HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/14/2012 - RegularFebruary 14, 2012 93
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February 2012. 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: CALL TO ORDER
taken.
Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer,
Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph B. "Butch" Church
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Teresa H. Hall, Director of Public Information and
Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Lynn Riddle of the Hollins Church of
the Nazarene. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney requested that the Closed Session
discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds
where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the Board, namely performance agreement with the Economic
Development Authority and Virginia Blue Ridge, LLC be deleted as staff was not ready
to move forward. There were no objections.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
94 February 14, 2012
1. Recognition of February as Therapeutic Recreation Month in
Roanoke County (Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and
Tourism)
Mr. Blount explained the Therapeutic Recreation Program. In attendance
with Mr. Bount were Kari, Decker, Recreation Supervisor; Brittney Figdore, Therapeutic
Recreation Programmer and Mandi Smith, Recreation Program Manager. All
Supervisors offered their thanks.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing on operations at the Glenvar and South County Libraries
(Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services)
Ms. Rosapepe advised Glenvar has been moved into temporary
quarters and continues to serve the public with only a slight decline in visitors and
circulation. She advised with regard to the South County Library, the most significant
item about the transition was everything worked the way it was planned. She indicated
there was a fifty -six percent (56 %) in visitors and a thirty -nine percent (39 %) increase in
circulation and all parts of the library have been in steady use since the opening.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution authorizing the application, acceptance and
appropriation of grant funds in the amount of $100,000 from DHS
administered through the Virginia Department of Emergency
Management to the Fire and Rescue Department to support the
Regional Technical Rescue Team (Richard E. Burch, Chief of Fire
and Rescue)
Steve Simon presented a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on
file in the office to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and outlined what a Regional
Technical Rescue Team handles. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 021412 -1 AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION,
ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF GRANT FUNDS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS), ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND RESCUE TO SUPPORT THE
REGIONAL TECHNICAL RESCUE TEAM
February 14, 2012 95
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that
B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized to
execute for and on behalf of Roanoke County, a public entity established under the laws
of the State of Virginia, this application and to file it in the appropriate State Office for
the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the National
Preparedness Directorate, United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
THAT, Roanoke County, a public entity established under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereby authorizes it agent to provide to the Commonwealth
and to the DHS for all matters pertaining to such Federal financial assistance and all
information pertaining to these Grants as may be requested.
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County authorizes the
acceptance of said grant monies in the amount of $100,000 and authorizes the
appropriation of said monies for the purposes authorized in the grant application.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Church
2. Resolution approving the issuance of Revenue Bonds by South
Peak Community Development Authority (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the resolution for $7 million in bonds for the
development of infrastructure by the South Peak Community Development Authority.
He explained the Authority met February 8, 2012, and approved the issuance of these
bonds. There were certain parameters or limitations attached to that approval: the
bonds shall not exceed $7 million, not exceed an interest rate of eight percent (8 %). Mr.
Mahoney advised Mr. Penny, counsel for Smith Packett and also Mr. Sanderson,
Davenport Associates are in attendance to answer any questions. Davenport will be
handling the sale and placement of the bonds.
Supervisor Moore disclosed her landscaping company does some work on
some of the properties this developer owes and there is a letter on file in the office of
the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors from the Commonwealth Attorney and the County
Attorney stating there is no conflict of interest. She thanked the CDA Board, the
Developer, staff and everyone that has been involved in this very complex document.
She has reviewed, discussed with Mr. Mahoney about it and is anxious to see the
project move forward.
Supervisor Altizer inquired of Mr. Mahoney that the amount is quite a bit
96 February 14, 2012
less than what was proposed before. He advised he thought the amount of $13 million
on a much bigger project when it was presented to the Board approximately a year ago.
Mr. Mahoney responded the original proposal was for up to $16 million in bonds. He
advised what is contemplated is to divide the project into at least two phases and there
could possibly be two different series of bond issuances. This is the first phase.
Supervisor Altizer inquired as far as the selling of the bonds, there are certain
parameters even if the Board votes to approve this today that there are things that have
to happen for the payback and asked Mr. Mahoney to walk through the things that
would have to be in place before the bonds can be actually be sold. Mr. Mahoney
responded at this point with the consent of the Board some final details would have to
be resolved and would come back to the CDA Board, not the Board of Supervisors. At
that point, Davenport would proceed with the marketing and the placement of the
bonds.
Mr. Sanderson of Davenport Associates responded if the question
revolves around what would be required to be in place; much of that discussion will be
up to potential lenders as they will be concerned about the credit quality of what they
are investing in. In their view, having the next set of conversations with the investors is
going to be dependent upon the Board's approval today. They are interested in looking
at it and purchasing the bonds, however, Davenport will be asking them to put forth a
considerable amount of time to understand the project and the potential repayment of
their investment and in order for them to do that they are asking that the Board pass this
so that they can give them some comfort that the bonds will be issued with the
limitations that the CDA put into place last week.
Supervisor Altizer inquired concerning the payment back of the bonds and
noted Roanoke County has no responsibility to those bonds, but things do have to be in
place to satisfy banks, investors, etc. You either have enough in generating revenue
that you are going to receive coming back to you for that and /or for the special
assessment that the developer himself would have to pay to make up the difference.
Mr. Sanderson responded the investors will need to be comfortable obviously either with
the fact that the incremental revenues are actually going to appear, but behind that also
they are going to need to be comfortable that the developer, the property owner is of
sufficient credit quality that if the incremental revenues are not produced they are still
going to be available to make payment on the assessment because that is going to
replace the incremental tax revenue if it does not appear.
Supervisor Elswick stated he wanted to make sure citizens understand
that there is no liability on the part of Roanoke County taxpayers. These bonds are
being issued and will be repaid by tax revenue and will generate additional tax revenue
for the County, which is greatly in excess of what is currently received. He stated
assuming that everything works out the way it is supposed to and there are various
LLCs associated with the project for different portions of it and he knows that the first
few years that the interest payments on the bonds are probably going to be paid from
the bond proceeds. What would happen after that if five or six years down the road,
February 14, 2012 97
does a particular LLC repay the bonds without resorting to tax revenues? Mr. Mahoney
responded in the past and this community development authority is structured on the
basis of other community development authorities that have been created and
developed around the Commonwealth of Virginia is that the incremental tax revenues,
the new tax revenues generated from the new development, there are financial
projections set out so that the new tax revenue would be sufficient to pay off the
principal and interest of the bonds. If, however, those new incremental tax revenues
are not sufficient then the ordinance that the Board adopted previously, in December,
has a special assessment, an add -on real estate tax over and above the base real
estate tax that additional special real estate tax would be imposed just on the real estate
within the boundaries of that CDA which is the backup security that will pay back the
principal and interest of the bonds. Ultimately, the real estate that comprises that CDA
will stand for the security and that is the backing for these bonds. Mr. Penny stated if
you get to the point where the special assessment is levied and then not collected, then
the locality would have the authority, just like any other delinquent tax payer to foreclose
on that real estate and sell it. The priority of that lien would be ahead of any other
financing on that property. For example, there is a commercial office building built on
one of the parcels and there is no tax incremental revenue to pay the assessment for
that lot, then that property owner will get a bill for the difference. If the property owner
does not pay that bill, the County can then go a tax sale of that parcel and even if that
property owner had a loan from the bank, the tax lien would get paid before that.
Roanoke County has a lien superior to any other lender on the property.
Supervisor Elswick stated so assume the bonds are $4 million at a seven
percent (7 %) interest rate that is $280,000 a year. At what point will there be $4 million
worth of condominiums or whatever constructed. Mr. Penny advised the developer has
continued to put its own money into the project. When he refers to the project, South
Peak, it is all the parcels of land that comprise the special taxing district. The appraised
value of that property unimproved is much greater than $7 million. He thinks the most
recent appraisal was closer to $20 million; that is how much that raw land is worth at
this point and so he thinks the value far exceeds the full $7 million. He noted another
thing about the $7 million is some of that are soft costs, but over $4 million would be
money that gets poured back into the raw land, which would further enhance the value,
so the value of that real estate is going to continue to increase. Something that is a little
bit different about this CDA than he thinks the other ones that have taken place in the
Commonwealth, often you are starting with completely raw land, whereas here there
has been a lot of improvements made already, which enhances the ultimate collateral,
which is the real estate and the condominium buildings are already going vertical at the
top of the hill. The retaining wall is going up and the roads and infrastructure going in.
This project is further along, which helps the value at the end of the day, and if there is
an assessment that is not paid; your collateral is quite valuable. Mr. Mahoney advised
the building permit for the initial condominium structure was issued and footers were
being poured a week ago. Mr. Penny advised there is private financing in place; there
98 February 14, 2012
is a loan from Carter Bank in Trust in place for the condominiums.
Mr. Mahoney stated to go back to Mr. Altizer's question, what are some of
the things that sophisticated investors would look at before our friends from Davenport
would go out and try to place these bonds. One of the things they would look at is that
kind of financing lending, looking at contracts for office buildings or condominiums or
restaurants or hotels or whatever and all of that he guesses is part of the package that
any investor would look at before they would make a decision with respect to placement
of the bonds. Mr. Penny reiterated they would look at all of those things and they will
not discount the fact that you have a local developer who has ties to the region. They
will see that as value, too. Right now, they are targeting regional, local investors that
are familiar with the Roanoke Valley which are also familiar with the developer. We are
looking at people who have lent money for our health care facilities and other facilities
so they will have comfort with who they are dealing with and people who will have seen
the project develop over the years.
Mr. Altizer voted yes with comment. "He stated he thinks the road was set
a year ago when the majority of the Board voted to move forward with this project. He
was one of the ones opposed, but today he is he happy some extra housing has been
added to it, no, but having said that it is much less and gives us as a Board time to see
how this develops and we are not talking about a $16 million bond issue, but a $7
million. It gives us time to see how this develops and he thinks when a signal was sent
to the developer by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Board to move forward with
this and he thinks they have to get behind it, support it and support those investors who
are out there that are looking to do this. The developer has based on prior decisions
invested as the gentleman said earlier. They have invested a lot of their money into it
now and that is a good thing for the tax rolls and he thinks that is what they all want in
the end."
Mr. Elswick voted yes with comment. "This is a huge project; it will do a
lot for the area. Visitors for the first time coming into Roanoke County will see an
attractive place on the side of the mountain instead of something that was really looked
fairly negative in the condition it was in and we should see a substantial increase in tax
revenues."
Mr. Flora voted yes with comment. "Back when this original agreement
was approved, he was one that did not support it, but this body made a commitment to
move ahead with this project. He feels better that it is a $7 million project to start with
because that way there is an opportunity to see how that can go. He thinks more
importantly is Roanoke County made an ethical commitment to move forward and he
honors that commitment."
RESOLUTION 021412 -2 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE
OF REVENUE BONDS BY SOUTH PEAK COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
February 14, 2012 gg
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (the
"County "), has previously formed the South Peak Community Development Authority
(the "Authority ") for the purpose of assisting in the development of certain infrastructure
improvements (the "Improvements ") described in Exhibit B to the Memorandum of
Understanding dated as of February 1, 2011 (the "Memorandum of Understanding "),
between the County and Slate Hill I LLC (the "Landowner "); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, subject to the prior
approval of the Board of Supervisors of the County (the "Board of Supervisors "), the
Authority may issue its revenue bonds in one or more series in an aggregate principal
amount not to exceed $16,000,000 (the "Bonds ") to finance the costs of the
Improvements; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority resolution adopted on [February 8], 2012 (the
"Authority Resolution "), authorizing the issuance of the Bonds in an initial series not to
exceed $7,000,000 (the "Series 2012 Bonds "), has been filed with the Board of
Supervisors and a copy of such resolution has been attached hereto as Exhibit A .
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
The Board of Supervisors hereby consents to and approves the issuance of the
Series 2012 Bonds by the Authority for the development of the Improvements, subject
to the limitations set forth in the Authority Resolution, and provided that at least two -
thirds (2/3) of the aggregate amount of Bonds shall be sold to investors that are not an
owner, affiliate or subsidiary of the Landowner.
The approval of the issuance of the Series 2012 Bonds does not constitute an
endorsement of the Series 2012 Bonds. The Series 2012 Bonds shall be payable solely
from revenues received by the Authority. The Series 2012 Bonds shall not be deemed
to constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of the County and shall not impact upon the
debt capacity of the County.
All acts and doings of the officers and members of the Board of Supervisors that
are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this resolution shall be, and the same
hereby are, in all respects approved and confirmed.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Church
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
00 February 14, 2012
1. The petition of Robert W. Blank and Anna R. Ferro to rezone
approximately 12.723 acres from R -1, Low Density Residential,
District to AR, Agricultural /Residential, District, located near the
7500 Block of Mount Chestnut Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial
District
Chairman Flora moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for February 28, 2012. There was no discussion.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Church
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Section 30 -73 ECO Emergency
Communications Overlay District of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance (John Murphy, Zoning Administrator)
Mr. Murphy explained the need for the ordinance to include microwave
path protection, update and add new technology and line of sight with regard to rooftop
systems. There will be a new map, new language and new buffers. There was no
discussion. Chairman Flora moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for February 28, 2012. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Church
IN RE:
APPOINTMENTS
1. Clean Valley Council
Supervisor Moore recommended the appointment of Debbie Melnick to fill
the expired term of the Board Liaison. This two -year term will expire on June 30, 2013.
Confirmation of this appointment has been added to the Consent Agenda.
February 14, 2012 101
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 021412 -3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February
14, 2012, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 8 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — January 10, 2012
2. Request to accept the donation of a public drainage easement on the
property of Dayna Lyn Cook located on Springlawn Avenue (Tax Map No.
86.12- 01 -41), Cave Spring Magisterial District
3. Confirmation of appointment to the Clean Valley Council
4. Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $2,500 from
the Virginia Department of Fire Programs Mini Grant initiative for the
purchase of materials to construct a May -Day Firefighter Safety Prop
5. Resolution requesting acceptance of Jennifer Court and the remaining portion
of Parker Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Secondary System
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Church
A- 021412 -3.a
A- 021412 -3.b
A- 021412 -3.c
RESOLUTION 021412 -3.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
JENNIFER COURT AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF
PARKER LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
02 February 14, 2012
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements, and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded
to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Church
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
Supervisor Elswick asked for a work session on how we go about making
contributions to charities and to define the criteria for how we go about doing that.
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke.
February 14, 2012 103
Mr. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frost Lane in Salem, Virginia stated he has been
a Roanoke County resident since 1956. For what reason would anyone stand and
present here if they did not believe the liberty of our Constitutional Republic was in
danger from the UN socialist intrusion of Agenda 21 and thus ICLEI. It is easy to sit
back and indicate, Oh, "It doesn't matter" "We are not going to do it" "It's a new fad" "I'm
just torn." Well, momma said, "Not only is life like a box of chocolates (today being
Valentine's Day), cause you never know what you are going to get." She also said if it
isn't in writing you may as well throw your chocolates in the toilet. One way or the other,
they are going to go there anyway. We may rest assured that Agenda 21's ICLEI has it
in writing, spell checked, crossed all the tees, doted all the eyes, sugar coated, air
brushed the make -up with their many millions in their money pot. Time is becoming
short. We're reaching a tipping point, not of the earth's climate, but of the financial
schemes that permanently divert funds from productive activities into wasteful ones, all
in the name of the scam of saving the climate. The results are evident: higher levels of
spending, deficits, taxes, higher prices for energy and electricity therefore for all
manufactured goods, less productive activity, less employment and more misery. It
seems odd that all of this is essentially based on a fake, the fake data that seem to
show a warming. The Commonwealth of VA and local governments are authorized to
operate under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of VA, not the Charter of a United
Nations accredited "NGO" a non - governmental organization such as ICLEI. In fact,
under article one section ten of the United States of America Constitution, it says,
"States are prohibited from implementing foreign political initiatives through it's
prohibition of States to engage in Treaties, Alliances" or Confederations. Let us think
research and we will find out. Agenda 21's Socialist ICLEI must go. He is here offering
to help with that effort.
Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane stated Last month you voted to
remain in ICLEI. Several things need clarification. Those of us involved in trying to
remove ICLEI are environmentally friendly though we have been portrayed otherwise.
We have researched ICLEI thoroughly, read the ICLEI website thoroughly, and read
what is happening throughout the country in areas who are fully implementing ICLEI's
policies. We are not on a McCarthy "witch hunt" as was implied. Our objections are
based mainly on what we read from their own material and their long -term goals. These
statements were made last month: "We can apply them if we want to." "No one will ever
tell us how to run our county." "Nobody is going to tell me that I'm going to do this or do
something that came from Bonn, Germany or New York." I had often wondered why are
our goals are their goals... exactly... word for word. I found the answer after digging on
ICLEI USA website. The duties of the Staff Liaison for ICLEI include: Determine most
feasible way to accomplish ICLEI's Five Milestones and seek necessary support and
engagement from other local government staff to implement measures and complete
milestones. The duties of the Elected Official Liaison include: Report on the jurisdictions'
progress as it achieves ICLEI's Five Milestones for climate protection Help build and
104 February 14, 2012
maintain support for ICLEI's mission and goals. I have a copy of all these duties for you
to see. There is not a "if you choose to do so" or "if it applies to your locality" as we have
been led to believe. It is not sounding so voluntary is it? It is not sounding like
something we can choose to use or not use is it? Who is misleading the citizens?
Then there is the RCCLEAR report. How can Roanoke County condone sending in a
fraudulent report anywhere? Not one thing on that report can be documented or proved.
Yet someone submitted it, in the county's name, as fact. I have never seen a
government file a report without specific documentation. Is it even legal to do so? Is this
accepted practice? If it is, why should the citizens believe any report from this
government without specific proof of its validity? If you condone fraudulent reporting,
how are we supposed to trust you? If it is not condoned, why has something not been
done? It is to your constituents that you will have to answer these and many other
questions. One of you said it yourself. "It's right here. The buck stops right here ".
Bill Gregory stated he lives at 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke and has
been a resident for 19 years. In one of the Supervisor's closing remarks prior to voting
to remain in ICLEI, it was stated he does not believe that ICLEI has anything to do with
the way we run our county and it never will. No matter how much we talk about ICLEI
and how much we use their services or use their methods or their educational tools,
they will never tell us how to run the County." On multiple occasions over the past
months, we have informed the Board RCCLEAR has been voluntarily and regularly
submitting documentation for ICLEI to audit to determine if our County is complying with
ICLEI requirements. This is being done in order to receive rewards, i.e. ICLEI milestone
certifications or certificates. It sounds a lot like ICLEI is playing the role of judge and
enforcer, "you don't fulfill our requirements; you don't get your reward." It goes beyond
getting their services, tools and advice. There is pressure to come up with a reduction
in CO2 emissions in order to satisfy ICLEI's requirements. Do you know how the
County intends to objectively achieve thirty percent (30 %) reduction in ten (10) years?
Neither does he because the County's formal climate action plan required by ICLEI
appears to never have been formally adopted by the County and sent to ICLEI.
According to a response to one of his freedom of information (FOIA) requests this past
summer what was apparently sent to ICLEI in lieu of a climate action plan was an
itemization of how funds would be spent for each reduction activity the County would
undertake such as the Save A Ton campaign. Surprisingly, it is his understanding that
ICLEI accepted this itemized budget document as the actual climate action plan. So the
question remains, how is RCCLEAR objectively documenting the County's CO2
emissions reduction. The recent FOIA request and response about how the 400 tons of
carbon emissions were derived should be one clue. On a related matter, he has not
received a response to his January 10 FOIA request concerning the method
RCCLEAR is using to document CO2 reduction from the Save A Ton campaign and he
requested a response once again.
February 14, 2012 105
John Brill from Roanoke City and stated this is for the benefit of the
republicans on the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Altizer and Mr. Flora. In January 2012,
the Republican National Committee unanimously passed the following resolution, "RNC
resolution exposing United Nations Agenda 21, WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda
21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and
global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local
communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council
of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local "sustainable development"
policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning
Projects, and other "Green" or "Alternative" projects; and WHEREAS, this United
Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so- called "sustainable development" views the
American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car
ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to
the environment; and, WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy,
social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally
from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be
accomplished by socialist /communist redistribution of wealth; and, WHEREAS,
according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a
social injustice; now therefore be it RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee
recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and
hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan;
and therefore be it further RESOLVED, that the U.S. government and no state or local
government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never
been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and therefore be it further RESOLVED, that the
federal and state and local governments across the country be well informed of the
underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21
destructive strategies for "sustainable development" and we hereby endorse rejection of
its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it
further RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National
Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican members of
Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, all Republican candidates for
President who qualify for RNC sanctioned debates, and to each Republican state and
territorial party office and recommend for adoption into the Republican Party platform at
the 2012 convention." This is not a fringe issue. It is not going away; it is about to
become part of the Republican platform to get rid of ICLEI. So, he urged them to be
good republicans, bring this to a vote again and vote the way you should have the first
time or join the socialist and Ms. Moore's party.
IN RE: REPORTS
106 February 14, 2012
Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Elswick stated he would like to make a comment about a
couple of groups that have achieved reduction in energy usage. One is the Bent
Mountain Women's Club and they have reduced their use of electricity twelve percent
(12 %). They proved that by comparing their utility bills. There is a group from
Christiansburg that has received funding and their intention is to use that funding, to put
solar on people's houses, but as a part of the program they will not only study and do an
energy audit of people's houses or commercial buildings they will be insist that the
recommendations be implement and that there are follow -up audit to ascertain the
actual amount of energy savings. To the extent that we might not have done that, he is
sure we will begin to in the future.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss Leisure Legacy, Inc. (Doug Blount,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
In attendance for this work session were Doug Blount, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism; Wendi Shultz, Tourism and Event Coordinator. The work
session was held from 4:32 p.m. until 4:49 p.m.
Mr. Blount explained the purpose of Leisure Legacy, Inc. and what they
hoped to accomplish and advised they are ready to complete the filing on this 501(c) 3
and proceeded through a PowerPoint presentation that is on file in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. He advised national standards for fund raising will be
implemented.
Supervisor Moore inquired if the schools could use this, i.e. the rubberized
tracts and would the Board of Leisure Legacy prioritize the prospects. Mr. Blount
responded in the affirmative saying partnerships with other entities like the schools
helps.
Supervisor Altizer inquired when they apply for grants do they need to be
project specific with Mr. Blount responding usually a scope of the project must be
February 14, 2012 107
provided. In the beginning you could propose a concept and as you go further into the
grant, they will require specifics. Supervisor Altizer then asked if the Board of Directors
are all County residents with Mr. Blount explaining that he thinks that is a topic for
discussion because in his mind he does not think they need to be County residents
because they are looking for individuals that can help with fund raising, but it is an
option that can be incorporated into the organization. Supervisor Altizer then stated the
organization must keep an "arms length" distance from the governing body with Mr.
Blount responding in the affirmative, which is one of the reasons why they are setting up
some separation with legal counsel and accounting, etc. He stated he feels by putting
together a larger Board of Directors provides the manpower to create that separation.
Ms. Shultz added there are some funding sources that do not require you to be as
specific as when you are going after a grant, for example the Bittle Porterfield
Foundation who only wants to know what you are going to do with the money.
Supervisor Elswick stated there are a number of organizations and citizen
groups throughout the County who would like to have funding of this nature and most of
them are not as proficient in asking for grants. This could be a great focal point for all of
those kinds of people who need help. Mr. Blount responded by stating nationwide a lot
of Parks and Recreation Departments are struggling with projects and programs they
want to be able to offer, but they do not have the funding to be able to do so. By
creating either a non - profit or foundation, it is allowing them, especially on the
infrastructure side, to receive land donations. Citizens would rather officially donate
land to a 501(c) 3 for tax purposes and they feel more comfortable with that and in turn
can be conveyed to Roanoke County as that was the purpose.
Supervisor Elswick asked if they anticipate having someone from the
school system be on the Board with Mr. Bount responding that was certainly possible,
especially with the mutual projects.
Supervisor Flora commented this was a great idea to obtain private funds.
Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks these grants will enhance the "quality of
life."
Mr. Blount advised there were be some overlap in the beginning with
Parks and Recreation staff, but the goal is to be totally self- supporting.
Supervisor Moore stated she thought it was a great idea.
2. Work session on a landscaping project at the intersection of
Williamson Road and Plantation Road (Megan Cronise, Principal
Planner)
In attendance with Ms. Cronise were Wendy Jones, Executive Director of
the Williamson Road Business Association and Brian Blevins, Land Use Engineer from
the Virginia Department of Transportation. The work session was held from 4:50 p.m.
until 4:58 p.m.
08 February 14, 2012
Ms. Cronise went through a PowerPoint presentation detailing the project.
A copy of this presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors. Supervisor Flora asked if any contact had been made with Hollins
University for a source of labor with Ms. Cronise responding a landscaping contract had
already awarded with Supervisor Flora advising not to hesitate to contact them if
needed.
3. Work session to review Roanoke County -owned vacant lots
(Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Billy Driver,
Director of Real Estate)
In attendance for this work session were Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development; Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate; B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator. The work session was held from 5:00 p.m. until 5:36 p.m.
Mr. Covey presented a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the County
owned vacant properties, a copy of which is on file in the office to the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors.
The first section discussed was the Palm Valley flood mitigation area in
which these properties were purchases because they were in a flood plan. Mr.
Goodman advised FEMA funds were used to purchase these properties and they must
remain vacant. Supervisor Flora inquired when the property was purchased and the
funds were obtained from FEMA, was there a requirement that the County retain
ownership for a period of years with Mr. Covey responding he did not know other than
nothing can be built on the property. Chairman Flora stated this was good fertile soil
and could be used for a community garden. Mr. Goodman advised if the property was
used for a community garden, it could be leased. Chairman Flora suggested to Mr.
Goodman that staff put this out to the community to see if there is any interest.
The next section discussed was the former Cave Spring Library which
staff is currently working on.
Next was the Westward Lake area, which Chairman Flora asked how
many parcels with Mr. Covey responding seven (7) lots with an assessed value of
$20,000 each. Supervisor Elswick inquired why these properties were purchased with
Mr. Covey explained this was beside a former dam. Supervisor Altizer stated he
thought these parcels would be good candidates to be sold. Chairman Flora stated if
the County sells does it go up for auction and the highest bidder get it. Mr. Goodman
responded it depends on what the Board decides. It can either be done at auction or to
enter into an agreement with a sales representative and a list price. Mr. Mahoney
advised after Spring Hollow was constructed there were a lot of well lots that were taken
out of service because they no longer necessary. The Board then began to sell those
and because they were in neighborhoods, it caused a certain amount of consternation.
As a result of complaints, the Board had an unofficial policy that it would direct staff to
February 14, 2012 109
run an ad in the newspaper a couple of times, send a letter to all the abutting and
adjoining property owners and put a physical sign on the property stating that it was for
sale and giving the date on which people who were interested could send in their bids.
Then, on a certain Board date, the Board would open the bids and then award to the
highest bidder. The Board should think about establishing a process on whether a
sealed bid auction or turn it over to one of the auction companies. Supervisor Altizer
stated if something is done on this, he does not want to see the advertisement in the
legal ads, but wants to see it in the lots for sale section of the newspaper.
Chairman Flora stated the Westmoreland Drive area is a possible
contender for sale.
Chairman Flora advised the next area, Oak Grove is isolated. Mr.
Goodman advised the property was originally purchased for consideration for a future
library and then the possibility of a potential fire station. Chairman Flora stated it does
not have good access for a fire station, with Mr. Covey explaining there is a right -of -way
there. Chairman Flora advised he thought this location could be sold as he felt it would
make an excellent multi - family housing site for condominiums or patio homes.
Mr. Covey advised the Sugar Loaf Mountain Road location was donated
by Frank Porter and Granger McFarland. Supervisor Elswick asked what the total
acreage is with Mr. Covey responding six point two (6.2) acres and the market value is
$312,400 and said it could be a potential for sale.
Supervisor Elswick asked if the County were going to sell pieces shouldn't
they all be done at one time, with Mr. Goodman and Chairman Flora responding in the
affirmative.
Mr. Goodman then advised he does not recommend leasing the house in
the Back Creek public safety area because of a public safety concern. Mr. Goodman
then stated he did not recommend selling any of the remaining homes on County land.
Chairman Flora asked staff to take another look at the parcels and where
they are not tied to existing County properties, are isolated and small and compile a
potential list to sell and bring back to the Board at a later date.
4. Request for authorization to apply for a Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency's Grant
Program for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response
(SAFER) (Richard E. Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue)
In attendance for this work session was B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator; Richard E. Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue; Steve Simon, Division Chief;
and Volunteer Chief Colin Gee. The work session was held from 5:37 p.m. until 6:18
p.m.
Chief Burch explained this was the same grant that the Board reviewed on
September 14, 2010. He addressed their overall staffing concerns. He reiterated in
2001, a significant change was made in the way they do business; ambulance fees
110 February 14, 2012
were implemented. The first year twenty (20) people were hired and the next year
fifteen (15) people were hired. Through the years, they have done an excellent job of
balancing career and volunteer staffing. Economic times have changed the balance. He
advised he is aware it is the Board's goal not to raise taxes or have layoffs or cut
services, but in the case of Fire and Rescue they have cut services in the past several
years, which has happened due to the lack of volunteers. The availability of volunteers
is impacting what he considered crucial response time problems. He added at a future
meeting he would like to discuss station profiles.
Chief Burch stated the grant will fully fund salaries and benefits for
firefighters for two years; there is no requirement after two years. He advised he knows
one of Mr. Goodman's concerns in his recommendation is what happens in year three.
In the last three years, Fire and Rescue have lost fourteen (14) people, only one of
those was a retirement. He explained there are eight (8) people, including himself that
can retire immediately and there are four (4) more that can retire within the next two (2)
years. So, that is twelve (12) that can retire. Their position is that in three (3) years if
they are successful in received the grant, through attrition these positions could be
absorbed without adding new positions or County funding. There is some associated
costs of $28,000 for equipment per person; they feel they can absorb if received. Chief
Burch explained the priorities of the grant: rehiring laid off firefighters, retention and
finally new hires. He advised they are at a point now with staffing and in order to stay
consistent with the ASL goal is within six (6) minutes at eighty percent (80 %). Currently
they are at forty -six percent (46 %.) He added these personnel will serve Mt. Pleasant,
but the surrounding areas to include Vinton, Clearbrook, Franklin County, Cave Spring,
Read Mountain, Ft. Lewis, Backcreek, Catawba, Hollins. Currently there is a 24/7
ambulance, this grant will allow three people on duty per shift that will allow either fire
truck or ambulance, not both. Chief Burch then turned the meeting over to Colin Gee.
Volunteer Chief Gee stated the volunteer system at Mt. Pleasant is strong;
however, economic times have caused most of the volunteers to work two jobs or
extending their hours. If this grant is received, they will be two years ahead of
schedule, and if not and wait two years to hire people to put there, they will be three (3)
years behind schedule. He stated he feels that in two years they can absorb the
personnel.
Supervisor Altizer stated he understands Mr. Goodman's response and
even this Board in the past got hung up with doing things that did not quite work. He
stated he felt it did not work because the Board did not step in and correct. He stated
he has a concern Roanoke County is heading down the road, not because of anything
that has been wrong, but because Roanoke County is not in a position to do the type of
hiring staff wants to do, whether it is Fire and Rescue, Police, etc. He noted this grant is
better than the one in 2010 because the third year had to be guaranteed. He stated he
thinks it is worth the gamble; if Roanoke County is awarded the grant put the firefighters
on. He reiterated he understands Mr. Goodman's concern in putting people on and not
taking them off. He has a fear that if the Board does not try to chisel away, then down
February 14, 2012 111
the road, Fire and Rescue will be back in the same position as before or consideration
should seriously be given to how Roanoke County is going to approach Fire and
Rescue, maybe on a regional basis.
Mr. Goodman advised he and Chief Burch have discussed this issue and
this is why this item was brought before the Board; to provide options. His concern with
the current budget is he does not know how long this difficulty with the budget will last
and does not know how they are going to fund unless they cut other departments.
Supervisor Altizer stated this decision has to become a Board decision. If
the State of Virginia were to come back to us and say they are going to give you two
more years to do VRS, we will take that, because we have a reprieve. The same would
apply with this grant. The Board will have to make that decision in two years.
Chairman Flora stated he thought he heard Chief Burch say there should
be at least six (6) vacancies in the next three (3) years by people leaving the
department. Mr. Goodman confirmed. Chairman Flora then stated he wants to make
sure he understands that if Roanoke County gets this grant and six (6) people are hired
and there are vacancies coming up in the next few years, the people on the grant will
take those slots. Chief Burch responded they could. Chairman Flora asked for
clarification by asking could or will with Mr. Goodman responding the grant would be
used for two years to pay for the six (6) positions. Chairman Flora then asked if the
vacancies would be held open with Mr. Goodman responding in the negative; all Fire
and Police positions have been filled as soon as they become vacant. Chairman Flora
inquired if Roanoke County would end up with a $300,000 bill at the end of three years
that will have to be paid. Chief Burch responded it could happen because it may be the
Board's decision, when year two comes around during the budget cycle and things
really look bad, any open positions could be frozen until these six could fill the slots.
Chairman Flora stated he thought that is what he said, with Mr. Goodman stating no
public safety positions have been frozen, other than administration. Chairman Flora
stated if we do not do that, Roanoke County will end up with a $300,000 bill to pay. Mr.
Goodman stated freezing those positions will have an impact on service levels, with
Chairman Flora stating of course it will. He further emphasized Roanoke County is in
bad times, the State is cutting, but Roanoke County is not tightening its belt, except just
what it takes to get by. He would be concerned about hiring six (6) people. He stated
he can support as long as he knows there will not be a $300,000 bill to pay at the end of
three years.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if Chief Burch stated he would not fill the
positions of the six (6) that were going to retire. Chief Burch stated they would fill the
positions under normal circumstances, but if the County could not afford to pick the
salaries up in the third year, then they would be frozen, depending upon the situation,
near the end of year two. Supervisor Elswick then asked if there were other people in
the County could be reassigned to Fire and Rescue. Mr. Goodman responded
negatively, stating they are not certified or trained properly. Chairman Flora stated but
neither are the people that will be hired. Supervisor Elswick stated he knew of some
112 February 14, 2012
that were already trained.
Chief Burch advised if they continue down this path, in two or three years
Fire and Rescue will need to be refigured because if you were to see the station profiles
you would be able to see the problems. It may be they will need to operate from core
stations and response times will be different. He stated he knows there are a lot of
other departments worse off than they are. The whole station profile needs to be
reviewed to see what is happening to this system.
Supervisor Moore stated if Roanoke County is fortunate enough to obtain
the SAFER grant, then we have two years and if at the end of two years we cannot
keep, they will at least be trained and have a better opportunity to get another position.
She stated she feels they should try for it and see what happens.
Chairman Flora asked if it would make sense to go for the grant and get it,
and in the first two years of the grant, staff will be replaced that leave or retire. In the
third year, those positions would be frozen and use any opening to be filled with the six
(6) paid for by the grant. Chief Burch stated he felt that was a possibility to look at,
however is a little hesitant in saying that now; not knowing what three years will be like.
Hopefully, in three years things will be better. Accordingly, Chairman Flora stated these
positions will be funded by the grant for two years; any vacancies that are created in the
third year will be frozen unless the Board of Supervisors specifically agrees not to free
them. This decision will be two years from the implementation of the grant.
Supervisor Elswick asked what may be a broader question than just fire
and rescue and maybe they should have a closed session on personnel. Mr. Goodman
advised in general personnel discussions should be done in open session. Supervisor
Elswick stated he was talking about staffing and whether or not positions are frozen, not
individuals, not pay. Mr. Goodman stated that must be done in open session. He
stated if you are talking about an individual and performance, under the law it is
allowed, but anything to do with policy needs to be in open session. Supervisor Elswick
stated then it needs to be done in open session. Mr. Goodman responded staff could
do the station profiles. Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks the Board should do every
County department. Mr. Goodman advised they can if that is the direction of the Board.
Supervisor Elswick stated they could discuss freezing versus not freezing; times may
look bad right now, but they are probably going to get worse. Mr. Goodman explained
staff currently has a job bank where there are approximately twenty (20) positions that
are frozen and eliminated several positions over the years. Supervisor Elswick stated
but what happens when there is a year that requires $20 million that the County does
not have, what is staff going to do. He suggested there should be a contingency plan.
What are the basic requirements of County government, who comes first in service to
the citizens. Mr. Goodman stated staff could prepare a strategic plan.
Supervisor Altizer stated they could lose some funding, but does not feel it
would be $20 million. The Board is charged to do what it has to do given the
circumstances the Board is under for any given year. If things get worse, then a lot of
things go on the table, i.e. are you going to pick up garbage every week; what kind of
February 14, 2012 113
service delivery is the County going to give will ultimately up to the citizens. These
decisions come before the Board every year during the budget session and sometimes
midyear. This issue will need to be dealt with in three years and there will be other
issues along the way, but the thing that remains is that the grant is free, people will be
trained and already in place. For those two years, Roanoke County will have better
coverage in all areas of the County because there is more they can do.
Chairman Flora stated the consensus of the Board is to proceed with the
grant and in the third year, the understanding would be upfront the positions would be
frozen and the Board would decide by action as to whether or not to maintain the freeze
or assume that funding will be available.
Chief Burch stated he sees it playing out in the budget process.
Chairman Flora stated the Board needs to adopt a resolution to authorize
the application and the frozen positions needs to be included. Chief Burch stated they
did not need a resolution, just approval. Mr. Goodman restated that the consensus of
the Board would be to apply for the grant and prepare a resolution for the next meeting.
Supervisor Elswick asked Chief Burch if there were other locations in
trouble. Chief Burch responded this station is not the worst case, but it is the best case
for this grant. Supervisor Elswick then asked why this station would be done first if it not
the worst case with Chief Burch responding the other situation involves another
jurisdiction whereby they share a station. He confirms this is the best option they feel
they can justify the need for the grant.
Mr. Goodman advised his understanding of the consensus of the Board is
to pursue the grant and for staff to write a resolution to reflect their position in the
second year. Additionally, at another Board meeting, Chief Burch will bring staff in and
give the station profile.
Supervisor Altizer asked that when the work session is scheduled it is not
included with three or four others.
Mr. Goodman advised that he would put together some dates to have a
meeting for work sessions and provide to the Board.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:09 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A A.1.Personnel,
namely discussion concerning appointments to the Economic Development Authority;
Section 2.2.3711.A.29 Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the
expenditure of public funds where discussion in open session would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the Board, namely negotiations with the
City of Roanoke and Section 2.2.3711.A.29 Discussion of the award of a public contract
involving the expenditure of public funds where discussion in open session would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the Board, namely
performance agreement with the Economic Development Authority and Virginia Blue
Ridge, LLC
114 February 14, 2012
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Church
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 6:55 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to return to open session and adopt
the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 021412 -4 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Church
February 14, 2012
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
Clerk to the :•. •
115
Richard C. Flora
Chairman
OEM
116 February 14, 2012
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
1