HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/12/2012 - Regular (3)June 26, 2012 361
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 June 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
was taken.
Vice Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Michael W. Altizer; Supervisors Joseph B.
"Butch" Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard C. Flora
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 Judy Tavela of St. Timothy Lutheran
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Vice Chairman Altizer requested the addition of the recognition of Kevin
Hutchings who was elected President of the Treasurer's Association. There was no
objection.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
Vice Chairman Altizer recognized F. Kevin Hutchins, Treasurer as being
elected the 71 St President of the Virginia Treasurer's Association.
362 June 26, 2012
Each Supervisor offered their congratulations to Mr. Hutchins. Mr. Hutchins thanked the
Board for the recognition.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Reappointment of Special Assistant for Legislative Relations,
authorization to continue an agreement and an appropriation of
fiscal year 2012 -2013 funds in the amount of $32,400 (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
A- 062612 -1
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request and advised there were a limited
number of hours within the contract and once again has partnered with Sue Rowland.
There was no discussion.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
2. Resolution granting a waiver to Dan and Michelle Elegy 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, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Paul
M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request for a resolution for a noise waiver.
There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 062612 -2 GRANTING A WAIVER TO DAN AND
MICHELLE ELEGY 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, Dan and Michelle Elegy will be hosting an indoor /outdoor music
event at their home located on Ridgelea Estates Drive in the Windsor Hills Magisterial
District on Wednesday, July 4, 2012, beginning at 5:00 p.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m.;
and
June 26, 2012 363
WHEREAS, in order conduct this indoor /outdoor music event at their home, the
Elegy's are requesting a waiver of the County noise ordinance beginning at 5:00 p.m.
and ending at 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 4, 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
time from 5:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 4, 2012.
2. That this Waiver is granted specifically to Dan and Michelle Elegy for the
event scheduled at their home on Wednesday, July 4, 2012.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of South Peak Residences LLC, et al to rezone
11.411 acres from R -3, Medium Density Multi - Family Residential
District, and C -2C, General Commercial District, with conditions,
to R -4C, High Density Multi - Family Residential District, with
conditions, identified as Area "A" on the Concept Development
Plan for 176 multi - family residential units; and to rezone 11.940
acres from R -3, Medium Density Multi - Family Residential District,
to R -3C, Medium Density Multi - Family Residential District, with
conditions, identified as Area "B" on the Concept Development
Plan with a proffered density limit of 23 single family residential
units, involving several properties (077.20 -01- 48.01 -0000 and
077.20 -01- 50.00 -0000; and portions of 077.20 -01- 52.00 -0000 and
087.08 -03- 11.00 -0000) located at 4240 Elm View Road, 4252 Elm
View Road, and 4486 Summit Street, Cave Spring Magisterial
District
364 June 26, 2012
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to disclose that her landscaping
company does lawn care maintenance on some of the developer's properties and there
is a letter on file in the Clerk's office from the County Attorney and the Commonwealth
Attorney that this is not a conflict of interest.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for July 24, 2012. There was no discussion. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Moore, Church, Elswick,
NAYS:
None
ABSTAIN:
Supervisor Altizer
ABSENT:
Supervisor Flora
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 20. "Solid Waste" of the Roanoke
County Code (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services)
Ms. Green outlined the need for the ordinance and the changes thereto.
Supervisor Elswick stated our people do a great job and sometimes it gets
a bit difficult. He advised he has been thinking about the $50.00 charge, and Roanoke
County has historically provided this service for free and for the County to now start
charging people equates to a tax increase and he hates to see the Board do this. He
recommended continuing to maintain as a free service because it does a lot to keep the
County clean and it is something the County has always done. He stated he would like
the Board to consider whether or not we ought to go with the new charge or continue as
a free service.
Ms. Green stated the $40,000 has been taken out of the budget for the
upcoming year and if continued to provide for free, she would end up in the hole. She is
happy to provide for free, just wants the Board to be aware.
Supervisor Moore stated she thinks this is a special service that citizens
hopefully will not mind so much if they can use the freeloader for two days and have at
their house for two days, before when provided as a freeloader, they only got to keep
one day and then it would be picked up promptly the next morning. So if it rained or
snowed or they had to work or any circumstances, they would only get it one night. She
stated she did not think citizens would mind paying to have this service two to three
days.
Supervisor Church commented this is the first reading of this ordinance
and the Board has time to take a look at suggestions or comments from Supervisor
Elswick.
June 26, 2012 365
Supervisor Elswick stated his comments related to a principle, it is not the
money, he feels the Board can come up with a way for the $40,000. Throughout this
country, governments are trying to pass more costs on to citizens. Citizens' salaries are
not going up, in many cases they are going down, or employed. He stated he just
objects to the principle and is just another example of costs being passed on to citizens
by people who are supposed to be representing them.
Supervisor Altizer advised the Board went through the Budget and voted
for the budget that has this in. This is first reading, but stated he thinks making a
budget amendment off a budget that has already been approved. This is first reading
and if we can come up with the $40,000 it may be appropriate to change, otherwise,
whom are we going to impact when shifting funds. The money has to come from
somewhere. If $40,000 can be found, not effecting other departments and services he
feels certain the Board could take a look at.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for July 10, 2012. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the granting of a non - exclusive ten (10)
foot wide easement to Cox Communications on property owned
by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No.
027.13 -04- 01.00) for the purpose of an underground
communications system (Anne Marie Green, Director of General
Services)
Ms. Green outlined the ordinance and advised this is the second reading
and there have been no changes since the first reading. This property is the Hollins
Fire Station. Vice Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing. There were
no citizens to speak and there was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062612 -3 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF A
NON - EXCLUSIVE TEN (10) FOOT WIDE EASEMENT TO COX
COMMUNICATIONS ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP
NO. 027.13 -04- 01.00) FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN
UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
366 June 26, 2012
WHEREAS, Cox Communications has requested a ten (10) foot wide easement
for the purpose of installing underground communications systems cables, wires and
terminals across property owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax
Map Parcel No. 027.13 -04- 01.00) known as 7401 Barrens Road, Roanoke, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, granting this non - exclusive, utility easement will serve the interests
of the public by supporting the purposes of Ordinance No. 102604 -7 by which Roanoke
County authorized a lease agreement with Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C. d /b /a INTELOS
for a 3,400 sq. ft. tower site and tower, which authorized sub - leases and co- location of
antennas on said tower located at the Hollins Fire Station; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition only by ordinance, and that the first reading of this ordinance
was held on June 12, 2012, and that the second reading and public hearing was held on
June 26, 2012; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provision of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter this interest in real estate is declared to be surplus, and is hereby made
available for other public uses by conveyance to Cox Communications for a non-
exclusive utility easement.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That the conveyance of a ten (10) foot wide non - exclusive, utility easement to
Cox Communications for the purpose of constructing, operating, maintaining,
replacing and removing a communication system consisting of underground
cables, wires and terminals as shown on a plan prepared for Cox
Communications dated May 1, 2012, titled "AT &T" by G. Bower is hereby
authorized and approved.
2. That the County Administrator or his designee is hereby authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions as are necessary to accomplish this
transaction, all of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions
approved by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance is effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
2. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code by the adoption
of a new Section 2 -11 authorizing the assessment and recovery of
costs against responsible parties for actions taken to protect the
public health, safety and welfare (Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney)
June 26, 2012 367
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance and advised this is the second
reading and there have been no changes from the first reading. Vice Chairman Altizer
opened and closed the public hearing. There were no citizens to speak. There was no
discussion.
ORDINANCE 062612 -4 AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE BY THE ADOPTION OF A NEW SECTION 2 -11,
"ASSESSMENT AND RECOVERY OF COSTS, PUBLIC
NUISANCES AND OTHER INCIDENTS ", AUTHORIZING THE
ASSESSMENT AND RECOVERY OF COSTS AGAINST
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR ACTIONS TAKEN TO PROTECT
THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE
WHEREAS, from time to time the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will take
action to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the County and its citizens by
repairing, maintaining, correcting or completing the construction of public improvements
or abating public nuisances; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2- 1716.1 authorizes the reimbursement of expenses
incurred in providing an appropriate emergency response, including law- enforcement,
fire - fighting, rescue and emergency medical services in responding to violations of
Section 18.2 -46.6 of the Code if Virginia (terrorism or hoax), including responding to
actions with that are intended to (i) intimidate the civilian population, (ii) influence the
conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through
intimidation, (iii) compel the emergency evacuation of any place of assembly, building or
other structure or any means of mass transportation, or (iv) place any person in
reasonable apprehension of bodily harm, uses, sells, gives, distributes or manufactures
any device or material that by its design, construction, content or characteristics
appears to be or appears to contain a weapon of terrorism, but that is an imitation of
any such weapon of terrorism; and
WHEREAS, the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly adopted Section
15.2- 1716.2 (HB 517) which authorized localities to collect the costs of cleaning up
methamphetamine labs; and
WHEREAS, these actions will result in public costs and expenses which should
be recovered from the responsible parties who failed to complete the required public
improvements or who created the public nuisances; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 12, 2012, and
the second reading and public hearing was held on June 26, 2012.
BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows..
368 June 26, 2012
1. That the Code of the County of Roanoke is hereby amended by the
adoption of a new Section 2 -11 "Assessment and Recovery of Costs, Public Nuisances
and Other Incidents ", which provides as follows:
Section 2 -11 Assessment and Recovery of Costs, Public Nuisances and Other
Incidents
1. Definitions:
"Corrective action ": means the repairing, maintaining, correcting, or completing the
construction of public improvements required under a land subdivider's agreement, an
erosion and sediment control agreement, stormwater maintenance agreement, spot
blight abatement program, abatement of public nuisances, responding to incidents
authorized under Section 15.2- 1716.1 of the Code of Virginia, or any other similar
project that is authorized under the Code of Virginia or the Roanoke County Code or
directly affects the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County.
"Responsible party ": means the person or persons who (i) executed an agreement with
the County to undertake certain actions, or (ii) the person or persons who benefit
directly or indirectly from the construction or installation of the public improvements, or
(iii) the owner of the real estate upon which the corrective action is taken or the real
estate benefitted by the corrective action, or (iv) person or persons who are responsible
for the creation of the public nuisance.
"Costs and expenses ": means the (i) salary or hourly rate of pay of the County
employees who worked on the corrective action, (ii) the cost of the fringe benefits of
said employees, (iii) supplies, equipment and materials; and (iv) permits or fees paid to
outside agencies, authorities or departments. This term also means the contract price
for any private contractor hired by the County to perform the corrective action.
2. The County shall assess against responsible parties the costs and expenses of
any corrective action undertaken by it to protect the public health, safety and welfare of
Roanoke County.
3. The department responsible for performing the corrective action shall maintain
the records of the costs and expenses and either mail or hand deliver an invoice of the
final total of all costs and expenses to the responsible party or parties, demanding
payment if full within ten (10) days of the date of the invoice. If the invoice is not paid in
full within (10) ten days, then this invoice shall be transmitted to the County Attorney,
who shall take such actions as may be necessary to collect the amount due and
payable from the responsible party.
4. For incidents requiring an appropriate emergency response as authorized by
Section 15.2- 1716.1 of the Code or Virginia, the County may recover its reasonable
expenses by billing a flat fee of $250 or a minute -by- minute accounting of its actual
costs incurred; however, the amount shall not exceed $1,000 in the aggregate for a
particular incident.
5. (a) The County may recover from any person who is convicted of an offense for
manufacture of methamphetamine pursuant to § 18.2 -248 or 18.2- 248.03 the expense
in cleaning up any methamphetamine lab related to the conviction. The amount charged
June 26, 2012 369
shall not exceed the actual expenses associated with cleanup, removal, or repair of the
affected property or the replacement cost of personal protective equipment used.
(b) The County may recover from any responsible party the costs and expenses
of any corrective action in cleaning up any methamphetamine lab.
2. That this ordinance shall become effective July 1, 2012.
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
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
3. Ordinance to accept the donation from Doris Moran of four (4)
parcels of land identified as Tax Map Parcels 064.02- 01 -17, 18, 19
and 20 on Poor Mountain Road (Diane D. Hyatt, Assistant County
Administrator)
Mr. Mahoney, County Attorney, advised this was the second reading of
this ordinance and there were no changes from the first reading. Vice Chairman Altizer
opened and closed the public hearing. There was no one to speak on this issue. There
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062612 -5 TO ACCEPT THE DONATION FROM
DORIS MORAN OF FOUR (4) PARCELS OF LAND IDENTIFIED
AS TAX MAP PARCELS 064.02- 01 -17, 18, 19 AND 20 ON POOR
MOUNTAIN ROAD
WHEREAS, Doris Moran has offered to donate four (4) parcels of land located
along the Roanoke River on Poor Mountain Road to Roanoke County, which property is
adjacent to property currently owned by the County acquired as part of the West
Roanoke River Flood mitigation project; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance will be held on June 12, 2012, and the second reading will
be held on June 26, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acceptance of the donation from Doris Moran of four (4) parcels
of land located adjacent to the Roanoke River on Poor Mountain Road and further
identified as Tax Map Parcels 064.02- 01 -17, 18 19, and 20 is hereby authorized and
approved.
370 June 26, 2012
2. That funds are available in the adopted budget in the amount of $1,500 to
pay the costs of this transaction including environmental assessment, delinquent real
estate taxes, and recordation fees.
2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 062612 -6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J- 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 June 26,
2012, designated as Item J - 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 — May 22, 2012
2. Resolution approving the revised Flexible Benefits Plan Document for
Roanoke County
3. Request from the Library to accept a $5,000 grant from the Spangler Fund
and appropriate it to the Library budget
4. Request to appropriate $15,119.45 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the
Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal year 2011/2012
5. Request for authorization to execute Memoranda of Understanding between
Roanoke County Parks, Recreation and Tourism and the City of Roanoke and
the City of Salem Parks and Recreation for the provision of therapeutic
recreation services
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,
June 26, 2012 371
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 062612 -6.a ADOPTING THE FLEXIBLE BENEFITS
PLAN DOCUMENT FOR ROANOKE COUNTY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows:
1. That the form of amended cafeteria plan including dependent care flexible
spending account and health flexible spending account effective July 1, 2012, presented
to the Board of Supervisors at this meeting is hereby approved and adopted and that
the County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute
and deliver to Flexible Plan Administrators, the Administrator of the Plan, one or more
counter parts of the Plan; and
2. That the Administrator of the Plan shall be instructed to take such actions
that are deemed necessary and proper in order to implement the Plan, and to set up
adequate accounting and administrative procedures to provide benefits under the Plan;
and
3. That the County Administrator, or his designee, shall act as soon as
possible to notify the employees of the County of the adoption of the cafeteria plan by
delivering to each employee a copy of the summary description of the Plan in the form
of the Summary Plan Description presented to this meeting, which form is hereby
approved; and
4. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors further certifies that attached
hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, are true copies of the County of Roanoke
Flexible Benefit Plan as amended and restated and the Summary Plan Description
approved and adopted in the foregoing resolutions; and
5. That this Resolution is effective from and after July 1, 2012.
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
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
A- 062612 -6b
A- 062612 -6c
A- 062612 -6d
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
Supervisor Elswick requested the Board conduct a work session on how
we do assessments and not only get a better understanding of how we do it today, the
372 June 26, 2012
difficulties involved, how it is done, but to consider other alternatives. There are
localities who do reassessments every three to four years and potentially get accurate
numbers for what the houses and businesses ought to be assessed at and if we went to
a three or four year assessment period the potential is to save a lot of money.
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke:
Linda Laprade of 5909 Will Carter Lane in Roanoke Virginia stated The
Rio 20 Conference held last week brought some interesting new information. The UN
committee IPCC - International Committee on Climate Change has now determined that
anything they publish will be peer reviewed, whether or not it actually is. They have also
set geographical and gender quotas on membership. The IPCC has been scandal
ridden for years, but these latest actions remove any credibility it might have had. And
guess where ICLEI gets their climate data? ICLEI's true nature came out in the RIO 20
meeting. Lord Christopher Monckton, who was Margaret Thatcher's science advisor and
holds other respected posts in the scientific community attended the conference and is
giving interviews throughout the media. I urge you to watch them. While attending an
ICLEI meeting in Rio, ICLEI stated that they knew they would have to find something
other than the environment and climate change to push Agenda 21 because "It's not
working, and we'll have to think of something else." That statement alone is proof that
ICLEI is not concerned with the environment and is in fact pushing Agenda 21. ICLEI
published a book: The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide. As a FOIA request, I would
like to know if any Roanoke County department or departments has a copy of that book.
ICLEI and other NOD's such as the Sierra Club, Cool Cities, and American Planning
Association served the purposes of the UN with climate alarmism. Fortunately, local
governments and former supporters are now seeing the true agenda: UN control.
Individuals and governments are determining that the UN has no business setting any
goals for communities and have decided that the benefits of membership... which are
doubtful at best. Do not outweigh the dangers of allowing a UN foothold in local
government. James Lovelock, one of the early leaders of the climate change movement
recently stated: "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought
we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it
looked clear -cut, but it hasn't happened." With all of this new information on the UN's
true motives, many countries are beginning to question its role. In this room, questions
have been brought up as to the validity of the UN and that it has outlived its usefulness.
ICLEI is simply trying to force the UN agenda. Getting out of it would be a first step in
assuring that you are not giving the UN power in Roanoke County.
June 26, 2012 373
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Church moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of May 31, 2010
5. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of May 31, 2012
6. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of May 31, 2012
7. Accounts Paid —May 31, 2012
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:44 p.m. Vice Chairman Altizer advised the work session would be
held in the Board of Supervisors Meeting room at 5:00 p.m. and recessed to Closed
Session.
At 3:45 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A 29. Discussion of
the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion
of the terms or scope of such contract, namely, a proposal for a project under the
Public- Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 for a criminal justice
training facility, where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining
position or negotiating strategy of the County and Section 2.2- 3711.A.29. To discuss
and consider the employment, appointment and assignment of specific public officers or
employees, namely Assistant County Administrator, and the appointment of specific
appointees, namely member of the Community Development Authority and
representative on the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
The closed meeting was held from 3:56 p.m. until 4:40 p.m.
374 June 26, 2012
At 5:05 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 062612 -7 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 Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: WORK SESSION
Vice Chairman Altizer opened the work session at 5:05 p.m. with
Supervisor Flora absent. The work session was held from 5:05 p.m. until 6:27 p.m.
Supervisor Altizer explained to the listening audience how a work session
is conducted and the rules governing work sessions. He explained that if any citizen
had a question, the County Administrator, Clay Goodman, would be glad to meet after
the work session to discuss.
June 26, 2012 375
Supervisor Altizer then asked Mr. Mahoney when the next Board of
Equalization meeting for appeals would be held with Mr. Mahoney responding August
1 st and then November 1 st
In attendance from the Board of Equalization were Chairman Susan
Simmons, who stated she carries a Certified General Appraisal License in Virginia
since 1993 and currently has twenty -nine (29) years of appraisal experience and owns a
business; Steve Claytor, who has served on the Board of Equalization for 8 years, is
employed by Fralin and Waldron and has been in the real estate industry for
approximately thirty (30) years in development, sales and brokerage; Bill Watson,
Secretary of the Board and his background consists of seventeen (17) years of
experience as a Vice President of a Savings and Loan in Roanoke, working in the
mortgage business and now currently sales manager at Nationwide Insurance for the
past fifteen (15) years; Doug Murray stated he has been in real estate and construction
development and property management for forty -seven (47) years; Gary Dogan stated
he is from the Vinton District and has thirty -seven (37) years full time real estate agent
experience dealing mainly with residential property, occasionally doing a commercial
transaction.
Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Mahoney about proper notice with Mr.
Mahoney explaining the appropriate notice has been given.
Supervisor Church welcomed each Board of Equalization member and
stated he had the opportunity to meet several of the members for the first time today.
He stated it is important in his opinion that the meeting was televised because it is hard
for people in his area to get here and asked that the meeting be televised to learn.
Supervisor Church apologized for not meeting with the Board of Equalization sooner.
He commented that he wanted the citizens to know the background of the Board
members and let the viewing audience know what they do, how it occurs, what is the
process, as there are many citizens that do not know what opinions they have. We
want our citizens to feel comfortable when they come to the Director of Real Estate, Mr.
Driver's office and on through the process.
Supervisor Elswick stated he agreed and stated to him and most citizens'
taxes are what reflected on the bill and it becomes irrelevant how it got there and the
Board changes the tax rate to remediate any gross difference in what the economy
might be doing to the value of houses. There are two parts to the bottom line on the
tax bill; one is the rate that the Board sets and the other part is the evaluation from our
people who do the appraisals and put a number down the assessed value of the
property. Both result in a tax increase or decrease. One the Board has authority over
and that is the rate, the Board does not have a lot of authority over what goes into the
system as an assessment. The State apparently authorizes County administration
people to determine what the assessments are. Personally, he stated he would feel
much more comfortable if there was some way in addition to setting the tax rate, the
Board was more involved with how the assessments are also set. He further added he
is glad the meeting is being held and the Board of Supervisors becomes more involved
376 June 26, 2012
and informed as to what the process actually is. Our job is to make sure that citizens
are treated fairly; it is not just to raise revenue, it is our job to treat citizens fairly and live
within the revenue that is determined in a fair and appropriate manner.
Supervisor Moore welcomed the Board of Equalization and thanked them
for taking the time to come and let our citizens know exactly what they do and what they
can do to help with the issues they have.
Supervisor Altizer thanked the Board of Equalization for coming and
talking with the Board and enlightening the Board and the citizens. He asked that the
BOE start with regard to any appeals how it goes, how they look at it and how do they
come to their determinations.
Susan Simmons stated as far as any appeals they have, the appeals go
through the Real Estate Assessment office initially. The citizen fills out a sheet
specifying what their concern is, any information they have to backup any information
they feel is important and any information they want to present that relates to the value
of the property. They can send that in or bring it with them at the time they appeal. The
Board of Equalization meets in the Real Estate Assessment office in the central area of
the office. Each person is allotted fifteen (15) minutes when they come in. They state
their case during that time; the BOE looks at anything else that is brought in by the
citizen. A lot of times, they have to go back and do some research before making a
decision and they are happy to do that. They want to serve the citizens of Roanoke
County. They want to make sure they are looking at the property and make sure they
are looking at it properly. She stated they also want to make sure the figures are
proper.
Bill Watson stated it was important to know that they are an independent
governing Board. They are the same as any of the citizens with their own careers and
jobs, not employees of Roanoke County or the Assessor's office. So, we are
independent and look forward to having people come before us and bring their issues
and any decision the Board makes is binding on both the citizen coming forward and the
Assessor's office, barring going to the Circuit Court judge for an appeal after that.
Steve Claytor stated they only handle those cases not resolved at the staff
level. He stated he thinks for the most part, the County Assessor's department does an
outstanding job of handling a tremendous case load. Every single piece of taxable real
estate in this County they handle. The BOE sees a very, very small fraction of those
individuals and he thinks that is testament to the professionalism of the office and the
way they conduct their affairs so they see so few people. The appeal process is just
that, it is an avenue for those who cannot resolve their differences with the staff. He
stated he knows the staff is always willing to meet with the property owner to discuss
any issues; often times on premise. There is always a healthy exchange of information
at that point. He commented he would like to emphasize the cases that come before
the BOE are statistically few and most issues are resolved at the staff level if they are
brought up at all.
June 26, 2012 377
Supervisor Church stated he would like to comment that one other reason
that he asked for this work session. Each of the BOE has a packet, which he personally
gave to each member. This is a multiple part of the reason that he is asking for this.
Because this information was brought to him by a reputable realtor and another citizen
involved in it which shows a discrepancy; it showing errors. There is no mistake about
it. The newspaper recently wrote that it was a computer glitch; there is no computer
glitch. He stated he did not know how they got that information. Our software does the
job. Someone has to either put in sales numbers that are not accurate and he stated he
is holding twenty to thirty (20 to 30) or more that just in the last couple of nights another
one hundred and fifty (150) were added; Montgomery Village, Colonial Patio, Windsor
West, on an on. When we start getting this type of information, for example, pick out an
address like Northside area, it sold for $265,000 and the County reports it sold for
$289,500. In the Glenvar area, sold for $205,000 and the County website reports
$234,500. There is one that is a $60,000 difference, sold for $300,000 and it shows
$360,000. In the Vinton area, sold for $205,000 and the County reports $223,000.
Supervisor Church stated he appreciates what Steve has said, and is giving feedback
just from an individual Board member. He stated he thinks years past indicates that we
have a dwindling number of appeals coming to the BOE., which either indicates we are
doing a good job (and he is not saying the Assessor's office is doing a terrible job) but
he is getting feedback from citizens that maybe we are doing a pretty good job, but a lot
of them are indicating they are tired of coming to the real estate office, not the BOE. In
his years, he has only had one (1) question. The BOE is independently appointed,
appointed by the Board of Supervisors, by district and the Court actually approves the
appointment. When we have these numbers that are off, and he has met with each
individual Board member on this with Mr. Goodman. He advised this was brought to
him in January, and he spent almost four months reviewing it before it was brought
forward because he wanted to make sure the information was accurate. These
numbers are wrong. His question has not received a suitable explanation, "Why are we
having these numbers reported." Roanoke City, Salem City their GIS shows exactly to
the penny what the sales figures are. He commented he believes our software is amok,
his personal opinion. He believes the software is not compatible with what we are
doing; we have 45,000 parcels. We cannot possibly look at every parcel. Marshall and
Swift and these other national organizations are using other software. "Why not us?
"Why is ours so complex that maybe we cannot understand it. There has been
problems accordingly to some of the data he is getting for not just a couple of years.
Now, the other logical reason is when he looks around and meets with other leader,
whether it be in Salem, Montgomery County, Franklin County, they have made
statements to me jokingly, "Where does Roanoke County hide all its money ?" "Well, we
are closing schools, you are building schools, we are laying off one hundred (100)
people and you are not, we are cutting services and you are not." He commented he
deals in logic and common sense. He knows we have a good county, a wonderful place
to live, but we are not so immune to a market that we do not have the ebbs and flows
378 June 26, 2012
that other locations have. In his 13 years, only the last year has he seen anything not
go up and we have had a bad economy in those years. This disturbs him. In 2005,
citizens in his area brought the same legitimate concerns to him. He was not satisfied
at all, it is public record. Ratios, property values, consequent value, incoming
producing, etc. The people are still having lingering doubts. If we lose the trust of our
people, because we all work for the citizens, every one of us including the judge. It is
not a glaring indictment on anyone. We have a problem. Roanoke County has
admitted a problem. No one knows why these numbers are there. So help us if you can
shed some light. You have looked at these pieces of information
Gary Dogan inquired who reports this information. Is it the Circuit Court
Clerk's office or the Assessor's office? Supervisor Church stated he has three different
answers on that question. When the piece of property is recorded in the Circuit Court,
the Commonwealth of Virginia will allow the Clerk's office to record either the sales price
or the assessed price, whichever is higher. That money goes to the Commonwealth. It
has nothing to do with these numbers. Somebody keys these in and he does not know.
Mr. Murray stated you are dealing with a trickle -down situation. The State legislature
should record according to actual sales prices. One thing that has always in his forty -
seven (47) years been sacred are the County records. You went to the Courthouse and
you looked up something, you saw what it actually was not one of two numbers. He
does not know of any other way to put it and if you sell something and then you show it
as sales price and they show it as sales price, not as assessed value, and when you
show it as sales price, he does not like to use the word lie, but it is not true. We need to
start at the legislature and trickle down. One of the other issues is you cannot appraise
real estate forward, you have to appraise backward. You can go back ten (10) years
and a skilled appraiser can determine the value of a piece of property. What the
assessors have to do is the assessment that you are going to get next year for 2013,
the assessment date has to be the month of January, 2012, but the comparable sales
will be the last six months of 2011. So, your assessment, if you remember back when
real estate was good, the sold value was always higher than assessed value because
assessments were a year behind. What happened is this has changed and it has taken
a year for the assessments to catch up with the market because of the fact that is the
way you have to determine values.
Supervisor Church stated he is not going to point a finger toward the
legislatures, he does not think it is them at all. What we are talking about is they have a
criteria to get their revenue in Richmond. We are talking about something he feels
touch on one of Mr. Murray's statements; comps, comparables, assessment values.
Make no mistake about it, He has been out in the field with citizens that have asked our
assessor's office a couple of years ago, "My assessment is $12,000 too high, what is
going on."
June 26, 2012 379
Supervisor Church commented when he meets individually with the
Assessor's office with that citizen, they bring out a copy of the GIS showing the incorrect
sales price and they say to the lady, "Yours is okay, just two blocks from you the one
sold for $242,000 where in reality it sold for $212,000. We have a problem than can
compound. If it has been incorrect and we do not find out what is going on, wherever it
is input in Roanoke County, is wrong. It is not the legislature.
Mr. Murray inquired if Supervisor Church thinks the legislature determines
that the Clerk's office can charge the tax based on whether the sales prices or the
assessed price, whichever is higher? Mr. Murray stated it should not be that way.
Supervisor Church stated he misunderstood before, he agreed the State is killing
Roanoke County. He added but, what they are talking about is really an apple and a
giraffe because he is concerned with what is reported on the Roanoke County website.
If it perpetuates itself, you can see the story. We have realtors that will tell you the
values are down fifteen percent (15 %), but that is not being reflected. Mr. Murray stated
they have to use multiple listing records. He stated that is why he thinks this is a good
healthy exchange.
Supervisor Church stated in getting back to Mr. Claytor, citizens tell him
they do not have the time to go to the County and be told whatever and when he asked
them about the BOE, he is told "Who is that ?" Then, these same people come back
and say they took their case to them and they did not agree, so later two or three years
down the road, they refuse to come back. Supervisor Church stated he did not say they
were all correct or all incorrect. Mr. Claytor responded by stating that is unfortunate.
The process is there and they would certainly encourage all citizens to use it. If this
meeting helps further information to the public he thinks they have succeeded at some
level. With regard to the sales data, obviously the process is only as good as the
quality of the data that goes into the calculations of these numbers and he thinks it is
also important for those that might be watching that the BOE is not charged with
developing these numbers that you see, they are only there to review information that a
citizen might bring before them. It is also important to point out that the burden of proof
is on the citizen to bring information before the BOE that would indicate that an error or
some type of erroneous information was in play and it is up to the BOE to review, sort it
out and make a determination as to whether an adjustment needs to be made, either
lower it or possibly raising it. Supervisor Church reiterated that the BOE is not
responsible for these numbers.
Gary Dogan asked a follow -up question to his other question. He stated
he thought he heard Supervisor Church say someone inputs this data, but we do not
know who it is. Is that correct? Is it the Clerk's office, the Assessor's office, the
Treasurer's office? Supervisor Church asked Mr. Goodman to respond.
Mr. Goodman explained the information is input by County staff. The
information comes from the Clerk of Circuit Court and goes to the Commissioner of the
Revenue and input into the GIS System. We admit we have been using the higher of
the two fees. That is an error; we are not showing the actual consideration.
380 June 26, 2012
Susan Simons inquired why this was being done. Mr. Goodman
responded we had been doing it for some period of time and we continue. We did not
make an adjustment when the economy changed. The difference between the sale
price and the assessed price has narrowed and actually some of the sell prices were
much less than the assessment values. We are prepared to make the change now.
We have found a way to do it and it can be made relatively quickly. We have not done
because the State Department of Taxation came in and looked at our information and
they are to provide us with a report and upon receipt of that report, it will be given to the
Board and discuss the next steps. We did not want to infer that by making these
changes that we were trying to hide anything. We want to stress that to the people. We
have the mechanism to change that so that we can report the actual sale. He stated he
wanted to point out to the general public, a lot of information use our information in the
GIS to look for comps and we are going to change that and list the actual consideration,
which once again, the public when they look at that they need to do a little bit more
research to make sure it is a good sale. He stated he is not an appraiser and the BOE
know more about that than he does. We do caution the general public that when we do
make the change, they still need to look into it and make sure it is a qualified sale.
Susan Simmons stated she agreed they should do their own research, but
at the same time she would also hope the information should be reported correctly in
the first place. She advised she does look at a lot of records from other localities. She
still has a Certified General Appraisal License and she still does a lot of reviews of
appraisals. She stated she has never run into this problem in any other locality. She
then asked the other BOE members if they have ever had this problem in any other
locality, which they responded they had not.
Mr. Goodman stated we admit we were doing it incorrectly and it will be
corrected.
Mr. Murray asked when they started doing this incorrectly. Has this been
going on for a long time and the economy finally exposed it or is this something in the
last five to ten years? Mr. Goodman responded it is his understanding that it has been
done for an undetermined period of time
Supervisor Church stated he vehemently disagrees with us having this in
here for whatever reason. There is no logical reason. He stated he is defending his
citizens because most of our citizens are not computer savvy in real estate at all and for
us to indicate that they need to look for a qualified, arms length transaction, they do not
know what we are talking about. They need to be able to look on the GIS and see the
words sale price and it be accurate. Karl Ford, a realtor and a good man brought this
information forward, but what even bothers him just as much is that he tried to get this
corrected for a couple of years by making phone calls and could not get an explanation
for it. When it comes before the Board and we have instructed no numbers be changed
until we get to the bottom. What he has been told is after looking into it, somebody, said
we can get this fixed in thirty (30) minutes.
June 26, 2012 381
He commented that bothers the heck out of him. How can you get it fixed in thirty (30)
minutes when it has been wrong for years? The Department of Taxation came in for
two (2) days, each of us met with them and they cannot possibly look into something
this big in two (2) days. He stated he had a two -hour discussion with them and has
supplied them the same information. He commented he did not know what they are
going to come back with in thirty days, but all three (3) indicated to him they would
probably advise to get an independent agency. That is what he really felt like should
have been done. They cannot possibly in two (2) days get us to the point where we can
find out what happened, why, how long. We even looked into the statute of limitations
and asked Mr. Goodman to respond.
Mr. Goodman stated the statute of limitations is for three years.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if we knew the impact of the selling price in
the County system on citizens assessed values for their houses? How do the two
relate. Do we really use that to determine an assessment?
Mr. Goodman responded that is being reviewed by the State Department
of Taxation, they will be providing the Board with a report on specifically answering that
question. When this first came up, he advised he went down and met with the chief
assessor and reviewed five or six sales. Based on what he reviewed, it did not indicate
to him that the sales price that was listed had any impact on the assessed values.
Based on that, what we are listing as a sales price gets adjusted to show the real sales
price in the calculations and it does not impact the assessment values that we do for the
citizens.
Supervisor Elswick responded that our intent was to have the sales price in
the County system be the same one that the Circuit Court Clerk used to determine the
taxes due when a house is bought or sold?
Mr. Goodman responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Elswick stated if that is the case, the Circuit Court Clerk either
uses the actual price or an assessed value, which should be exactly the same as the
selling price in the County system. If it is not, somebody arbitrarily changed what is in
the County system to in every case, a higher number.
Mr. Goodman stated he would not necessary prescribe to that, but would say
is what the Clerk does is what is prescribed by law; for the recordation or grantor tax.
We do not have to use that, we can use the actual sales price and we should have, but
we did not. In the preliminary review that he did, the five or six (5 or 6) he looked at with
the Chief Assessor, it appeared to him we were listing the higher of the two prices, but it
did not impact the assessed value as we were calculating them.
Supervisor Elswick inquired was the numbers put in our system as the selling
price different than the recordation value?
Mr. Goodman stated we show it on the GIS for the sales price the higher of
the two. Within the confines of the assessment sheets and the calculations, we were
also showing that the actual consideration to determine the assessed value.
382 June 26, 2012
Supervisor Elswick stated he is trying to determine if the recordation
valuation and our selling price was the same thing. Mr. Goodman responded they are
not the same.
Supervisor Elswick stated so somebody changed what the recording clerk
used. Mr. Goodman stated we have listed on the sales price, the higher of the two,
which we have admitted is wrong. Supervisor Elswick then inquired have we gotten any
answer as to why we have a higher number in the system than what the recordation
value was. Mr. Goodman explained it was not higher than the recordation fee. We
either used that or the actual sales price, if it was higher than the assessed value.
Supervisor Elswick stated so the selling price in our system is the same as the
recordation value. Mr. Goodman explained not necessarily, it depends on the individual
case. He stated he did not mean to be complicated, but there are a lot of records, etc.
What staff was doing was taking the higher of the two, recordation fee or sales price.
Ms. Simmons stated her concern is almost all citizens have some sort of
access to the internet; yes they can check out the sales further through other means,
however, as far as the MILS service, which is the multiple listing service, not everyone
has access to those records to go back and fish through all of that and actually see
what is correct and what is incorrect. She stated she has not seen any other locality do
anything like this.
Mr. Goodman stated he did not look to see what others are doing. We did
look at Salem and Roanoke, which show the actually sales price. He stated it is the
intent of staff, once the Board tells us to proceed, to start listing that also.
Ms. Simmons stated if the data is being used to compute assessments or
any other appraisals being done for bank purposes, etc. It is affecting data. It is
effecting data that is going through banks, it will affect any other data used particularly if
someone does not go back and look it up separately from the MILS service.
Supervisor Altizer stated he leaves that up the appraisers; some are good
and some are bad. He knows of a piece of property purchased in the Town of Vinton
that had two commercial appraisals on it and they were $700,000 apart. So there are a
lot of things that changes things out there and he understands that. We need to correct
once we come to a defined end to what is going on. Supervisor Altizer stated he has
to go by what Mr. Goodman is telling him on the premise that the final will be when the
State comes back as to whether this is being used in the calculation for assessments
and he stated he thinks the best anybody can right now is they do not know.
Supervisor Church stated he really truly believes it is wrong. He stated he
recently had his own home refinanced. One of the criteria that the appraisers use and
Member One is a good institution; we have a lot of good institutions in Roanoke County.
They look at "comps ". This is how they determine if your value is appropriate. It affects
banks, lending institutions, other outfits that deal in the financial data.
June 26, 2012 383
So, when they look and he is using for example his own subdivision, which is twenty -
three (23) homes, none of which are over a 125 square foot difference; they are cookie
cutter homes. Our assessments range from $190,000 to $260,000. Something is
wrong. We have to recognize there are a lot of factors going into the assessed figure.
Number one is how long has it been on the market. He stated he has a neighbor two
doors from him who had a house on sale for a year and one half and they lost $30,000.
Purchased for $245,000 and sold for $215,000. He commented he wanted to correct
one thing that Mr. Goodman had said. We know we have a problem with the sales
numbers and he stated he thinks anybody in real estate valuation or any banking will
verify this is a problem. It is part of the complex that is used to help determine market
value. So, if it sells for less than the assessed value, then that is what sometimes
Roanoke County uses. There were also issues whereby we have no idea where the
number came from. For example, if a house was assessed for $240,000, sold for
$190,000 and there was $265,000 on it. The latest ones just brought to him in Colonial
Place patio homes, sold for $210,000, County reports the sale as $226,000; sold for
$216,000, County reports $228,500; sold for $228,000 and County reports $232,000
and the last one sold for $244,950 and the County has the correct price. In his opinion,
this is a problem that may take months to find out, but he does not believe for one
second that this incorrect sales data has no effect, it has to.
Mr. Watson commented while talking about actual sales price, market
value, comps, assessments, and the job of the BOE is to maintain uniformity of
assessments as well as they possibly can. There is a difference between market value
and market price. Assessments are based on market value. Market value is truly a
hypothetical; a sort of estimated amount of what a given property should sell for at a
given point in time. Market price is a factual thing; an amount it sold for. When you
obtain enough market prices, they build a cluster from what you can pull a market
valuation. Assessments are not going to be exactly what the sales price is in most
cases, but you can build a cluster so they can obtain a market valuation and know
where it should fall generally. Then, you have to throw out the distressed sales, the
foreclosed sales, the ones where the uncle sold it to the nephew at half the cost, which
will distort things. What you have left will build that value that an assessment should be
based on. From that standpoint, he stated he thinks it is important that we have actual
sales prices.
Mr. Murray stated he was told approximately three (3) months ago, he
asked the question and was told that the figures used to analyze and determine
assessed values are the actual sales price. So, it look likes there are two issues; one
should be simple — put the right price on it, the sales price, which should not take a lot of
work to do once you are cleared to do it. Then, we can tell whether or not the
assessments reflect sales prices versus previous assessed value. He further added
this is the toughest market he has ever been in to determine value. With the market
starting 2007 or 2008 and in fourty -seven (47) years, this is the first he had ever seen
real estate values in the Roanoke area down.
384 June 26, 2012
He added he had seen them go up and down at Smith Mountain Lake and he knows of
areas outside of here. So, most of us that have been in the business are dealing with
something they have never dealt with before. He stated he has a hard time setting
prices.
Supervisor Church stated Mr. Murray was right when he said it is hard to
determine, but it should not be hard to determine they should have not gone up in
today's market. The citizens do not expect in today's economy when they look around
them and see people unemployed and see a bump up in that number by a few thousand
dollars in a distressed market. Certainly, it should not be much, much higher.
Supervisor Elswick stated the one thing they have heard tonight is that we
always veer in the direction of the higher number. He added to him there is a principle
involved there. For a government employee charges a citizen as possibly as much as
they can to raise tax revenue and he knows the State allows that, but thinks the Board
should object. Somebody should object formally the policy from the State that allows a
Clerk to use a number that is higher than what the citizen actually paid for a house,
unless it is a distressed sale, etc. He stated it is totally unfair in his opinion that a citizen
should have to pay taxes on money they did not spend. It does not make sense
whatsoever; it speaks of government bureaucy, a government that is trying to take
advantage of citizens to get as many dollars as they can. The one thing he would like to
see for each one of these houses, approximately 20, is what was the Clerk's recordation
value; that is the one thing that we are missing here tonight. According to the County
position, the recordation value should exactly match the sales price and maybe the
County system ought to be revised instead of saying actual selling price it should say
something else, recorded value by the Court, something other than selling price.
Additionally, he noted none of the properties were less than its actual selling price; they
were all higher.
Mr. Murray suggested that the Board of Supervisors pass a resolution
requiring that the legislator change the code so that Clerk's offices can only charge
actual sales price. He stated he understand that they are writing the sales price on the
first page when they record. So, if you are savvy enough to know and look at that you
can see it, but like he said at the very beginning, records have to be sacred. It is no
good to have official records that have unofficial data on them.
Supervisor Elswick stated he was in agreement.
Supervisor Church asked if Mr. Murray knew how hard is was to get
Richmond to do that with Mr. Murray stating he understood, but they need to start.
Supervisor Church stated staff has tried to approach them informally; they are not going
to do anything that takes revenue out of Richmond. We have to do something.
June 26, 2012 385
Mr. Murray stated the answer as far as he was concerned is if they are
looking for a certain amount of revenue, then raise the rate. It is the responsibility of the
Board of Supervisors to set the tax rate for Roanoke County based on what the budget
calls for if the assessments go down. The State has the same responsibility to increase
their rates rather than to "cook the books."
Supervisor Church agreed stating do not pass it down to the localities
because they are the last stopping post. He also noted there was not an avenue for
citizens to speak now, but the citizens in attendance can speak under the agenda item
at 7:00 p.m. If you have questions or let the Board know how you feel, etc. He stated
he thought it might be frustrating for citizens to be in the audience and not be able to
speak. He stated he wanted to be able to restore trust in our system, trust in the Board
of Equalization and trust in Roanoke County. He further added he knew about several
appeals this year and wanted to know if each one had been reversed.
Mr. Murray stated that was incorrect; approximately eight (8) of the fifteen
(15) had been reversed.
Supervisor Church wondered if our citizens stop coming because they feel
like "it's not worth my time ", "it is never going to be changed." He stated that hopefully
he wanted to keep the BOE so busy; the Board might need to come up with some extra
money. It would be a great situation where citizens can come to the BOE and leave
there even if it is still the same and they feel the BOE is a great group.
Mr. Murray stated here are the numbers: since 2007 the BOE has 218
appeals, 97 were reduced and increased three (3). He added one of the things they
did. They would have one person come, it was reviewed and it was reduced as well as
every house on the street at the suggestion of the assessor. He stated he did not want
to leave the meeting with people thinking that he is questioning the integrity of the
assessor's office. He stated he is not. He stated he thinks they have done a good job,
the BOE has reversed some but that is going to happen when you have 44,000 pieces
of property. He added he would like to leave here with people understanding that
information put on the County website should be exactly true and honest.
Supervisor Church stated his point is well made because of his
experience. He commented with 44,000 pieces of property and only six to 8 (6 to 8)
assessors it is physically impossible to go to each one. Therefore, if the sales data is
incorrect and neighborhood A is looked at and used the sales data that maybe was
incorrect, so we cannot look at these seventeen (17) houses and move from this point
forward. Do you see what he is talking about? This could be a "Pandora's" box we do
not even want to deal with because it would be terrible if it happened. This is why it is
so critical for that sales data is integral as far as helping determine who is on first and
who is on second. With that being said, he added, why would the County have software
like this? This one Board member is going to scream from the highest building for new
software; does not care about the price; it is not going to be millions. He commented
the County needs to have new software that is uniform; do not make it impossible to find
out, make it easy.
386 June 26, 2012
Make it where other localities can look at our system and say they can come up with the
same number. The simple things we can do and will restore confidence and trust in our
people. The numbers will be what they are. He stated if the County goes down a
couple of million dollars, he is not about to raise the tax rate on anybody to cover up a
problem that we have; we are not going to balance on the backs of our people.
Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Murray to repeat his appeals numbers, which
he proceed to do.
Supervisor Church asked if the appeal numbers decreased over the years.
Mr. Murray responded, in 2007 there were 35; in 2008 there were 36; in 2009 there
were 41, in 2010 there were 48, 2011 there were 43 and so far 15 this year. Supervisor
Church stated he hopes that means everything in wonderful, but he is not convinced.
Mr. Murray stated he was surprised when he started looking at the numbers.
Mr. Dogan stated he thinks the one thing that everyone wants to see is
one hundred percent (100 %) accurate information in which to make their decisions and
the Board to make their decisions that are necessary for the budget. He stated he
found it interesting a while ago when Supervisor Church made the remark, "you would
hate to think any government employee would use inaccurate information to get more
money from the taxpayer." Is that not precisely what the General Assembly has done?
Supervisor Church stated he did not say that, Supervisor Elswick did. This is precisely
what the General Assembly has done when mandating that a local clerk can take more
money than the property sold for in seller's deed tax by using the assessed value as
opposed to the sales price.
Supervisor Elswick responded "absolutely" and stated it is unfair. The
other thing that happens if unbeknownst to the Board of Supervisors the numbers are
inflated in the system, the Board looks at the appraisal level and projected revenues
from the assessments that are in the system and sets the tax rate. So when something
happens and the numbers are in the system become known they are overstated, an
adjustment has to be made for that. The tax rate will no longer be enough money to
cover the County's expenses, so the Board would be setting a tax rate based on
inaccurate information. If the selling price was being used to determine the
assessment; that is the big question that he has. It is one thing for the selling price in
the system to be wrong; and if it is only affecting appraisers and realtors, which is not
good, but still does not affect County revenues. If the County's assessments are in
some way based on that selling price that is in the system, then that affects what people
pay in taxes. As far as getting the right numbers in the system, we have IT people why
cannot they simply interface with the MILS system and come to a cooperative
arrangement because whoever owns the MILS wants the right numbers to be the County
system also. Why don't we have the two systems interface?
June 26, 2012 387
Ms. Simmons stated she would like to reiterate that as long as the
information on the system is incorrect it makes it very difficult for a citizen to pull
information up so they can appeal their assessment whether it be the office of Real
Estate Assessment or to the BOE, because they are pulling up inaccurate information to
begin with if they are looking for sales.
Supervisor Church stated an example twenty years ago of what bad
numbers can express. A realtor goes into a client's house where he is hired to put their
house on the market. He tells the citizen after market analysis that they are going to list
the house for $275,000 and the citizen says, "Why are you low- balling my property."
The realtor says "what are you talking about." The citizen responds "yes you are
because the house around the corner shown on the County system sold for $329,500."
Immediately, the realtor felt his integrity was questioned; he had to explain to the citizen
the County numbers are wrong. We have citizens and employees that are having to
deal with this, even if one time it is one time too many because being in the public
sector when a citizens feels like they have been thrown an "eight- ball" they are not
going to be so ready to come back to you. This is far reaching. This just needs to be
done one time and one time correct. We have to make it right, so when people look at it
people can trust it.
Supervisor Elswick stated it would be like going into Walmart and
purchasing $10 worth of items and being charged tax on $20. He would like to
recommend that the Board do a resolution at some point.
Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks this will be part of our legislative
initiatives because it is just not right and feels it has been the consensus of the Board all
along how can you justify paying tax on the higher price. Our State legislators need to
be cognizant of what is going on.
Supervisor Church stated he is frustrated because in 2005, the
Department of Taxation was here as well as a CPA from Norfolk Southern. The Board
was told the sales ratio was 88.87 %. He commented he understands we are now at
approximately 98 %. Going back to what you were saying earlier, you can only get one
hundred percent (100 %) of nothing.
Mr. Murray stated Supervisor Church is correct, but in 2005 the values
were from 2003 and prices were sky high and today is the reverse situation where the
assessed values are a year and one half behind a fallen market. It used to be a lot of
real estate agents who were not very good at determining values would figure so much
above assessed value; that will not work anymore. He advised he has not come up with
a figure below assessed value can be used.
Supervisor Church stated it was the perception where a citizen asked "did
you know the CPAU is a friend of a Director of Roanoke County; did you know that the
person in Richmond was ... "He advised he could not go there, but pointed out the
perception to the citizens is "what they told us is just want they want us to hear."
388 June 26, 2012
Mr. Murray responded a lot of citizens think the real estate assessments
go up so that the Board will not have to raise taxes and they feel like the assessor's
office gets pressure, which he does not believe. He stated he has been dealing with the
assessor's office for over forty (40) and has never questioned the integrity or accuracy,
not problems.
Supervisor Church stated you cannot bypass and forget that everybody
around us, Bedford, Franklin County, Montgomery, Botetourt, City of Salem, and City of
Roanoke has taken a major hit in tax revenue. We cannot ignore this. Are we that
good, it begs for common sense logic? You have to ask yourself are we that much
better? Everybody cannot be suffering except Roanoke County.
Mrs. Simmons stated in going back to the ratio study, she would like to
point out is this study is not just a figure, these are real people, real citizens, real homes
that belong to real citizens and the people are paying based on those values. There are
people behind those numbers, citizens who vote and live in this County and that is who
we are to take care of. It is not just a figure that does not affect anyone; it affects every
single person that lives and owns a home in this County; every single person who owns
a piece of commercial property, not just numbers. They are the citizens in Roanoke
County who the Board of Equalization are supposed to be serving.
Supervisor Elswick stated those citizens have experienced prices of
everything going up, gasoline, cheese, whatever they are buying the price has gone up,
but their salaries probably have not and in some cases have gone down yet the taxes
they have been paying have not changed except to go up. We went from ninety -three
to ninety -eight percent (93% to 98 %). Somebody paid more taxes, yet everything else
they deal with has been a battle of inflation, yet we are still getting the same money out
of them.
Supervisor Altizer thanked the BOE for coming to the work session
tonight, it has been informative, and it has been good for our citizens. He further added
the BOE does a great job.
Supervisor Church commented hopefully it would not be another twelve
(12) years before we meet again. He added he hoped the BOE found this to be healthy,
open discussion. He stated he does expect citizens who are listening will be contacting
the BOE. Supervisor Church inquired when the next meeting would be, with Ms.
Simmons responding August 1 St is their next meeting and the meeting after that is
November 1st
Supervisor Altizer inquired of Mr. Mahoney if the August 1 st date is correct
and are there some timelines that were missed. Mr. Mahoney responded the August
date is correct for the BOE, unfortunately, the General Assembly adopted longer notice
provisions and the deadline has passed for the August 1 St meeting. So, the next
effective date will be November 1St
June 26, 2012 389
Supervisor Elswick inquired so we already know if there will be appeals at
the August 1 St meeting with Mr. Mahoney advising there was already an agenda and a
series of individuals who have noted their appeal to the BOE for their August 1st
meeting. Supervisor Elswick asked how many appeals there were with Ms. Simmons
responding they have not received the information as of yet. Supervisor Elswick asked
how could they not have received it if was received six months ago. Mr. Mahoney
responded there is a forty -five (45) day notice window. Ms. Simmons advised the cutoff
date was June 15 so right now the information is in the real estate assessment office.
Supervisor Elswick asked if it was given to the BOE immediately with Ms. Simmons
responding in the negative. Supervisor Elswick asked how they prepared for the
meeting if the information was not provided. Ms. Simmons advised the information was
provided to the BOE a week in advance of the meeting by the Real Estate Assessment
office. Supervisor Church inquired if they received the information in enough time. Ms.
Simmons advised usually they receive the information about six to seven (6 to 7) days
in advance. This last time, we received on Tuesday and the meeting was on Thursday.
Mr. Murray advised it depends on how many properties are being considered.
Supervisor Elswick asked if this can be corrected; Mr. Goodman will correct.
Supervisor Church stated he was bringing forward a recommendation
from the citizens. He indicated when the citizens come before the BOE, members of
the Assessor's office are there and they indicated it is like "getting a speeding ticket and
when they appeal their ticket the same judge is sitting there." Would it be possible for
the Assessors to be in the next room in case of questions? Citizens have an uncanny
feeling that since they are there, it is like they are appealing to the same person, even if
it is not true. Mr. Murray stated it does not bother him in the least that they are there.
Anything that he is going to say, he will say in front of them.
Vice Chairman Altizer opened the evening session at 7:00 p.m. with
Supervisor Flora absent.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
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
(David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Holladay advised this was heard on June 5, 2012 at the Planning
Commission; there were no citizens to speak. It was approved four to zero (4 to 0) with
one condition being conformity with the site plan submitted. He indicated Mr. Peter
Davis and Mr. Clay Hodges were in attendance to answer any questions the Board may
have. Vice Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
390 June 26, 2012
speak. All supervisors offered their support.
ORDINANCE 062612 -8 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING A DRIVE -IN OR FAST
FOOD RESTAURANT ON A 1.02 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT
4202 ELECTRIC ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 77.20- 03 -02) CAVE
SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF
BLUE RIDGE BREAD, INC. (PANERA)
WHEREAS, Blue Ridge Bread, Inc. has filed a petition for a special use permit to
operate a drive -in or fast food restaurant on a 1.02 acre parcel located at 4202 Electric
Road (Tax Map No. 77.20- 03 -02) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
June 5, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on May 22, 2012; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on June 26, 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Blue
Ridge Bread, Inc. to operate a drive -in or fast food restaurant on a 1.02 acre located at
4202 Electric Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is substantially in accord with
the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2 -2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum
adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use
permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
a) The site shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
Preliminary Site Layout plan entitled "Blue Ridge Bread, Inc.
(Panera) 4202 Electric Road" dated March 27, 2012, revised April
24 2012, and May 5, 2012, and prepared by Altizer, Hodges &
Varney, Inc.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The provisions of this special use
permit are not severable. Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence or
paragraph shall invalidate the remainder. The Zoning Administrator is directed to
amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick
June 26, 2012 391
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke:
Noah Tickle of 1602 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia stated he has been a
Roanoke County Resident since 1956. He advised he would not have missed the last
meeting except for duty at his polling place during the last primary, which kept him busy
from 5:30am till 7:30pm. Just so you will know, Roanoke County must defund ICLEI,
"INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES" who is a
big partner of The United Nations Agenda 2. The United Nations Agenda 21 was signed
by the United States in 1992 and 20 years later, people are still in the dark. If you were
to ask at random the question, "Have you heard of Agenda 21 ?" the answer would be
an over - whelming "No," although it is being implemented in every local community.
Agenda 21 is a 40 chapter document listing goals to be achieved globally. It is the
global plan to change the way we "live, eat, learn and communicate" because we must
"save the earth." According to the Mother Earth "Gish Worshipers" "Green Groups" and
many more socialist minded; humans are bad and destroying the Earth. According to
these types we must be controlled their way. Its regulation would severely limit water,
electricity, and transportation - even deny human access to our most treasured
wilderness areas, it would monitor all lands and people. No one would be free from the
watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system, according to Berit Kjos,
author of Brave New Schools. Maurice Strong, Secretary - general of the 1992 United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro said,
"... Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - meat
consumption and large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels,
appliances, home and workplace air - conditioning, and suburban housing are "NOT"
sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the
multilateral system, including the United Nations." In other words, the Global plan is for
us to live on the level of third world nations. That means no box mixes or microwave
meals, limited use of fuel of any kind, no air - conditioning and very little meat. When the
cost of Freon skyrocketed, when mad cow disease hit, the National Animal Identification
System introduced, the price of fuel soared, it has become apparent that given time,
these sustainable controls will be put into place -one way or another -The Globalist are
at play every day. Let's get back to Local Governance by eliminating Socialist News -
Speak from Our County Documents and defund ICLEI.
Susan Edwards of 4121 Givens Road in the Glenvar area of the Catawba
Magisterial District of Roanoke County stated first she wanted to encourage the County
to get our real estate records straight and accurate. She thinks our citizens as a whole
expect that the records that are displayed and they say sales then that is exactly what
392 June 26, 2012
the cost of that piece of real estate is. We need to be accurate in what we publish to the
public. Second, she wanted to bring up a subject she had brought before the Board
previously; reminding and encouraging the County to look at installing sidewalks and
bicyle lanes on US Route 460 improvement in Glenvar. The project is moving along
quickly, they are about to pour the curb and gutter on the north side of what will be the
traffic lanes of that project and she advised she understands the County is working on
that but does not want to see it go away. Thirdly, she stated she does believe we need
to withdraw our membership from ICLEI, it is involved in planning documents supported
by the American Planning Association. This is not a group whose primary purpose is to
help save people on their use and consumption of energy; that is not what is behind that
group. The fourth thing she would like to bring up very quickly, yesterday morning she
learned a disturbing thing. On local radio, is that the Board was served with a challenge
to the Board's practice to open the meetings in prayer. The first amendment to the US
constitution begins that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It recognizes the voluntary nature of
faith, these words are meant to protect religion from encroachment of government and
prevent the Federal government from establishing a single, official religion such as was
the case in the days of our founding fathers with the Protestant denomination of
Congregationalism in England. The letter of challenge that the Board received, and she
uses the word rather than threat, by the Freedom From Religion Foundation makes the
claim that inviting pastors or other members of the local faith community is a form of
establishment of a government religion. Perhaps the total of all faith beliefs of our
community have not been invited to give an invocation before a Board meeting and
perhaps those of no faith should be given an opportunity to stand as a representative to
those who choose to practice no faith, but in her opinion, those of us in the majority of
faith community of belief of Christianity are not offended if others of another belief rotate
in giving an invocation. It is not an establishment of Christianity to stand up and have
somebody from our community stand up and offer a prayer. If you do not believe the
same thing they are saying, that is not establishment. It is an establishment and she
asks the Board to please stand in defense of the freedom to practice religion.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Elswick stated we all need to be a little concerned about what
is going on in the world with the UN. ICLEI is a part of it, it is a small part and looking at
the surface it does not seem to be a major impact, but there is a principle involved in
that we have some foreign organization "kind of telling us how to do things. We have
intelligent people working for this County and people who know how to do the planning,
who know how to save energy and to do the "green" thing. We really do not need
somebody from some foreign country telling us how to do it. He advised he will bring
ICLEI up again for a vote. That is not the only thing the UN is advocating these days. If
you look at the charity that he gives to, The Salvation Army, the person who runs it
June 26, 2012 393
makes $13,000 a year, yet similar organizations administered by the UN, the director
makes $1.3 million. When we give money, foreign aid, money to the UN we are not
always sure where it ends up. The other thing that is going on is that the United Nations
wants us to ban certain types of hand guns and that would gradually increase until
nobody could own a gun. This country was founded with guns and was not in invaded
by any foreign country on the ground because they knew every citizen was prepared to
fight for their country. So, the UN in his estimation has no business telling us whether
or not we can own a handgun or any other gun. The UN wants to take over the seas.
What that means that any royalties our country got from our oil wells would go to the UN
and the UN would redistribute it to countries that may very well be practicing terrorism
against the United States. So, no, that is not a good idea. He added recently he read
there was a school in Massachusetts with an incident with a student and the UN wants
to come in to one of our schools and investigate it for human rights violations. This is
an organization that has Syria on its human rights counsel. Basically, the UN is not
doing what we thought it was going to do when it was initiated and are now getting into
areas where they would like to control the whole world. They even want their own
police force; can you image UN policeman coming in here and the policeman walking
up to you is from Syria and they want to arrest you or shoot you. At some point, we
need to control how far the UN thinks it can go. We can start in a small manner with
ICLEI.
Supervisor Moore invited everyone to her next community meeting to be
held July 19 at 7:00 p.m. at the South County Library in the auditorium. There is going
to be a lot of good speakers; it is going to be on bath salts. Dr Ray will be there
showing how bath salts effect the brain so she has opened this up to not only the
residents of Cave Spring but to all parents who have teenagers. Please try to come and
bring your teenagers so they can see how important and how dangerous these bath
salts are.
Supervisor Church congratulated a group of absolute adorable, young
people in Waldron Park Saturday before last. He was privileged to be there and Board
members missed a treat. It was Soap Box Derby Day and the ages ranged from seven
to about 17 years of age. Unbelievable family affair and it is just amazing what these
young people can do. Relatives are there watching and bringing food. It was a
beautiful day in Waldron Park. Almost everything was donated: the track, the asphalt
the old fashioned way, helping each other and not costing a dime. These youngsters
run the races and it went on all day long. They were qualified for the National Derby in
Akron, Ohio. It is a big, big deal. Plenty of pictures were taken and will share at the
next meeting or two. Little girl with one long blue sock and one long pink sock was
asked if it made her go faster. One thing however disappointed him; there was no
media there. To the media, please remember, it does not have to be a train wreck to
have coverage. Look for the positive we have in this valley. Wholesale family activity;
these youngsters are so proud and competing in this little soap box derby racers that
you cannot even see their heads. The media was notified but did not show. So, he
394 June 26, 2012
thanked them for the fun time they had. He spoke last meeting about green energy; it is
something that stays on his mind all the time. The current administration has a program
to develop at least 125,000 green energy jobs at best it is a complete failure. At best,
they are probably 80,000 short. Subsidies, stimulus, give always is what he calls them,
hundreds of millions of dollars and it goes on and on. They are now trying to give new
identities to green jobs. This is no joke. If you drive a green energy bus, it is a green
job. If you put gas in a hybrid machine, that is a green job. If you work in a bicycle
shop, no matter what you do, that is a green job. If you sweep the floor in a shop, that
is a green job. You see the absurdity of what is going on here. We have to have the
nonsense stopped in Washington. Lastly and most importantly, Ms. Edwards right on.
The item the Board got says Freedom From Religion, and we should be talking about
freedom for religion. He advised he cannot talk about a closed session item, but can
speak from his heart. He wants no part of this, he wants no part of somebody from
Madison, Wisconsin coming in, one person by the way, to tell Roanoke County, 96,000
people strong how we should conduct our meeting, who should pray, how we should
pray. It is ludicrous. Our country is following a Pied Piper over an unknown cliff. It is
really, really wrong. We are forgetting all about what we are made of. It is his hope that
we put this in front of the 96,000 people and he has faith in his people to come, maybe
by the hundreds and say stand up. We are told it is going to cost tax payer money. Let
the tax payers determine if they are willing to do this. A disturbing note was relayed to
him that it is costing the Board of Supervisors in Pittsylvania County for attorneys and
recently he found out that that was untrue. He is reading that when this was brought up
the Board in Pittsylvania County said, no we are not going to stop and quickly seven
lawyers volunteered; we were told Bill Stanley is costing them a lot of money, is doing it
for free. He advised his point is he is calling the Chairman down there; he is only one
Board member but the Board is making a big mistake. We have one unidentified
person or persons and organization telling the United States of America how we should
act, how we should have our meetings, but they do not want to take our money and
throw it away, it has in God we trust on it. It is wrong in this opinion and hope and pray
that common sense and sensibility will come to this local government and we will stand
up if our people tell us to and he believes they will and fight this to the bitter end.
Supervisor Altizer congratulated the Town of Vinton who was just granted
a $700,000 CDBG Grant for the revitalization of downtown. For many years, Vinton has
tried for this and finally it came through. He would also like to congratulate the Vinton
volunteer dinner and meeting and dinner on Friday and a lot of officers were installed in
that organization. We owe a lot of thanks to our volunteers in Roanoke County for what
they do for our citizens and the amount of money that it saves our citizens. Finally,
many people may not have heard or know, there is a gang summit in Roanoke
tomorrow and he is registered for that tomorrow afternoon. This is being put on by the
State of Virginia and look forward to hearing a lot about that and going forward.
June 26, 2012
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Submitted by:
Deborah C. Ja s
Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
395
�L J, Gar
Richard C. Flora
Chairman
396 June 26, 2012
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY