HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/28/2012 - RegularAugust 28, 2012 477
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 August 2012. Audio and video recordings
of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
taken.
Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte
A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Teresa H. Hall, Director of Public Information and
Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Maharaja Sharma of Shantiniketan Temple.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Supervisor Church stated he would like to make a request that the Board
postpone or table new business item, Resolution establishing a policy regarding
opening invocations before meetings of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County.
He stated he did not want to say a lot about this situation except he has been in contact
with the Liberty Counsel that sent the email to the Board on the 14 offering their
assistance pro bono. He advised he has been speaking to the counsel there; over 6
hours over the week end. He added he has sent them a copy of the proposed
478 August 28, 2012
resolution and they found it to be too much of a challenge, even as written, especially in
Item 1(d). Liberty requested that he not go into specifics, but advised Item 1(d) does
not mention the bible; it's offensive to Mormons and Catholics and puts Roanoke
County in a position to be in a courtroom, which the Board is trying to avoid. He stated
he was surprised to see this item on today's agenda, especially at 3:00 p.m. because
this is such an important item it affects all 96,000 people the Board represents. He
added the Board held a meeting on July 24, 2012, where a lot of people spoke.
Additionally, in using the Chairman's own words, "I don't see how a few more months
are going to change anything." Yet, here we are three weeks later having a new
business item at 3:00 p.m. and most people work until maybe 5:00 p.m. Accordingly,
for a multitude of reasons he asked the Board to table this item indefinitely until contact
is made with Liberty Counsel. He stated the Liberty people are the experts,
constitutional attorneys specializing in first amendment rights. He added he did not
understand why the Board would not take advantage of their offer for pro bono
assistance. He concluded by stating there are people in attendance that deserve a
public hearing at the very least; they would be able to come and speak.
Chairman Flora responded by stating Supervisor Church was welcome to
make that motion when the Board reaches Item E -1.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution establishing a policy regarding opening Invocations
before meetings of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
(Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the resolution and advised the Board has no written
policy on this topic. Rather, it's a practice that has grown up over a period of years. Mr.
Mahoney added the Board has heard comments from citizens back on July 24, 2012,
discussed this item several times in closed session, and he understood that it was the
direction the Board gave him back at the end of July to attempt to craft a policy that
provided for non - sectarian invocations to open Board meetings. He advised in drafting
the resolution he had copies quite extensively from the policy that Chesterfield County
has, which has gone before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals who has spoken very
favorably about. In addition, he did not receive a direct copy but thinks several Board
members had received a copy from several citizens of a draft resolution that the
Alliance defending Freedom has put together and he took a few provisions from that
draft policy and incorporated into this policy. He advised this policy also sets out a
policy directing the clerk when she seeks out individuals who would come before the
Board and give invocations and it sets out an attempt to be fairly inclusive, not limited to
just Roanoke County, but the surrounding jurisdictions around us as a lot of our citizens
may live in the County but may also worship in churches, mosques, temples, etc. in
surrounding jurisdictions. The idea is to try to cast a very wide net to find individuals
August 28, 2012 479
who would be willing to come forward and provide a nonsectarian invocation to begin
our meetings. Finally, he would like to propose an amendment to Section 1(d), which
Supervisor Church mentioned. He advised he had an opportunity to speak with Mr.
Richard Mast, Jr. and based on that discussion, he suggested to delete the second
sentence in that provision. His concern was that he felt this section disfavored specific
religions and if you name some but not others, that that may cause a problem. So his
suggestion would be to take or delete the entire sentence and he would recommend
that change for the Board's consideration. Next, in place of that sentence, he would
suggest adding four lines. These provisions would come from the draft policy that the
Alliance defending Freedom suggested. "No guidelines or limitations shall be issued
regarding an invocation's content except that the Board shall request by the language of
this policy that invocations in the form of a prayer, when combined collectively, should
avoid having sectarian references and no invocation should proselytize any faith or
disparage the faith or non - religious views of others." He concluded by stating he thinks
with these two changes, he has tried to achieve some of the suggestions that Liberty
University were considering.
Supervisor Church asked if Mr. Mahoney had spoken with Mr. Mast today
with Mr. Mahoney responding affirmatively. Supervisor Church stated he has spoken
with him on four different occasions last week totaling approximately six to seven hours
and he has suggested the format from the Alliance stating it was fully defensible and
better written. He added he thinks it is very detailed and spells out clear examples of
where we could be treading on dangerous ground and included a legislative body,
sample pre- meeting message, which assists the Clerk fully define how "citizens" are
invited. He repeated that he would like to postpone this item.
Chairman Flora advised he would let those citizens signed up to speak on
this issue speak at this time versus under Citizens' Comments and Communications.
The following citizen spoke:
Pastor Greg Irby of 1440 Blackwood Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated he
spoke last meeting and on purpose he did not voice his opinion, he voiced facts. He
went and did the research when school prayer was removed and offered that
information as fact. Numbers do not lie. He stated the Board based a lot of its
decisions on polls because numbers don't lie. Mr. Irby stated today he is not just
standing here representing himself, but he is also representing the families of the
church he pastors because he spoke to them on Sunday regarding this meeting. Most
of our folks have to work during the day; they could not be here. He has one of his
members here and is grateful that he is here. Pastor Irby added he remembered and
looked this morning just to make certain his recollection was correct, there were some
words from a lady who spoke regarding this matter at the last meeting. Her name was
Linda LaPrade and she said, "This issue is another step in what I have seen in a
majority of this Board. They listen and follow what outside groups want the Board to do
more than listening to the wishes of those that they are supposed to represent." Pastor
Irby stated that being a pastor, he most often tried to believe for the most part people, or
480 August 28, 2012
most people, are honest and for the most part people are not deceptive in their
everyday lives, but he believes in this case those who have set this agenda did so
knowing that the majority of the citizens of this County would not have the opportunity to
be here. The Board knows they work at 3:00. Additionally, he noted that he thinks it
certainly does not bode well, and as an official (he referees four sports) perception has
everything to do with it. If you walk on a court looking lousy or lazy, you are perceived
to be lazy. If you don't hustle on the court, you are perceived to be lazy. Perception is
ninety percent (90 %) of officiating and the perception that's being seen today is that this
is an opportunity to slide something through with the least amount of opposition. Pastor
Irby stated the Board members are elected officials and as such have an obligation to
the constituents and not outside groups who pay no taxes in this area. To put it bluntly,
and he advised he was trying to be kind, the Board members need to have some
fortitude and some guts and stand with the majority of the citizens of this County and
not with the minority for it was the majority who put you into office. He stressed that we
live in a society where the majority determines those who serve as elected officials. It's
time that we quit pandering to the minority in which case this group is not even a
resident of this County and stand with the majority, the citizens of this County. This
proposal is not a good proposal. Legally it's full of holes. Mr. Irby advised he has
spoken with the Liberty legal group as well and they have reassured him they will take
this matter up free of charge. And as someone just said, a dead fish can float
downstream but it takes someone with life and determination to swim against the
current. It is time for us as citizens to have some life and to have some determination
and if necessary vote to remove the dead fish who are just floating along who refuse to
take tough stands against the current of our day. Mr. Irby advised the Board to do the
job they were elected or appointed to do and stop running scared from every outside
threat that's proposed.
Greg Aldridge of 2026 Brambleton Avenue in Roanoke, Virginia stated let
him start off by saying he is a little disappointed that most of us had to take time out of
our day to come fight to protect something that was settled over 250 years ago when
the first amendment to our Constitution was ratified and it specifically says Congress
shall pass no law respecting an establishment of the religion and this is the part you are
missing, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. He added the resolution currently
before the Board is absolutely in lieu of that and Mr. Church is right, it is going to bring
you into court. He stated he is here to represent and stand on behalf of Bishop E.W.
Jackson, who is a Harvard law graduate and formerly a candidate for US Senate and he
would like for me to read this to the Board. "Esteemed members it is a sad fact of
modern American culture that our First Amendment freedoms are so misunderstood
that they are honored more in the breach in the exercise. Groups such as the
Foundation of Freedom from Religion, the ACLU, and a host of others have made it a
cause celebre to go about the country seeking to halt any expression of faith,
particularly Christian faith, which remains predominant in our country. Stand — Staying
True to America's National Destiny — is an organization dedicated to protecting and
August 28, 2012 481
defending our first amendment freedom. What our Virginia forefather Thomas Jefferson
and clearly the intellectual force behind the first amendment had in mind was freedom of
religion, not freedom from religion. Asking a Christian minister not to mention the name
of Jesus in a public prayer because it might offend should be as abhorrent as requiring
a Jewish Rabbi person to pray in the name of Jesus because it might offend Christians.
For the Board of Supervisors or any other government body to allow prayer to open its
proceedings is not an endorsement of a particular religion or demonization, more to the
point, it is certainly not Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion,
which is all the constitution prohibits. Congress itself specifically mentioned in the
constitution has a congressional prayer caucus that is clearly not unconstitutional. How
can it possibly be a violation for a County Board of Supervisors to allow prayer? We
urge you not to allow yourselves and your country to be intimidated by extremist bullies
who use the legal system to twist our constitution and force the transformation of our
culture. It is time to take a stand for God and country ", Bishop E.W. Jackson, Sr. Mr.
Aldridge stated he would like to add personally he believes what Mr. Church said earlier
and he got from the legal people he was talking to is true. The language that you have
in there will open you up to a lawsuit of a completely opposite type and our organization
is prepared for any minister who is told they cannot specifically say any particular thing
as part of an invocation, whose first amendment rights are being violated, our
organization will help them in suing to see their rights are being protected. You have a
choice. You can worry about being sued by an atheist group from Wisconsin or you can
worry about being sued by God - fearing people right here in Southwest Virginia. Those
are the choices.
Barney Arthur of 204 Minnie Bell Lane in Vinton, Virginia stated as we had our
last hearing here regarding this agenda, he spoke to you from God's word regarding
your legacy; obviously my words fell on deaf ears. So let me read again from God's
word, from Revelations, Chapter 3, starting in verse 14. "Yea, men, the faithful and the
true witness the beginning of the creation of God says this; I know your deeds that you
are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot so because you are lukewarm
and neither cold nor hot, will I spit you out of my mouth." When the Board is setting
here trying to figure out how to best manipulate what God has called you to do and what
God has called you to be, then you ain't ice cold and you definitely ain't hot. God
himself will spit you out of his mouth. Is that what you want? Is that what you want your
legacy -- is that the legacy that you want to be known as? The group that was elected
by citizens here in the Roanoke Valley that you individually were responsible for kicking
Jesus Christ out of our government. We had a gentleman here today to open up an
invocation. He spoke his language, he spoke his religion. Christians were here. I don't
think they were offended. Probably they don't agree with him, but he got news for you,
you are going to tell me because I come here and am willing to invoke the name of
Jesus Christ that I should be ashamed? That y'all are ashamed to stand here and do
this. Something is the matter. Something is the matter. I pray that you individually will
search your soul because we answer to a higher authority in Roanoke County.
482 August 28, 2012
Alex Marshall of 5015 Jordantown Road in Vinton, Virginia stated he is here as
part of the dissent. He is representing a small group, some of which are Roanoke
County residents, known as the Secular Humanist of Roanoke. What we have here is a
failure of due process. We have a court decision, the Fourth Circuit Court, which has
jurisdiction in Virginia, Southwest Virginia, using a lengthy and nonpartisan legal
precedent that has decided government officials may only have nonsectarian
invocations during government functions. When a group of elected officials, leaders in
the community either individually or as a group especially after careful consideration
choose to defy the court's decision for any reason, let alone reasons like, well, we've
been doing this for 40 years or reasons we feel important despite what the court says
and if you don't like that, go ahead and sue us, what kind of precedent does that set for
the constituents? Do you really want to project a message we will comply with court
decisions because we believe in due process, except when we don't feel its right, in
which case we will keep doing what we want. This is what the people of Roanoke
County can hear if you continue having sectarian prayer at your Board meetings and if
someone in Roanoke County happens to defy the court order after you make this
decision resulting in who knows what kind of illegal activity and then says, "Well, the
Board of Supervisors defied a court decision, why can't I? I mean, they didn't agree
with the decision, I didn't agree with mine, either. "It won't be on my conscience.
Ellen Tudisco of 8022 Hilltop Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated she urged
the Board to continue the policy of having opening invocations at the Board meetings.
She advised she came here as a citizen, a taxpayer, a voter, a believer, worshipper and
follower of God and Jesus Christ. She advised she thinks that faith is important to bind
us together as citizens and that we all need to respect one another's faith traditions to
include those who do not believe and there are ways to accommodate those views. For
example, those who do not have a faith tradition and who have a different view of the
world can certainly wait until after the opening invocation and then come into the room.
think that respects their right to not worship, but it also respects the rights of many of
us who live and work in the Roanoke Valley to worship the gods of our faith. We can
also have moments or a moment of silence for the entire room that comes to these
Board meetings and during that moment or moments of silence, whatever we choose to
call it, people can mentally prepare their remarks before the Board, they can pray to the
god of their choice, or they can use that time for personal prayer or for any other
purpose they deem necessary to represent their views before this Board. She advised
she came to Roanoke not only because of the beautiful views and the friendly people,
but also because, and we chose Roanoke because it is a strong faith community.
People worship in different faiths, they are free to worship in their faith and to call
themselves proud and to admit and to openly declare that they are worshipers and
believers in a god or a faith tradition of their choosing. So, again she urges the Board to
continue allowing invocations before the County and before the citizens.
Fuzzy Minnix of the Roanoke County School Board stated he is not here
to tell the Board what it ought to do because he is going it fight the same battle across
August 28, 2012 483
the street from you. But he is here as a citizen, a school Board member, Chair of the
School Board, to make my feelings known to the Board and they are this: everyone
that's been educated beyond the second grade knows this is an all -out effort to kill
Christianity, to reduce it, to make it so that it's not as important to people, in other
words, it's an attack on Christianity. The lady lawyer in Wisconsin, same one what
probably wrote to you, he got two letters, she wants to come down on her big white
horse and kill all these Christian dragons. I guess she's got them all in Wisconsin. In
our openings at the School Board an opportunity for people like this gentleman to come.
We had an opportunity for the Jewish people who pray in the name of Yahweh, we had
opportunity for Jehovah's Witness pray in the name of Jehovah. We didn't object. We
didn't object. We weren't offended. Even an atheist once in a while, in fact you got to
admire a person somewhat that only has death to look forward to. So we allow them to
do, you know, whatever their religion told them to do. We didn't question it; can't you
see what it is? It's an attack on Christianity. He added he appreciates very much what
you tried to do; tried to keep peace in the family and coming up with something that you
think is going to work but let me tell you, it's not. Many, many years ago they started
with no bible reading in school, then prayer out of the school, then no prayer at
commencements and baccalaureate, then no prayer at football fields and gyms and all
we're asking for was just protection for the fans and the kids that were taking part.
Basically what's going to happen is you make me a criminal. You will make me a
criminal and somewhere along the line, we are going to have to take a stand. That's
what he leaves the Board with, his last statement. When? When? When? When?
When will you draw the line in the sand and say, that's enough?
Susan Edwards of 4131 Givens Road, Salem, Virginia stated she
appreciated the latest revisions in this proposal. She advised she has some
disagreement on the actual resolution itself and what it gives you as far as alternative
solutions to this situation, particularly the numbering that your only option under three is
to adopt a policy directing individuals participating in the invocation portion of the
agenda to give only nonsectarian, governmental prayers and forbidding sectarian
prayers. Counsel did prepare this draft as instructed following the July meeting, but this
is more restrictive than what the Fourth Court of Appeals Circuit Court has ruled. That
is where in Joiner versus Forsythe County, the Fourth Circuit specifically said the policy
should be religiously neutral. However, the invocations themselves can be sectarian,
although they did comment that the council should proactively discourage sectarian
references while finding that occasional sectarian references do not violate the
Constitution. It is a free speech issue at that point. She advised she is the individual
who submitted the sample, the model policy and she provided that before the July 24th
meeting. Mr. Mahoney had offered to substitute a portion of it, but she would like to
have an opportunity to have the text revised and allow for comment to be submitted.
Having comment made on a Friday or have the draft released on Friday and get us all
gathered together to try to present comments to you is somewhat problematic. It
doesn't give us opportunity to provide you very good feedback, qualitative feedback.
484 August 28, 2012
She advised she does appreciate the inclusion of that item six out of the model policy.
But why not use the model policy? In addition to Liberty council offering free advice and
representation should you be challenged? Alliance Defending Freedom has also offered
free, pro bono counsel and defense of the policy they have provided.
Mr. Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated he
would like to have the Board's consideration to read from historical text, cushion
reference. "About 2,000 years ago a man named Peter sat in a court yard outside a
building where his lord and master was being detained and beaten by legal authorities.
A servant girl came up to him saying you also were with Jesus of Galilee but Peter
denied them, saying I do not know what you are saying. And when he went out to the
gateway another girl saw him and said to those who were there, this fellow was also
with Jesus of Nazareth but again Peter denied with an oath, I do not know the man. A
little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, surely you are also one of
them for your speech betrays you. And then Peter began to curse and swear, saying,
do not know the man. Immediately a rooster crowed and Peter remembered the word
of Jesus who had said to him, before the rooster crows you will have denied me three
times. So Peter went out and wept bitterly."
Mr. Ben Peyton of 801 Starmount in Roanoke, Virginia stated greetings;
he is the voice of Fox radio in Roanoke. We consider ourselves to be fair and balanced.
With all this preaching, he stated he is about to go to sleep. Where are the hot dogs?
He stated as he looked at these Board members, he advised he is thankful for you,
Charlotte, you are a beautiful young lady and he is glad she is there. In the beginning
God created man. He said, I think I can do better, so he created woman. We've got
one expert here. He advised he was kind of picked up along the highway here by Greg
Irby; he wanted me to come out here and attend this meeting. He advised he has never
been to one of these meetings before but is glad to be here. And if you guys want to
get rid of all this preaching, here's the answer: one nation, under God, indivisible, with
liberty and freedom for all. He commented he told the Hindu preacher, he hates to tell
him they don't want you to come back, so he told him that he did not want him to be
offended. He asked, are we servants? He serves the people. He gathers the
information. We present it as accurately and as fair as we can and let the people
decide. My question is are you a servant? He assumes you are, but then something
disturbing was said to me. He said, do you folks, are you obligated to vote the heart,
what the people want in your district? And this beautiful young lady over here, sister
Jacks, she said, "you've got to talk to the attorney." So he talked to the attorney and
asked him that question, his name is Paul Mahoney; relatively handsome young man.
He said, "They don't have to vote the district." He said, "They are to vote for the
common good." Okay. What does that mean? What does that mean? Does that mean
that we get into office and we do whatever the heck we want? That's the problem a lot
of people feel in Washington. He advised he is not here to preach to you. Quite
honestly, he is not going to lose a bit of sleep any way you vote, but what he is going to
do and what he is obligated to do is to take your statement, your vote, and put it on my
August 28, 2012 485
radio station and for 24 hours a day, everybody in the valley will know exactly your
posture, your position, your decision about freedom. My blessings to you, Board.
Thank you. It doesn't pay enough for me to be on that Board and anyway he would
rather have a job that's more full -time.
Noah Tickle of 1602 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia stated so, some
organization from Wisconsin writes a letter to the Chairman of the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors explaining one person in Roanoke County is offended so what if
the letter had come from Iceland or Georgia in Russia, this is the old dominion State of
Virginia, United States of America, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and
justice for all. Our rights come from God. It is so because the Constitution says so and
he says those same know so. That is our government. If someone is so offended by
invocation within the borders of the old dominion, can they not write letters? Why must
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors give relevance to a letter from cheesy
country out west? Ignore ungodliness, why give every chicken little thousands of miles
away. He stated he is offended and get the cheese out and give governance here. The
Roanoke County Board of supervisors is well established in historical invocation. That's
it, over and done with. Why would we allow a piece of paper to drag us down back
down the road and into the dark to help them stir their pudding pot? Do not be
distracted with silliness; he is offended. Do not be distracted by loose speak, word play
governing here now, let's get on down the track. We have our constitutional republic to
defend and protect. Mama said grow up, pull your pants up and act like an adult. If one
sees injustice or is so offended, stand up, come out, and be lawful. Well, he is here
stating he is extremely offended by a very, very small minority stepping on our liberty of
invocation. If it rains, seek shelter, get an umbrella. Don't go running around chicken
Iittle'ing. He is offended. Go away then come back, we do invocation. We don't, fine.
We do, has he offended you for naught? No, he did not. We are a true republic. Stand
up and defend the cause for liberty. Do the work you should do. Don't sit back with the
usual spoiled rotten me mentality, hiding behind ink and paper. That is so sickening,
stand for liberty, stand for invocation.
Supervisor Church stated he would like to maybe clear up a mix up or
confusion for some of the citizens about the sign -ups. Each of us up here, with the
exception of maybe a couple, has been in the Chair and when the citizens sign up to
speak, they are under the impression that there's not a public hearing. That was one of
the draw backs; they didn't know where to sign up. They don't know to sign up under
the public hearing under prayer or whatever, they just sign up. He stated he thinks it's
fully understandable about the citizens signing your name up and you wanted to speak
but you don't know where and it's at the discretion of the Chair to let citizens speak
before a vote, which would make good common sense but he can understand many of
you that are confused. Don't think we're trying to segregate you, it's just the agenda
having new business doesn't allow normally for public hearing and that was one of my
initial complaints. This is far too important of an item, far too important, to not recognize
and include you folks, all 96,000, whatever it takes. He stated he said it on July 24th,
486 August 28, 2012
he thinks this is the single most important vote that this Board has and will ever make,
certainly in his thirteen (13) and maybe in the history. This is a vote that's going to
change the face of what we know as Roanoke County and the area that we live in. The
offer that was suggested in good faith by the gentleman from Vinton, Mr. Altizer, as he
said then, "It's the beginning of the end." It was the beginning of the end when we
choose simply nonsectarian prayer and do the exclusives all the way down the line. He
commented as he is sitting here listening to people talk, he can feel and know where
you're coming from because he has been here all my life. Many of us have, a lot of us
have not, but something came back to me talking about being elected by the citizens.
He advised he tries his utmost, he really, whole heartedly tries his utmost to represent
the majority of people in his district, 18,000 plus, regardless if it's against what he thinks,
if the overwhelming majority of his people, which they have, by the way, emails, faxes,
my phone rang off the hook, they know they can reach me, they know he will respond.
He couldn't keep the statistics of the percentages, it's not even one percent (1 %)
against this situation, it's 99.8 for us continuing the best we can. Then, he stops to think
back in Roanoke County every four years in the courthouse, he thinks he pretty much
got it by heart. He raises his right hand, he puts his hand on the bible, and says said to
the judge, "I solemnly swear to uphold the constitution of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Virginia and to faithfully and impartially discharge the duties
incumbent upon me as a supervisor of the County of Roanoke, so help me God." He
added when he looks up on buildings, when he looks at the capita and realizes the third
or fourth President, Thomas Jefferson, were holding church inside the capital. They
were funding organizations to learn the ministry. It's been good for four hundred plus.
What is going on here? What is happening? He has to ask himself, what is incumbent
upon me. He stated he hopes he has made himself crystal clear. Ms. Edwards did
bring a perfect example that was forwarded to me by Liberty counsel upheld by the
Fourth Circuit court and so far this Board's chosen to ignore it. We don't have hardly
any of this in here. We haven't listened to experts, no disrespect to our County
attorney, but openly and admittedly he is not a constitutional lawyer. But we've got
people who do this 24 hours a day, offering assistance and we're turning our head to
them. He advised it does not make sense to me; none of this makes sense to me.
This should be like our Board spoke on July 24th, this could take months and months
and to paraphrase the Chairman, to continue on and continue on. That was his very
words. He agrees, it does not mean we are going to belabor this thing for five years,
but go as far as we have to go to hear every voice we can hear, to listen to input from
people because everybody has an idea and none of them are stupid. We can learn
from each other. He stated he believes that this is the beginning of the end if this Board
continues. At the proper time, he is sure he will make a motion, but it just blows his
mind; he does not know how else to say it. It blows my mind when we have documents,
professionals, they have offices all over the country and, yes, in Jerusalem, nothing
wrong with me saying that, Israel, they have offices, ready to help us. And he believes
if we don't take a stand now we're done for.
August 28, 2012 487
Supervisor Elswick commented we had a speaker from Fox radio said he
was glad he wasn't in our shoes, but he thinks if he was he would be feeling just as bad
about this situation as we do. We have a Freedom from Religion Foundation that is
telling us we have to do certain things regarding the invocation. We don't know who
those people are. He stated he thinks we need to know that. We need to know how
many of them are part of that organization. We don't really know that they are anyone
locally, which he thinks is required has complained. He does want to know, but thinks
someone who ends up representing us is going to have to know the validity of the
complaint and that there really is someone locally who is involved asking us to change
the way we do invocations. So we're in a tough spot and he hopes somebody feels for
us. This outfit's put us in a situation that others have agonized over and probably went
through all the same things that we're going through. A judge apparently on his own
has decided he'll decide what we have to do. That really ought to be decided by elected
federal and state representatives. The people ought to have a voice in what happens in
terms of public meetings and the kinds of invocations that are conducted. He stated it is
really difficult for him as he is not a formal church member; he guesses his church is in
his head and he is constantly searching. He believes there must be something behind
this Universe and humans and why we are all here. So he guesses he believes to a
fairly large extent there's some kind of higher power somewhere. But that's something
that's really hard to determine and for those people who are very strong and Christian or
any other faith, he admires them and wishes he could feel the same way they do. But
my mind is my mind and no one's going to walk up to me and instantaneously snap their
fingers and tell him he should believe something that he simply can't do. He is certainly
not an atheist but he does believe that the most primary asset in our community is the
church and if you just look, every community in this area has a church and it's the most
important asset in any community. We don't do anything compared to the impact that
our churches have. So, he thinks we should do all that we can to support those people
who belong to those churches and who do all the good things they do for our
communities. He has a lot of respect for that. He also has some respect for people
who don't believe; they really cannot help that. It's the way they've been brought up.
He advised he thinks they ought to be able to tell us why they don't believe and he
would like to hear their viewpoint where we have a place for an invocation and he does
not believe though that non - believers should be able to tell people who are of faith that
they cannot do something because people of faith are not denying non - believers that
believe the way they do. He stated he thinks we should all tolerate each other, which
brings to mind why do we have this situation. He stated he is firmly convinced the only
reason we have this situation is because there's a bunch of lawyers out there trying to
make money from it. There is no other reason for these lawsuits to occur. Those
people from Freedom from Religion Foundation may be being paid off to write letters.
Somebody else may be getting money and the lawyers will get a lot of money. Luckily
we have people who are willing to help us, the whole burden for whatever lawsuit we
488 August 28, 2012
end up with is not going to be paid by the citizens of Roanoke County and he thinks we
should whole heartedly endorse using those people such as Liberty counsel or
Wesleyan Church or anyone else who wants to represent us, people who have
experience in these kind of situations. He would like our position to be one of openness
and that we let any faith come in, we let any faith say whatever they like. They want to
say Jesus, that's fine. They want to say Mohammed, Yahweh or Buddha or the Great
Spirit that is fine and if they want to say they are a nonbeliever and here's why, that's
fine. I think we should be open minded about it. Good luck to us.
Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks Mr. Elswick said it pretty well. He does
not think there's a member on this Board that hasn't struggled. He does not think there
is any Board member here that probably wishes he was somewhere else rather than
here. The question is, if you want to talk about enemies, we're actually fighting two
enemies, the people in Wisconsin who have no business doing or asking what they're
doing here, but that's what they do; they've been allowed to do that by different Circuit
Court of Appeals across this country. That, in the end, is where it lies about the final
outcome of whatever decision we make. Now, if there are firms that want to represent
us free of charge and go through the process that's a great thing. But if we and
Forsythe County are ordered to pay $450,000 to the people in Wisconsin, we in effect
have fed the belly of the beast that decides where to go to fight and that is something
that each and every one of us is struggling with. You get free representation, but he just
don't believe that any of those law firms are going it guarantee they're going to win and
they will foot the $450,000 or $300,000, whatever it is, fine if we lose; because nobody
can guarantee that. So it's not an entirely free ride, no matter which way we go. We
can have all the free help in the world but the end of the day, if we lose, whether it's
continuing to do what we're doing or whether we set a new policy in place. If we lose,
we pay, because nobody else is going to pay it for us. It is not a simple dilemma of
fighting a having free help, it's whichever way if we lose. Is that what is everybody
willing to go to bat for; many are but there are some that aren't. Nobody on this Board is
taking this decision lightly.
Chairman Flora inquired of Mr. Mahoney how many judges sit on the
Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the second one, has there been a U.S.
Supreme Court decision that has set the benchmark for what these courts of appeal are
applying? Mr. Mahoney responded he cannot recall either 9 or 11; he thinks there are a
couple of vacancies. In the Forsythe County decision, there was a three judge panel.
There was a petition to have the full court hear and that was denied and that was an
appeal to the Supreme Court and that was denied. There is one US Supreme Court
decision, and that's fairly old. The Marsh case and that goes back to the Nebraska
legislature for wanting to have a chaplain. That was withheld but it really doesn't get to
the issue of what we have here and what the Fourth Circuit has decided in terms of the
sectarian versus nonsectarian prayer. The Nebraska case focused on whether
taxpayer funds out of the State of Nebraska could pay for a chaplain. They held yes
you could but it didn't get into the substance of the nature of the prayer. The Fourth
August 28, 2012 489
Circuit decisions over the last twelve years has really focused on the nature of the
prayer that was before the city council, the town councils, the Boards of supervisors but
those are the cases that have parsed that problem. In each one of those coming out of
the Fourth Circuit there was a petition for appeal to the US Supreme court and the US
Supreme Court has discretionary power to either accept or not accept a case for
appeal. In each of those instances, the Supreme Court didn't take it up. So some
lawyers interpret that meaning the Supreme Court essentially agreed with the Fourth
Circuit decisions, at least you need two judges, two or three judges in the Supreme
Court to agree to take a case up. So they couldn't find that many judges on the
Supreme Court to want to look at the Fourth circuit decisions
Chairman Flora then asked if Giles County falls under the Fourth Circuit
with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative. What about Pittsylvania County, Mr.
Mahoney responded in the affirmative stating Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North
Carolina are all Fourth Circuit. Chairman Flora stated it is beginning to sound like this
group is targeting jurisdictions within the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals because they
know they'll win. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative
Supervisor Elswick inquired if we lost at the Fourth Circuit then where
would we go and what kind of rulings have they made if we appeal to what the Fourth
Circuit decided? Mr. Mahoney responded first of all, you would be in Federal District
Court, which is like a trial court. If you lose at the trial court level, then you go to the
Fourth Circuit Court of appeals and then and only then would you go to the US
Supreme court but, again, the US Supreme Court does not have to take the case, it's
totally discretionary on their part. So you have District Court, Court of Appeals,
Supreme Court.
Supervisor Church inquired of Mr. Mahoney in regard to the legal experts
in the first amendment, is this a correct statement that the US Congress somewhere
down the road, that they can do certain things, they could actually change the ruling of a
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals with Mr. Mahoney responding in the negative.
Supervisor Church advised not by exerting, not to overrule, but these are lifetime
appointments so to speak. Who sets the lifetime appointments? Mr. Mahoney
responded the Constitution sets the lifetime appointments. Supervisor Church stated he
is not really sure exactly what he was told that Congress can get enough gumption to
make some changes that will help change the opine of these courts. Mr. Mahoney
responded a constitutional amendment would be about the only one he could think of.
Supervisor Moore stated this is a very emotional and sensitive matter that
we are discussing here and she does not think not one Board member has not been
affected by prayer. But we took an oath, as several of us have said already, that we
would represent every single citizen in Roanoke County and to do fair and to do that,
Mr. Mahoney has diligently worked on a policy that would allow us to have prayer and to
be compliant with the constitution and in doing so we could save taxpayers money for
not fighting this. She certainly appreciates everyone who came today to hear your
thoughts. She thinks that every one of us agree with just about everything that has
490 August 28, 2012
been mentioned here today. She stated she thinks if we had a nonsectarian prayer
policy in place until we decided to go to the constitution and get it changed through our
legislators that may be the proper way to go at this time.
Supervisor Elswick inquired of Mr. Mahoney, is there anything in the
constitution that says we should pray or not pray? Mr. Mahoney responded as many of
the speakers have indicated to you, the first amendment really focuses on the
establishment of religion and free exercise of religion. He stated he thinks the difficulty
where people of good faith disagree is should religion be part of governmental activities
or should government and government activities, meetings of Boards of Supervisors,
City Councils, Virginia Senate (the Virginia Senate has a nonsectarian prayer policy)
should that be neutral ground and no one religion is promoted or presented or
encouraged or disparaged in that context. That is where the definition or interpretation
of the First Amendment comes in and that is where people disagree over how far you
move in one direction or the other respect to the application of that first amendment and
how that applies to us or how that applies to congress, etc. Supervisor Elswick
remarked, it depends on somebody's mind. It really isn't there in words. Mr. Mahoney
responded not to this extent. Supervisor Elswick then inquired does their policy not now
advocate freedom of religion? Letters to various congregations asking them to come in
and do an invocation says that you may reference a sectarian body, but do it
occasionally, not in a manner that would make it appear that we are endorsing any
particular religion. We say that in our letter, don't we? Mr. Mahoney responded he
thinks the difficulty is and this is where he thinks we get on thin ice and where he thinks
the Freedom from Religion folks get on thin ice. Is, yes, they say that a governmental
meeting should not be the forum for religious prayer. But, on the other hand, if you
have government saying to a Rabbi, a Minister, a Priest, a Monk, whatever, this is how
you pray and this is what you can say and not say, then he thinks that gets troublesome
also. That's where he is saying he thinks you get into a thin ice situation as to how far
government should go in terms of trying to encourage or maintain that neutral ground,
so to speak, and the idea being this should be neutral ground for all beliefs or unbeliefs
as the case may be, how do you enforce that? How do you apply that? That's the
difficulty that the Board faces and that's the difficulty that our friends in Giles County
faced or Pittsylvania County, Chesterfield County or Forsythe County, North Carolina.
It's that difficult balance between those two competing visions.
Chairman Flora inquired what was the pleasure of the Board? Is it the
pleasure of the Board to do nothing? It seems like this is a catch 22, we continue our
practice, and we get sued. We change our practice, we get sued. You pray one way,
you get sued. You pray another way, you get sued.
Supervisor Church moved that the Board table this item until we can
collectively get ourselves, our legal people that have offered in accordance with the best
we can the wishes of our citizens and at the very least take a look at something that's
been presented to us free of charge that stands up to the Fourth Court. At the very
least, if we rush into this today we're making a mistake that we can't even imagine.
August 28, 2012 491
Chairman Flora asked if there was a time period to table the motion
with Supervisor Church responding an indefinite period of time, but we need to set up
some guidelines where we can have the public involved under a public hearing, get our
legal counsel on Board with Mr. Mahoney, the people from Faith Alliance, people of
Liberty Counsel. He stated he would feel much better in the hands of the people to
handle this twenty -four hours a day. He stated he thinks we can help, he hopes, not the
best situation, but it is better than what we have now or what we are proposing. Until
our Board can make a decision that we can give some thorough thought into.
Chairman Flora asked Mr. Mahoney if he had passed this proposed
policy by the people in Wisconsin who are threatening to sue us with Mr. Mahoney
responding in the negative. He stated in his discussions with the attorneys in
Wisconsin, we looked at a variety of options and those are the options set out in the
Board report. Their preference is to eliminate invocations altogether. Their next
preference is moment of silence. Their third preference, he guesses is in descending
order, is what he calls the Chesterfield model, that is, the Chesterfield County case that
was upheld by the Fourth Circuit both in the Simpson case and then mentioned very
favorably by the Fourth Circuit case and that's what he copied here that you have in
your draft policy. They didn't say okay and he does not think they like it, but that is their
least favorite of the three or four options that are out there. But he didn't indicate to
them they had a vote or veto power. He stated he heard the Board's direction after the
July 24 meeting with some reluctance was the Board wanted me to draft a
nonsectarian policy and that is what he copied from Chesterfield County, which is what
the Board has here.
Chairman Flora stated it was the consensus that the Board wanted to
keep prayer, in a way that we will not get sued.
Supervisor Moore made a substitute motion to adopt this resolution as Mr.
Mahoney has explained to us for the time being and then later on if we want to bring it
back if we gather more information and find that we want to have a public hearing on it
at a later time, but for right now she thinks that it is putting our tax payers in jeopardy to
continue to do this. We are aware of it and that we need to make some kind of opinion
today.
Chairman Flora inquired of Supervisor Moore would your motion include
the changes in the original resolution as described by Mr. Mahoney earlier? Supervisor
Moore responded, yes, all the changes that Mr. Mahoney brought forth at the beginning
when he read the resolution.
Supervisor Church stated he knew that was coming, a substitute motion.
He stated he waited, ladies and gentlemen, you've got a decision that needs to be made
and those who know the parliamentary rules know that the substitute motion will take
precedence. He stated he does not believe we're doing the right thing. He stated he
thinks a substitute motion is what it is, it should be voted on. But it's not listening nor
taking into account all the professional and religious and citizenry that we represent.
How can we sit here and look at you, and he commented about one thing one of the
492 August 28, 2012
ministers said on July 24 and called him at home. Several of them commented when
they come and speak, the Board looks at them as one person; and they may have 762
in their congregation; that one person is representing all 762. Another said he had 519.
It is because their congregation is sending him to represent them. So, when the Board
heard the speakers on July 24 we probably were listening to well over a thousand
people easily and it just doesn't make sense for us to go into something now that's
going to be challenged for sure even not by Wisconsin. Supervisor Church then
withdrew his original motion.
Supervisor Elswick commented Ms. Moore mentioned we should protect
the taxpayers' interest and he agrees with that one hundred percent. The problem is we
don't know whether the taxpayers want to use money that if we have (we have $20
million in a fund we protect our bond rating with) and maybe we don't need to hang on
to that that much money and just simply don't borrow more. We have a lot of people,
churches and other organizations willing to help us foot the bill. He stated he does not
think we need to make money an issue on this subject whatsoever. He thinks citizens
need to be heard and ought to be heard before the Board make a decision that they
disagree with.
Supervisor Altizer stated a whole lot of politics goes on a whole lot of
things. There have been accusations that this Board set this for an afternoon so people
could not turn out and he is going to speak up and say that's ludicrous; absolutely
ludicrous. This Board has gone through as much turmoil as anybody because it's the
five of us that make a decision on which way we're going to go and what we're going to
do. He stated he strongly believes in his heart if we continue, we're going to lose and
we are going to pay and if the people of the County are agreeable to that then that is
what we ought to do. He knows for a fact that it is not everybody, there are people that
have called him, but he will not speak for other Board members that see it a similar way
and they don't want to spend that money when they know the craps table is already set
against them. Too much politics has been played with this issue; that is what's wrong,
disheartening, that we would take prayer, any member on this Board and use prayer as
a political football. He stated he respects what Ms. Moore wants to do with a motion to
go ahead and move with this. But he also knows that he has not had a chance to look
at what was presented today to see if that's a viable or more better alternative than the
one that we have. Quite frankly, the one that comes from Chesterfield, one good part
about it, it's already withstood the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. But he is not willing
to sit and lay this on the table for months and months and months. Because it's
divisional. It's divisional of the citizens of Roanoke County, the people that everyone
knows believes in prayer and wants to have prayer and is searching for the most viable
way that we can continue to have prayer and not something else. He stated he has
been the strongest proponent of nonsectarian because above everything else that he
heard at the prior meeting was individuals wanted prayer. They wanted the ability to
have prayer. They did not want to have a moment of silence. They didn't want
somebody going outside and doing something, they didn't want to limit somebody
August 28, 2012 493
coming outside. He heard many people in this room say, hey, its fine for whatever
religion to come in here and pray, but the main object is prayer and having a prayer. He
stated he is not going to sit here and tell you today in what shape or form that's going to
be in as far as whether it's going to go forward as we have or whether or not it's going to
be a nonsectarian prayer but believes nonsectarian prayer is the only way it survives;
he stated he believes that in his heart. He stated he would like to see the Board take a
look at that because he would like to ask somebody if we lose they can be free all they
want, but want to ask them if they will guarantee us up to $450,000 if we lose that they
will pay for that or is that a bill the taxpayers of Roanoke County want to make? There
is too much division that's been done in this country, continues to be done, in the
political process in the campaigns that we've seen out there today. We need to address
this issue, we need to let you know that we've addressed it fully, but just laying it on the
table without a time period is not good for Roanoke County and it's not good for the
citizens of Roanoke County. Supervisor Altizer then suggested that we would consider
within thirty days that we have someone to meet with us in a work session from this
organization and talk to us. Then, thirty days after that we would convene back here
and make a decision.
Supervisor Church stated we five individual members are just what you
see, five individual people, representing five magisterial districts. In no particular order,
with respect, he stated he wants to make his say heard. He stated he cannot think of
one logical reason, not one, that we hold this item at 3:00 today; not one. Something
this important, he cannot imagine not allowing the room to be filled with citizens who
have a chance to get here. He added he was sorry, but that is his opinion as a sitting
Board member. He further added that he wasn't speaking of something off the wall.
This that he held up has been approved. Ms. Edwards and thinks he was told that the
Fourth Circuit Court has approved this, it is not something out of the blue; this Alliance
from Prayer with guidelines for our Board clerk to choose how these people come in.
This is not something he just picked up on the way to the meeting today.
Chairman Flora stated he is not sure where we are right now but one thing
he wanted to follow -up on that's been said. This agenda was prepared on the fourth
floor over a week ago. It was sent out to every Board member for comment. No one
asked that it be taken from 3:00 meeting to the 7:00 meeting. Mr. Church asked
specifically that the ICLEI vote be placed on the agenda, which it is, for this evening, but
at no time and he advised he was not even in the State of Virginia when this agenda
was drafted and prepared and sent out. He advised he saw it online, but that's the only
place he saw it. He stated he is not sure who made the decision to put it on at 3:00, but
no one objected to it and it stayed there and that's why it's there.
Supervisor Church responded by stating he hated to go back and forth,
but this is getting crazy. The situation where ICLEI and with other situations, he also
asked for a public hearing on ICLEI and was denied by the chair. That item is pushed
back to the end of tonight's meeting where new business normally is never put. He
added he does not know who put this item at 3:00 only, but the agenda is under the
494 August 28, 2012
direction by County charter by the Chairman and the administrator only. Therefore, he
received his information with the reports at about 5:00 p.m. on Friday afternoon and if
you are out of State and in the past he has called him and you have returned my calls,
but the thing of it is he would hope that our direction would know. This is something so
important if we're going to err, let's make a decision to err on the side of caution with our
people.
Supervisor Moore withdrew her first motion and move approval of item E -1
to table this item for no more than thirty days so that the Board would have an
opportunity to have a work session on this to review the information that the Board has
received.
Chairman Flora inquired of Mr. Mahoney if that should be work session or
should that be discussed in executive session because it does deal with litigation. Mr.
Mahoney stated it would be at the pleasure of the Board; it can be done either way. He
added at this point everybody understands what the legal pitfalls are. Chairman Flora
stated so there are no secrets now with Mr. Mahoney agreeing. Chairman Flora then
stated it would be done in work session. Chairman Flora stated the motion is to table
this item for no more than thirty days, which would be no later than the second meeting
in September. Chairman Flora inquired of Supervisor Moore if she was in agreement to
waiting until the second meeting in September with Supervisor Moore advising she was
in agreement.
Supervisor Church inquired could we include that we would put in motion
that a public hearing to be held before we make our final decision?
Chairman Flora inquired if Supervisor Church did not think we had held
enough public meetings and heard enough speakers.
Supervisor Church responded he thinks that half the citizens do not even
know we are having this today.
Supervisor Altizer stated we have debated the issue twice, we have held
virtually two public hearings to date. Now, we're to take a look to see if the form Ms.
Edwards submitted, which he understands is a nonsectarian policy.
Ms. Edwards responded it is nonsectarian policy that allows for sectarian
prayer
Supervisor Altizer stated he has heard the gentleman from Catawba
speak that, we need to take a look at that and everything. Supervisor Altizer stated to
him the Board is already deciding right here of what we're going to do. If we're only
meeting again to decide which is the best way to do this, let's not misunderstand that
what Mr. Church has brought up tonight is a nonsectarian prayer that he wants us it look
at and investigate and maybe replace it with the other. So let's not misunderstand,
that's the way it's heading forward and he understood it that Supervisor Church was in
favor of this since he brought it forward. He advised he understood that next vote was
going to be, under nonsectarian prayers whether it's this one that Supervisor Church
has or the one from Chesterfield County.
August 28, 2012 495
Supervisor Church responded for the point of clarity, our Board has had
this available for a month. We've had it available to each of us for a month and it's
something that has withstood the fourth circuit and includes a little of both, as Ms.
Edwards just said. It would be an ideal model for us to take a look at, but we've had it
for a month.
Chairman Flora stated the issue really is the public hearing. If you want a
public hearing you can amend the original motion to include a public hearing. He does
not know whether that would be advertised or non - advertised or just have public
comment.
Supervisor Church stated he just cannot see how we can go wrong by
inviting the public in that we represent.
Chairman Flora stated citizens are always invited in; the question is what
format are we going to hold? Are we going to advertise it and hold it as a public hearing
as we would any other, or are we just going to allow public comment at the time the
item's on the agenda?
Supervisor Church explained whichever way that would allow the most
citizens to come in and speak on a specific agenda item. He stated he thinks that's
what the Board owes them, a specific agenda item with a public hearing would be his
choice; the people's choice.
Mr. Mahoney advised in an attempt to achieve some clarity. He
understands it is the Board's intent to have a work session on the 25th, is it also the
intent to invite Mr. Mast from Liberty to be included as part of the work session?
Chairman Flora answered in the affirmative. Mr. Mahoney then asked if that work
session is on the afternoon of the second meeting in September, is then the public
hearing component that evening, the same evening, after the work session? Then
when would a vote occur, would the vote occur that night, kind of treating it as a
rezoning public hearing or would the vote occur that first hearing in October?
Chairman Flora stated based on the motion it has to be on the agenda at
the 25th or that second meeting in September. So if it has to be on the agenda, it
makes no sense to put it on before the work session, but after the work session, at the
7:00 meeting; same night. If the Board chooses then to continue until the following
meeting, then they can do that at that time.
Chairman Flora reiterated the motion is to continue this item to September
25 2012, hold a work session after the 3:00 p.m. session and will be an agenda item for
the evening session for a decision.
Mr. Mahoney advised he would contact Mr. Mast tomorrow to determine
his availability to see if he could join the Board in work session on September 25, 2012.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
496 August 28, 2012
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance approving a lease with StellarOne Bank for thirty -two
(32) parking spaces of a lot located at 200 East Calhoun Street in
Salem, Virginia (Rob Light, Purchasing Manager)
Mr. Light explained the proposed ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and establish the second reading
for September 11, 2012. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance amending Chapter 2 "Administration" of the Roanoke
County Code by the addition of Article VII "Closed Landfill,
Institutional Controls ", and prohibiting certain activities for the
purpose of protecting the integrity of the remedial measures at
the Dixie Caverns Landfill Superfund site (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance and the need for the amendment
advising the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews every five years.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and establish the public hearing
and second reading for September 11, 2012.
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed
by District)
Supervisor Joseph B. "Butch" Church has recommended the
reappointment of Christina Flippen to serve an additional one -year term, which will
expire on August 31, 2013. Ms. Flippen will represent the Catawba Magisterial District.
Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 082812 -1 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
August 28, 2012 497
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM H- 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 August 28,
2012, designated as Item H - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 3 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — August 14, 2012
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to George W. Simpson III, County Engineer, upon his
retirement after more than twenty -six (26) years of service
3. Confirmation of appointment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Review committee (appointed by District)
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 082812 -1.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO GEORGE W. SIMPSON III, COUNTY ENGINEER UPON HIS
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWENTY -SIX (26)YEARS
OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, George Simpson was hired on May 13, 1985, and has worked as a
Civil Engineer I, Civil Engineer II, Assistant Director of Engineering, Assistant Director of
Community Development and County Engineer during his tenure with Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Simpson retired on July 31, 2012, after twenty -six (26) years and
three (3) months of devoted, faithful and professional service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Mr. Simpson provided
technical oversight for many engineering projects such as: South County
Library /Merriman Road Roundabout; CRT Construction Plans and Development; Boxley
Hills Drainage; South County Stormwater Management Facility; Flood Prone SUN
Valley /Palm Valley Floodplain Mitigation Properties; Development and Delivery of
Roanoke County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System; Greenhill Park
Improvements; Renovation of Kessler Mill and County Administration buildings; and
498 August 28, 2012
WHEREAS, Mr. Simpson was very instrumental in many road projects such as:
Valley Gateway Industrial Access Road; and numerous Rural Additions Road Projects;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. Simpson managed the cleanup of the Dixie Caverns Landfill
Superfund Site; development of grant applications and implementations of Roanoke
County Stormwater Management Ordinance; and Mudlick Creek Stream Restoration in
Garst Mill Park; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Simpson served many committees and commissions such as:
Stormwater Management Technical Advisory; Stormwater Citizen Advisory; Impact and
Regional Management; and Greenway commission; and worked with Corp of Engineers
to resolve problems with base map for Roanoke County; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia does express its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to GEORGE W. SIMPSON III, for twenty -six (26) years
and three (3) months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
I_II111*44 Pa N:7
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke.
Suzie Fortenberry of 6045 Roycroft Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated she
and her husband are builder developers in Roanoke County and they are actually one
of the first to build a green built community. Their goal was when they decided to build it
to conserve energy, which is going to save our home owners money and then save
valuable resources for future generations to come. She stated she has been privileged
and honored to become a member of the RCCLEAR committee and guess when she
got on the committee it just kind of fell in line with the items she and her husband
believed in and it supports a better place to live in Roanoke County. Along with that we
are affiliated with ICLEI, which she thought was a great affiliation because they provided
valuable tools and resources to meet our goals and it saves the County money, it saves
businesses money, and it just makes it a better place for our citizens to live so she felt it
was important for me to express my views on this today.
August 28, 2012 499
Cindy Pasternak of 2606 Highland Road in Roanoke, Virginia stated she is
in attendance to represent her neighborhood watch; she is President of the Riverdale
Grandview neighborhood watch, which is in the Vinton district and we're specifically
District 3. We have mopeds that are quite dangerous on the roads. She advised a
moped came over into her lane around a corner and almost hit her head on and she
had to get off the road in order for that not to happen. She stated they would like to see
or ask is there a possibility of having mopeds registered because when she called it in
there was, it was not recorded because there was no tags. And when she called in
today to find out when she could call it in to vice and Officer Orange, there was no
record of it. This is a continual pattern that goes on with this situation and it's just
dangerous. We would like for that to be looked at.
Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Mahoney if there is any way of regulating
these mopeds. He stated that he guessed it was not registered. Mr. Mahoney
responded he did not believe that localities have the power to do that and is relegated to
the State. Mr. Mahoney advised he would look at the State code that deals with
mopeds, etc. that operate on the public roads. Supervisor Altizer advised he would get
back with Ms. Pasternak.
Rose Goodwin of 5022 Hunting Hills Square in Roanoke, Virginia stated
she would like to speak against the County's continued membership with ICLEI.
Promotion of ICLEI is an example of government growing beyond its purpose; growing
too big. The science on manmade carbon dioxide Co2 reduction and decreasing
global warming is not a clearly defined role. It has been refuted by scientists and it has
certainly been refuted by scientists in the media. The government should not spend
our tax dollars devising a larger role for itself in this regard and requested that Roanoke
County should discontinue its membership with ICLEI.
Nell Boyle of 6576 Henry Farms Road in Roanoke, Virginia stated she is
the Chair of RCCLEAR and is here today just to be very brief and concise in her
comments to the Board today. She stated she is so proud of the three years of work
that we have put together at RCCLEAR to protect our natural environment and our
natural resources, keep clean air and clean water for future generations, which is our
only objective and she wants the Board to know we have several of our members here
today in support of staying in ICLEI throughout our commitment and she did a little bit of
math today and over the last three years, the RCCLEAR volunteers have donated a
thousand hours of time, at a minimum. She added she thinks that is really important for
the Board to know. We've been working on this a long time, quietly doing our work
week to week, month to month, and thinks they have made some significant
improvements in education and awareness in the community. So, she is here to ask the
Board to please, please support us through this commitment and she thinks the Board
will be pleased with the outcome.
Joyce Waugh of 3522 Hollins Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated she is
President of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce. She indicated about three
500 August 28, 2012
years ago, the Chamber initiated a program called Cool Green Biz. It is designed for
our members who wish to be recognized for their sustainability. We partnered with Cool
Cities Coalition who developed and evaluated these businesses for eligibility of this
coveted designation. While still a new program, over sixteen businesses have achieved
either Level 2 or 3, 3 being the most difficult level to achieve. This would be
Novozymes Biologicals, Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission, SUN Trust
Bank, Pino Gelato, Cox Communications, Structures, Design Build, Virginia Western
Community College and we also have seven designations pending. The reasons are
many, but from a business case, it saves these companies money in the long term and
sometimes in the short term. It also helps them to attract and retain young
professionals who count sustainability among their values and their company's values.
It helps them to be recognized in this way. The guidelines used in the evaluation
process are consistent with those of RCCLEAR and ICLEI and we urge you to continue
with RCCLEAR and ICLEI>
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of July 31, 2012
5. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of July 31, 2012
6. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of July 31, 2012
7. Accounts Paid —July 31, 2012
At 4:54 p.m. Chairman Flora recessed to the fourth floor for work session
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to consider Roanoke County's continued
membership in ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability (B.
Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
August 28, 2012 501
The work session was held from 5:15 p.m. until 5:51 p.m. In attendance
for this work session was Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services, Arnold
Covey, Director of Community Development and Mr. B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator.
Ms. Green gave a brief background of Roanoke County's participation in
ICLEI and advised Nell Boyle has been extremely active. She advised part of the
problem is the relationship between ICLEI and Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was a treaty that
was entered into by a variety of local governments back in the 1990's. The United
Nations had called together a congress to discuss the issue of global resources and the
fact that some countries such as third -world countries are not able to use natural
resources to the same degree that more developed countries do. It was issue to
address fairness and how could the world as a whole somehow help those people in
third -world countries to be able to have a better life. Sustainability means that you leave
the world as good a place as when you came into it. Other people see other things in
Agenda 21; it did have proposals of land use and ways that could make places more
sustainable. The major tenant of Agenda 21 is that every country is responsible for its
own natural resources. The United States did sign the Agenda 21 Treaty under George
H. W. Bush. It has had some influence on planning in some places. Ms. Green advised
Roanoke County belongs to ICLEI for one main reason; we made a commitment that
Roanoke County was going to reduce our use of energy. In order if we are making any
difference, the software is critical. We put in our baseline year of how much carbon
dioxide we as a local government and we as a County release through our activities.
This is input by Shawn McGinnis, a professor at Virginia Tech using figures from
Roanoke Gas, AEP, Pilot Propane, VDOT that is where those figures of miles driven per
one hour of use is put in and the software does the calculation. Every year since that
initial report, we have done the same thing. The 2010 report is now ready to present to
the Board. However, if we do not have the software we do not have a way to measure if
we are having any effect at all. There is no other way to measure. It also allows us to
network with other members of ICLEI. There are over one thousand in the United
States. She advised that according to ICLEI, to the best of their knowledge, about
twenty -nine US cities or counties or towns that have dropped their ICLEI membership,
in part due to Agenda 21. To date, only Alabama has passed and signed legislation by
the Governor that discusses Agenda 21. Additionally, with regard to sustainability, there
are several larger companies that refer to sustainability that have nothing to do with
Agenda 21. They are trying to save money and leave the earth slightly better than the
way they found it.
Supervisor Moore stated ICLEI is a way that RCCLEAR and the rest of the
world know we are doing as Roanoke County. We learn from them and they learn from
us.
Ms. Green also advised under the Save A Ton campaign they joined with
the City of Salem and Roanoke City and the Town of Blacksburg and the ad campaign
502 August 28, 2012
is already starting to win several awards. It is reaching people via Facebook, Twitter,
etc. She stated Save A Ton is something any locality can use in the future.
Supervisor Elswick stated that Ms. Green mentioned that Alabama is the
only state to reject Agenda 21, but apparently there are other states pursuing
legislation. Ms. Green advised it is possible, but since the governing bodies were not
meeting right now she could not confirm. Ms. Green inquired if Supervisor Elswick
meant by pursuing did one member of the House of Delegates or Senate introduce a
bill, she does not know. She advised in the places that it has been brought forward for
a vote it has been rejected, except for Alabama.
Supervisor Elswick commented he wanted to say what he has to say and
get it over with and agrees it ought to be the last time. He stated he respects any
organization that is really making a contribution. He advised he does not respect
organizations that are massaging their egos and taking credit for things that are
insubstantial in nature. In the case of Roanoke County, even prior to RCCLEAR,
Roanoke County has people who know what they are doing and they were already
addressing energy efficiency and doing it very well. We have some of the most capable
people working for this County that he has ever met and if you look at the $1.4 million
that we spent upgrading our equipment to make it more efficient, it was a County
initiative. Look at what the Water Authority is doing with burning the methane off the
landfill; that was a good initiative. Those two things are substantial; they make a
difference in terms of energy efficiency. Handling our pamphlets and some of the other
activities that are noted and inaccurately reported. They are great activities, but they
are the kind of activities that do not involve County involvement. They can be done by a
citizen group as other groups do this sort of thing. To him, when we are perfectly
capable as a County at pursuing energy efficiency, he does not understand why we
would need the assistance of anybody else, especially when obviously demonstrated
from lots of meetings that have been held by United Nations personnel. There is a very
close link between ICLEI and Agenda 21, United Nations. He stated his personal
feeling is that we are being subtlety approached in many ways by the United Nations to
make us more like a third -world country and take away from us and give to others. The
United Nations wants their own police force. They want to take over authority over the
oceans; none of those things would be to our favor. In his way of thinking, anything that
smacks of the United Nations involvement and how we run our Country and County, we
should ignore. Under ICLEI guidance, RCCLEAR has supported educational projects
and they ought to be commended for that. He does not know why we need to be in
ICLEI, all we have heard so far is they give us software. Well, software lets us still not
be reporting on what happened in 2010 so it cannot be good and then we have Shawn
McGinnis at Virginia Tech as being one of the experts. No wonder our college tuitions
are going up. People at universities should be educating students and leave these
kinds of things up to the rest of us, because it is our responsibility. To him, integrity is
important; he has yet to hear anybody from RCCLEAR come to him and say "we're
sorry" that we put such numbers in that report about the tons of carbon that we say we
August 28, 2012 503
saved. They know it is inaccurate, they know there is no basis for it and yet nobody
comes and says, "You know, we really screwed up." We hope that report did not go out
anywhere and if it we are going to retract it and put some qualifying statements with it or
change the numbers to what we can prove. We are not going to make conjectures
about the tons of carbon that we save. Honesty and integrity in everything we do is very
important and he is disappointed with RCCLEAR letting that report go out like it was.
He stated he knows it was only 420 tons, but to him it send him a message that is okay
to say things that are not necessarily true and from that standpoint he is very
disappointed in RCCLEAR. He stated he knows the rest of the Board may not feel that
way. There are good things that they do and they ought to be able to do that, but they
should do it with integrity and they do not really need involvement with County
personnel to do it; it should be a citizen effort. He stated that some people are making
statements in some of the emails and there were hundreds of them and couple of them
made some comments that the Tea Party did not know what they were doing. Most of
the research that was done and presented to him came from the Tea Party. It was not a
lot of research; there were a ton of opinions from people saying that ICLEI is great and
wonderful, but they did not give him any reason or research backing that up.
Supervisor Moore stated RCCLEAR is a citizens group; it was endorsed
and promoted by the entire Board, except for you because you were not here at the
time. It was an educational tool that most RCCLEAR members are in attendance and
they have gone out and spent hundreds of hours promoting RCCLEAR and educating.
There are results of a survey they did on the audit, Tap did the free energy audits, we
are doing Save A Ton and to her he is saying they are not credible or staff is not
credible. We cannot read a Board Report and what they are giving to us, then we are
saying they are not credible. Shawn McGinnis took his time, he is a professor at
Hollins, yes; very very intelligent, he is an engineer. He took his time to put this into the
ICLEI software, to measure the carbon footprint. We hired an intern who worked for the
entire summer just imputing this information into the computer. Without ICLEI as our
guideline and RCCLEAR goes by those guidelines. We do what ICLEI promotes which
is ICLEI is a non - profit, 5013(c) organization. They are a non - profit. They do not
mandate us. They do not tell us what to do; they only give us guidelines to go by so
that we can have better air, water, cleaner valley and they are just our mentor. The
ICLEI software they give us, if we had to buy the ICLEI software it would cost us a lot
more than $1,200 and we would not be able to receive the information.
Supervisor Church stated he just needs to ask simply who wants to stay in
ICLEI and who wants to get out of it. He stated he cannot believe that our people
cannot do the same thing. For example, our Board, many of you were here when we
had hundreds of thousands of pages; remember the heavy "footballs" that were carried
home. We saved hundreds of thousands of pieces of paper just by going to our
computer system. Many of us thought it would never work and it did not take any rocket
science to do this. He stated he has to believe as he has all his life, "follow the money."
He does not care if it is a 501(c)3. There is someone in there for the money. If you tell
504 August 28, 2012
everybody involved, no one will get a penny; watch them run for the door; that is a fact.
What is all the fuss and discord about? Are you telling him that there is no software in
the United States of America that cannot do what you are doing? You may not, but it is
not fathomable for him to think how that would be possible.
Supervisor Moore stated we have an engineer who is putting this into the
software. If we had to hire a staff member to do what ICLEI is doing and then our
educational tool, plus it is a way we can tell the world what we are doing. We are
putting Roanoke County on the map, we are saving energy, we are saving carbon, we
are saving money, which is the most important. To her, it would cost more money than
$1 if we disbanded ICLEI.
Supervisor Church stated he could not agree with that; his is his opinion.
What is the true cost? Is it $1,200 or what we are going to step into down the road?
We do not know with this organization.
Supervisor Moore stated we know that we make policy and zoning issues
for Roanoke County. We do not let them mandate us. They are a non - profit
organization; they cannot.
Supervisor Church stated he wanted to thank publically every volunteer
that has been involved. He advised he did not believe all these volunteers were all
going to quit. They are not going to quit if we pull out of ICLEI. If they all quit, then we
should not have any of them. It takes out the true spirit of what is going on.
Supervisor Altizer inquired of Mr. Covey if there was anything in land use
that we use or ever contemplated using ICLEI for with Mr. Covey advising Supervisor
Altizer that he was correct. Supervisor Altizer then asked if any of the planners use
ICLEI to do anything from the ICLEI plan with Mr. Covey responding to his knowledge,
they have not. Supervisor Altizer commented from a land use and property value in
Roanoke County, we do not have an issue with Mr. Covey agreeing. Supervisor Altizer
stated his concern was that the case had to be made to him. Where does it stop? If
you are looking at taxpayer money, there is nothing that goes on in the world that does
not have a dollar attached to it. The Roanoke Regional Chamber and what they are
doing with businesses has part to do with ICLEI as far as a process and planning. The
Board of Supervisors gives the chamber money. When does the next thing come
through the door to mean if we stop giving them money because they maybe having
something to do with ICLEI, where does it stop. There is no difference, it is taxpayer
money. He has to have something that tells him that there is something wrong and it is
a wack; that it is messing with property rights, people's right to do what they want to do
with their land, none of that is happening. Nothing happens in Roanoke County unless
five Board members allow it to happen. Where does it stop? We give to many
organizations, Christian, charitable, etc. Where does it stop and that is his concern.
Does he like the United Nations; no, he would just as soon have them in China rather
than New York; but there is nothing on the face of this that shows him that what we are
doing here is having a negative impact on the quality of life and the personal rights of
the citizens of Roanoke County; that is what he is looking for. He does not see it and
August 28, 2012 505
put it all together in a perspective that it is something and it is not political. He advised
he felt there would be further discussion in open session. If we can prove they are
doing something, then let us remove the funding and move on.
Supervisor Elswick commented if you are looking at something negative
as it related to ICLEI, he will explain how he got into this. This report came out saying
we saved all of this carbon, totally inaccurate, and it went out under the name of
Roanoke County. He stated he did not like that; anything issued by the County should
be accurate. We should know before a report goes out and our County staff should
agree that the numbers on that report are accurate. He stated he supports what
RCCLEAR is doing, appreciates all the effort that the members of RCCLEAR is putting
into energy efficiency, but does not support reports like that.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if anybody can address this reports. Anne
Marie stated she would.
Chairman Flora stated before Ms. Green proceeds, he advised for about
six or seven years, the Regional Commission has been working on a mandate from the
EPA on how to reduce the valley's carbon footprint and as far as he knows that has
been more than just Roanoke County, the whole region because we were about to be
what they call a nonattainment area. If we became a nonattainment area our economic
development opportunities would go out the window; we would not be able to add
anymore industry or growth. Is there any correlation between the reports that are going
around and the ones that are being generated by the Regional Commission?
Ms. Green advised all the local governments through Save A Ton are
working very closely with Jeremy Holmes from the Regional Commission. It does
predate our belonging to ICLEI, but Chairman Flora was correct. ICLEI was an
outgrowth of that because it allowed us to measure the ozone, the carbon emissions
and as a way for the EPA to come in and state you are not meeting what you are
supposed to do we have a way of turning around and saying here is what our figures
show and we have reduced carbon emissions.
Chairman Flora stated where are the numbers that Supervisor Elswick is
referring to. Ms. Green responded by stating in November the Board participated with
RCCLEAR in a work session and a slide from the work session stated based on the
educational efforts that RCCLEAR, we have calculated to save 400 tons of carbon
emission. It never went anywhere beyond that. In December, Ms. LaPrade asked for a
FOIA request and one of the questions was how did we calculate those savings and
wants to say RCCLEAR did not calculate those savings. Staff calculated those savings
based on the activities we have done. There are fairly conservative and is based on
energy audits, CFA, LED nightlights that we gave out and yes some educational
materials also. The major components were the audit, and the audits combined with the
light bulbs. What we did was put in the work session documents. We did a survey with
the people that we audited and from those we were able to get in touch with and who
were willing to participate, a lot of them said they had been able to do something and
they had seen changes in their energy bill, but this report was never issued.
506 August 28, 2012
Supervisor Elswick inquired so this report was never issued. Ms. Green
responded no, the report was never issued. RCCLEAR does not report to ICLEI, if any
reports are sent to ICLEI, they come from Roanoke County and the only reports that we
have sent to them are the Climate Action Plan and Milestones 1,2,3 from 2009. She
advised that is why RCCLEAR has ever apologized. Supervisor Elswick then inquired
that County staff decided that all 66 residential energy audits, everybody who was
audited implemented every suggestion that was made to them and they saved 198 tons
and that every pamphlet handed out at the Civic Center motivated people to go home
and save energy and that is a hundred tons of carbon all of the driving tips, in spite of
the fact that people still drive like they always did. All of the driving energy tip sheets
given out saved 100 tons, and those numbers came from County staff. Ms. Green
responded in the affirmative and in fact the 2010 report shows we have reduced our
usage of those things. Is it directly attributable to RCCLEAR, she does not know, you
can never say one hundred percent, but there has been a reduction in our carbon
emissions. Supervisor Elswick stated so the records show that Roanoke County's
contributions to emissions in this area is less than one percent and most of the
emissions come from increased traffic on 1 -81, which we have absolutely no control.
Chairman Flora stated there was a lot done six or seven years ago in
terms of diesel engines and grants were given to retrofit their buses so they were
putting out less emissions and that has been industry wide, not just for school buses.
There has been a pretty significant effort in trying to reduce emissions. He advised that
EPA was changing the criteria and if they did not change, we would have been in a
nonattainment effort. The effort is critical for this valley's future; we have to continue to
try to work for reducing those or we will find ourselves in a nonattainment status and we
will be unable to do any economic development. Most of what we have in the valley is
not coming from us, it is coming from West Virginia and Ohio and it is coming in here
and settling in the valley and we are getting stuck with it.
Supervisor Elswick stated some of that could have been fixed if we had
taken the stimulus money that went through companies that failed and retrofitted the
coal -fired plants. We would have been much better off and then slowly implement other
alternative sources of energy.
Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks it is by design because they want to
close them all.
Chairman Flora stated next August he will have been in local government
for fifty years and he has seen from no planning to what we have today and we are
better off today in terms of protecting people's properties.
Supervisor Moore thanked all of the members from RCCLEAR that were
in attendance and advised they did a great job.
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Flora returned to open session.
August 28, 2012 507
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Paul Murphy for his Eagle Scout Project at
Walrond Park, Hollins Magisterial District (Doug Blount, Director
of Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
Mr. Murphy was in attendance for this recognition. Mr. Blount explained
the project for the viewing stand at Waldron Park and advised there were a total of
seventy -seven (77) of labor. All supervisors offered their congratulations.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution supporting the proposed improvements to Route 688,
Cotton Hill Road (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the resolution and the proposed improvements
and advised Scott Woodrum from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) was in
attendance to answer any questions.
Supervisor Moore inquired of Mr. Woodrum how many yards or feet does
the Cotton Hill Road twenty foot extension go up Cotton Hill Road with Mr. Woodrum
responding approximately 1,425 feet from the bridge to the intersection. Supervisor
Moore then inquired how many times a year does VDOT usually mow the area with Mr.
Woodrum advising he could not answer.
Chairman Flora opened the public hearing and the following citizens
spoke.
Donald Koop of 6700 Christopher Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated he
lives on Christopher Drive, which is up at the top of the hill. Apparently swimming
upstream from what he has heard so far. For starters, he advised he is old school
enough to believe that 5 1/2 million dollars is still a lot of money. It should be spent to
provide real value where necessary. My opposition to this project is that he does not
think it's necessary. For example, 1, as a nine -year resident of Christopher Drive, even
though retired, he believes he has sampled most of the issues taken by the road way.
In other words, he has driven all hours, all directions, all times, and he has not really
seen any issues of the type that were mentioned. He stated he is going to divide this
into three parts. The major effect is the development on the north side of Cotton Hill
Road; Route 688 at Monet Drive is traffic backup at Route 221, usually in the morning.
He stated he believes this is nicely addressed, however, by the modifications now being
made or planned. He stated he believes specifically a dedicated, right -turn acceleration
lane from Route 688 going North on Route 221 should alleviate the congestion. The
inclusion of a dedicated acceleration lane from Route 688 to Monet Drive going north
has not, in my observations, been necessary. It is, however, the one place where the
508 August 28, 2012
existing through lane could be used for that purpose. The existing and proposed
dedicated right -turn lane at Monet drive is, in my opinion, a gross overkill. A few houses
on the south side of Route 688 could get along just fine making turns from a through
lane. In fact, my entrance to Christopher Drive is more hazardous but works well
without a dedicated right -turn lane. In summary, the eastbound through lane and right
only lanes could be restructured to be a left only and through or right -turn lane, two for
two accomplishing everything you wish to provide. The second item, as to the proposed
widening of 688, it seems unnecessary. It is, after all, a mountain road and the speed
limit is set at 35 miles per hour. He stated he has not found it to be a hazardous
situation. If you want to increase safety, find a way to prevent deer from crossing in the
immediate facinity of Blue Ridge Parkway overpass. The third modification, similar
reasoning would apply to the plan to eliminate the crown on Route 688 by cutting and
filling. This is a mountain road and unless all such roads in Virginia are destined to be
flattened and straightened it should be left as it is with a reduced speed limit.
Chris Barlow of 598 Blackhorse Lane in Roanoke, Virginia stated he lives
off Route 221 in Southwest County's beautiful Back Creek valley and he is glad to have
the chance to tell the Board that we have an unusual opportunity here at Cotton Hill
Road to add a greenway to VDOT's widening project. This greenway will directly
connect six hundred homes, that's around 2,000 people, that live right off Cotton Hill
Road connecting them to Route 221 and to the Blue Ridge Parkway via Rain Tree
Road, which is off of Cotton Hill Road there at the end, and wants to note here that Rain
Tree Road has been officially recognized by the Blue Ridge Parkway draft trail plan as
acceptable access point for bicyclers. So let's fulfill this part of the Roanoke County
Comprehensive Plan by putting this greenway in place while bulldozers are on site and
save the County a huge sum of money and let's not miss this chance for recreation and
the health of our fellow citizens. A group of us in Back Creek valley and
Cotton Hill Road has rallied support by hundreds of people through social media and
online petitions and personal contact and we all ask the Board for your support on this
Cotton Hill Road greenway.
Suzi Fortenberry of 6045 Roycroft Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated in
addition to what Chris just told you, she thinks while we have the opportunity it would be
a wonderful time for the Back Creek community to have advantage to connect with the
greenway. The greenway is vibrant in the City of Roanoke and it's time the County
takes every opportunity that we can to work toward that. The citizens really desire, as a
builder - developer she knows they have lost a couple sales to the City because we did
not have connection to the greenway. So please, while we have the opportunity and
VDOT wants to work with us, please consider the inclusion of the greenway for
Roanoke County.
Dr. Gary Oberlender of 7448 Lawrence Lane in Roanoke, Virginia stated
he lives in the Windsor Hills District of Roanoke County and is here to speak strongly in
support of this project and he thought in fairness we should look at the positives and
negatives of this project. Some of the positives is this project will enhance recreational
August 28, 2012 509
opportunities in Southwest Roanoke County, enhance property values, add to the
beautiful lifestyle we have in this area, it's ecologically sound, environmentally forward
thinking, it provides for alternative transportation modes and most importantly it will
enhance parkway access. On the negative side, he cannot think of anything. He
respectfully requests that the commission support VDOT's inclusion of the twenty -foot
space for the greenway and specifically that we ask VDOT to include the greenway
construction in this project, which he understand is an opportunity.
Linda Oberlender of 7448 Lawrence Lane in Roanoke, Virginia stated she
is on the Board of Directors for Pathfinders for Greenways and does not want to repeat
what's been said before me in the pro - greenway for Cotton Hill, but strongly urges the
Board not to miss this opportunity to have the twenty -foot right -of -way and have VDOT
do ninety -five percent (95 %) of the construction as what has been printed by the
commission. Additionally, she just urges the Board not to let this opportunity slip away
like we did with Route 221 when that was being designed.
Liz Belcher stated she is the Roanoke Valley coordinator. She advised
she wanted to take this opportunity to thank the County staff and VDOT for listening to
the citizens as they came to public meetings about Cotton Hill Road. Cotton Hill Road
has been in the greenway plan since 1995, it's in the 1995 plan, also in the 2007 plan,
it's in the area plan for that, the neighborhood plan that Roanoke County has for that
area, and it's in the bicycle plan for the region. It also, importantly, as some have
mentioned, is in the Blue Ridge Parkway trail plan. The Blue Ridge Parkway plan only
allows nine places where bicyclists would be able to access the parkway, so this is
actually the point where Route 221 and the parkway are closest together so for people
in Southwest County it's the most important place to be able to get on. Now, the project
doesn't go quite that far, but it goes almost that far, almost to Rain Tree, so it gets you
almost there. She advised as the Board knows, the most difficult part of any greenway
project is the right -of -way access issue and in this situation, VDOT is actually offering to
do the right -of -way acquisition and it really is the cheapest way for Roanoke County to
get a greenway because so much of it would be included in the road project. When you
are looking at this project, you have to think about cost because the County's always
thinking about cost. So she would ask the Board to include the right -of -way, which
VDOT has proposed in the resolution, yes, to include that. I would support that, but
would ask the Board also to look at the possibility of getting the greenway built at the
same time. You've got equipment out there. So if it's not in the project, at least do it as
a bid alternate so it's a line item in the bid and if the bids come in a way that you can get
it built within the project budget, then while you have the equipment there, they're going
to grade it anyway so why not go ahead and get the stone and asphalt put in at the
same time. If you do it as a bid alternate it's a way for the County to know how much
extra it costs and to include it if in fact it's within the budget.
Chairman Flora closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Woodrum to comment regarding the
speaker comment regarding VDOT taking care of nine -five percent (95 %) of the project.
510 August 28, 2012
Mr. Woodrum responded he guessed it is not extremely far off to put a facility ten foot
wide based on our standard in that twenty foot space, you're probably looking at four to
eight percent (4 -8 %) of what the construction costs would be and, again, as he shared
with the Board in the work session, our efforts were to try to take it to Rain Tree as we
interpreted the comment and try to work in that fashion. We were unsuccessful in
regards to the Blue Ridge parkway.
Supervisor Elswick thanked VDOT for what they are doing; it was
proactive and citizen - minded.
Supervisor Moore stated first of all she would like to thank you also for
doing a great foot, the twenty -foot easement that was a very kind and generous thing to
add in. She thanked all the citizens for their support. She stated since you have
reduced your budget and you are only mowing about three times a year and if you let
grass grow and weeds grow, not only is it going to be an eye sore but it would be a little
unsafe for pedestrians trying to walk on the greenway, so she stated she would like to
make a motion to amend the resolution to include VDOT paving the approximate 425
feet of the 20 -foot extension at the same time you do the road improvements.
Mr. Woodrum stated that he thought they had addressed some of the
issues there in the letter dated June 26th. Just a further correction, he may have
misspoke earlier, but it is 1,425 feet that is the length of what we've looked at, that 20-
foot wide space. The convenient part behind the twenty -foot space is that it will require
very minimal grading up to a certain point. So providing that as part of the project is
extremely minimal, other than the cost of the road way and we know we have had some
interest from people donating that right of way. However, that will be left up to the right -
of -way process that VDOT has to follow. Funding, the project again as advertised in the
public hearing brochures is approximately $5 1/2 million, approximately three million for
construction and again weighing the factor of four to eight percent (4 to 8 %) that takes
us well above the three million dollar mark. He stated he would have to reserve
comment, as he does not know if it would be appropriate for him to speak regarding the
acceptance of that point or amending the resolution.
Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Woodrum regarding the bidding process as it is
a secondary road plan. Mr. Woodrum responded that in looking back at the six -year
plan, you receive about $298,000 per year so that would be about the cost, maybe a
little bit more than what it would be to finance that. That would delay the project going
to ad at least one season. The intent is, what we try to do, the department, or what we
have to do is we go out for advertisement, we have to ensure this project is paid for
once construction is complete. So that would delay the current advertisement date
approximately one year. This is in the County's secondary six year plan and is the
number one priority. With the previous funding, a little over $4 million, and basically the
entire allocations for each fiscal year has been dedicated to Cotton Hill, so it would
delay the delivery of the project approximately one season.
Mr. Thompson stated he thinks for this path you have certain design
criteria. He stated he believes it's five feet off the edge of the right -of -way or edge of the
August 28, 2012 511
curb, then it's ten feet and then you have another five feet. Mr. Woodrum stated
actually he believes it's like a seven or eight feet space between the curb line and the
face of the greenway and then from the back of the greenway to where you would go
down or up with your slope, it would be 3 feet. It is supposed to add up to about 20. He
also added that the project is accommodating bicyclists through the use of a wide lane,
a 14 -foot lane for the connection to the parkway, at least through the Monet drive
section.
Supervisor Moore inquired when is the initial start date for this project with
Mr. Woodrum explaining the advertisement for construction in early 2014; it is Likely
that the project would be constructed in mid -2015 is the approximate end date, based
on the current schedule. Supervisor Moore then asked if they have allowed any over
expenditures in the bid process where some of this could go towards the paving of the
Greenway. Mr. Woodrum responded they try to be conservative in the items they do
estimate. One of the things we have to watch out for are administrative costs in
constructing engineering and contingencies during the process. He stated he would not
want to state they been overly conservative. We have to be practical and realistic in
order for the County to anticipate the proper budgeting for each project and if there are
savings, where that money can go next. Obviously this project doesn't, it's not entirely
about bicycles and pedestrians. Obviously we do have two vertical curbs they are
addressing, they have a sight distance issue beyond the intersection, they are going to
knock down intersection sight distance for those vehicles turning right toward Route 221
and there is some drainage issues out there they are trying to accommodate, trying to
address with the storm drain system we're going to put in as far as the curb and gutter
on the project.
Supervisor Moore stated she thinks they have done a great job and thinks
It makes a lot of common sense to pave that 1,425 linear feet of the 20 -foot easement
at the same time that you are doing the construction so then you don't have to come
back and redo it and perhaps we could work with you on an alternate bid or something
at a later time, but just to see what your expenses come back as and see if you have
any additional funds to dedicate toward that.
Chairman Flora inquired of Mr. Woodrum if it is possible to bid it as an ad
alternate and only award that portion if the funds are available in the event the bids
come in lower than anticipated, or lower than your estimate? Mr. Woodrum responded
he did not know how scheduling contracts put something like that in there; they do not
typically see that as part of the bid alternate type process; he has not seen it done with
a State project.
Supervisor Church commented as one Board member he thinks it's a
great idea but we have to be sensible here; we need to be realistic about our funding
stream and unless something has deviated from your normal process we can't just take
excess money and put it here, there are other projects. Mr. Woodrum responded in the
affirmative. Supervisor Church stated there is a process for adding on and doing things
in the proper sequence. That's why we have the six -year secondary plan, etc.
512 August 28, 2012
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the resolution supporting the
proposed improvements to Route 688, Cotton Hill Road and to amend the resolution to
state that if there are alternate funds or if Roanoke County is able to work with VDOT on
the plan that we will look into it at that time. She advised the reason that she says that
is she knows the greenway commission is working on some matching grant funds and
some other things that is a possibility that we may be able to do this in the future and
she would like to leave the option open if that comes up and that we can find additional
funding for this project that we will have an opportunity to use it on Cotton Hill.
Supervisor Church asked if the Board could do the same thing without
amending this motion and take a look at it at the time we find the funds available.
Supervisor Church then asked Mr. Goodman if the Board could pass the resolution as
written and take a look at in the future when we get to that point; as the Board maybe
VDOT in an usual position.
Mr. Goodman stated it is his recommendation if the Board wants to
approve the project, proceed with approving the project because of the time schedule;
we do not want to lose the funds. Mr. Woodrum advised this project will be fully funded
by the time the project is constructed. Mr. Goodman stated he thinks the Board, if they
wish to add some component of looking at funding through whatever mechanism you
could find , through excess available funds or whatever, there needs to be something in
a letter or a resolution, it has to go to the central office in Richmond. Mr. Woodrum
commented VDOT is looking for the Board's consensus on the project as it was
presented at the public hearing in order to move the project through to the right -of -way
phase. We have the acquisition of a parcel, impact to residential property that would be
used for stormwater management and that person is a willing seller. VDOT does not
want to delay that process.
Supervisor Moore stated her whole project is not slowing down the
process or anything, she just don't want to lose sight of this and if we don't have this in
the resolution that you will at least check with us, it may go longer along the beaten path
and you forget to call and then the project's done and we don't have an opportunity at
that point to go back because you've already completed the project. I would like
something in the resolution that states that you will at least contact us and we will at that
time not slow down the bids, go ahead with your bids, but just to check with Roanoke
County when you get to that point or before you actually start construction it see if we
would be able to help with the greenway part.
Mr. Woodrum responded that was fair enough and could come in the form
of a letter.
Supervisor Church stated he is uncomfortable committing revenues right
now based on the current economy. He commented he feels it should come in the form
of a letter without an amendment.
Chairman Flora asked if VDOT would be purchasing the additional right -
of -way with Mr. Woodrum responding in the affirmative. Chairman Flora then asked if
VDOT is going to grade it in preparation for the greenway with Mr. Woodrum responding
August 28, 2012 513
in the affirmative. Chairman Flora stated so the only thing that would be left is putting
down the base and the surface and can be done at any point after the project is
completed or during the project with Mr. Woodrum responding in the affirmative.
Chairman Flora reiterated if there happens to be some funds come available then that
decision can be made at the point either before or after the bids are issued. Mr.
Woodrum responded it's to be left in a manner in which very minimal, work would be
done; basically trenching out for the stone and asphalt and the timing of that would be
critical based on funding.
Chairman Flora then asked if there's no grading and all you are doing is
pulling out a few inches of soil, putting in the fine limestone material, should be a
minimal cost.
Supervisor Elswick commented VDOT has gone out of its way on this
project to make the 20 -foot additional width and we appreciate that. This project's been
discussed for a long time and our resolution mirrors those discussions. He stated he
believes the Board should go ahead and vote on it as it is and feel sure that VDOT is
going to be cooperative when the time comes that they will either pave it or we will if it
fits with our definition of projects that need to be paved at that time.
Supervisor Moore stated all she is actually asking is leave the resolution
the way it is except just contact us and put that in the resolution, that we will be
contacted at the time of construction; that way if we do have additional funds or the
greenway commission comes up with some extra funding, that we can do it after you
begin but not mess up the start date or your advertising bids or anything. She stated
she would like Roanoke County to be contacted by VDOT, before the project is
completed. It's just a verbiage thing, not a financial. Mr. Woodrum responded that he
seconded Mr. Goodman's recommendation was regarding the County submitting a
letter to the department in that regard along with the resolution.
Supervisor Moore stated she wanted to leave the amended resolution that
Roanoke County will be notified after this construction, or when the construction is
complete or before, just notify us when they get to the greenway part before the
construction is completed so if we have the funding or if the greenway commission has
the funding to help complete the greenway at that time before you finish construction,
we want to know about it. Mr. Woodrum responded that through VDOT's plan
development process we do have project milestones in which the County is involved
and attends meetings regarding the advertisement or meetings prior to the
advertisement of the project. There will be by default opportunity for the County to
provide that input.
Chairman Flora inquired if Mr. Woodrum is okay with the motion with Mr.
Woodrum responding what he would like to do is what Mr. Goodman stated earlier
Supervisor Moore stated Mr. Goodman stated twice it could be done in a
letter or the resolution so either way is okay as long as Roanoke County is notified. Mr.
Woodrum asked that the Board do the resolution as it stands and then Mr. Goodman
will send a letter representing the Board to the Department. Mr. Goodman also stated
514 August 28, 2012
that he would direct Community Development when we achieve a certain milestone
prior to advertising that we do a work session with the Board and provide a complete
update.
RESOLUTION 082812 -2 SUPPORTING THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS TO ROUTE 688, COTTON HILL ROAD
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) plans to improve
0.64 miles of Route 688, Cotton Hill Road, as part of the Secondary Six -Year
Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Cotton Hill Road project is the top priority project in the
Secondary Six -Year Improvement Plan for Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2012, a public hearing was held at South County
Library to present the proposed scope of work, with VDOT and Roanoke County staff
attending; and
WHEREAS, sixty -five (65) citizens attended the March 15, 2012, public hearing
with some requesting a ten (10) -foot wide multi -use path adjacent to the roadway; and
WHEREAS, VDOT recommends that the major design features shown at the
March 15, 2012, public hearing be approved with additional right -of -way and graded
width provided for future greenway or multi -use path accommodation; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2012, the Board of Supervisors held a work session
to review the proposed road improvements, and there was no opposition to the
proposed scope of work; and
WHEREAS, VDOT fiscal year 2013 -2018 Secondary System Construction
Program projected allocations are expected to cover costs of the road improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby supports plans
to improve 0.64 miles of Route 688, Cotton Hill Road; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution is forwarded
to the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution; that the County
Administrator send a letter to VDOT asking that it contact Roanoke County before
construction is completed to see if additional funds are available to complete the paving
of the Greenway; and that Community Development review the project with the Board in
a work session prior to the bid advertisement, which was carried by the following roll call
and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Resolution supporting a Landscaping Project at the intersection
of Williamson Road and Peters Creek Road (Megan Cronise,
Principal Planner)
August 28, 2012 515
Ms. Cronise outlined the resolution and advised Wendy Jones was in
attendance from the Williamson Road Business Owners Association to answer any
questions.
Chairman Flora opened the public hearing and the following citizens
spoke:
Wendy Jones stated she is the executive director of the Williamson Road
Business Association. The association is located at 4804 Williamson Road in Roanoke
City and this is their second such project. She advised they are really proud to partner
with Roanoke County, VDOT and private companies to get the beautification done and,
to your point, make sure that the area is mowed so you can see to get around it and not
costing the taxpayer
Chairman Flora closed the public hearing. There was no further
discussion.
RESOLUTION 082812 -3 OF ENDORSEMENT FOR THE
LANDSCAPING PROJECT AT THE INTERSECTION OF WILLIAMSON
ROAD AND PETERS CREEK ROAD IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Friendship Retirement Community and the Williamson Road Area
Business Association have committed to fund and maintain for five (5) years new
landscaping and signage at the intersection of Williamson Road and Peters Creek Road
in Roanoke County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, this landscaping and signage project would implement the County's
2008 Hollins Area Plan, which is a component of the 2005 Roanoke County Community
Plan; and
WHEREAS, these improvement activities fall under the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) Comprehensive Roadside Management Program; and
WHEREAS, this VDOT program requires the local governing body to hold a
public hearing and adopt a resolution of endorsement prior to project approval by
VDOT; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors was briefed on this project in a work
session on August 14, 2012 by County staff and the Board held a public hearing on this
project after advertisement as required by law on August 28, 2012.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Board finds that this landscaping and signage project at the
intersection of Williamson Road and Peters Creek Road is consistent with the
goals of the County's 2008 Hollins Area Plan, which is a component of the
2005 Roanoke County Community Plan.
2. That the Board accepts the offer of the Friendship Retirement Community and
the Williamson Road Area Business Association to fund and maintain for five
516 August 28, 2012
(5) years the landscaping and signage at the intersection of Williamson Road
and Peters Creek Road.
3. That the Board hereby adopts this Resolution of Endorsement for the
landscaping project at the intersection of Williamson Road and Peters Creek
Road, and requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve this
project under its Comprehensive Roadside Management Program.
4. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send a copy of this
resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation, Friendship Retirement
Community and the Williamson Road Area Business Association.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Section 21 -202 of the Roanoke County Code
providing for an increase in the transient occupancy tax,
designation for the use of the proceeds and a delayed effective
date (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance and the reason for the request. He
advised this was the second reading and there were no changes from the first reading
held on August 14, 2012.
Chairman Flora opened the public hearing and the following citizens
spoke.
Barton J. Wilner of the Roanoke Valley Conventions and Visitors Bureau
stated as Chairman of the Board of Roanoke Valley Visitors Bureau, he respectfully
asks for your full support of the transient occupancy tax from five percent to seven
percent (5 to 7 %). We have all met previously and he is confident that you understand
the many advantages of increasing the funding of the Convention and Visitor's bureau.
Tourism is big, big business. Tourism creates jobs; over 7,000 people are employed in
our region in the travel - related jobs right now. Tourism increases our economy, over
$650 million dollars in travel - related spending occurs annually in our region; tourism is
an integral part of economic development. This Roanoke County decision tonight is a
perfect example of regionalism at work. We all know that the City of Roanoke and the
City of Salem are working right alongside of Roanoke County to increase funding for the
CVB. Roanoke City and Salem are both waiting on tonight's decision so they may move
forward with their own increase of their lodging tax from seven percent to eight percent
(7 to 8 %). This regional approach to increased funding for the CVB provides for the
much needed money to market our region, Virginia's Blue Ridge. The result will be
August 28, 2012 517
growth in tourism, growth in jobs, growth in our economy and growth in economic
development. This investment has consistently achieved a four to one (4 to 1) return to
the government partners. To be fair to the Roanoke County citizens, this tax increase
needs to be implemented because whenever they travel they pay this tax at their
destinations. Tonight the room is full of people who support this decision. They
represent hotels, restaurants, attractions, arts and culture and many other businesses.
He asked all those who support this to please stand at this time. On behalf of all these
people and the region, Mr. Chairman and the Board of Supervisors, he respectfully
requested the Board's full support on this issue. Have a great Blue Ridge day.
Joyce Waugh of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce stated she
is president of the Regional Chamber of Commerce with 1,200 member businesses that
employ over 80,000 employees. Our Board acted on support for the two (2) percent for
tourism earlier this year as did the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and thanked
the Board for the bold action you took then and encourage you to formalize it this
evening by enacting that two percent (2 %) increase. Opportunities like this do not come
along without a lot of hard work and boldness. This is one that will help all boats rise as
visitors learn about and come to our beautiful scenic valley as a result of increased
marketing.
James Sears stated he is a resident of Roanoke County and is president
of Center in the Square of downtown Roanoke. He thanked the Board for the
opportunity to speak tonight and for your many years of support and assistance with
Center in the Square; particularly for your annual donations and for the capital
campaign contributions to the Center. Several years ago he had the privilege of serving
as the Chairman of the CVB and is acutely aware of the need for the CVB to be
competitive with other areas such as Asheville, Virginia Beach, Richmond, Charleston
and other areas in the CVB's marketing, areas with which we should compete have four
to seven (4 to 7) times the marketing budget as our own. We have a fantastic region
that will draw more visitors, conferences, workshops and potentially relocation of
businesses if we can get the additional word out about our lower taxes, friendly
governments, exceptional shopping, world class medical community, outstanding
schools, comprehensive cultural amenities and the beautiful natural resources. To
accomplish this, the CVB needs increased funding to effectively market our region. He
stated he feels an increase in CVB funding for marketing will return many advantages to
the local tax base, retail businesses, hotel and conference industry and attractions such
as Center in the Square, the museums and the performing arts. As you know, Center in
the Square is completing a $27 million dollar renovation of which $20 million dollars has
been brought in from outside the area to infuse this economy and to add to the value of
the $20 million, but they desperately will need the CVB to market our product in order to
gain maximum return on the dollars invested. With the CVB's assistance, Center in the
Square will realize its goal of being the strongest draw in the region for tourism, family
entertainment and education. New exhibits by the museum's comprehensive
performing arts, salt water and fresh water aquariums, butterfly habitat and a roof top
518 August 28, 2012
restaurant with exciting views from the roof must be marketed. We will depend on the
CVB for their expertise and guidance. For these and many other reasons he supports
their request for extra funding.
Sunny Shah stated he has been in the hospitality industry for the past
twenty -two (22) years in the valley and own close to 600 hotel rooms in Roanoke
County, Roanoke City and Botetourt County. Ten years ago, he supported Roanoke
City to raise the occupancy tax by one percent (1 %) and it never had any negative
effect on the hotel business in the city. He strongly endorses a two percent (2 %)
occupancy tax increase in Roanoke County, which will still be one percent (1%) lower
than Roanoke City and Salem occupancy tax. Also please keep in mind that this tax is
not paid by County residents, it is paid by people traveling through Roanoke. This extra
funding will give us the much - needed money we need to market the entire Roanoke
valley and compete against neighboring cities with much larger marketing funds like
Asheville. This will improve the economic plan and increase job opportunities in the
region. We need these extra marketing funds to promote branding our Virginia's Blue
Ridge. It is standard known $4 region for every dollar spent and it should be spent
wisely with a good marketing plan in mind. I'm sure the Board will make a wise decision
and support the two percent (2 %) occupancy tax increase which will help all residents in
the area. Mr. Shah stated he would also like to see something exciting happening with
our own Explore Park, as he is sure most of you would. After increasing occupancy tax
by two percent (2 %) and committing three percent (3 %) to the CVB, we will have about
$40,000 extra funds left in the Roanoke County funds. I request to allocate those funds
to park and recreation so we can improve our grounds and be part of sports
phenomenal. In return this will give extra business to Roanoke County hotels.
Debbie Kavitz of the Salem- Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce
stated some months ago the Chamber went on record indicating the organization's
support of the action needed to raise the transient occupancy tax to seven percent (7 %)
in Roanoke County. She stated she is here as Executive Director for the Salem
Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce. This is significant in relation to the branding
of the region as Virginia's Blue Ridge. Some of you may recall this Chamber was
actually among the first to use the beautiful identity term, Blue Ridge. We are now
preparing for the 15th annual Blue Ridge kite festival at Roanoke County's Green Hill
Park. We could only settle on that identity to completely encompass the scope of an
event that brings so many people to this region on kite festival weekend. This is a great
partnership with Roanoke County and we appreciate it very much. Ultimately now we
are supporting the final step of a process this evening. This will give our Roanoke
Valley Convention and Visitor's Bureau the ability to target market, build name
recognition and promote our region in a professional way; a way that is conducive for
regional development, tourism and, simply put, better marketing of all that the area has
to offer: arts, outdoor activities, education, dining, travel, theater, sports, recreation, are
only a part of a tremendous package we all know enriches our area. This same list
entices people to visit; they just need to know more about us. Revenue makes this
August 28, 2012 519
possible. She advised that is where they stand, we need to increase the number of
visitors from outside the Roanoke region and this will do it. The transient occupancy tax
does not place the burden on our citizens or our businesses. In a fair way, through a
fee, it becomes possible and it enriches our ability to gain the necessary financial
resources to meet realistic expectations at our local CVB. This organization is leading
the way in both branding and building recognition of our region so that others will come
in larger numbers. Ultimately they will shop, sleep, dine and be entertained by all that
this region has to offer.
Cathy Ring stated she is speaking to the Board this evening as president
of the Roanoke Valley Hospitality Association to express the membership support of
allowing the transient occupancy tax to be raised by two percent (2 %). The funds
generated would predominately come from visitors outside the area, more like a user
fee than an actual tax. It is her feeling that the funds are necessary for the Roanoke
Valley Convention and Visitor's Bureau to remain competitive within Virginia and outside
of the State, to enhance marketing efforts and allow the CVB to market the area in a
consistent basis. Tourism, as you heard has a four to one return on investment and
generates $650 million annual visitor spending in the Roanoke Valley. We are
interested in supporting this next step to create a sound and lasting financing strategy
for the CVB, which will enable them to market to this valuable market niche. Further,
we have every confidence in the management and the staff of the current CVB.
Rhonda Morgan stated she is speaking on behalf of the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge
representing over a hundred arts and cultural organizations and over two hundred
individual artists. She would like to speak in support of the transient occupancy tax. As
an arts and cultural leader, she sees the impact daily that the arts and cultural
organizations have on the identify of our region including attracting young professionals,
educating our youth and driving economic development. While many cultural venues
are physically in Roanoke City, those organizations serve the entire Blue Ridge.
Roanoke County families and their visiting friends and relatives are beneficiaries of
many professional artists, programs and venues that take place in the entire region.
What is unique about our region is that you have so many residents who take
advantage of all the different opportunities available in the City, County and surrounding
areas. Through partnerships, the entire region is a desired destination to work, live and
visit. The Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor's Bureau has taken the necessary
steps to identify the collective identity of our region. They are positioned to attract
visitors, residents and businesses to our area, which generate additional revenue and
jobs for our community. It is important that we find a central organization to coordinate
efforts that will benefit all of us. The CVB is willing and able to take on the responsibility
of marketing with resources and expertise to accomplish our joint goals effectively
taking the burden away from individual businesses and organizations that do not have
the necessary funding or knowledge. Through these efforts, your local arts and cultural
organizations and artists will also speed stability with increased attendance and activity.
520 August 28, 2012
We will all see increased benefits from the tow percent (2 %) increase in the transient
occupancy tax and our region will be stronger economically and culturally. As Roanoke
City, Roanoke County, and Salem agree to work together on a major regional project
that benefits all localities, it shows a major step for this area and needs to be supported
to encourage that more things be done together to benefit the entire region which
already shares its greatest resource, its people.
Lee Wilhelm stated he is here as Vice Chairman of the Roanoke valley
Conventions and Visitors Bureau and is here to ask the Board's support in increasing
the transient occupancy tax from five to seven percent (5 to 7 %). This additional
funding will allow the CVB to increase its reach to markets they currently cannot afford
to reach and to increase tourism as we have heard from all the previous speakers, is a
win -win for the entire valley. As a life -long resident of the Roanoke Valley, he is glad to
see the increased cooperation between all our governments and thinks this is one more
item we can all do together and all move forward together.
Tom Brock of 5434 Peregrine Crest Circle stated he is here because Bart
Wilner called him before they tried to get this passed in the legislature and asked if he
would look at what they were doing because he has been involved in this subject for
almost fifteen (15) years. As past Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, we
recommended that this be done about fifteen (15) years ago. Why wasn't it? We didn't
have Clay and Chris and Kevin. The various communities didn't seem to want to work
together. To him, this is nothing short of a miracle that we're sitting here talking about
this. So he is extremely pleased that they got together with the CVB and decided to do
what makes common sense to virtually everybody but the local governments fifteen (15)
years ago. All of the different localities have made different investments in different
things. Collectively, we've got an unbelievable amount of things to do in this valley. But
it's just like anything else, the best idea or activity in the world is not going it happen if
nobody knows about it. The organizations that we've got as individual organizations
don't have the ability to market this region. Only the CVB has the ability to do that. So
from the standpoint of the community, and he is not just talking about Roanoke County,
this makes incredible sense and he would encourage that the Board approve the full
two percent (2 %) increase. Because he looked at this from both standpoints, what about
the individuals that are individual businesses that are most affected, which are the
hotels? He stated he has been a world traveler for most of his life and still travels
extensively. Never does he look at the occupancy tax because it's generally pretty
common. He always looks at the location of the hotel, the amenities that the hotel offers,
the activities in the area to determine whether or not he is going to go there. This has
no effect on the businesses; whoops, that's totally wrong. If you market the area and
bring more people here he thinks they're going to generate more revenue and actually
the bottom line goes up. So he is very pleased to be here talking to you, he would
encourage the Board to pass this unanimously and thanks, Clay, for your participation in
this.
August 28, 2012 521
Kirtesh Patel stated he is the incoming president of business owner
association, he was chosen to speak here today on behalf of hotel owners in the
County. Out of fifteen (15) hotels, twelve (12) hotel owners have signed for me to be
here so he is here representing the majority of the hotel owners in Roanoke County.
First of all, he wanted Landon, he did a wonderful job. I think the County CVB needs
him and we need him too. We support him, what he is doing, very excited about what
he's going to bring to us. Destination is a dream and he can make it a reality. So he
needs the funds; we all agree with that. He added they also agree he needs two
percent (2 %) from us to be successful with his plan and actually he is on his marketing
committee and knows how much money he needs. So we all agree in supporting what
he is trying to do here. What they are asking as the hotel owners and our association is
that right now we are paying out of five percent (5 %), we are paying one (1) percent to
the CVB, plus $39,000, which is approximately equal to one point three percent (1.3 %)
of total money we are giving to CVB we are asking that you increase one percent (1 %)
right now, from five to six percent (5 to 6 %), so we also increase one percent (1 %), that
gives him six percent (6 %) of total tax. Out of that we do give Landon two percent (2 %)
because that's what he needs and we want him to be successful. The difference is
point seven percent (.7 %) between what we are giving right now and what we need to
give if we give him two percent (2 %) by increasing one percent (1 %). So he is asking
Mr. Goodman to look into his budget and hoping we can come up with point seven
percent (.7 %) from other areas and go ahead with it, which is approximately maybe
about, $70,000 or $80,000, somewhere close to that if math is correct. Once more, we
are supporting him to get two percent (2 %) so please give him two percent (2 %)
because it's needed for the community and if we market and if you have this town as a
destination, definitely like everybody else said, we will increase travelers here and that
will have domino effect on restaurants, gas stations, hotels and overall increase in
dollars.
Chairman Flora closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Goodman to come forward and discuss one
versus three percent (1 vs. 3 %) in layman's terms. Mr. Goodman stated the fiscal year
2013, current year, July 1; we have a budget of $201,600, which is a $39,000 plus or
minus increase. The previous fiscal year was $162,400 and that was based on fiscal
year 2012 on total revenues from transient occupancy tax of $759,000. In fiscal year
2013, we reduced the revenue estimates to $700,000. So, on $700,000 generated with
the five percent (5 %) we current have, equates to about $140,000 per percentage point.
If the Board was to approve the increase in the occupancy tax by two percent (2 %),
basically Roanoke County will receive $140,000 for the half year, so in other words you
get $140,000 for a full year for each percent. So, total revenues would go up to
$840,000; our contribution to the CVB based on three percent (3 %) would be $360,000.
In the projected year for fiscal year 2014 where you have the full year of the impact of
the increased revenues, you would see the revenue going to $420,000, so there is a
sizable increase if you proceed with the two percent (2 %). If you look at fiscal year
522 August 28, 2012
2012, the total tax receipts paid to the CVB is about twenty -one percent (21 %). In other
words, the total County tax we paid about twenty -one (21 %) of it to the CVB. In the
adopted 2013 budget, it increased to $39,000, approximately twenty -nine percent
(29 %). If you do the adjustment effective January 1 s , it would go up to about forty -two
percent (42 %).
Supervisor Elswick thanked everyone who worked on this project
stating they did a great job and noted all the municipalities around us have built things
that attract tourists, art museums and stadiums, Roanoke County has a lot of assets
and we need to expand on that to make our contribution to increase the reason why
people might want to come to the area. You can market and it's very difficult to market
what an area has. If we have one more attraction like Explorer Park, intelligently done,
it would greatly enhance our capability to increase tourism and we have to take
advantage of that. It is 1,100 acres that currently the State owns, but we certainly can
put a lot of pressure on people to give us a very strong say so in what happens there
and does not think it ought to be any great plan that requires millions and millions of
dollars. He stated he thinks we ought to start slow and we ought to get businesses and
volunteer citizens involved to do one project, to get us started, and then build on that
into other ones. My personal opinion is the project ought to be an amphitheatre.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Landon Howard, President of the
Convention and Visitors Bureau, to step forward and thanked him for the job he is
doing. He commented there is so much here a lot of which is untapped; even our
residents do not know about. He thanked Delegate Head for all his work.
Supervisor Altizer advised he know Landon was going to do a great job.
Everybody's going to benefit and the hotel folks, the numbers, we need to see their
numbers come up as well as our numbers come up and all the businesses and he does
not think there's a better person to make that happen than you so you got a lot of weight
on your shoulders now. But this has to be a win -win for everyone. I know we'll probably
be looking at the numbers pretty close to see how everybody's doing on that.
Supervisor Moore stated she also would like to thank Landon Howard,
Bart Wilmer and our own economic development department by stating they have all
done a phenomenal job on promoting the Roanoke valley. There is a lot to offer here.
She stated she thinks this will give us the boost that we need to really support and
promote the economy.
Chairman Flora stated he supported the two percent (2 %) pretty much
unconditionally. He stated he would like for staff to evaluate the impact this two percent
(2 %) has had on the County and the valley after four full years. There are some
expectations that come with this and because we are raising taxes we are taking a bit of
a risk. This Board may not get to revisit again, but at least five years down the road
everyone can take a look at what this revenue has done, how much it has increased the
occupancy, the number of stays that are here in the valley and what impact it has had
not just on the hotels but the restaurants and everything that goes along with tourism.
August 28, 2012 523
ORDINANCE 082812 -4 AMENDING SECTION 21 -202 OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN
THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX, DESIGNATION FOR THE
USE OF THE PROCEEDS AND A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the 2012 session of the Virginia General Assembly amended
Section 58.1- 3819.1 of the Code of Virginia to allow Roanoke County to increase its
transient occupancy tax from five percent (5 %) to seven percent (7 %); and
WHEREAS, this increase in the transient occupancy tax must be "expended
solely for advertising the Roanoke metropolitan area as an overnight tourist destination
by members of the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau" as provided in
Chapter 340 of the Acts of Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 14, 2012, and
the second reading and public hearing was held on August 28, 2012, after the
publication of legal notice as required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED, By the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That Section 21 -202 is hereby amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 21 -202 Levied; rate
There is hereby imposed a transient occupancy tax on hotels and travel campgrounds
on each and every transient, equivalent to seven (7) percent of the total amount of
charge for the occupancy of any room or space provided. Said tax constitutes a debt
owed by the transient to the County which is extinguished only by payment to the
operator or to the County. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel or
travel campground at the time the rent is paid. If the rent is paid in installments, a
proportionate share of the tax shall be paid with each installment. The unpaid tax shall
be due upon the transient's ceasing to occupy space in the hotel or travel campground.
2. That the proceeds from the increase in this tax from five percent (5 %) to seven
percent (7 %) shall be designated and expended solely for advertising the
Roanoke metropolitan area as an overnight tourist destination by members of the
Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau. For purposes of this ordinance,
"advertising the Roanoke metropolitan area as an overnight tourism destination"
means advertising that is intended to attract visitors from a sufficient distance so
as to require an overnight stay.
3. That this ordinance shall become effective from and after January 1, 2013.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, with a request that staff
evaluate the impact on Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley after January 1, 2017
and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
524 August 28, 2012
NAYS: None
Chairman Flora recessed for a fifteen minute break at 8:28 p.m. and
reconvened the meeting at 8:43 p.m.
2. The petition of A. B. Hammond to rezone approximately 47.7
acres from EP, Explore Park, District to AG -3, Agricultural /Rural
Preserve, District, located off Hammond Drive, Vinton Magisterial
District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for rezoning and advised it had been
approved by the Planning Commission four to zero.
Mr. Hammond, the petitioner, stated he wanted to emphasize Virginia is
selling the land because Explore does not touch their land in any way. It is somewhat
restricted access to the land and we already have land surrounding it, the land is in a
conservation easement. We have been in negotiations with both the Foundation and
the Western Virginia Land Trust while we are doing it to put the whole farm in a
conservation easement. We've been working since 1959 to put this farm back together
again the way it was in 1823 when their home was built. There were nine different
pieces of land that they had to purchase to put this land back together again. They are
using it for public use, basically they still farm, but we have Box Tree Lodge and
Braylock on it, we hope to have some horse facilities in the future for out of town people
that are coming as a destination because we do have ten (10) miles of trails on the farm
and where we are we do adjoin Explore so we can help Explore in their development on
the Bedford County side. He added that he wanted to emphasize that Explore is getting
ready to take off and do really, really well and we certainly want to support that and they
have some land where they can move this land and sell and buy some of the land that
they really do need to make it go.
Chairman Flora opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens
signed up to speak.
Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Thompson if this was a landlocked piece of
property, located all in Roanoke County and on the East side of the River and has EP
zoning on it just like the other 1,100 acres with Mr. Thompson advising in the
affirmative.
ORDINANCE 082812 -5 REZONING 47.7 ACRES FROM EP,
EXPLORE PARK DISTRICT, TO AG -3, AGRICULTURAL /RURAL
PRESERVE DISTRICT, LOCATED OFF HAMMOND DRIVE
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO. 071.00 -01-
03.00), UPON THE APPLICATION OF A. B. HAMMOND
August 28, 2012 525
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 24, 2012, and the
second reading and public hearing were held August 28, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 7, 2012; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
approximately 47.7 acres, as described herein, and located off Hammond Drive (Tax
Map Number 070.00 -01- 03.00) in the Vinton Magisterial District, is hereby changed
from the zoning classification of EP, Explore Park District, to the zoning classification of
AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of A. B. Hammond.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Being 47.7 acres of real estate located off Hammond Drive and further
described as Tax Map No. 070.00 -01- 03.00.
4. 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 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 Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
3. The petition of Christ the King Presbyterian Church to amend the
proffered conditions on approximately 4.7 acres zoned C -1C,
Office, District with conditions, and to obtain a special use permit
for religious assembly, located in the 2400 block of Electric Road
(Route 419) and near the intersection of Stoneybrook Drive and
Bridle Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition for Christ the King to amend certain
proffered conditions and to obtain a special use permit. He advised the Planning
Commission has approved four to zero. Mrs. Mary Ellen Goodlatte then gave a brief
overview of the project.
526 August 28, 2012
Chairman Flora opened the public hearing and the following citizen spoke.
Dan Oyler of Bridle Lane stated he is a life -long resident of Roanoke
County and for the last ten (10) years has lived on Bridle Lane and is not here in
opposition, but to speak in favor. He stated he had heard that there had been some
controversy about traffic and what not on Bridle Lane. Well, let me tell you that if you
come out to Bridle Lane on any Monday morning and count the number of cars going to
Allstate, going to Salem to go to work, but you won't find nearly that many cars on a
Sunday morning going to church; he guarantees it. In talking about disruption from
construction, we had the Water Authority in our neighborhood for about a year with the
streets torn up and they are still patched haphazardly so he does not think anything this
church would do would present the same kind of difficulty that we saw when the Water
Authority was there. So, he is speaking in favor of it as a citizen and a near - neighbor of
this property.
Chairman Flora closed the public hearing. There was no further
discussion.
ORDINANCE 082812 -6 AMENDING THE PROFFERED
CONDITIONS ON APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES OF REAL
ESTATE ZONED C -1C, OFFICE DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS,
AND OBTAINING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR RELIGIOUS
ASSEMBLY, LOCATED AT 2315 BRIDLE LANE AND THE 2400
BLOCK OF ELECTRIC ROAD (ROUTE 419) (TAX MAP NOS.
076.11 -03- 75.00, 076.11 -03- 76.00) WINDSOR HILLS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on November 11, 2008, the Board of Supervisors adopted
Ordinance #111108 -11 changing the zoning classification of approximately 4.75 acres
of real estate located at 2315 Bridle Lane and the 2400 block of Electric Road,
respectively, to C -1 C, Office District with conditions upon the application of the Cherney
Development; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Christ the King Presbyterian Church, has petitioned
the Board to amend the proffered conditions from the 2008 rezoning on the 4.75 acres
of real estate; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
August 7, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 24, 2012, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on August 28, 2012; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows..
August 28, 2012 527
1. That the proffered conditions placed on that certain tract of real estate
containing approximately 4.7 acres located at 2315 Bridle Lane and the 2400 block of
Electric Road (Tax Map Nos. 076.11 -03- 75.00, 076.11 -03- 76.00) Windsor Hills
Magisterial District by Ordinance #11108 -11 are hereby repealed.
2. That the applicant and the owner of the property have voluntarily proffered
in writing the following condition which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, hereby accepts
1) The properties will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept
plan dated May 31, 2012, titled "Master Site Plan Christ the King Presbyterian
Church, Roanoke, Virginia ", prepared by WKWW Architects, subject to those
changes which may be required by Roanoke County during comprehensive
site plan review.
2) Exterior finish materials for all buildings constructed on the properties shall be
limited to the following: brick; wood, vinyl or composite wood substitute lap
siding and trim; glass; stucco or exterior insulated finish system (EIFS); stone
face colored concrete block; stone or cast stone; standing seam metal,
copper, composite slate tile or asphalt shingle roof.
3) All parking lot lighting shall be shielded "cut -off' types no more than eighteen
(18) feet high and arranged so glare is not cast onto adjoining properties.
3. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to the Christ
the King Presbyterian Church for religious assembly on approximately 4.7 acres located
at 2315 Bridle Lane and the 2400 block of Electric Road (Tax Map Nos. 076.11 -03-
75.00, 076.11 -03- 76.00) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in
accordance 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.
4. That this action is taken upon the application of the Christ the King
Presbyterian Church.
5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty 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 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 Elswick to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
528 August 28, 2012
4. An ordinance amending Chapter 5 "Animals and Fowl" and
Sections 30 -29 and 30 -88 -2 of the Roanoke County Code to
provide for definitions and to establish standards for Residential
Chicken Keeping (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request for the ordinance to amend Roanoke
County Code. He advised this was the second reading of this ordinance and there were
no changes from the first reading. He advised one of the questions Supervisor Altizer
had asked dealt with how would this ordinance mesh with the private covenants or
conditions included in residential subdivisions or with the rules and regulations of a
home owners association. What County staff did was we put together a draft document
that's a zoning permit application so if you lived in a residential area, you have to come
in and secure a zoning permit and what we've included in that permit application is
language as follows: Roanoke County does not enforce home owner association
regulations, does not enforce deed restrictions, your covenants and your deeds, those
are private matters. We suggest to citizens who want to take advantage of this
opportunity that they should check their own home owners' association regulations; they
should check their own deed covenants or deed restrictions. He further added Roanoke
County does not enforce those private limitations so your private subdivisions or your
home owners association may have prohibitions against this. So we're trying to warn
citizens that just because the zoning ordinance allows it, your own private covenants
and conditions may not so we included that in the application for the zoning permit.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if we know how much Roanoke County is
going to charge people for this permit with Mr. Mahoney responding there would be no
charge.
Supervisor Altizer stated the chickens have to belong or owned by the
person living in the property. If you have a HOA or what have you and you have a
renter there, that renter may or may not know about HOA or deed restrictions. Could
you still just add, not putting anything in the ordinance, but in that license agreement
some language that the Roanoke County ordinance on fowl does not supersede or
override HOA regulations? Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative.
Chairman Flora opened the public hearing and the following citizens
spoke.
Richard Herring stated he has lived on Bent Mountain pretty much
continuously since 1955 and so far as this ordinance is concerned, he did read it online
and thanked the Board for having it online, all he has to say is we're in a peck of trouble
in Roanoke County. Because we're getting more government than we're paying for. If
he wanted to live in the city, he would live in the city. He lives on Bent Mountain
because he wants to live out in the country, not even within spitting distance of Mr.
Elswick, but is wondering if we're heading down a road we don't like. Now, his neighbor
had a rooster, his name was Cogburn and he never bothered him. I'm wondering why
August 28, 2012 529
you can't have a rooster. Keeps the hens happy. Gets you up in the morning. Why
can't you have a rooster? Why do you got to have just six hens? Maybe you got seven
children, maybe five children, you and the madam and you need seven hens. So you
get seven eggs a day. Why just six? Why you got to have a ten foot fence? We just go
on and on. It sort of riles me the way this thing is written. He stated he has eight acres
of land and those who live in Hunting Hills and some of these fancy places don't have
much acreage. But when we have trees down and so forth he can only have three piles
of brush to pick up. Can't have any more than that. Got to have the same amount
throughout the County, but there's different sizes of property throughout the County. He
cannot understand it. Are we going to have chicken police? Well, are we? Are we
going to have like that TV show, watching everything, somebody here get a rooster, we
going to have rooster police? I just think maybe we need controls, maybe sometimes
we have too many. He concluded with the fact that he is scared to death of what's
going it happen when you folks decide that all of Bent Mountain is a residential area.
Susan Edwards stated she does not actually own chickens, but this
caught her attention because she sees it as increase in government regulation. Like the
previous speaker, in Roanoke County residential property does come in a wide variety
of sizes. She can see someone in north like subdivision or parts of Glenvar and
Cherokee Hills or other areas that there's problems with putting chickens on small
pieces of property, but she has almost seven acres. She does not have chickens, but if
she wanted to have chickens, why only six? Her neighbor has chickens, why only six?
In this day and time when we talk about trying to get back to some old traditional ways
of maybe growing your own garden so you are a little more self- sufficient, buy local,
maybe you don't want to be concerned about what kind of feed the chickens are fed at
the grocery store where you buy your eggs. Maybe you want to have your own
chickens. Maybe there should be some correlation between lot size and the number of
chickens you can have. Roosters in more rural areas are not as big a problem and
also, it brought to mind the question of how many of the current chicken owners were
made aware of this ordinance and told that, should it pass this evening, they will have to
find a way of disposing of their excess chickens because she knows of several property
owners that have many more than six, but they don't seem to be a problem with their
neighbors. Other localities have other ordinances regarding chickens so she
recommends maybe looking at some other ways of crafting this ordinance if you feel the
need to control the number of chickens people have and maybe find a way to word in
correlation with lot size.
Chairman Flora closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Elswick commented considering that his neighbor supplies him
with eggs and he probably couldn't do that if he only had six chickens and that in Oak
Grove he knows of a place that people have chickens and so people are probably going
to have them not even being aware of the fact that we have an ordinance about it.
However, in deference to the comments from the citizens that maybe we put some
words in the ordinance that with approval that people can have a rooster and can have
530 August 28, 2012
more than six chickens because there may be some areas where that's okay. He would
like to see us add some words like that to the ordinance.
Chairman Flora asked Mr. Thompson if Bent Mountain is zoned all
agriculture with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. Chairman Flora stated this
will have no effect on Bent Mountain. Additionally, this would apply to most of Catawba.
Mr. Thompson responded this is for non - agricultural areas, so currently anything that is
zoned agricultural there is no limit. Currently, in residential areas, you cannot have
chickens.
Supervisor Elswick responded but in R1, there are people who have a few
acres. Mr. Thompson responded when they were crafting this, there was probably
about 29,000 lots that are zoned R1, about 20,000 are one acre or less, so the vast
majority are less than one acre. So, when the Planning Commission was working on
the language, it was looking at those lot sizes. There are a few that are greater than
five acres, but in the end in looking at all the surrounding areas; they are looking at
being comparable to having a total of six. If you want to look at later, with a certain
acreage amount allowing more than six, then that may be something that can be
revisited. Currently, you cannot have chickens in residential areas. You can have them
in agricultural zoned areas that is no limit and this ordinance does not affect that. This
is for residentially zoned areas only. Currently, you cannot have this use, so it is
actually expanding the use for residential districts.
Supervisor Elswick stated it would make sense that even in the residential
areas, if somebody has ten acres that maybe we could make an exception for that if
they wanted to; give them the opportunity to come in and talk to staff. Put one sentence
in that if you want to exceed six and you want to have a rooster, then come talk to staff.
Mr. Mahoney suggested that if it is the pleasure of the Board and you
really want to have a public hearing on chickens again, you could add a special use
permit requirement for those minority cases. Supervisor Elswick responded in the
negative. Is it not possible to include language in the ordinance if you want more than
ten, come discuss with staff? Isn't it just common sense to be able to put words like that
in an ordinance? Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative, but the vehicle to do so is
through a special use permit in the zoning ordinance. If there is a hardship, a citizen
can go to the Board of Zoning Appeals, but under what standards and theories would
you provide that exception. The way you provide those exceptions under Virginia law is
either through a rezoning, a special use permit or a variance. Supervisor Elswick stated
he did not understand because if you can write an ordinance defining six chickens and
no roosters, why could we not put words like that in that. He added since we are writing
an ordinance now and it is up for approval. He stated he agrees with the speakers, this
is government going a little too far and not taking into account everything that maybe we
should.
Supervisor Church stated he is all about less government, too. He then
asked Mr. Thompson, in his area, there may be fifty or a hundred chickens probably not
allowed by code in the R1 areas and what can be done tonight so that citizens will not
August 28, 2012 531
need to come back with a special use permit based on the size of their land. Can we
add something that would increase it to ten or twelve if you have a certain acreage?
Mr. Thompson stated obviously the ordinance can be crafted in way that you base the
standard on lot size
Chairman Flora requested that they go through the process because that
is a fairly substantial change to the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Thompson suggested that the Board go ahead and adopt this
ordinance then we can go back to the Planning Commission and work on language to
include large lot sizes and come back with standards to amend this in a few months.
Supervisor Church stated he was good with that as long as we have some elastic
ability. Supervisor Church inquired if we can proceed with the ordinance with one
amendment that Mr. Thompson will go back and check with the Planning Commission
to take another look and increase the standards for the larger lots.
Chairman Flora stated basically what we are doing is two things; adopting
the ordinance that is currently proposed and requesting the Planning Commission to
take a look at the possibility of some sort of method whereby there is some sort of
method where you can if you are in a R1 district, then it depends on the lot size.
ORDINANCE 082812 -7 AMENDING CHAPTER 5 "ANIMALS
AND FOWL" AND SECTIONS 30 -29 AND 30 -88 -2 OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS
AND TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL
CHICKEN KEEPING
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 7, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 14, 2012, and
the second reading and public hearing was held on August 28, 2012; and
WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practice are valid public purposes for such recommendations by the Planning
Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and provide as
follows:
Chapter 5. Animals and Fowl.
Article I. In General.
Sec. 5-2. Lot boundary lines constitute fences as to livestock and poultry;
permitting livestock and poultry to run at large.
(a) The boundary line of each lot or tract of land in the County is hereby
constituted a lawful fence as to any livestock and poultry domesticated by man, except
as otherwise provided in Sec. 5 -38. Residential Chicken Keeping.
532 August 28, 2012
(b) It shall be Unlawful and a Class 4 misdemeanor for the owner or any
person in charge or control of any livestock and poultry domesticated by man to permit
the same to run at large beyond the boundaries of his own land.
(c) In addition to any penalty imposed for a violation of any provisions of
Section 5 -2, such violation is hereby declared a public nuisance and any person
suffering injury or damage therefrom may seek the correction, removal or abatement of
such nuisance through appropriate suit in equity.
Article II. Dogs, Cats and Other Animals.
Sec. 5-21. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings ascribed to them by this section, unless otherwise indicated to the contrary:
Adequate care or care. The responsible practice of good animal husbandry,
handling, production, management, confinement, feeding, watering, protection, shelter,
transportation, treatment, and, when necessary, euthanasia, appropriate for the age,
species, condition, size and type of the animal and the provision of veterinary care when
needed to prevent suffering or impairment of health.
Adequate exercise or exercise. The opportunity for the animal to move
sufficiently to maintain normal muscle tone and mass for the age, species, size, and
condition of the animal.
Adequate feed. Access to and the provision of food that is of sufficient quantity
and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal;
is prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size
and type of each animal; is provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to
minimize contamination by excrement and pests; and is provided at suitable intervals for
the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily, except as
prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or
fasting normal for the species.
Adequate shelter: Provision of and access to shelter that is suitable for the
species, age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for
each animal; is safe and protects each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct
sunlight, the adverse effects of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of
health; is properly lighted; is properly cleaned; enables each animal to be clean and dry,
except when detrimental to the species; and, for dogs and cats, provides a solid
surface, resting platform, pad, floormat, or similar device that is large enough for the
animal to lie on in a normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner. Under
this chapter, shelters whose wire, grid, or slat floors:
(1) Permit the animals' feet to pass through the openings;
(2) Sag under the animals' weight; or
(3) Otherwise do not protect the animals' feet or toes from injury are not
adequate shelter.
Adequate space. Sufficient space to allow each animal to:
August 28, 2012 533
(1) Easily stand, sit, lie, turn - about, and make all other normal body
movements in a comfortable, normal position for the animal; and
(2) Interact safely with other animals in the enclosure.
When an animal is tethered, "adequate space" means a tether that permits the above
actions and is appropriate to the age and size of the animal; is attached to the animal by
a properly applied collar, halter, or harness configured so as to protect the animal from
injury and prevent the animal or tether from becoming entangled with other objects or
animals, or from extending over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation
or injury of the animal; and is at least three (3) times the length of the animal, as
measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, except when the animal is being
walked on a leash or is attached by a tether to a lead line. When freedom of movement
would endanger the animal, temporarily and appropriately restricting movement of the
animal according to professionally accepted standards for the species is considered
provision of adequate space.
Adequate water: Provision of and access to clean, fresh, potable water of a
drinkable temperature that is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at
suitable intervals, but at least once every twelve (12) hours, to maintain normal
hydration for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal, except as
prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or
fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles that are
accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water
by excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally
accepted husbandry practices.
Animal nuisance. Is created when any companion animal, dog, cat or other
domestic animal unreasonably annoys humans, endangers the life or health of other
animals or persons or substantially interferes with the rights of citizens, other than their
owners, to the enjoyment of life or property. Such acts of nuisance shall include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(1) Damages property other than that of the animal's owner;
(2) Attacks or disturbs other animals, persons or vehicles by chasing, barking
or biting;
(3) Makes excessive noises including, but not limited to, barking, whining,
howling, caterwauling or crying;
(4) Creates noxious or offensive odors;
(5) Defecates upon any public place or upon premises not owned or
controlled by the owner unless promptly removed by the animal's owner; or
(6) Creates an unsanitary condition or insect breeding site due to an
accumulation of excreta or filth.
Capon. A neutered male chicken.
Cat: Any member of the animal species felis catus.
Chicken. A domestic fowl, Gallus domesticus.
534 August 28, 2012
Chicken Enclosure. A fenced or wire area, in addition to a coop, that provides
chickens with a predator- resistant, outside space.
Coop. A building or enclosed structure that houses chickens and provides
shelter from the elements and from predators.
Companion animal: Any domestic or feral dog, domestic or feral cat, nonhuman
primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit not raised for human food or fiber, exotic or native
animal, reptile, exotic or native bird, or any feral animal or any animal under the care,
custody, or ownership of a person or any animal that is bought, sold, traded, or bartered
by any person. Agricultural animals, game species, or any animals regulated under
federal law as research animals shall not be considered companion animals for the
purposes of this chapter.
Dangerous dog. A canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or
inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat or killed a
companion animal that is a dog or cat; however, when a dog attacks or bites a
companion animal that is a dog or cat, the attacking or biting dog shall not be deemed
dangerous:
(1) If no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has
occurred to the dog or cat as a result of the attack or bite;
(2) Both animals are owned by the same person;
(3) If such attack occurs on the property of the owner or custodian of the
attacking or biting dog; or
(4) For other good cause as determined by the court.
No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a result of biting, attacking or inflicting
injury on a dog or cat while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful
hunting or participating in an organized, lawful dog handling event.
Dog. Every dog or canine, canine crossbreed or hybrid canine, regardless of age.
Domestic animal: Any dog, cat, domesticated sheep, horses, cattle, goats, swine, fowl,
ducks, geese, turkeys, confined domestic hares and rabbits and other birds and animals
raised and maintained in confinement.
Hen. A female chicken.
Hybrid canine. Any animal or its offspring which at any time has been or is
permitted, registered, licensed, advertised or otherwise described or represented as a
hybrid canine, wolf or coyote by its owner to a licensed veterinarian, law- enforcement
officer, animal warden, humane investigator, official of the department of health, or
compliance officer who is under the direction of the state veterinarian.
Kennel: An enclosure or structure used to house, shelter, restrain, exercise,
Board, breed, handle or otherwise keep or care for more than three (3) dogs four (4)
months of age or older, from which they cannot escape. The enclosure or structure shall
not mean a dwelling or a fence used to demarcate a property line. For purposes of this
Chapter and the license tax, the term "kennel" shall also include "multiple dog permit."
Livestock. Cattle, horses, sheep, goats, swine and enclosed, domesticated
rabbits or hares.
August 28, 2012 535
Other officer: All persons employed by the County or elected by the people of the
County whose duty it is to preserve the peace, to make arrests or to enforce the law.
Owner: Any person having a right of property in a companion animal, dog or cat,
and any person who keeps or harbors a companion animal, dog or cat or has the
companion animal, dog or cat in his care or who acts as its custodian, and any person
who permits a companion animal, dog or cat to remain on or about any premises
occupied by him.
Poultry. All domestic fowl and game birds raised in captivity.
Rooster: A male chicken usually kept for breeding.
To run at large. A domestic or feral dog, exotic or poisonous animal or exotic bird
or poultry shall be deemed to run at large while roaming, running or self- hunting off the
property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner's or custodian's immediate
control.
Vicious dog. A canine or canine crossbreed that has:
(1) Killed a person;
(2) Inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious
disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function;
or
(3) Continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a
court or on or before July 1, 2006 by an animal control officer as authorized by local
ordinance that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of
that finding.
Sec. 5 -38. — Standards for Residential Chicken Keeping.
The keeping of up to six (6) female chickens (hens) shall be permitted in non -
agriculturally zoned areas of the County subject to the following standards:
(1) The principal use of the property is a single - family dwelling.
(2) The owner of the chickens must reside on the property on which the
chickens are kept.
(3) Chickens shall be kept within a predator- resistant coop or chicken
enclosure at all times and shall not be permitted to run at large.
(4) Coops and chicken enclosures shall be setback at least ten (10) feet from
side and rear property lines and at least thirty -five (35) feet from any residential dwelling
on an adjacent lot. Coops and chicken enclosures shall also be located behind the front
building line of the principal structure.
(5) Coops shall provide at least two (2) square feet of interior space per
chicken and chicken enclosures shall provide at least ten (10) square feet of exterior
space per chicken with a maximum total area of 150 square feet for both the coop and
chicken enclosure. Neither the coop nor chicken enclosure shall exceed ten (10) feet in
height.
(6) Coops and chicken enclosures shall be well - ventilated and kept in a clean,
dry and sanitary condition at all times.
536 August 28, 2012
(7) Provision shall be made for the storage and removal of chicken waste
(manure). Such waste shall not create a nuisance or health hazard to adjoining
property owners.
(8) All chicken feed or other material intended for consumption by chickens
shall be kept in containers impenetrable by rodents, insects or predators.
(9) The keeping of roosters, capons, and crowing hens is prohibited.
(10) The outdoor slaughtering of chickens is prohibited.
Zoning Ordinance
Sec. 30 -29. — Use Types; Generally.
Agriculture. The use of land for the production of food and fiber, including
farming, dairying, pasturage, agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, and animal and poultry
husbandry. A garden and residential chicken keeping, accessory to a residence, shall
not be considered agriculture.
Residential Chicken Keeping: The keeping of up to six (6) female chickens
(hens) in non - agriculturally zoned areas as an accessory use to a single family
residence subject to the standards set out in Chapter 5. Animals and Fowl, Sec. 5 -38. —
Standards for Residential Chicken Keeping.
Sec. 30 -88 -2. — Accessory Uses: Residential Use Types.
(A) Residential use types may include the following accessory uses, activities or
structures on the same site or lot:
10. Residential Chicken Keeping including coops and chicken enclosures provided
that:
(a) Coops and chicken enclosures shall be setback at least ten (10) feet from side and
rear property lines and at least thirty -five (35) feet from any residential dwelling on an
adjacent lot. Coops and chicken enclosures shall also be located behind the front
building line of the principal structure.
(b) Coops shall provide at least two (2) square feet of interior space per chicken and
chicken enclosures shall provide at least ten (10) square feet of exterior space per
chicken with a maximum total area of 150 square feet for both the coop and chicken
enclosure. Neither the coop nor chicken enclosure shall exceed ten (10) feet in height.
(c) A zoning permit has been obtained by the owner of the chickens.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, with a request to refer
back to the Planning Commission to consider an amendment increasing the number of
chickens permitted based on larger lot sizes and carried by the following roll call and
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
August 28, 2012 537
1. Consideration of Roanoke County's continued membership in
ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Chairman Flora opened the floor for Citizen Comments concerning this
new business item.
Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane stated he has been a Roanoke County
resident since 1956. For the last year and three months all meetings except for two he
has been presenting information concerning Agenda 21 and one of its sugar coated
tentacles, ICLEI, information all admittedly claim to have missed. He started
researching this Trojan horse over two years ago. Personally, he is a cause for liberty,
he has no other mission. Regardless of the labels floating around, our forbearers came
here to own land that they were never allowed to where they came from, to pray as they
see fit after suffering persecution so they ran here and with divine intervention created
the greatest document of mankind, the Constitution of the United States of America and
to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God with liberty and justice under
all. We must never allow this to be ignored; never allow this to go unsaid. Owning land,
praying, clinging to their guns and bibles, raising their family to them was everything.
That's why we must eliminate ICLEI from our County. Defund ICLEI now. This Trojan
horse baits local governments with funding to promote their socialist projects. Local
governments are trolling around looking for funds, wherever they can find spending
money to attract even more funds to spend. That's fine. However, fiscal responsibility
is primary. Funding from unconstitutional sources is just that, unconstitutional. County
staff prepared a document concerning Roanoke County history with ICLEI and research
on affiliated topics is a work of those short on research. My research ongoing now for
two years reveals all things attached with the word play sustainability. Comes from one
man's efforts to control the human animal, as he puts it. Humans are evil. Populations
need to be reduced by eighty -five (85) percent. ICLEI is one of the tentacles of this
front. The club of Rome was the source of this deception. Their propaganda books
limits growth and their thirty year later update is their most recent. Get this; their so-
called MIT team worked these publications up for them. Have we been informed of
this? No. We have not. They do not want you to know. They want everyone sheep led
and ready for close quarter management like the UDA's you often talk about. Let's sit
back and let it roll. Our children's children and grandchildren will have no American
dream. I have read and possess copies of both limits to growth and their thirty- year
update. I know their deception and it is real. Out to destroy the American dream, to
institute socialism in America. Defund ICLEI now while we can and he advised his offer
still stands to educate Roanoke County staff concerning ICLEI, Agenda 21 and most of
all sustainability.
538 August 28, 2012
Linda LaPrade of Will Carter Lane stated she is from the Cave Spring
district and there are three points she would like to make to the Board tonight. There are
three points that were made this afternoon in the meeting that seem to be very wrong to
me. One, that we would avoid non - attainment area with the EPA. The Roanoke valley
entered into an agreement in March of 2004 with other local governments, Early Action
Compact with the DEQ and the EPA. As recently as this week, Dr. McGuiness, the
ICLEI expert, stated that increase in traffic on 181 is the main reason for Co2 emissions
in the Roanoke valley. The annual miles traveled along 181 is up almost eleven percent
(11 %). How is ICLEI going to prevent this? How indeed can Roanoke County prevent
it? She keeps coming back to the FOIA that she requested in December of 2011 about
the report to ICLEI. In it, we found the ICLEI software had no safeguards to assure
reasonably accurate data, yet that software continues to be one of the reasons the staff
says we must remain in ICLEI. Ridiculous figures were created by that software and
she has another copy for the Board. RCCLEAR saved 200 tons of carbon emissions by
handing out tip sheets; in anyone with common sense finds that laughable. The report
also makes the ridiculous claim that 198 tons was saved after 66 energy audits. Today,
we find some followup was done after it was questioned and that 23 homes followed as
least one recommendation; still 198 tons? Yet this Board allowed that report and
continues to allow a fraudulent report submitted in your name and my name. Fraud
should not be allowed anywhere. It was also mentioned that there were no other
sources for this software. So she went home between meetings, Googled it, and in
three clicks came up with ten pages of software companies that provide similar data to
ICLEI's software. I'll show those to you. It was also stated in the work session that the
Alabama anti - Agenda 21 ICLEI legislation was open to interpretation. The State of
Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any
sum of money or receive funds contracting services from any such entities as defined in
Agenda 21 documents. ICLEI is mentioned in Agenda 21 and she has that for the
Board. There is nothing ambiguous about this law. In fact, the state legislatures of
Arkansas, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire and Texas are working on
similar anti - Agenda 21 ICLEI measures. There's also a legislative initiative model in the
State of Alabama coming to the Virginia assembly and the measure is growing. Agenda
21 contains references to ICLEI; it would be your shame to have the Virginia general
assembly make the right decision when you cannot.
Gene Rose of Big Horn Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated his purpose
tonight is to ask the Board to sever ties with ICLEI. Mr. Goodman's report recently
provided you details regarding the County's history with ICLEI. It is evident that the
main reason for our association with ICLEI is that man has significant responsibility for
the global warming that the conventional wisdom at the time assumed was a certainty.
Today, however, many scientists who originally bought into the global warming threat
have had a change of heart. Many now believe the scant warming there was stopped a
decade ago. It also became public knowledge the warming numbers were fudged and
the climate models badly flawed. The truth was at odds with the global warming
August 28, 2012 539
alarmists' assertions. In addition to the skepticism about the current warming, there is
increased skepticism that burning carbon fuels has any significant impact on warming
anyway. It would be foolish to continue our association with ICLEI when the underlying
premise is so flawed and no longer the scientific consensus it once was. ICLEI provides
model ordinances that promote the use of bio fuels. Our federal government mandates
ethanol usage. Corn today has gone up more than double to $8 a bushel and those
who promoted ethanol usage look more foolish by the day as food prices begin rising at
an alarming rate.
ICLEI promotes green jobs too. Billions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on the
promise of green jobs. Solandra is a recent example how green job theory often
collapses when confronted with reality. Recently at a house committee hearing, the
acting director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, John Galvan, was asked what type of
jobs the Bureau considered to be green jobs. His list contained the following: a floor
sweeper at a solar power plant, the driver of a hybrid bus, a school bus driver, the
person who puts fuel in the school bus, a worker at the Salvation Army because they
sell used or recycled items. A clerk at a used record shop, an antique dealer, a trash
collector, a clerk in a bicycle shop and an oil lobbyist. This is foolishness and he does
not think most of the citizens of Roanoke County want any part of it. I hope you won't
either.
Max Beyer of Coachman Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated he is here to
speak against continuing or to renewing the current membership for ICLEI, which he
thinks is due within the next 60 days. We joined ICLEI in about 2007 based on
information provided to work session; ICLEI is needed primarily for the software
calculations. A question he has concerning this are has that software been properly
vetted? Do you know what's in it? Do you know what factors are used? Do you know
the permutations and algorithms that are established to make the calculations that the
software provides? It was also stated by the staff that there was no other source to do
this without really a great expense. I think Linda just now indicated that that issue has
not been properly vetted, either. We're told that and this is what he finds strange, that
we have to prove our case that we have to find the smoking gun to definitely prove that
ICLEI has had a direct and immediate effect on Roanoke County that is detrimental to
Roanoke County. And he think that is, you know, there's a lot of information we provide
to you that indicates a high degree of suspicion in our continued relationship that
indicates a high degree of suspicion in our continued relationship. Enough suspicion
that you should give us the benefit of the doubt and truncate this relationship; find
somebody else and if that does not work out and you find that ICLEI is the only source,
the only way to get the job done, he thinks everybody here would say you guys have
done a good job. I don't think the issue has been properly investigated, especially with
the growing knowledge that you have of the impact that ICLEI has on our nation and
how it infiltrates and has many other tangents to it that maybe you don't use but we are
afraid of. We have a great fear here, many citizens have stressed that. He thinks
before you renew and pay out money for something you should be fully justified in your
540 August 28, 2012
own mind that it's worth it. I don't think the case for continuing or for putting money into
ICLEI has been properly proven
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated he has
been a resident of the County for nineteen years. Tonight one Board member
mentioned you hadn't seen any evidence that you and Agenda 21 and ICLEI had
adversely affected businesses, individuals and organizations. He added he can get the
Board a listing of ways this agenda has already adversely affected individuals,
businesses and organizations. The American Policy Center, led by Tom Deweese,
provides documentation that describes in detail has Agenda 21 and ICLEI have hit
businesses, organizations and individuals hard. He advised he can get the Board in
touch with Tom DeWeese and he can provide you with the documentation that you are
looking for. The Board held a working session here tonight to consider the County's
continued membership in ICLEI. The County provided a document, which is a review of
the County's history with ICLEI and "research topics." We clearly understand that ICLEI
has never been a United Nations agency or controlled by the UN in any way. However,
ICLEI is a clear partner with the UN. ICLEI is fostering the implementation of UN
Agenda 21. Page 5 of that work session document states, sustainability is not related to
Agenda 21. We disagree. Agenda 21 uses sustainability strategies as a tool to
implement its goals. ICLEI fosters the implementation of UN Agenda 21. One of you
described that our region was almost deemed an EPA non - attainment area tonight and
that if it wasn't for ICLEI software, our region might have become a non - attainment
region. So why is it that countless regions in the Country don't have ICLEI software but
have not been affected by the EPA non - attainment rule? He advised he has several
petition signatures that we gathered recently from Roanoke County residents. He is
submitting those tonight.
Susan Edwards of 4121 Givens Road in Salem, Virginia stated during the
work session the document that was shared by the staff with the Board members claims
that the staff has not used any ICLEI materials with their involvement in the American
Planning Association as a basis for any planning, zoning or land use plans. I take them
at their word in that regard. She continues to have concerns over Roanoke County's
membership in ICLEI and sees very little tangible benefit for our $1,200 annual fee.
However, she does understand there are people in our Country and in our community
that have a desire to appear green; they want to have a label associated with them that
can make them have recognition of taking action, to be good stewards, but thinks most
of the people in our community without that label are doing their part, not everyone,
that's part of why we help to educate people in our community about how to save
money by conserving our resources, being good stewards, enjoying clean water and
clean air. That's why we have DEQ, which is delegated by the EPA, to implement
certain clean air act and clean water act laws that are passed by Congress. ICLEI, she
is one of those people who thinks this involvement is an additional expense that we
don't need to incur. However, she does understand the emotional need to have a label
of being environmentally friendly associated with our community and when she thought
August 28, 2012 541
through the comments that have been made, this is the best rationale she can find for
why we would continue this involvement. Because we want that label. She stated she
will leave that up to the Board to decide if that's how you want to spend that $1200 a
year.
Suzi Fortenberry of 6045 Roycroft Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated she
and her husband moved to Roanoke County about 16 years ago from New Orleans.
You ask why, she does not think she has to tell you with hurricanes and so forth. But
we were able to relocate to anywhere in the Country and we moved here because of the
beauty and the total environment. She and her husband are builders and developers;
she is proud of the work that we do. We are building a green community. We set out to
dedicate part of our acreage to green space in Roanoke County. We build green
certified homes that conserve energy, they save our home owners money, they save
valuable resources for the children of our future and our grandchildren. She states she
thinks they attract folks to live in the Roanoke County, which helps all of us in this room.
She advised she is also honored to be a member of RCCLEAR because those goals
are in line with what she and her husband believe in and practice in our work every day.
She stated she would like to emphasize the importance of our affiliation with ICLEI. We
don't have to come up with all of the ideas, the resources and the tools to help us in
supporting a greener Roanoke County. So she urges the Board to support and
continue to be involved with ICLEI and also our RCCLEAR community
Gregory Honeycutt of 4090 White Oak Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated
he can cut this very short. You have all the information you need. The committee that
the Roanoke Tea Party has had following this issue for the last year and a half now,
week after week, he is sure the Board is familiar with them. They're here every week;
they have come on a first name basis. They have looked at this issue from top to
bottom and side to side and at the best this is a waste of County staff's time and energy.
At the worst, it's a threat. Eventually, it will be a threat; it will be a threat to private
property rights in this County, eventually. As our elected representatives, it's your job
right here in this Boardroom; it is your job to make sure those rights are protected.
That's all these people are asking. It's not even about preserving the environment. We
all want to do that, we all want to take care of our air and water and natural resources
here in Roanoke County. We don't need the influence of an outside organization to do
that. Roanoke County, he has said before in this room, has extremely bright and
capable people that are very well able to determine the best course that we should take
to preserve those resources in this County. Please end this tonight, please discontinue
this membership with this ICLEI organization and let's move on to something else.
Chip Tarbutton of 917 Brughs Mill in Fincastle, Virginia stated he is
president of the Roanoke Tea Party. We looked at the report presented to the Board
around the ICLEI issue, we did a lot of research and wrote a report about that. He
knows as a Board you are really reliant upon the information you get from your staff and
it was quite shocking to me to see the number of inconsistencies, misleading
information and outright falsehoods that were put into that document. Linda LaPrade
542 August 28, 2012
mentioned a few of those earlier. He wanted to mention a couple other things, too, that
he thought were interesting. According to the report, ICLEI takes credit for the County
reducing its paper usage over the last we don't know how long because it doesn't refer
to that in the report. ICLEI actually was the reason the County reduced paper usage; it
wasn't email or adobe files or any other technology that every other company in
business uses today, ICLEI gets credit for that. He finds that hard to believe. The other
one he found interesting was miles per gallon. Somehow ICLEI magically has the ability
to have your fleet get better miles per gallon. What happened to the cafe standard and
better technology for cars or other things the County could have done. Every business
does that now and ICLEI can't take credit for that; that's silly. The same thing is true for
the ICLEI software. We continue to hear we have to have ICLEI software to measure.
How can you measure something you have no way to quantify where it's coming from?
The County government is responsible for less than one percent of the carbon
emissions in Roanoke County; that's by your own documentation and there's no way
that you can control what happens in the other 99.3 percent of the County. So how on
earth, we've already heard that the majority of the carbon emissions come from 181.
There's no way you can do anything about that. Sean McGuiness plugged the figures
into the software and someone magically comes up with a number of what they did to
reduce the carbon output is ridiculous. In 2001 you had an environmental management
system in place and they said it was effective. Why not go back. In going back to one
of the earlier conversations about the greenway. Everybody in the County is interested
in doing the right thing from an environmental standard; we don't need to pay $1,200 for
an ICLEI organization with obvious ties to the UN, which they brag about on their own
web site if you took the time to read it. We can do it ourselves, we've always done it
ourselves, he urges the Board to sever ties with ICLEI and do the right thing from a
green perspective as Roanoke County citizens.
Steve Rosenthal of 6042 Brahma Road in Roanoke, Virginia stated it's late
in the evening and he won't belabor this issue. He stated he thinks that the whole
global warming thing is based on very speculative and questionable science. We've
heard and there's ample documentation that the software being used is of questionable
value. So he would like to say from a personal standpoint, my primary residence is here
in Roanoke County, 6042 Brahma Road. He moved down here from the Washington,
DC area to get away from the left -wing, liberal socialist tendencies that we see there.
He is dismayed to see a contingent of people who believe in that same agenda here
and thinks that's regrettable. He urged the Board to withdraw from ICLEI. We hear a lot
today about the one percent. Well, according to the United Nations, everyone in this
country is the one percent. Their agenda is to transfer our wealth to the third world and
he opposes that agenda. We also are well aware of the fiscal constraints that you all as
Board members face and in light of that, he thinks that $1,200 a year, which constitutes
roughly half the property tax he pays every year, could be better spent.
Bruce Hartwick of 3464 Colonial Avenue in Roanoke, Virginia stated our
nation was founded on principles of freedom. If you read the Declaration of
August 28, 2012 543
Independence, it has life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights. ICLEI
is part of Agenda 21 and is partnered with it as it says so on the Agenda 21 site. He
stated he believes if we stay in ICLEI we will violate these principles. For example, as
far as liberty goes that means freedom, freedom to choose where you live based on what
you can afford. If we stay in ICLEI and ICLEI can tell people where and where they
cannot live that would violate one of our most basic principles and because of this he
urged the Board to sever ties with ICLEI.
Richard Herring stated he lived on Bent Mountain. He stated he does not
know that much about ICLEI. What he does know is that since 1955 he has looked over
this valley and has seen it continually get muckier and muckier. That's a fact, he does
not need people to tell me anything about climate change, he can see it with his own
two eyes. If those of you that live in the valley can see what we who live on the
mountain can see on a still winter day and see what you are breathing, you would be
gasping. So he does not know that much about ICLEI. He does not know if it's the best
solution. He just knows we have a problem and he appreciates you folks looking into it.
A lot of what he is hearing, with all due respect to everybody here and thinks it's
wonderful we can have our opinions, but he remember his history professor at Emory
and Henry, a man named Louis Purpoy was teaching American history and he got to
the McCarthy era. He said a senator said there was communists everywhere, had old
maids looking under the bed for communists hoping they'd find one and that was all he
said about the McCarthy era and we understood. Now, he does not know if ICLEI or
Agenda 21 is communist inspired or trilateral inspired, all he knows is we have a
problem; he does not think it's getting any better. If getting this software is not as good
a way to fix it or work on it as there is, let's get another way. We do have a problem.
Let's work on it.
Barry Powell of Wineberry Trail in Roanoke County in the Cave Spring
district stated he sees lei; don't call it ICLEI, that's a pretty good name for it. Originally
the international council for local environmental initiatives, now it's called local
governments for sustainability. It's a worldwide association calling for and working for
what they call sustainable development worldwide. The agenda of ICLEI sounds good.
After all, who would not want to protect the environment for future generations? But in
reality it is not environmental protection, it's about control. Control by an international
body over our land and our resources. In the name of environmental protection, ICLEI
is implementing strategies, which the UN called for, such as reducing carbon emissions
and what the UN called effective land use. Reducing carbon emissions has to do with
what they used to call global warming. Now they call it climate change. He guesses
they can't figure out whether the world is getting warmer or colder. Climate change is
based on unproved junk science, which has been debunked in recent years. The effort
globally is an effort to force the industrialized nations of the world, primarily the United
States, it pay to the developing nations of the world billions of dollars in fines for emitting
more carbon emissions into the atmosphere than those nations, which are less
developed. If this sounds like a redistribution of wealth, it is. It is. Based on unproven
544 August 28, 2012
assertions of global climate change and at the direction of the UN, ICLEI is pursuing this
political agenda. ICLEI also calls for the UN directed agenda of effective land use at the
UN conference on human settlements; a formal policy of land usage was adopted. By
this philosophy, private land ownership is considered a principle instrument of
accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Is
that an agenda? Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to their agenda.
The problem with this is if we allow the agenda of ICLEI to carry the force of law in this
country, we will have abrogated our rights under the Constitution. The federal
government already owns nearly one -third of the United States. It continues to take
more through regulatory acquisition of private property. Framers of the Constitution
called property rights the guardian of every other right. If the UN calls for as much as
fifty percent public land ownership to implement their agenda of environmental control,
what's to say they are going to stop at fifty percent? They won't. Roanoke County
should not associate itself with the agenda of ICLEI. We should not submit ourselves,
our property, or our rights to international government control
Adam Cohen stated he is from the Cave Spring district and feels like he is
the Iorax because he is speaking for people who don't have a voice. He wasn't coming
here and going to say something about how it's great to stay in ICLEI because it at least
gets people thinking about the environment and that kind of stuff and how, you know, it
would be a really great thing for you to spend the $1200 bucks, even though the
software is a little questionable. But now that he has seen the straw man that's been
put up in front of these poor folks, he really feels sorry for them. However at the same
time he really think it's a good use of their energy and for no other reason he can think
of than to get these folks something to internet search on and to get riled up about and
to get out and get active in the community. He stated he would like to see the Board
keep belonging to ICLEI to give these guys something to do. When they are doing this,
they aren't doing other stuff. Every single one of these people out here has no clue
about the science of climate change if they haven't studied it. He commented he will tell
you this, all my neighbors here today that he sees is the reason when traveling around
this world, and does travel a bunch to a lot of different places and sees a lot of different
things going on and wonder why the United States is looked at and looked down on
because of our ability to stick our heads in the sand about things that are going around
on us. That's what he is seeing here. For you not to think that the climate is changing,
for a person to ignore climate science and to stick their head from this much science
when ninety -nine scientists agree, when this year the arctic ice is the least ever in
recorded history since we've been recording it, or to watch the derecho come across
our valley and knock all the trees down and turned out the lights of three million people,
what the drought going on in the Midwest, it's not global warming, it's global climate
change and what it says the south below 30 latitude is going to get drier. What do you
know, it's happening. And above 40 latitude, it's going to get wetter. And we're in the
middle, we are going to get wetter and drier and not any person in here who can look
with their own eyes and remember back thirty years can say the climate has not
August 28, 2012 545
changed. My garden has changed, he can grow things he could not grow ten years ago
and that's great; he is looking forward to it. I urge the Board to stay in.
Supervisor Moore stated she had a question, how can a 501(c)3, non-
profit organization tell us what to do and control us? ICLEI and RCCLEAR are
educational tools. There's not anything magical about them. They just help educate our
citizens so that we will reduce what you see on top of Bent Mountain in our valley
because we do live in a valley. We have to do everything that we can to educate our
citizens in order to help them and motivate them. They have been great about doing
things to reduce pollution and they have been great about the businesses, we did the
survey, ICLEI and RCCLEAR have done some surveys, we have had good reports from
the surveys and ICLEI being a 5013c, they do not mandate us, they help our
environment. They are a tool for us to use. They are an educational tool. We learn
from them and, in turn, we can let ICLEI know what we're doing in the Roanoke valley,
how we're reducing our CO2. If we don't try and continue to try to reduce our CO2 and
if we can't measure what we're doing with our achievements then we are taking a step
backwards. She stated she supports being in ICLEI and RCCLEAR and thanked
RCCLEAR for doing such a good job and helping promote our valley because she does
not want her children to leave the valley, wants them to stay here and work and live and
play and wants tourism to come and she wants them to stay here and work. If they
come and see, see the pollution that you see on top of Bent Mountain, they are not
going to do that because they are going to have allergies and sinus problems and they
are going to have to leave the area. So that's another reason. It does help promote our
economy also.
Supervisor Church stated he agreed, we've gone over and over this thing
so many times. He stated he can recall back, and has said about four different times
and tonight will be the fifth time, at that time he had no idea what ICLEI was. Sounded
like a good idea and in his heart he does not believe any of this Board knew what ICLEI
was, what it was about. He advised he can remember Miss Moore being enthusiastic
about it, wanted us to join. He voted for it initially and he candidly admits it; he made a
mistake and did not look into it. It looked like no harm, no foul, organization on the
surface. On May 27, 2008, the Board had another briefing on it. In August of 2000,
another work session, February of 2008 another work session, February 2009 the
request to approve milestones and RCCLEAR was established, January 24, 2012
another discussion on ICLEI membership and it goes on and on. He advised he has
never felt like the $1200 is the issue. $1,200 out of a $398 million dollar budget; not an
issue. Yes, the dues were paid a little bit premature; felt that was a fact last year before
they were due and thinks that was done for a reason. He advised he asked some
questions upstairs in the work session and thanked all the volunteers sincerely; they
spent over a thousand hours, they have done a really good job and thanked them but
asked them upstairs if we did away with ICLEI, would you quit? I looked back and saw
the heads yes, they would quit. That tells me you are in it for the wrong reason, that
that's the real answer. He stated he has said over and over again he thinks we have
546 August 28, 2012
intelligent, capable people in Roanoke County to know how to conserve our energy. He
believes in conservation and clean air, but does not believe we need any organization
that's not truly American that's going to look after our best interests. He advised he
cannot imagine that. It's a 501c3 but he has always felt his entire life, follow the money.
That doesn't mean there's not money exchanged, folks, because it's a nonprofit.
There's somebody, somewhere, and to prove it, just take away every dime; watch them
run for the door. Just like the federal stimulus packages out here, everybody wants to
propose something using somebody else's money. He stated he thinks we're missing
the boat here if we don't take a look at common sense; common sense. Why do we
have to have a label to do the same things that we're doing and doing them equally
adequate or better? He asked upstairs is this the only software available and was told
yes. Then the lady, Ms. LaPrade said she googled and had ten pages. Well, that
makes him wonder. He is told there's no other software available and said upstairs
that's mind - boggling. The United States of America, we have people walking on the
moon and space exploration and God knows what else we've done, we can't find a
piece of software that can help us clean up our County and our air? I just find it hard to
believe if we are going to make a mistake, let's make it on the side of safety; he cannot
support staying in this. He does not feel good about it; the people that he represents
overwhelmingly, and that is who he works for wants no part of it. There may be a few
but overwhelmingly the majority says get clear of it and that is where he will place his
vote tonight.
Supervisor Elswick stated as all of you know, he is in opposition to a
continued membership in ICLEI. You remember Al Gore and how he was awarded a
Nobel Prize for energy efficiency and telling us all what to do, yet he lived in a house
that used twenty (20) times more than the average citizen? We have that in Roanoke
County; and he has experienced it. What he wants us to do is use common sense and
not look for massaging our egos, not look for somebody patting us on the back because
we put a green label on our name. He stated he believes in honesty and integrity and
he does not think we ought to be dreaming up numbers and thinks that our County staff
was already doing a tremendous amount of work for energy efficiency. The largest
projects we have had is the Water Authority burning the gasses from the landfill, no
involvement from ICLEI or RCCLEAR. The County upgrading all of its equipment, $1.4
million worth, we can do those kinds of things, we know how to do those things. The
people in RCCLEAR and some others want us to remain in ICLEI and they say it's
great, but those who have spoken tonight in opposition have done their research, in
spite of what some may think. They have spent an awful lot of time doing research on
ICLEI, Agenda 21 and the UN influence and he is for the United States standing on its
own and protecting its own and no insidious, subtle maneuvering by the UN or any
agency associated with the UN and he wants our people in positions of power to
recognize when someone is subtlety influencing you.
Supervisor Altizer commented the first thing he is going to say is thank
you for being the poster boy on your web site. When you do that, the nasty messages
August 28, 2012 547
my wife had to hear on that, he takes exception to that. We are a civil society; the other
emails that he received, pretty pungent and the ones that called and left me messages
about they're willing to go out and they're willing to pay any opponent to run against me,
that's fine, well and good. Mike Altizer has never sold a vote in eleven (11) years on
this Board and he'll never sell one, he'll leave here whenever that time comes with his
integrity in his hand and doing what he thought was best, not because of the names
people called him or the nasty messages they left on the phone. As he stated upstairs
earlier the case hasn't been made for him that we have done anything or this has cost
anything within Roanoke County to change anything to do with property rights or what
have you. He also questions other agencies, we heard them speak today, Roanoke
Regional Chamber of Commerce used some of the things people use for business used
some parts of ICLEI cutting their electricity bills and all. Roanoke County gives money
to the Roanoke Chamber of Commerce. So when then does the discussion begin that
Roanoke County should not be in the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce
because of something they do in promoting business and helping business? That's a
concern he has because, Mr. Tarbutton, the dollars we give to the regional chamber is
the same tax dollars we're paying this $1200 for. Then, he wonders about the
conclusion of what is put out and what is real and what is not real. Because if he looks
at this framework here of what was put out, this tactic may sound reasonable until you
realize the dedicated stakeholder group that organizes and oversees local
transformation and the people selected to represent the citizens in your community will
not represent your interests. The chosen partners, professional staff, working groups
are implementing a new system of government, of governance, without even asking
your opinion and here's the way it works. They are going to bring people in to top
quality management and then they are going to have the partnership with churches. So
therefore now our churches are invading so we no longer have religion so we're no
longer go to the churches. Is that going to happen? He does not know, it seems sort of
far - fetched to him. Welfare and social service agencies, other community groups, all
doing this work behind the scenes of everything that is the thread of the community.
Are we to believe all of this is going it happen? Is the world coming to an end? Are we
not smart enough to see the things that are happening before us? He stated he is not
going to make a decision based on threats, based on money, and based on where he
does not have some justification in his heart that tells me he needs to change it.; and if
he finds it, he will change it in a minute's notice.
Chairman Flora stated he had one comment. The wonderful freedom we
have in this country is the opportunity to express our opinion and speak it freely.
Unfortunately, there are people who do not respect your right to have that opinion
unless they agree with it. This has been a really nasty, nasty confrontation, the whole
process. It doesn't speak well of how people treat other people. He stated he saw out
there in the audience body language that was offensive to him. When someone up here
was speaking, if you didn't agree with them, you just rolled your eyes and twisted and
shook your head. You know, that's not showing other people respect and that is sad
548 August 28, 2012
that we have come to that point that we can't allow someone else to have an opinion
that we disagree with. He hopes the vote tonight puts this thing to bed. At least he
hopes it puts it to bed Until January of 2014 because then he will not have to deal with
it. Someone else can be sitting up here taking the heat.
Supervisor Moore moved to remain in ICLEI and the motion carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Moore, Flora
NAYS: Supervisors Church, Elswick
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke.
Chris Craft of 1521 East Gate Avenue in Roanoke, Virginia stated he
wanted to make a quick thing, he does not care what the, what do you call it, the
Freedom from Religion, but he has been praying long and hard about what to say when
he came to speak to you tonight. As many of you know, you get rid of a lot of stuff
every year through public surplus. In the past, he has bought maybe a hundred dollars
at a time of stuff and just turns it over and donate it to the rescue mission. You make
money and they make money. Well, your lady that you have in charge of it is a liar and
a back stabber. He cannot go every time he buys a little cell phone all the way to Salem
to pick that little cell phone up when he works for Roanoke city schools volunteering
3,500 hours a year. She promised me the first time he bought anything, she said if it's
something he can carry in a box, she will bring it over to this building and he can pick it
up. Well, he got four cell phones he won on there and she told me he had to go to
Salem to pick them up; and he advised her he could not do that. So she had me
blocked to where he can no longer purchase anything from the County. He does not
think that's fair. If she tells me she's going to do something and she goes back on her
word, he thinks she needs to be, she or he needs to stand up and call me and explain
why. He stated he lives in northeast Roanoke; it's a waste of his gas to go all the way to
Salem to pick up a little cell phone when he can just drive one extra mile this way. He is
asking something be done, maybe you can have a talk with her so she can unblock me
so he can put some of my City money into your County coffers because he enjoys
buying your surplus stuff and donating it to people that can use it like the Rescue
Mission to help others.
Donald Koop of 3700 Christopher Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated as a
Board you have struggled to find a way to open your meetings with a prayer that doesn't
offend anyone. The situation is somewhat reminiscent with that that faced the Giles
County School Board. As you try to find a formula that satisfies all religions, you have
focused on a sectarian message as a possible solution. However, in your efforts to
August 28, 2012 549
include all manner and variety of beliefs, deities and traditions you seem to have
omitted yet one more category of belief, the non - believer. Just as believers feel strongly
about observing religion and its traditions, many non - believers feel just as strongly
about avoiding them. Once this group is included in the conversations, finding a,
"sectarian" solution becomes almost impossible. The lights can't be on and off at the
same time, nor can the door be simultaneously open and shut. While watching the
afternoon session, he heard anyone is welcome to say whatever he or she wants on the
subject of religion. Will this foretell a steady stream of people each having something to
say about their view of religion at the start of every public meeting of the Board? With
all due respect, the Board's attempt to foresee or respond each situation that comes
along could take on the flavor of the U.S. tax code. The solution in his opinion is to
provide scheduled time at the beginning of each meeting for people to silently and
prayerfully convey their thoughts to the deity of their choice; or not. This is in keeping
with the traditions of our great Country where prayer has been an important part of
official proceedings since our founding. It's just that, instead of the message being
uttered aloud by one person with supporters nodding in agreement, many messages in
general agreement will be sent silently by individuals. Those who have a different deity
or a different message can similarly express themselves or not. All will be served and
none need to be offended.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 10:27 p.m.
Submitted by:
Deborah #cks
Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
Richard C. Flora
Chairman
550
August 28, 2012
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY