HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/22/2012 - RegularMay 22, 2012 285
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 fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May 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,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte
A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
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 Bruce Chick of Sovereign Grace
Community Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring the week of June 4 -8, 2012, as Business
Appreciation Week in the County of Roanoke (Jill Loope, Acting
Director of Economic Development)
Mr. Dale Guidry, President and CEO of TMEIC Corporation, was present
to accept the proclamation on behalf of the Roanoke County business community. Mr.
Guidry thanked Economic Development, the Board and his employees for their support
and noted they will be expanding their operation.
286 May 22, 2012
All supervisors offered their thanks to Mr. Guidry on behalf of the business
community and his company as well.
Jill Loope thanked all of the employees in the Economic Development
Department: Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist; Joe Zielinki, Economic
Development Specialist and Glenna Ratcliffe, Administrative Assistant.
2. Presentation of Virginia Public Library Directors Association
Award for Outstanding Facility 2012 (Diana Rosapepe, Director of
Library Services)
Ms. Rosapepe explained the award was for use of space, sustainability
and service and presented the Certificate to Chairman Flora who requested that it be
hung at the South County Library.
All Supervisors thanked Ms. Rosapepe, the Friends of the Library and her
staff for all their hard work.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt an amended Roanoke County School Budget for
the fiscal year 2012 -2013 (Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County
Administrator)
A- 052212 -1
Ms. Hyatt explained the request for the amendment to the School Budget.
In attendance from the schools were School Board Chairman Fuzzy Minnix; School
Superintendent, Dr. Lorraine Lange; School Board member Jerry Canada and Dr. Carol
Whitaker, Assistant Superintendent of Personnel. Chairman Minnix and Jerry Canada
outlined the need for the amendment and thanked the Board for their continued support.
Chairman Church asked Chairman Minnix to explain again that this was a
requirement from the Commonwealth. Chairman Minnix outlined the Commonwealth's
requirement for a gross 8.75 percent, net 3 percent.
Supervisor Moore thanked them for taking care of their employees.
Chairman Flora commended their ethical stand in treating everyone the same.
Ms. Hyatt added the school's new numbers would not be included in
tonight's budget numbers.
Chairman Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
May 22, 2012 287
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Blue Ridge Bread, Inc. (Panera) to obtain a Special
Use Permit in a C -2, General Commercial, District for the
operation of a drive -in and fast food restaurant on 1.02 acres,
located at 4202 Electric Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for June 26, 2012. There was no discussion. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2- 1414.3 of the Code of
Virginia (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined in the past the Board of Supervisors received an
increase at the same time as Roanoke County employees. He added State code
requires a public hearing.
Supervisor Church inquired if the $497.50 increase is per week with Mr.
Mahoney responding it is on an annual basis.
Supervisor Altizer stated every Board member works very hard, putting in
a lot of hours and time. He advised his opinion is not a reflection on this Board, but is
his personal opinion. He advised he is in support of employee raises, but not in support
of this ordinance at this time.
Supervisor Moore stated a great deal of money is spent on gasoline and is
in support of the ordinance.
Chairman Flora indicated he concurred with everyone and can only speak
for himself. He advised he did not turn in any expenses, with the exception of mileage
only for events outside Roanoke County.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for June 12, 2012. There was no discussion. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: Supervisor Altizer
288 May 22, 2012
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 19. - Solicitors and Solicitations,
Article II. — Permit for Charitable Solicitations, Section 19 -28. —
Permit for Street Solicitation of the Roanoke County Code (Paul
M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney summarized the three amendments to the ordinance. There
have been no changes from the first reading. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052212 -2 AMENDING CHAPTER 19. -
SOLICITORS AND SOLICITATIONS, ARTICLE II. — PERMIT FOR
CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS, SECTION 19 -28. — PERMIT FOR
STREET SOLICITATION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
WHEREAS, Section 19 -4 prohibits soliciting from any operator or passenger of a
motor vehicle that is in traffic on a public road without a permit for charitable solicitation
from the county as outlined in Article II. Sections 19 -21 to 19 -28 of the County Code;
and
WHEREAS, Section 19 -28. — Permit for street solicitation sets out the steps to
allow a charitable organization to solicit from a vehicle on a public road, one of which is
submitting to the county a copy of a permit issued by the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) for use or occupancy of the public right -of -way at intersections
at which solicitations will be conducted during the term of the county's permit; and
WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the county that VDOT does not issue
such a permit; requiring an amendment to the Section 19 -28 of the County Code; and
WHEREAS, to assure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and all
permit conditions, it is necessary that the applicant or other responsible official for the
charitable organization be present at the solicitation location at all times when
solicitations are occurring; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 8, 2012, and the
second reading was held on May 22, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Chapter 19. — Solicitors and Solicitations, Article II. — Permit for
charitable solicitations, Section 19 -28. — Permit for street solicitation of the Roanoke
County Code be amended to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 19 -28. - Permit for street solicitation.
The prohibition on soliciting from a vehicle on a public road set forth in section 194(b),
above, does not apply to a charitable organization, and its authorized solicitors, which
has applied for and been issued a permit under this section and which is in compliance
May 22, 2012 289
with all other provisions of this chapter. In order to solicit contributions while standing in
a public road, a charitable organization must comply with the following requirements:
(1) Not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date desired for beginning solicitation,
the charitable organization shall submit a complete application to the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors for a charitable solicitation permit. In addition to the
information required by section 19 -22, the form shall require the charitable
organization to provide its full name, the name, address and phone number of a
local point of contact for the organization, the desired date(s), time(s) and
specific location(s) for soliciting which shall be limited to not more than six (6)
intersections with a traffic control signal light, the name, mailing address and
phone number of each individual who will be engaged in solicitation activities on
behalf of such charitable organization. Further the charitable organization shall
provide an agreement or document whereby such organization shall indemnify
the county, its officers, employees and agents, and hold the county, its officers,
employees and agents, harmless from any and all claims, suits, demands,
damages and attorney fees arising out of or related to the acts or omissions of
individuals or entities soliciting for such organization. The charitable organization
shall have an ongoing obligation to update or correct any information submitted
in its application for a solicitation permit so as to maintain all information in the
county's possession as accurate. The county may require such additional or
supplemental information as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate the direct
enforcement of this section and the purposes of this chapter.
(2) When submitting a completed application to the county, the charitable
organization shall also submit the following:
a. Written proof of general commercial liability and property damage
insurance coverage issued by a company authorized to conduct business
in the commonwealth in the amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 per
occurrence that insures the organization and all individuals and entities
who may be soliciting on its behalf. The proof of insurance shall include
the board of supervisors of the county, as an additional insured and must
specify that the insurance is primary over any insurance which the county
may carry or any provisions for self- insurance by the county.
b. An application permit fee in the amount of $10.00 shall be payable at the
time the application is submitted. This fee shall be used to defray the
county's cost of processing the application and for insuring compliance
with the conditions of any permit issued through monitoring of the public
roads. An applicant will be notified in writing of the approval or denial of
their request within fifteen (15) days after the county's receipt of a
completed application. Within the county's discretion, a portion of this fee
may be refunded in the event a permit is denied.
290
May 22, 2012
C. Written proof that the applicant organization is a charitable organization,
which has obtained qualification from the Internal Revenue Service as a
section 501 c(3) entity under the Internal Revenue Code.
d. A safety plan which shall describe the measures which the organization
will implement during any solicitation period to insure the safety of those
participating in its solicitation activities and of drivers and occupants of
motor vehicles at intersections where solicitations are permitted.
e. A roster listing all of the individuals who will be conducting solicitations.
This roster shall include the name, address and physical description of
each solicitor.
(3) Additional solicitation activity restrictions shall include the following:
a. No more than one (1) permit may be issued to an organization during
each calendar year. Permits shall be valid for a period of ninety (90) days
from the date of their issuance;
b. Solicitation upon a public road in the county pursuant to a permit shall be
authorized for no more than four (4) consecutive calendar days, and shall
be limited to the period from 9:00 a.m. until one -half ( 1 /) hour prior to
sunset, at the approved location(s) specified in the application and permit;
C. Each individual solicitor shall have in his or her possession some form of
official identification with a photograph, such as a driver's license and shall
wear a high - visibility, reflective safety vest over their clothing at all times;
d. A copy of the organization's solicitation permit shall be maintained at each
approved solicitation location;
e. All solicitors must be at least eighteen (18) years of age or older;
f. No solicitor may impede traffic at any time; touching a vehicle or reaching
inside a vehicle without the consent of the occupants of the vehicle shall
be considered as impeding traffic; and,
g. The applicant for the permit or the local point of contact shall be present at
the location of the solicitation during the all of the dates and times that
solicitations are occurring. If multiple locations are permitted, then there
shall be an identified local point of contact for each location.
(4) Additional conditions for consideration of and issuance of permits:
a. In additional to the provisions of section 19 -24, an application for a
solicitation permit under this section may be denied or revoked, in whole
or in part, for the following reasons:
1. A solicitation permit has been issued to a charitable organization,
and is currently in force, for one or more of the intersections at
which the applicant seeks permission to solicit;
2. In the opinion of the chief of police or his designee, approval of the
solicitation permit at one or more of the requested intersections is
determined to create a reasonable potential for injury to solicitors,
May 22, 2012 291
other pedestrians or vehicle occupants or an unreasonable
potential for disruption to normal traffic flow;
3. The applicant has made a false or materially misleading statement
on the application form or in any response to information requested
on behalf of the county; and
4. A material violation of the solicitation permit granted under this
section or any action by the organization or any individual solicitor
acting in its behalf which creates a clear and immediate danger to
public safety.
b. Issuance of any permit under this section shall not represent an
endorsement by the county of any charitable organization that the
permittee may represent nor any indication of supervision of or control
over the proceeds raised by the organization's charitable solicitations.
That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed
by District)
Chairman Flora has recommended the re- appointment of Max Beyer to
represent the Hollins District for an additional three -year term to expire on June 30,
2015. Mr. Beyer has expressed his willingness to serve an additional term and
accordingly confirmation of this appointment has been added to the Consent Agenda.
Supervisor Elswick has recommended the appointment of Ssunny Shah to
represent the Windsor Hills District for a three -year term that will expire on June 30,
2015. Confirmation of this appointment has been added to the Consent Agenda.
2. Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action
Roundtable (RCCLEAR)
Chairman Flora has recommended the appointment of Jesse Freedman to
represent the Hollins Magisterial District to complete the term left vacant by Brian
Pittenger. This term of office will expire on August 31, 2012.
3. Roanoke County Planning Commission (appointed by District)
292 May 22, 2012
Supervisor Moore has recommended the re- appointment of Gene Marrano
to represent the Cave Spring District for a four -year term that will expire on June 30,
2016. Confirmation of this appointment has been added to the Consent Agenda.
4. Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of
Directors
B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator has recommended the
reappointment of Doug Blount to represent Roanoke County on this Board. This is a
two year appointment that will expire on June 30, 2014. Confirmation of this
appointment has been added to the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 052212 -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 May 22,
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 5 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — April 10, 2012; April 24, 2012
2. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $7,981.73 to the
Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal year
2011/2012
3. Confirmation of appointments to Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory
Commission (appointed by District); Roanoke County Community Leaders
Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR); Roanoke County Planning
Commission (appointed by District) and the Roanoke Valley Convention and
Visitors Bureau Board of Directors
4. Request to enhance the Infrastructure Replacement Capital Fund
5. Acceptance of Olyvia Place located within Belfair Heights Subdivision in the
Cave Spring Magisterial District into the Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary System
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
May 22, 2012 293
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
A- 052212 -3.a
A- 052212 -3.b
RESOLUTION 052212 -3.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
OLYVIA PLACE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached Addition 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 roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Resolution approving and adopting the recommendation of the
Roanoke County Bonding Committee to schedule a Public
Hearing on June 12, 2012 declaring the developer Al M. Cooper
Construction, Inc. to be in default under the Cardinal Meadows
294 May 22, 2012
(Catawba Magisterial District) "Developer's Site Development
Agreement" and "Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement"
(Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development)
Mr. Moneir outlined the need for the resolution. The cost of correcting
these deficiencies will be covered by the security bonds that the County retains. He
further indicated he had received several phone calls from the developer and David
Bullington his attorney. Mr. Moneir advised his recommendation is to move forward with
a public hearing on June 12, 2012.
Chairman Flora asked David Bullington to come forward and comment.
Mr. Bullington advised he felt it was premature and unnecessary to call Mr. Cooper in
default. He advised Mr. Cooper has been building for over forty (40) years. He
indicated all but two homes in this subdivision have not yet been sold. As of December
2011, two punch list items have been completed and VDOT letter has confirmed. Valley
Bank has submitted the necessary letter. He indicated this was a difficult environment
for the building community. He further advised there was only a minimal amount of
work to be completed and requested that the Board take no action at this time. He
indicated is should only take a few weeks to a month to complete.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Moneir to explain the time line. Mr. Moneir
explained staff has tried numerous times to work with the developer; with only one way
communication. He has the documentation to show that this item would be presented
to the Bonding Committee and ultimately the Board. Mr. Cooper did not move on this
item until brought before the Board. He further indicated staff has gone above and
beyond with no response from the developer; this is too little too late and suggested the
Board move forward.
Supervisor Altizer asked if the detention pond had been turned over tothe
Homeowners Association with Mr. Moneir responding in the negative.
RESOLUTION 052212 -4 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY BONDING
COMMITTEE TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 12,
2012 DECLARING THE DEVELOPER AL M. COOPER
CONSTRUCTION, INC. TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER THE
CARDINAL MEADOWS (CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT)
"DEVELOPER'S SITE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT" AND
"EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AGREEMENT"
WHEREAS, Al M. Cooper Construction, Inc., a Virginia corporation (hereafter
"Developer"), as developers of Cardinal Meadows in the Catawba Magisterial District of
Roanoke County, on or about March 3, 2006, entered into an Erosion and Sediment
Control Agreement (hereafter "E & S Agreement ") with the County of Roanoke and
provided an irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by Valley Bank of Virginia in the amount
May 22, 2012 295
of $40,520 to insure the construction and maintenance of certain erosion and sediment
control facilities in connection with the development of Cardinal Meadows; and,
WHEREAS, the Developer subsequently, on or about August 1, 2006, entered
into a Land Subdivider's Agreement with the County of Roanoke and was granted
approval to subdivide a portion of the Developer's property and to record a plat of
subdivision for the development to be known as Cardinal Meadows and provided an
irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by Sun Trust Bank of Virginia in the amount of
$447,960 to insure the construction, completion and maintenance of improvements to
the land; and,
WHEREAS, Developer has partially complied with its legal responsibilities under
the aforesaid E & S and Land Subdivider's Agreements and Roanoke County officials
have authorized multiple partial releases but a balance of $275,744.25 remains on
deposit with Sun Trust Bank of Virginia to secure the completion of the requirements
under the Land Subdivider's Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Bonding Committee for Roanoke County meeting on May 2,
2012, at the Roanoke County Administration Building considered the documentation as
to the status of this subdivision project and voted to recommend that the Board of
Supervisors schedule a public hearing to consider declaring the Developer to be in
default and that the County take all necessary actions to collect the outstanding surety
proceeds in order to complete this development.
NOW THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That a public hearing be scheduled for June 12, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia,
24018 to hear testimony and proposals from Al M. Cooper Construction, Inc. and
Valley Bank of Virginia concerning the recommendations of the Bonding
Committee to declare the Developer in default and to collect the proceeds from
the letters of credit in order to complete the development of Cardinal Meadows,
in accordance with the Land Subdivider's Agreement.
2. That the County Administrator, the Director of the Department of
Community Development, his staff and agents, and the Office of the County
Attorney are hereby directed to provide appropriate notices to the Developer and
the Surety of this public hearing, and are further authorized to take such action
as may be necessary to fully assert and defend the rights and obligations of
Roanoke County in this regard.
3. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from the date of its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
296 May 22, 2012
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke.
Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane stated she is from the Cave
Spring District and stated each meeting; some of us have come before you and asked
you to withdraw membership from ICLEI. We have given you many reasons for doing
so: ICLEI is a partner with the UN, and its mission is to implement Agenda 21. ICLEI is
a partner in RIO -20, whose goal is to enhance the role of the UN while making
developed countries change their lifestyles. Many localities have opted out of ICLEI
because of reasons varying from economic impact when fully implemented to feeling
that it would harm private property rights, to believing it against the principles on which
America is based. We have presented facts to you that man -made global warming is
only a theory.... and many scientists have differing opinions yet all of ICLEI's goals are
based on it. We are implementing every ICLEI milestone based on software has not
been scientifically proven by any objective experts, and we are saving tons of carbon
dioxide by handing out pamphlets. Information we have presented, comes not from
"conspiracy" websites, but from ICLEI's own website, the UN website, and scientists
themselves. We have quoted to you the reasons localities are opting out in their own
words. None of this seems to matter to you. Have you looked at the material we have
presented? Have you read the ICLEI website? Have you really looked at why we are
members in the first place? What has membership gotten us? Nothing that I can see
except a few people going to ICLEI conferences to gather more propaganda from them,
use of software that cannot be scientifically proven, and possibly a suggestion of a grant
or two ... of course these grants are only to implement ICLEI goals aren't they? Oh, and
we get a certificate as soon as our reports are approved by this international NGO. You
say you will protect property rights and not let ICLEI goals harm Roanoke County
residents.... yet with every land use and environmental policy, ICLEI and UN goals and
wording is there. It is working its way in and you are doing nothing but closing your eyes
to it. In June, when the RIO 20 conference is held, see what you have agreed to and
then tell us you have acted in our best interests because as your resolution of
membership states you will further ICLEI's goals. Those of us opposed to ICLEI are
environmentalist too. We care about this area and want to preserve it.... our
way ... without outside forces giving us mandates which are the same for every area in
the world. Don't you have confidence in your employees and volunteers to do this? Are
you afraid to admit you didn't fully vet this before you joined? Every week local
governments are realizing they must do what is best for their areas and drop ICLEI
membership. When will it be our turn for you to do what is best for us?
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive stated for nearly a year we have
educated the Board about every aspect of UN Agenda 21; pleading with the Board to
cut ties with ICLEI. During that time, we have become aware of the regional plan in our
area that has been in the works. Oddly enough, this plan appears to be aimed at
May 22, 2012 297
achieving the same goals that UN Agenda 21 is attempting to obtain. The regional plan
comes from The Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission serving several
counties and cities in the area, including our county. A new arm of that commission is
the Partnership for a Livable Roanoke Valley, known as the PVLT. The name of the
plan is called The Roanoke Valley Livability Plan. Some of you may know about this up
and coming plan since you represent the County on the Roanoke Valley Alleghany
Regional Commission and likely aware of the PVLT. He is speaking here about raising
the awareness of those Board members here who may not be aware of this and also
county citizens that this plan is coming down the pipeline. Over the course of a few
years similar plans to this Roanoke Valley Livability Plan have sprouted Regional
Commissions across the country. The most prominent is the One Bay Area Plan in the
San Francisco area. This plan is at least two years ahead of this plan. Their plan is now
witnessessing much contention and open protest as more and more citizens open their
eyes and discover what is in the plan. As the Roanoke Valley Livability Plan is unveiled
to the public over the next few years, we will only oppose it. The Roanoke County
Comprehensive Plan has a link to the PVLT. We note that some of you represent the
County on the PVLT Steering Committee. The RVCCC is on the PVLT stakeholder
committee and are big proponents of the County retaining its ICLEI membership. The
dots are connecting and we are going to keep an eye on the development of this future
plan; especially if it takes the same course as the One Bay Area Plan, there has to be
some checks and balances.
Jenny Baker of 10017 Fortune Ridge in Bent Mountain stated she had
worked for Roanoke County as Deputy Sheriff. She advised her husband had an
accident in the Big Ben curve going up Bent Mountain. Her complaint was and
understands that the Police Department says they have nothing to do with it, but knows
there is no great towing God up there that knows every wreck, because it was six
seconds between him and another man. But the thing was to be charged $651 to have
that bike towed to Blue Ridge and to get it out. There is no sense in that; there have
been wrecks on Bent Mountain and Meadows of Dan have come. The only thing that
she requested being a Deputy is that the County Police make their presence known up
Rt. 221. If they ride up there, there are so much drugs up there no one has any idea.
She advised she cannot report them because she almost got shot the last time. Thank
you for letting me work for the County; she cannot complain.
Mr. Elswick stated Ben Baker was a good friend of his and he has been
cutting wood on his land where AEP made a new powerline through all winter long,
despite of the fact that his arthritis was so bad that he had to walk bent over. He was on
his way to Mr. Elswick's house that day when he had his wreck or he would have been
going to his house because they have a little bit of trading to do. He was a valuable
member of the Bent Mountain community. He was the type of guy that dressed
sometimes like some of the Harley people do, but he would never buy a Harley because
he liked to build his own. He built two trikes, one of them had some wheels on it that
Mr. Elswick gave him and his old truck has a heater coil that he put on. We were
298 May 22, 2012
always seeing each other at the church services it was full of people who knew Ben
well. He wrecked on Sunday and he personally asked the towing company to release
the trike so some of them could look at it and see if they could figure out what
happened. They could not meet him at the lot; that meant the bike was charged for
another day. The next day it was picked up and there was nothing wrong with the bike,
but they were told part of the reason why the bill was so high was that it required a
boom truck to lift it onto the wrecker or whatever truck the towing company brought to
the site. He stated he has a lot of old vehicles that his buddy, Joe Willow, picks up
occasionally and you can pick up a four -wheel drive, heavy pickup truck with the wrench
on a flatbed, on a rollback. A truck does not ever have to have wheels on it. So any
good rollback could pick up a small three - wheeled trike. So, he asked Mr. Goodman
and Mr. Mahoney what Roanoke County's position was asked if Roanoke County had
any influence or authority and he was told no, that the towing companies were selected
by the State and Roanoke County has no responsibility or authority in that area. But,
we are responsible to the citizens of Roanoke County and when something like this
happens to one of our citizens, we should at least get an explanation or at least advise
the State there is a situation that does not look right to us, would you mind looking into it
and see what you think as to whether or not the citizen was charged appropriately.
Chairman Flora asked for Mr. Goodman to provide some information at
the next meeting on how these vendors are selected and what the County's options are.
He then asked if this was a Roanoke County police officer or State police officer and
requested an explanation on how these services are chosen.
IN RE: REPORTS
Chairman Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of April 30, 2012
5. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of April 30, 2012
6. Accounts Paid —April 30, 2012
7. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of April 30, 2012
8. Proclamation signed by the Chairman
May 22, 2012 299
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:22 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 1 Personnel,
namely discussion concerning appointments to the Community Policy and Management
Team (CPMT); Court Community Corrections Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP)
Policy Board; Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission; Roanoke Valley
Convention and Visitors Bureau Board of Directors; Virginia's First Regional Industrial
Facility Authority and the Western Virginia Water Authority. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
YES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 6:10 p.m. until 6:50 p.m.
At 4:23 p.m., Chairman Flora recessed to the 4 th floor for work session
and closed meetings.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss stormwater enforcement (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
The work session was held from 4:45 p.m. until 5:29 p.m. Mr. Mahoney gave
a brief history lesson with regard to this subject. The last action item was to go to the
various community meetings in each district and explain what their responsibilities are,
what are their options and alternatives. Staff has completed this final phase. He
commented he feels at the end of the day, enforcement will be a problem. Mr. Mahoney
asked for direction from the Board on how to move forward and enforce. He cited
several suggestions: take the homeowners associations to court, have County do the
work and place a lien, Northern Virginia has added a couple of cents to the real estate
tax rate and has assumed the liability and finally Stormwater Utility is another
suggestion. He noted the next work session on June 12 would be a game plan similar
to the City of Lynchburg.
Mr. Goodman commented the work session to be held on June 12th deals
with EPA/DEQ requirements and that Roanoke County has until July 2013/2014 to be in
compliance.
Mr. Mahoney stressed the largest problem is the cost; it is expensive to
repair.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if Roanoke County has a liability if a pond fails
and damages surrounding property. Mr. Mahoney responded the Homeowners
Association has the liability. Roanoke County will have the liability when the DEQ and
300 May 22, 2012
EPA come after Roanoke County for failing to enforce the ordinances in place. There
are huge fines from the regulatory agencies in addition to getting the work done.
Supervisor Altizer noted it is sort of like walking through a tunnel or a
maze as to how to figure out the steps. In the short term, does Roanoke County make
people fix their ponds? He advised he used to believe it was all on the HOA's but with
the advent of quality, everybody surrounding it is contributing to it with VDOT being the
biggest offender. He further commented it is the HOA's responsibility to get their ponds
up to where they need to be from a structural standpoint. He advised he did not see
how Roanoke County can let some go and some not.
Mr. Mahoney advised there are 626 ponds. There is a bigger problem
with the ones we do not know about. Currently, there are 189 that are inadequate.
Supervisor Moore inquired how Randy Leach feels about handling these
cases with Mr. Mahoney advising his office would handle. Supervisor Moore stated she
agreed with Mr. Altizer and the problem is that the homeowners do not show up at the
meetings in order to meet a quorum so nothing gets accomplished.
Supervisor Altizer inquired why they are not talking about taking people to
court. There is an agreement with the Homeowners Association for the County to do
the work. He suggested that the County do the work and place on the tax ticket every
May and December.
Mr. Mahoney advised Chairman Flora has previously suggested a special
assessment, which is an option that could work. However, if you have 200 subdivisions
and you do a special assessment for each one, it would become an administrative
problem.
Chairman Flora commented that whatever is done will not be pleasant.
He stated his personal opinion is that the people who own the property should be the
ones that pay the bill, but how to get there is another problem.
Supervisor Elswick inquired who would file the suit since it is State
mandated with Mr. Mahoney advising Roanoke County. Supervisor Elswick stated
maybe there should be a trial three or four and see how they work.
Supervisor Church stated he agreed with Supervisor Elswick that they
should proceed slowly. He further commented the HOA's in his district have gone from
hostile to reasonable.
Supervisor Flora commented to just not enforce the ordinance would not
be pretty, but how staff enforces it and how they go about it is just as important. He
inquired why doesn't staff prioritize these and develop a matrix and take the worse
ones, the ones that impact the greatest number of people and just prioritize them and
then start at the top and work down the list.
Supervisor Church stated with the caveat that the worst cannot be all in
one district.
Chairman Flora stated okay, divide it by districts and prepare a matrix and
take them across the top.
Supervisor Altizer asked for an explanation of what Chairman Flora is
May 22, 2012 301
suggesting with regard to a matrix.
Chairman Flora stated they would enforce the ordinance and force them to
do what they have to do. If they don't, then it will have to come back to the Board for a
difficult decision. First you notify, negotiate and enforce. He advised a letter needs to
go to each homeowner, because sometimes the officers receive the letter and the
homeowners never know.
Supervisor Moore inquired if there were time limits on when you file a
deed in the courthouse for a HOA, is there a twenty -five to thirty -five (25 -35) year term
or is it indefinite. Mr. Mahoney advised most of the time there is a time limit for the
creation of the legal entity.
Supervisor Elswick stated that points out that people are aware of
covenants.
Supervisor Altizer stated in taking a gentler touch, along with the matrix
you need to have something if the HOA wants Roanoke County to do the work. It
provides another option.
Mr. Mahoney inquired if you had an HOA that came to the Board and
asked them to take over the assessment, would you want to create a special tax
assessment.
Supervisor Elswick stated he liked the idea because then Roanoke County
could ensure that the work is done correctly.
Supervisor Altizer stated for some of the HOA's it is an easier way to do it
as long as they understand we are not assuming responsibility, just the administrative
end. Somewhere along the process, you may be able to come up with an average set
fee.
Mr. Goodman advised that one thing he would like to point out to the
Board if Roanoke County is going to get that involved in the process, additional
personnel will need to be added.
Supervisor Moore commented that each HOA is not going to have the
same problem.
Supervisor Church stated he is in agreement with Mr. Goodman.
Chairman Flora stated he is talking about construction work only, major
work and only on the detention ponds.
Mr. Goodman stated he would discuss with Community Development just
to make sure as this gets developed that we keep them involved so they will know any
expectation the Board has with their office.
Chairman Flora stated he is thinking about a contract administrator only;
manage the work not do the work.
Supervisor Elswick stated a sign should be posted at the pond. Mr.
Mahoney responded some of the ponds are not readily visible.
2. Work session to discuss Roanoke County Take Home Vehicle
Policy (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
302 May 22, 2012
This work session was held from 5:29 p.m. until 6:02 p.m. Mr. Goodman
first reviewed the list, section by section; then the policies. The actual revised center of
Roanoke County is Sixth Street and Delaware, one block over from Andrew Lewis.
Supervisor Elswick stated in his opinion no County employee should have
a take home vehicle. He further added he would like to see exactly who has the vehicle
and why, how many miles they use, how many times they use on the way to and from
work. He stated he feels the citizens are being taken advantage of. He further added
this bothers him lot and appears to be a large perk.
Supervisor Flora inquired if the fifteen mile limit in the policy applies to all
departments including Public Safety with Mr. Goodman responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Church stated the center of measurement bothers him and
what is wrong with using wherever their office is located. Mr. Goodman responded the
purpose was to have uniformity. Additionally, Supervisor Church stated another
concern is that some of the people are already making a sizable income. During down
economic times, it is not the dollars and cents we are saving on paper but the message
we are sending to the people we represent. Everything we deal with is tax payer
money, it is not our money and it is magnified under tough budgetary times. He added
he has mixed feelings about public safety. He stated he does not understand why
someone in this building would need to take a car home on the weekend. There is no
reason that would make sense. Mr. Goodman advised with regard to public safety
which Supervisor Church asked they be taken out of the picture. Supervisor Elswick
stated the fact that the public safety employees need the vehicle when they are off duty.
He asked for the Chief of Police and Chief of Fire and Rescue to advise how often it
occurs. Mr. Goodman responded that information could be obtained. Mr. Goodman
advised with regard to non - public safety, which would be basically general services or
the Administration Center. Basically, the vehicles here are the inspectors and they work
four, ten hour days so there is more coverage in the morning and the afternoon. When
they are coming in they use these vehicles as an office where there work is assigned by
computer and can start at 7:00 a.m. and continue on their way home.
Supervisor Moore added it is critical to a contractor that is pouring
concrete that the inspector be there first thing in the morning and after 5:00 p.m.
Supervisor Church advised that is information that is important and should
have been included in the paperwork.
Mr. Goodman stated with regard to the technicians and the facility
manager from Kessler Mill, they are responsible for various buildings. It provides
flexibility for having our people respond from their homes.
Supervisor Church stated he also understands the ones that are
contractual, but other than those, he just does not understand why the vehicle would
need to be taken home on any weekend.
May 22, 2012 303
Mr. Goodman advised if you get down to Directors and Assistant
Directors, we only have four, Parks and Recreation, General Services and the
Economic Development Director and himself.
Supervisor Flora stated he could attest to Mr. Goodman's usage and sets
a perfect example.
Supervisor Elswick commented Social Services deal with the people all
over the County and they are on the road and only have one vehicle that is not assigned
to anyone. Mr. Goodman explained it is assigned to the person on call -out duty only.
Chairman Flora stated he has worked in a number of cities and counties
and has never known social services to ever have take home vehicles, except the one
that is on call for a particular weekend.
Supervisor Altizer advised he is sure there are some vehicles that can be
eliminated, outside of public safety, but does not need to know who is driving those
vehicles. It should be based on the job only. From a public safety standpoint, feels a
quick response is critical. The same thing applies to the volunteer firefighters. This is a
public safety issue. If they are taking cars not where they are supposed to the Chief
should address. We need to make sure that those are abusing it should be eliminated.
He stated Mr. Goodman should look hard where there is no residual value that comes
from that vehicle being in someone's driveway.
Mr. Goodman stated he will review each one.
Supervisor Moore commented the department heads must let everyone
know what the roles are.
Chairman Flora commented this debate has gone on in a lot of localities
over a lot of years. The people whose job is on the road should have a vehicle, not the
ones who work 8 to 5.
Supervisor Elswick commented he knows when he is outvoted, however,
the next time he sees a County vehicle that is taken to lunch and it is still there two (2)
hours later, he is going to call Mr. Goodman. The next time he sees a County vehicle
pulling into Kroger in the middle of the day, he is going to call Mr. Goodman.
Chairman Flora stated that is exactly the way it should be handled.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:01 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to return to open session and
adopted the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 052212 -5 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
304 May 22, 2012
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 and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: BRIEFING
1. Roanoke County Real Estate Assessment (B. Clayton Goodman
III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman provided a short briefing on issues regarding
reassessments and how the County handles sales price values and assessments.
First, it has been brought to his attention from citizens of the listing of some sales prices
as the assessed value. What has happened, for the recordation fee, the State says to
charge the sales price or the assessed value, whichever is higher. What has happened
during the downturn of the economy, staff, in some instances, has been listing the
higher number as the sales price. This is wrong and will be corrected in the foreseeable
future. On the website, for any property sold, WebPro will show the actual sales price.
Secondly, because of the concerns in using the assessed value as the sales price there
is some concern that the assessed value is not correct and is too high. Mr. Goodman
advised he has worked with the assessment office and has been assured the values are
correct. However, when you list the sales price incorrectly, it is hard to present an
argument to the citizens. He added it is crucial that staff has the citizen's full faith and
understanding so it is his recommendation to the Board to bring in a third -party to
review the process and make sure this is being done the right way. Accordingly, he
recommends that the Virginia Department of Taxation, who the County responds to on
an annual basis to review our process and make sure the values are correct and bring
forward to the Board. He further clarified it is very important that Roanoke County
citizens have faith in regard to these assessments.
May 22, 2012 305
Supervisor Church advised he feels this is a much deeper issue. What has
happened is that realtors and citizens, for example Ed Bendis who happens to be in
attendance have questioned these assessments going back several years. Citizens
from time to time have questioned assessments; there is an appeal process. This
brought back memories from 2005 where a citizen in his area questioned the validity of
his assessment and the Board had an on -air session in this Board Room where the
Department of Taxation was involved that he felt was not satisfactory as it left a lot of
questions. Supervisor Church stated he really does not know how little or big the
problem is. In January of this year, a realtor came to him concerned as well as several
citizens contacted him regarding this situation and he contacted Mr. Goodman shortly
thereafter after doing some research. It was along the fact that a realtor has a property
that assessed for $150,000 and sells for $130,000. When the realtor looks at the MILS
listing for comparables, this house is shown at $165,000. Mr. Goodman is correct
whereby some are using the higher value and some are shown as more than that.
There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. Accordingly, he had a meeting
with Mr. Goodman and the realtor involved and asked Mr. Goodman to look throughout
the County. Mr. Goodman came back with properties in every district and advised there
were hundreds. For example, in the William Byrd area a house sold for $290,000 and
the website shows $312.000 and in the same area a house sold for $307,000 and the
website shows $313,000. In the Northisde area, a house sold for $325,000 and the
website shows $365,050. In Glenvar a house sold for $205,000 and the website shows
$234.500. When a citizen appeals an assessment and contacts the Assessment Office,
they will bring to the citizens home, and he has been there and seen it, a piece a paper
with the information direct from the website indicating comparable home sold at a
certain price. Mr. Church stated we are dealing with taxpayer dollars and he was told in
2005 that we are assessing at 88% of our value so everything is okay. We are now at
98% of our value. We have had some down economic times, not just last year but
several years ago and if you look at Roanoke County in relation to the other localities
close to us, Roanoke County has been quite consistently holding our own, even when
other localities are not. In fact, other localities have asked where Roanoke County gets
their money. On the surface, it just does not look right. He stated he knows we have
some great people, but not so great that they insulate us from the economy. What he
would like is to know that the citizens feel confident and peaceful that the sales prices
are accurate and they can pull up on the GIS and shows what it is. This very same
realtor indicated that Salem and Roanoke City are correct. The questions that were
asked did not get reasonable explanations. He stated he cares about open and
transparent accountability to the people. If these numbers are being used as
comparable it may be even worse. He stated he does not feel this happened overnight.
He stated Mr. Goodman took over the County in 2009. He knows Mr. Goodman is
doing a good job and telling the people whatever the numbers are the County will deal
with it. We want actual numbers. Consequently, in the last several years we have had
a flat assessment rate. He asked of the Board that they ask for a request for proposal
306 May 22, 2012
(RFP) of someone independent with no possible conflicts with Roanoke County to come
in a do an in -depth study, an audit to try and find out how this happened, why and what
can be done to make it right, what is the problem or show us it is okay. The bottom line
is the numbers are what they are. Whenever we find out which direction to go, he
thinks everyone will be happier. The citizens deserve everything on the table, if the cost
is extensive, that is the way it goes. Our real estate revenues are 50 to 60 percent of
our budget, $88 million this past year. The citizens deserve our very best effort and
recommend putting out a RFP from someone that is completely independent from
Roanoke County. In a world where the United States government approval is ten to 12
percent, and the State of Virginia is looking faith over roads. We do not need that
potential possibility in Roanoke County. We need to give the citizens our best effort to
find out is it wrong, how it got that way and how to fix it.
Supervisor Elswick stated we will find out what really happened and if in
fact we have created numbers that resulted in citizens paying higher taxes than they
should have it is wrong. Maybe nothing is wrong, but thinks it is to our credit to look at.
The citizens need to know if there are any similar situations we are going to look at it,
we are not going to hide it under the rug and be as honest and open as they can. He
agrees that it would be good to find an outfit that is not associated with any government
agency anywhere so that people know it will be done correctly. He stated he also
supports going with a RFP and an outside agency, maybe an educational institution.
Supervisor Moore stated she agreed and appreciated Mr. Goodman
looking into this and recommended the Virginia Department of Taxation to look into and
see if it is more than just fixing some numbers and then at that time explore other
options.
Chairman Flora stated the reassessment process is unique in every State,
so if you put an RFP out a Virginia firm that qualifies is going to be a firm that does
reassessments. They are in the business to do reassessments because they are the
only people that know how assessments work. They are going to have a vested interest
and will be marketing their own firms. The Virginia Department of Taxation is
responsible for overseeing the local government's reassessment process. They have
"no dog in this fight "; no vested interest in the outcome; whether good, bad or otherwise.
He stated he would feel much better with the Department of Taxation because he thinks
they would be more objective, they know what the process is supposed to be, they
know whether it is being done right or wrong and they will tell you because it does not
make any difference to them how it comes out.
Supervisor Altizer stated the part with the State regulations, the State
dictates the recordation fee. This is entirely wrong, which has already been discussed.
An average individual can pull the record and see both figures. He stated Chairman
Flora was correct in that the Virginia Department of Taxation does not have a "dog in
this fight ". He personally would like to see the Board go with them, see what they have
to say and then make a determination. If it needs further investigation, figure out who
the right people are because he does not want anyone that has a vested interest in any
May 22, 2012 307
way shape or form. This could be the first route of maybe two. In his opinion that
warrants consideration first.
Supervisor Church stated he could see there were three votes and just
wanted to clarify the recording tax is in the County Clerk's office, a grantors tax, which it
what it is really called that is dictated by the State of Virginia that allows one percent for
every thousand of either the sales price or the assessed price, whichever is higher; that
is not what we are talking about as that is done in the Clerk's office and is the money
that goes to the Commonwealth of Virginia. He stated he is not saying they are doing
anything wrong, but the State Department of Taxation does have a vested interest of
some kind in every locality. What we had in December 6, 2005, the State Department
of Taxation who does oversee our assessment practices in every locality were before
the Board and left a lot to be desired. If you are looking at numbers given to you they
can be made to say what you want them to. So, if he hears the three votes to go with
the Department of Taxation, he would like to insist on behalf of the citizens of Roanoke
County, they be given every piece of detail to work from and not just come in and look
at one hundred or five hundred samples, but here are the problems, how did it happen,
where did it come from and if I were the citizens, I would watch every day at what
transpires. It is your money. The Board is like the "keeper of your checkbooks" we
have a checkbook fund of $170 million, which is what the citizens have elected the
Board to do, be good stewards of their money. We do not know what the problem is.
No one is accusing anybody of anything, we know one thing; at the very best scenario,
we have a problem. At the worst scenario, we do not know; that is to be determined.
We owe you folks everything we can do, whether the Department of Taxation or
whomever. As my mother used to say, `watch them like a hawk." He stated it bothers
him to see that this is not a recordation tax, they are numbers that we cannot figure out
what they used, not the assessment number or the sales price. Some are just there
and asked Mr. Goodman to verify. Mr. Goodman stated there was one, with Supervisor
Church indicating there were more than one. We owe the citizens our best and
however it is done, he wants it done completely, wide -open, exhaustive, in -depth and
hopes he is speaking for the majority of the citizens of Roanoke County.
Chairman Flora commented he does not think there is anyone on the
Board that does not want to find out whether or not it is being done right and if it is not
being done right, correct it. He added the only disagreement is how we go about it, the
vehicle we use to find that out. He stated he has been in local government for forty
some years and have written a lot of RFPs, hired a lot of consultants. He stated he
thinks the Board needs to go with someone who cannot be influenced and he thinks the
State Department of Taxation is the one to do it, if they still have enough people in
Richmond to do it after the budget cuts and he is hearing it is the consensus of the
Board to contact the State Department of Taxation and find out whether they are
available and willing to do the in -depth study we need.
308 May 22, 2012
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Save A Ton Energetic Ideas Contest Winners
(Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services)
Ms. Green outlined the contest and turned the meeting over to Nell Boyle,
RCCLEAR, who explained all the ideas brought forward by the contestants. Ms. Boyle
introduced the newest member of RCCLEAR from the Hollins District, Mr. Jesse
Freedman. The contest winners in attendance were Dylan Tran, Camly Tran, Nathaniel
Turner, Lashandra Anderson and Mason Scott. Their artwork will be displayed at Glen
Cove and on the Save A Ton website. Each Supervisor congratulated all the winners.
2. Resolution of congratulations to the William Byrd High School
Girls 200 Medley and 400 Freestyle Relay Team for winning the
2012 Virginia High School League (VHSL) Group AA State
Competition
In attendance to accept the resolution was Coach Krista Martin, Kacy
Edsall, Annie Lane and Mackenzie Lingle and Deputy Superintendent Allen Journell. All
of the Supervisors offered their congratulations.
RESOLUTION 052212 -6 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE
WILLIAM BYRD GIRLS 200 MEDLEY AND 400 FREESTYLE
MEDLEY SWIM TEAM FOR WINNING THE 2012 VHSL STATE
GROUP AA CHAMPIONSHIP
WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in
Roanoke County teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and
WHEREAS, the William Byrd High School Girls 200 Medley Relay Swim Team
won the 2012 Virginia High School League (VHSL) State Group A/AA Championship on
February 1, 2012, at the Christiansburg Aquatic Center with a time of 1:46.48, setting a
new school record; and
WHEREAS, the William Byrd High School Girls 400 Freestyle Medley Relay
Swim Team also won the 2012 Virginia High School League (VHSL) State Group A/AA
Championship with a time of 3:31.80, setting both a new school record and State
record; and
WHEREAS, State Champion Kali Edsall also won the 200 Individual Medley
with a time of 2:04.45, breaking the school record; and
WHEREAS, the Lady Terriers are coached by Krista Martin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the
members of the WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS 200 MEDLEY RELAY AND
May 22, 2012 309
400 FREESTYLE MEDLEY SWIM TEAM: Kacy Edsall, Kali Edsall, Annie Lane and
Mackenzie Lingle; for winning the 2012 VHSL State Group AA Championship; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes to the members of the team, the coaches and the school in their future
endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution granting a waiver to Virginia Tech's Catawba
Sustainability Center and Half Acre Promotions under Section 13-
23 of the Roanoke County Code to the provisions of the County's
Noise Ordinance, Article II. Noise of Chapter 13. Offenses -
Miscellaneous (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained the request for waiver. In attendance was Susan
Short, from Virginia Tech; community leaders, Frank and Louse Garmon; Linda and
Rob Guiles, President of Catawba Ruritan and Charles Law from Catawba Hospital. Ms
Short thanked Supervisor Church, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Mahoney, Economic Development
and Parks and Recreation for all of their work. The event will be held August 31,
September 1 and September 2. Ms. Short introduced Eric Langston, Half Acre
Productions as their partner for this event. Mr. Langston stated Half Acre productions is
a music organizing company.
Supervisor Church asked that the community leaders were in agreement
with this event with everyone stating the affirmative. There was no further discussion.
RESOLUTION 052212 -7 GRANTING A WAIVER TO VIRGINIA
TECH'S CATAWBA SUSTAINABILITY CENTER AND HALF
ACRE PROMOTIONS UNDER SECTION 13 -23 OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COUNTY'S NOISE ORDINANCE, ARTICLE II. NOISE OF
CHAPTER 13. OFFENSES - MISCELLANEOUS
WHEREAS, Virginia Tech's Catawba Sustainability Center and Half Acre
Promotions will be holding a 2012 Labor Day Catawba Farm Fest music event on the
Catawba Sustainability Center property on Friday, August 31, 2012, through Sunday,
September 2, 2012; and
310 May 22, 2012
WHEREAS, in order to accommodate the planned time frame for the Catawba
Farm Fest which is a family friendly event which supports community sustainability and
showcases regional talent all while increasing economic revenue for local businesses,
Virginia Tech's Catawba Sustainability Center and Half Acre Promotions are requesting
a waiver of the County noise ordinance for one hour from 10:00 P.M. till 11:00 P.M., on
Friday and Saturday, August 31 and September 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS, Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code establishes certain
standards for the Board of Supervisors to grant waivers from the provision of the
Roanoke County Noise Ordinance to avoid undue hardship upon consideration of
certain factors set forth in sub - section (b) of Section 13 -23 and after making certain
alternative findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the provisions of Section 13 -21. Specific acts as noise, sub - section
(5) and Section 13 -20. General prohibition of Article II. Noise be WAIVED for a period of
one (1) hour until 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday, August 31 and September 1,
2012.
2. That this Waiver is granted specifically to Virginia Tech's Catawba
Sustainability Center and Half Acre Promotions for the event scheduled at the Catawba
Sustainability Center property on Friday and Saturday, August 31 and September 1,
2012.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Resolution establishing the salary for the County Administrator
and the County Attorney (Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County
Administrator)
Ms. Hyatt outlined the resolution. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 052212 -8 ESTABLISHING SALARY FOR THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby
establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for fiscal
year 2012 -2013.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
May 22, 2012 311
1. That the annual salary for the County Administrator shall be increased
from $152,000 to $165,300. The County Administrator will now be responsible for
paying the five percent (5 %) employee contribution to the Virginia Retirement System.
1. That the annual salary for the County Attorney shall be increased from
$140,280 to $152,554, which includes the County longevity supplement. The County
Attorney will now be responsible for paying the five percent (5 %) employee contribution
to the Virginia Retirement System.
2. That the effective date for the establishment of this salary shall be July 1,
2012.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. Public hearing on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 -2013
and the fiscal year 2013 -2017 Capital Improvements Program (W.
Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson reviewed the proposed budget and capital improvement
program. Chairman Flora opened the public hearing and one citizen spoke:
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he had already
spoken against one item on the budget but wanted to say a little bit more tonight. The
outlook for 2013 is extremely uncertain and we could be, depending on the elections in
November, be in for a massive increase in federal healthcare costs. Fiscal prudence on
the part of the Board would call for a very conservative approach to this budget year.
The County has made some hard decisions. There has been no tax increase and also
very little in reduction in services. He has been fortunate to attend many work sessions
that the Board allowed citizens to participate and in his view, he stated he is not a
novice with budgets as he has been budgeting his entire military career and afterwards
when he worked for the City of Richmond in the Budget Office. He stated he is
impressed with the staff, as they have done a very good and stringent job and worked
throughout the year. They worked very seriously, and they dig and they are flexible with
many of the changes coming down from the State. The Board recognizes the work of
the staff, but the Board is not a rubber stamp. Mr. Goodman can attest to that and he
commends Mr. Goodman for that. He has dug into a lot of areas and questioned a lot of
items. He stated he felt the County and the public have been served well. The budget
has been decreased over $1.2 million over last year and also agency budgets and some
changes made in fees to increase fees to compensate for reduction in income. The
312 May 22, 2012
major increase has been in personnel benefits; 8.75% increase, five percent (5 %) was
mandated by the State to compensate for VRS adjustments, another three - quarters
percent (.75 %) was added in order to make employees whole for FICA taxes, which he
feels, is legitimate and fair. The other three percent (3 %) is questionable and was made
at the discretion of the Board and thinks is premature. The other major consequence to
the budget if there is no other major change in the County's philosophy to maintain the
size and impact of government on our lives and does absolutely nothing to make any
major changes in services. No one else is talking to you and you talk to citizens
everyday so maybe nobody wants any changes made to the services in Roanoke
County. Mr. Beyer stated he finds it extremely unusual that people would protest and
scream about federal spending; the enlargement of the national government and
involvement of the federal government and do not have any kind of concern with what
goes on in local government. As Mr. Church has often said, it begins at home so he
finds it inconsistent and strange for those who are serious about reducing government
they must realize that Roanoke County is doing nothing. If the three percent (3 %)
increase flies and of course he thinks it has already passed in his opinion it will create a
possible potential for a tax increase next year very likely if things do not go well. It is a
judgment call; it is on the Board's shoulders and could be an error and going the wrong
way. God willing he will be back to tell the Board if it does happen.
Chairman Flora commented he had recently attended the Virginia
Association of Counties Board of Directors meeting and one person asked for a show of
hands on who had a tax increase. Representing 95 counties in Virginia. Almost
everyone had some form of increase that was represented there. Roanoke County did
not. Have not increased taxes in ten to 12 years. Budgets going down each year.
Local revenue is staying fairly constant, but budgets are going down because there is
no support from the State and Federal Government. Commend staff for the work done.
And holding the line on spending. Budget process is painful, but we have gotten
through another year.
2. Ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 2012 -2013
budget and approval of the Classification Plan for fiscal year
2012 -2013 (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and
Budget)
Mr. Robertson outlined the appropriation ordinance and advised staff
recommended approval of the 2012 -2013 budget and classification plan.
Supervisor Elswick stated he felt the Board should come up with a
contingency plan to take into account unknowns such as the potential with regard to
assessments and delay as much as possible things such as salary increases until we
get the results of the audit. Despite the fact there has been no tax increase, changing
from 80% to 98% in assessment has in effect doubled people's taxes in the County and
May 22, 2012 313
depending on the results of the analysis could have an effect on the current year as well
as next year and he would suggest delaying until the analysis has been completed.
Supervisor Church stated he shares Supervisor Elswick's concern and
they are scared of what could possibly happen, but turns to the financial people to see
what kind of chaos could this create. Mr. Goodman noted the budget must be adopted
by June 30, 2012. Supervisor Church stated he agreed with the contingency planning
but would go forward with approving the budget at this time.
Supervisor Elswick stated he did not want to stop the budget process, but
wanted to delay as many projects as possible.
Chairman Flora stated any impact will affect the second half of
fiscal year. The Board should have answers by January 1, 2013, which is plenty of time
to make any changes.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading for June 12, 2012. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the vacation of a 15 -foot public drainage
easement as shown on the plat of Section 8, Falling Creek Estates
of record in Plat Book 21, page 20 in the Roanoke County Circuit
Court Clerk's Office, said public drainage easement being located
off Toddsbury Drive between Lots 22 and 23 (now re- subdivided
and shown as Lot 22A on a plat of record by instrument #2007-
14385 in the above mentioned Clerk's Office), Vin ton Magisterial
District (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
Mr. Covey advised this is the second reading of this ordinance which is
basically a housekeeping easement. There were no changes from the first reading.
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052212 -9 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A 15-
FOOT PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE
PLAT OF SECTION 8, FALLING CREEK ESTATES OF RECORD
IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGE 20 IN THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, SAID PUBLIC DRAINAGE
EASEMENT BEING LOCATED OFF TODDSBURY DRIVE
BETWEEN LOTS 22 AND 23 (NOW RE- SUBDIVIDED AND
SHOWN AS LOT 22A ON A PLAT OF RECORD BY
314 May 22, 2012
INSTRUMENT # 2007 -14385 IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED
CLERK'S OFFICE), VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the plat of Section 8 of Falling Creek Estates recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 21, page 20,
established a 15' wide public drainage easement between Lots 22 and 23, which lots
have been resubdivided and combined creating Lot 22A (Instrument #2007 - 14385); and
WHEREAS, an alternate drainage easement has been dedicated and accepted
by the County by deed of easement (Instrument #2008 - 10193), therefore public
drainage easement described above established in Plat Book 21, page 20 is no longer
needed; and
WHEREAS, the property owner of Lot 22A has requested the vacation of this
unused public drainage easement because it splits the property and limits the flexibility
of developing the land to its full potential; and
WHEREAS, the public drainage easement is more clearly indicated as "Existing
15' Public Drainage Easement — PB 21 PG 20 (To be Vacated)" on a drawing entitled
"Falling Creek Estates, Section 8, Lot 22A — 15' Public Drainage Easement to be
vacated" prepared by Roanoke County Department of Community Development and
attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of this public
utility easement; and
WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected
County departments and public utilities have raised no objection; and
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2 -2204 of the Code
of Virginia (1950, as amended); and
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke.
Noah Ticker of 1602 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia stated he has been a
Roanoke County resident since 1956. The second path of socialist newspeak is Smart
Growth; ICLEI's partner. According to the Wildlands map, certain areas have been
designated as human habitat areas; those are the larger cities of our country. From the
Socialist perspective, you might want to look at human habitat areas this way; it is rather
like at a zoo. Creatures are penned and other creatures are free to roam and look at the
penned creatures; this time it will be humans in the pens and the animals having the run
of the country. I tell you, do not believe me, no matter how true. Read the Socialist
Trojan horse deception for yourself. How much more can we ignore. Do we not have
eyes to see; ears to the head. The snake oil sales persons are here amongst us. They
will take you out to lunch; have you for lunch. Give you whiskey, wine, candy, cookies,
pastries and Socialist Trojan horse deception. Be careful who stands behind you. You'll
May 22, 2012 315
eventually discover not only your wallet missing but the liberty of our Christian
constitutional Republic is also missing. There are many ways in which the globalists are
achieving this scenario. One was the U.S. Conference of Mayors in San Francisco. On
June 5, 2005 (World Environment Day), two documents -the "Green Cities Declaration"
and the "Urban Environmental Accords" - were presented. Every mayor in attendance
signed them. The two documents are part and parcel of the United Nations' Agenda 21.
The first is the declaration that the mayors of all the cities of the United States and the
world are going to be the implementers of Agenda 21. The second explains how it will
be implemented; closing with the statement. "The goal is for cities to pick three actions
to adopt each year." Socialist, Smart Growth cities have stack -em and pack -em housing
often connected to public transportation. There will be no garages or parking lots other
than for bicycles. Yes, he said connected. We once thought that living near a freeway or
railroad was undesirable. Freeway must go the way of the dinosaur because in Socialist
newspeak, think elevator not automobile when you think of transportation to work. That
is you will be riding the elevator up from your living quarters to your work in the dream
(nightmare) world of Socialist sustainable development. Defund ICLEI before it goes
any further in our county.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Altizer congratulated again the William Byrd swim team
advising it was great to have them here this evening. He also commented he wanted to
keep in the forefront for our parents, our young people in Roanoke County and the
valley as a whole; we need to keep focused on bath salts, synthetic marijuana, K -2,
spice, whatever. It is absolutely a dangerous drug and the parents have the most
influence over the people they love and care about and you need to talk to them,
educate them on the effects that it can have and most of them are very, very critical.
So, he asked everyone to keep talking to our young people and children and make sure
everyone understands and hopefully when the new State law takes effect on July 1St
maybe we can put some people out of business.
Supervisor Church congratulated the library volunteers, Friends of the
Library. He advised he was able to attend a nice luncheon with about seventy -five to
eighty (75 -80) volunteers at Roanoke College a few days ago. They are great people
and do a lot of work for everybody in Roanoke County. Congratulations to them. Also,
Northside and Glenvar are right now in the thick of girls' softball and boys' baseball. We
have a defending champion from Northside for the State and the Northside girls missed
it by one game last year so good luck to the Northside program and Glenvar.
Supervisor Elswick stated he has been involved with whether or not with
stay in ICLEI and with the energy savings for the County and what he would like to ask
is that to the extent that RCCLEAR feels like they must report to ICLEI headquarters
that they report actual projects. We have them. We are spending $1.4 million savings
energy in the County; he does not know why that would not be reportable. The Water
316 May 22, 2012
Authority by burning methane is generating a lot of electricity and at the same time
getting rid of a lot of pollutants and saving electricity. He stated he thought that would
be reportable. He further stated the one thing he would like to see from RCCLEAR is a
correction to the earlier report that went out saying we saved a lot of carbon without
substantiating that anything really happened.
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to echo what Mr. Altizer just said
about bath salts. Last week at the South County Library, Nancy Hans with the
Prevention Council of Roanoke County helped put on a program, a press conference,
with Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Franklin County, Botetourt County, Bedford, a lot
of agencies from around the region to talk about how important it is to talk to the youth
about using synthetic marijuana and bath salts. It is very, very dangerous to do. Please
talk to your teenager.
Chairman Flora stated he attended the Virginia Association of Counties
Board of Directors meeting this past week and there was one issue that generated a
significant amount of discussion, the Governor's statement that he is interested in taking
a look at tax reform. The concern is that tax reform for one person may not mean the
same thing as tax reform to another person. The Virginia Municipal League feels very
strongly that their organization and the Virginia Association of Counties needs to be at
the table when the State starts talking about tax reform to make sure that tax reform
does not push more stuff down to the locality. In addition to that, it is hard to discuss tax
reform without taking a look at governmental organizational reform itself. Tax reform
may mean changing the way services are delivered, which means you need to take a
look at governmental organization, local government and State government in terms of
adjusting. They can be adjusting to meet those needs. The short of it is that VACo and
VML hope to be at the table so they can have some input. The discussion lasted for
approximately an hour. Keep in mind, there were about fifty (50) elected Board of
Supervisors members in the same room and all of them had to have something to say.
Chairman Flora stated he listened a lot. Let's be aware of what is happening there. He
knows that our legislative liaison will keep us abreast of anything that is happening, but
we need to be alert as well. It makes him nervous to think that Richmond is going to
look at tax reform. He stated he thought they had been reforming for the last three -
year, reforming local government's taxes at least in the form of increases, but he stated
he does not think that is what they had in mind.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
May 22, 2012
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Submitted by:
Deborah C. Ja s
Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
317
Richard C. Flora
Chairman
318
May 22, 2012
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK