County compete with the City, just
as there were a lot of people who do not desire to live in LaBellevue,
there were certainly some businesses that would rather develop in another
area of the County. lIe added that with the City's plan to develop, it
would make more sense for the County to go someplace else to develop.
I
The Chairman then recognized David Plunkett (4028 Mockingbird
Hill) who said the Board had not discussed the 105 acres that had access to
a 4 lane highway and rails and would be nice for an industry.
-I
I
....1
~
9-17-82
19~
------------
Chairman Burton then recognized Mr. Buddy Davis (Homestead
Lane, Roanoke) who remarked about the brief time the Board had taken to
consider the property acquisition.
I
Follcwing the discussion, Mr. Minter moved that the application
for federal funds for development of an industrial site and the prepared
resolution be tabled. The motion was defeated by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Minter, Myers
NAYS:
Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, and Burton.
Chairman Burton then asked if there was any other motion or
action that the Board wished to take in regard to the resolutions before
them. Supervisor Nickens stated the Board would have to take action on
I
the grant proposal as to whether to reject it, and an appropriate
resolution to follow that motion. After some discussion regarding the
two proposals, Supervisor Minter moved that the Board approve the
prepared resolution for the application of the grant for joint water
facilities, as follows:
RESOLUTION NO.
TO BE SUBMITTED
AUTHORIZING THE
3255 AUTHORIZING A CERTAIN GRANT APPLICATION
ON BEHALF OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND
EXECUTION THEREOF BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That a certain grant application identified as a Water Facilities
Development Grant made to the Virginia Community Development Block Grant
Program in the amount of $700,000.00, be, and hereby is authorized to be
I
submitted as made and provided by law on behalf of Roanoke County,
Virginia; and
2. That Donald R. Flanders, County Administrator of Roanoke County,
be, and hereby is authorized and directed to execute and otherwise do
all things necessary to submit the aforesaid grant application to the
Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program on behalf of Roanoke
County, Virginia. Such application to be otherwise upon form approved __,
~
"...
lq4
9-17-82
by the County Attorney; and
3. That a duly attested copy of this resolution be affixed to and
submitted with the aforesaid grant application to the Virginia Community
Development Block Grant Program.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor 11inter and the following recorded
I
vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Johnson, Myers, 11inter, Nickens, and Burton.
NAYS:
None
Chairman Burton then asked the Board to consider a resolution
for application of a grant for the development of an industrial site.
Supervisor Nickens addressed the Chairman stating he realized
that the motion was not popular, but in light of all the discussion and
in light of the possibility of further reviewing other properties, and
with the possibility of even modifying the proposed location for this
particular development and with the understanding that if the Board did
I
not in fact apply, the County could lose as much as $700,000. Supervisor
Nickens then moved that the grant be submitted, once it is in final draft
form and that the prepared resolution be approved as follows:
RESOLUTION NO.
TO BE SUBHITTED
AUTHORIZING THE
3256 AUTHORIZING A CERTAIN GRANT APPLICATION
ON BEHALF OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AND
EXECUTION THEREOF BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That a certain grant application identified as an Industrial
Site Development Grant made to the Virginia Community Development Block
Grant Program in the amount of $700,000.00, be, and hereby is authorized
to be submitted as made and provided by law on behalf of Roanoke County,
I
Virginia; and
2. That Donald R. Flanders, County Administrator of Roanoke County,
be, and hereby is authorized and directed to execute and otherwise do
all things necessary to submit the aforesaid grant application to the
Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program on behalf of Roanoke
County, Virginia. Such application to be otherwise upon form approved
-
~i
9-17-82
19
,..,.
;:)
by the County Attorney; and
3. That a duly attested copy of this resolution be affixed to and
submitted with the aforesaid grant application to the Virginia Community
I
Development Block Grant Program.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Nickens and the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Burton
NAYS:
Supervisors Minter and Myers
Supervisor Myers preceeded his "Nay" vote with the statement
that with the uncertainty of what is to come and with the answer from
the County Attorney that he was not positive that the money could be
used for some other site, and with the knowledge of not knowing what
future Boards would put on the site if it is turned into an Industrial
Park, he vote no.
I
IN RE:
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT MEETING
Supervisor Nickens then invited the Board to visit Vinton
early on September 30, to look at some of the investments the County
has made and is making in the area, such as the water and well systems,
Fire and Rescue, and Vinton Recreation Center.
IN RE:
BOARD COMMENTS
Supervisor Johnson stated in reference to Southwest County
supposedly having the schools and libraries, that the Cave Spring district
does not have a library, that there are citizens in this area and the
Windsor Hills area and others who live further, that do not have library
I
facilities. She felt schools and Fire stations should take precedence
over library facilities.
Chairman Burton addressed Supervisor Johnson's remarks concerning
the schools and related her previous experience in that type service in
that there are certain guidelines that are used in determining when it
is economically feasible to propose a new school building in an area. She
continued by stating that every time a new community develops in a somewhat 1___
j~
"...-
196
9-17-82
remote location, the demand then comes for a school in that immediate
area. She stated there has to be a certain school population before
the facility can be provided. She also stated that the size of the
is a long way from the number of children in the area of LaBellevue.
I
newer schools being built accommadated from 600 to 900 children and that
She added that when the school population justified a new school then the
School Board would address the problem in a positive manner, and they
also have the prerogative to exercise in that area and for the citizens
to expect the Board of Supervisors to make a committment of a school there,
by law, could not be done. She also stated it had been brought to her
attention that the School Board is considering some properties in that
area.
Chairman Burton then acknowledged Don Charlton, (Greggin Drive)
who asked if the grant was to go out on this date, and could the citizens'
petitions or request not to have it, accompany the grant. He then asked
for the address of the place to which the grant was to be submitted. He
I
was given an affirmative answer.
Supervisor Myers then requested the County Administrator to
in0truct his staff to look for other sites, some having been mentioned at
this meeting, and look at other sites in the County, whereby the money,
if granted, could be applied. He added that if the money could be used
in other industrial sites, he felt it would be better not to use it in the
2rea which ~lad upset so many people. There was some discussion concerning
other sites and t1r. Flanders said his department was always looking at
alternate sites throughout the County.
I
llJ RE:
SCHEDULE OF BOARD SESSIONS
County Administrator Flanders informed the Board that the
scheduled Board meeting for October 5 could not be held in the Community
ROOTI at the Civic Center. After extensive discussion, Supervisor Myers
Iloved that the October 5 meeting be cancelled. The motion was carried
-
lit.....
9-17-82
197
I
I
I
P'
and the following prepared resolution adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 3257 CANCELING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 5, 1982.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors scheduled
for October 5, 1982 is hereby canceled; and
2. That all public hearings heretofore scheduled and advertised
for October 5, 1982, shall be held October 12, 1982, without further
advertisement as if same had been duly advertised for October 12, 1982;
and
3. That a duly attested copy of this resolution shall be published
in the newspaper having general circulation in Roanoke County on
September 23, 1982 and September 30, 1982; and further posted on the
front door of the Roanoke County Courthouse, the County Administration
Building, and the Roanoke County Annex.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Myers and the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Minter, Johnson, and Hyers
NAYS:
Supervisors Nickens and Burton
Chairman Burton then acknowledged an unidentified citizen who
asked that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors contact the City of
Roanoke and try to get restrictions on the city industrial park to make
it a good neighbor to County residents. Supervisor Johnson moved that
the Board encourage the City of Roanoke to adopt covenants and restrictions
at the proposed City Industrial Park. Her motion was adopted by a
unanimous voice vote.
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, the meeting was adjourned at
9:30 a.m. Motion carried.
~ c(ii~
CHAIRliAN