Loading...
5/14/2013 - RegularMay 14, 2013 169 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May 2013. 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: OPENING CEREMONIES Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by Dr. Sureshkumara of the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER taken. Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer; Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick, Richard C. Flora and Charlotte A. Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney and Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Supervisor Flora requested the addition of Section 2.2.37AA.3 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, namely acquisition of property for use as public park and recreation purposes, where the discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. There were no objections. 170 May 14, 2013 IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring the week of May 19 through 25, 2013, as Emergency Medical Services Week in the County of Roanoke (Joey Stump, Division Chief, Fire and Rescue) In attendance for this proclamation were Captain Rogan Underwood; Paramedic /Firefighter Kenny Mallach; Firefighter /EMT Donnie Blankenship and Chuck Straub; Lt. /EMT Brad Zollman; Battalion Chief Billy Duff; Division Chief Dustin Campbell; Volunteer Rescue Chief Laura Alexander and Division Chief Steve Simon. The proclamation was read by the Clerk. All Supervisors offered their thanks. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to appropriate $20,015 for the June 11, 2013, Democratic Primary Election (Judith Stokes, Registrar) A- 051413 -1 Ms. Stokes explained the request to appropriate funds for the Democratic primary. There was no discussion. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the staff recommendation, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Resolution adopting policies for the protection of private property rights in the development of Roanoke County projects or the adoption of County ordinances (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney stated Supervisor Elswick has requested this item be placed on the agenda today for the Board's consideration. Supervisor Elswick stated the resolution is to some extent just an affirmation of current law and current ordinances that are on the books, there are some new items in it. Basically, is to let citizens know that this resolution is an affirmation of current law with some new items. Basically is to let citizens know to the maximum extent possible the Board will support their rights and obviously there is going to be times when we have to do some things that will have pro and con debates as to whether or not we should but we will do our utmost to protect property rights of the citizens and it is a positive item. We do a lot of ordinances that tend to infringe on people's property May 14, 2013 171 rights and this one says to them that the Board will protect your rights as much as we possibly can. He hopes it encourages citizens to take part in any change in their neighborhood; to come out and speak for or against whatever rezoning or other issues come up. We want citizens to be involved, especially when it comes to property rights, which is a basic right of every citizen in the Country. Supervisor Flora stated there are a number of contradictions within this resolution. He has received a number of phone calls from the business community that sees this as a very serious issue. Under number 3, it says "That property owners have the right to use their land as they see fit as long as that use does not interfere with the rights of others." Which takes precedent, the right to use your property the way you want to or a complaint from a neighbor that you are interfering with their peaceful use of their property? Who is going to make that interpretation? Do we have an answer to that? Who is making that decision? Mr. Mahoney responded he believed that the governing body has to make that decision at each and every instance when that occurs. Supervisor Flora stated that it seems that this resolution outs property rights above everything else. His concern is how do you enforce a zoning ordinance when people can use the property any way they see fit? It seems to him that if you adopt this resolution the best thing you can do is just repeal the zoning ordinance because it will not have any value at all, it will be unenforceable. Supervisor Elswick stated but isn't this current policy that people have a right to use their property as they see fit as long as it does not interfere with either the rights of other people, which would include County administration. How is that different from our current policy? Supervisor Flora responded right now you can use your property in any way that the zoning ordinance permits not as you see fit, but how it permits. He has a nice little piece of property out in Hollins and could put a pig farm on it, he may want to do that but can he do that if the Board adopts this resolution, could he put a pig farm in the middle of that subdivision. Supervisor Elswick responded not if it violates an ordinance because County administration has rights to adopt ordinances that to some extent control property rights of individuals. He does not see how that is different. Supervisor Flora stated but that is not what the resolution says, it says "the property owner has the right to use their property as they see fit as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others." It does not say anything about complying with any ordinances, regulations or laws, it just says as they see fit. Supervisor Elswick stated but it cannot interfere with the rights granted to County administration, which is to write ordinances and do zoning. Supervisor Flora stated he guessed if a reasonable person is interpreting this resolution, it probably would not be a problem, but if an unreasonable person is interpreting it they can make life miserable for some people. He stated he thinks it is incredibly arbitrary, vague, and contradictory and thinks it is a bad idea. 172 May 14, 2013 Supervisor Moore stated she could go down every item on this resolution and ask the same question. What does this mean? She stated she is not going to do that and will summarize a few things and she concurred with what Supervisor Flora just said. The entire resolution is ambiguous, it contradicts itself and it is open ended. It would take away more rights than it would give and it would drastically halt economic development according to item 6 which reads, "That residential or agriculturally zoned areas may not be changed to commercial or utility zoning without a valid public purpose." What does that mean, who would determine that valid purpose? It would take away rights of our citizens in every single one of these. She thinks our Planning Commission and County staff and our Board does a good job on the public hearings or rezonings. We advertise; we let people know that they can come to community meetings and their voices will be heard on ordinances or any rezoning that we do. We communicate with our citizens. We have ordinances in place now that protect all of our citizens. She stated she thinks if the Board adopted this resolution, we would have citizens against citizens, neighbors pitting neighbors because it would be up to staff, actually according to item 11, "that no officer or employee shall enter upon private property except as authorized by law. Police emergencies, fire events, property inspections and normal social service visits may be conducted as authorized without advance notice. Non - emergency visits to private property must be conducted during daylight hours and advance notice to the property owner is required. Exceptions to this policy may be granted by the County administrator and such exceptions must be approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors." Our Board of Supervisors sets policies and we approve ordinances. We are not in the legislative branch of government. We would have to call a special meeting if necessary just so maybe a Sheriff's Department Deputy could serve a summons or leave it. According to this, they could not even go onto the property. She stated she thinks just every single one of these takes away a property owner's rights and we have ordinances that protect this. There is mention in here about eminent domain. We don't take property where we are a Dillon state and we have to do what the State mandates us to do. Every single one of them. She stated she certainly does not think she would have the right to sit on this Board if she would approve this resolution. Supervisor Church stated he thinks it is the eyes that you are looking through this at. He can see valid points that could be looked at as an infringement on people's rights. He does not see it that way. He is taking a look at every day of his life he sees things from Washington, DC and the State of Virginia that tells him that things are being done incrementally each day, without us knowing; negotiations are being held mostly in secret. Look at the latest fiasco: Internal Revenue Service intervention, secretly capturing phone records of Associated Press. This may sound small to people, but if this Board does not do something to sets some guidelines, our own County Attorney (illustration purposes) has told us many times, going back to the wind turbines. If you do not have some guidelines in that particular situation, we are vulnerable should something come in. He advised he is not comparing this to wind turbines, but if we do May 14, 2013 173 not take some steps, he is not against business development, before the resolution would go down in its entirety, where other Board members have mentioned items one through eleven, he believes if you want to look for something wrong on item eleven you can find something wrong with part of each one. He stated he believes that is not the intent of this resolution. So, it is his viewpoint that it is something being done or attempting to be done to protect people, not to override zoning regulations or anything that this Board and previous Boards have set into place. He stated he thinks they can reasonably take a look at the intent and he believes the County Attorney helped him prepare this. (Mr. Mahoney agreed.) He does not believe our County Attorney would just put anything into items one through eleven haphazardly; has more faith in him. Supervisor Elswick stated he got the same phone calls that everybody else did last night, primarily from the Roanoke Chamber of Commerce. The big item with number six, that what we are saying could interfere with economic development and there is nothing in there that says it will interfere with economic development. Our current policy to invite businesses to the area is going to be the same that it has always been. We want them here. We want more jobs. We want more tax revenue. Any economic development project is going to be approved by this Board in the same manner it has always been approved. Since there is an objection to item eleven, he will explain one reason it is in there. He has had County employees come to his house twice in the middle of the night for no good reason. The first time was ten o'clock on a Saturday night. The person did not want to be there, he apologized. Supervisor Elswick stated he called his boss on Monday and the man was very rude to him and said some things that were not true about his property. It happened again on a Thursday night at midnight, two cars came to his house. They were lost. His driveway is the plainest labeled driveway on Bent Mountain. They were not lost. They knew where they were and they were looking for somebody else. They could have called him if they needed his opinion on where this other person was. He stated he lived one half a mile off the main road in the woods. A car coming to his house at midnight will be met with a gun because there are things that happen in a rural area. There are people looking to put meth labs. There are all kinds of opportunities for things to happen to citizens, especially in rural areas. You have to make sure that you prepare for them. Those people were also rude and he has yet to receive an apology from the people responsible. He does not want any citizen in this County to have to be subjected to that kind of treatment, again, never again; that is no way to treat the people who pay the taxes in this County and that is why item eleven is on this resolution. If you do not want to approve it, so be it; he does not really expect them to. He stated he wanted the citizens to know that we will make sure their property rights are being protected. Supervisor Church stated he has always been able to count to three. In lieu of something just being taken to the side of the table, he would suggest to postpone it, do some homework on it. If there are such a number of objections, then why doesn't this Board have a work session and see if we can come up with something and be 174 May 14, 2013 proactive for the people we represent. He reiterated that he can see how each item can be read in different ways; but does not believe that was the intent and purpose of this. Chairman Altizer stated when he looks at it and Mr. Church made a valid point, some people see things one way and some people see another with all good intentions on both sides. When it comes to interpretation, he thinks that is where we all get in trouble. He does not think there is any Board member sitting on this side of the dais now or any that has been here in his term that does not care about property rights. Sometimes some of us look at things different, some look at others with both good intentions, but there are things in here that do disturb him because he thinks and the fear from his part is how they can be interpreted. Now, in the one case where you have to go to somebody's property and make an appointment, with cell phones and the lack of landlines that is almost impossible to do; impossible. Non - emergency calls, there are Sheriff's deputies that serve civil subpoenas and all, that is really a non - emergency and getting somebody's phone number or way to contact, how do we do that. Sometimes these cases need to be done expediently. When we get to talk about rezonings and all, and we talk about in rezonings of having to have a valid purpose. A valid purpose under whose interpretation? At our next meeting, we are about to do two rezonings. One is an agricultural area for a special use permit for a church. Is that a valid purpose for that? Some people may not like the traffic that the church comes with or they may figure there is already enough in their neighborhood and they don't want any more traffic. So who is going to judge, who in staff, who in the County is going to judge a valid purpose? We also have another rezoning at our next meeting for Seaside Heights for a special use permit for a drive - through on a piece of property from what he understands is going to be another drugstore possibly. In his opinion, he does not know if he went by that judgment; we do not need another drug store there because CVS is across the street and Walgreens up at the top of the hill. There is just language in this that is arbitrary and capricious. It is unenforceable; it puts restrictions on County staff that they could not manage a lot of this. In his opinion, when we do a law and that is basically what we are doing when we do an ordinance is law, we need to make sure it is concise, it's right, there are not consequences on the other ends of enforcement, legality, etc. When he sees things about dictating in a rezoning a valid purpose, we probably have too many banks in this valley, we probably have too many doctors offices, too many grocery stores. Where do we draw the line? Who decides and makes the decision on whether a business can go somewhere because we have too many of them? This Board and the Planning Commission have always taken everything into consideration. He stated he thinks this creates a lot of problems. He advised he thinks it probably infringes on some rights that is not happening now. There are too many fatal errors here that makes it something he could support just because the language is totally wrong. He thinks it would be hard to administer and feels it would make it hard for staff and enforcement. When we make these kinds of ordinances and rules and regulations and we cannot enforce things that people believe they were intended to do. I think we look very bad in what we have done. May 14, 2013 175 Supervisor Flora advised he respects where Supervisor Church is going and he would suggest another tactic. Some of the phrases in here have real legitimacy; his problem is that when you put them together they become a different animal. There are some things in here that we ought to put into the Comprehensive Plan just as a philosophical policy. Property rights are very important. The State recognizes that property rights are very important too and that is why you cannot deny a person to request a rezoning for their property. Given some of the language here you would think there could be some administrative decisions made that would prohibit a person from being able to request a rezoning, much less get it completed. He stated the document as a whole sends a different message and some of the phrases in it individually. He thinks perhaps the Planning Department could look at those phrases and see if they fit into the Comprehensive Plan and the next time it is revised consider that. He would be afraid of the document that is this strong and can be a policy of the County and left to interpretation. It could be a gorilla. He would suggest we can either pass it by or we can vote on it, but there is some concern. He still says it is a bad idea. Chairman Altizer then recognized Tori Williams from the Roanoke Regional Chamber who has requested to speak on this item. Mr. Williams advised he did not want to reiterate the concerns shared by several members of the Board already, while we certainly agree with Mr. Elswick's belief that private property rights are essential to our society, we do feel the language in this resolution is overly broad and would add an unneeded layer of subjectivity to the current zoning process. We respectfully request that the Board table this resolution. Supervisor Church stated instead of scrapping it, let's find common ground. Maybe the wording could be tweaked in another way by our County Attorney that would make viable sense for this Board to take a look at. That is his suggestion instead of just saying it looks this way and that way. He stated he thinks the intent is a positive intent to protect individual property rights and owners. There is no way that he wants to change our County guidelines that this Board and previous Boards have already set up by incorporating language that would just be unenforceable, ambiguous etc. He would rather take a look in a work session where we can speak openly and the public can still be there. If that is workable, he thinks that would be the better avenue to take versus throwing it down. Chairman Altizer stating by hearing the discussion and to Supervisor Elswick, since it is a first reading for an ordinance, he would suggest that we push this out sixty days, turn it over to staff and let them determine after full dialogue and see if it fits in an ordinance, in a Comprehensive Plan or where. Sometimes something may not fit very well in an ordinance, but may fit in the Comprehensive Plan or vice versa. He thinks Supervisor Flora and Supervisor Church have come up with two workable solutions. He would want staff to have the time to effectively do it and do it right and schedule a work session. He will now defer to Supervisor Elswick Supervisor Elswick stated obviously it is not going to be approved in its 176 May 14, 2013 present form and rather than generalities he would have appreciated that the other Board members had let him know what they saw wrong, specifically and where it should be changed. It could have been done before the meeting, but it can be done later. It is fine with him to postpone and have another discussion on it in a work session. Chairman Altizer inquired of Mr. Goodman to have a work session in July, the second meeting in July and have staff go through and look at it to determine where does it fit, agreeable language that everyone can come to agreement on and does part of it fit into an ordinance or does part of it fit in the Comprehensive Plan. There were no objections. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 2013 -2014 budget and approval of the Classification Plan for fiscal year 2013 -2014 (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Mr. Robertson explained this was the first reading of the ordinance to appropriate funds for fiscal year 2013 -2014 budget. The public hearing on this item was held on April 23, 2013. Supervisor Church requested Mr. Robertson explain to the viewing audience the difference between total budget and the transfers. Mr. Robertson explained this was an accounting adjustment for the intra and inter fund transfer. Supervisor Church then asked Mr. Robertson to explain the operating budget or "check book." Mr. Robertson outlined the operating budget is the cash the County spends. There was no further discussion. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for May 28, 2013, and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 051413 -2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF 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: May 14, 2013 177 That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for May 14, 2013, 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 4 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes —April 9, 2013; April 23, 2013 2. Request to adopt a resolution to authorize a health reimbursement arrangement and approve plan documents 3. Request to approve an agreement with the Yakama Nation to resolve pending litigation 4. Request to appropriate $26,677.80 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal year 2012/2013 On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None RESOLUTION 051413 -2a ADOPTING THE HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENT FOR ROANOKE COUNTY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, as follows: 1. That the Health Reimbursement Arrangement effective July 1, 2013, presented to the Board of Supervisors at this meeting is hereby approved and adopted and that the County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to Flex Benefit Administrators, the Administrator of the Plan, one or more counterparts of the Plan; and 2. That the Administrator of the Plan shall be instructed to take such actions that are deemed necessary and proper in order to implement the Plan, and to set up adequate accounting and administrative procedures to provide benefits under the Plan; and 3. That the County Administrator, or his designee, shall act as soon as possible to notify the employees of the County of the adoption by delivering to each participating employee a copy of the summary description of the Plan in the form of the Summary Plan Description presented to this meeting, which form is hereby approved; and 4. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors further certifies that attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, are true copies that have not been modified or rescinded of the County of Roanoke Health Reimbursement Arrangement Plan Document and the Summary Plan description approved and adopted in the foregoing resolutions; and 5. That this Resolution is effective from and after July 1, 2013. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following 178 May 14, 2013 roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None A- 051413 -2.b A- 051413 -2.c IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The following citizens spoke. Ms. Susan Edwards of 4121 Given Road in Salem, Virginia stated she lives in the Glenvar area of the Catawba magisterial district. Before she gets to the item she distributed she would like to express her appreciation to the Planning Department. She has learned they are working to seek funding for sidewalks as part of the improvement to Route 460, West Main Street. They are working to acquire some funding to put sidewalks in while the construction work is ongoing. She advised she appreciates their efforts in that regard and wanted to bring that to the Board. The primary reason that she is here this afternoon is that here in Virginia as well as across the country, May has become recognized as Military Appreciation Month. She just learned of this late last week, otherwise she would have approached the Board to have the Board adopt a resolution, but because of time constraints she wanted to bring it to the Board during the citizen comment period and she would like to read. It is based on the resolution that Governor Bob McDonnell has put together for the Commonwealth of Virginia. MILITARY APPRECIATION MONTH WHEREAS, the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, given by God and enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, secured by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and enjoyed by every citizen of the United States are a direct result of the blood that has and continues to be shed by, and the continued vigilance of, the citizen members of the United States Armed Forces throughout the history of our great nation; and WHEREAS, the sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and the family members that support them have preserved the liberties that have enriched both this nation and Commonwealth; and May 14, 2013 179 WHEREAS, since the birth of the nation, Virginians have had a proud history of service in the United States Armed Forces in both times of peace and times of war, expertly displayed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world; and WHEREAS, many Virginians continue to serve on active duty and in the National Guard, in other reserve components of the Armed Forces or as civilian federal defense contractors employed at installations throughout the Commonwealth; and WHEREAS, more than 830,000 veterans chose to make the Commonwealth of Virginia their home after the end of their active service; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Virginia wish to recognize, honor, and show appreciation for all members of the United States Armed Forces, past and present, as well as their families, and to set aside the month of May to pay tribute to the sacrifices and service of the brave and dedicated men and women of our armed forces; WHEREAS, Virginia Governor has recognized May 2013 as Military Appreciation Month, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Susan K. Edwards, hereby request that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors recognize May 2013 as MILITARY APPRECIATION MONTH in ROANOKE COUNTY VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens. Chairman Altizer requested the Clerk prepare the proclamation for his signature to be posted. Mr. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in Roanoke stated portraying cold weather as the result of global warming is only one aspect of the circus we have been subjected to lately. Gems that stand out include claims that earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes are caused or will be made worse by global warming. Last year, we were told that global warming could "turn us all into hobbits" that one caused me to remark, "earthquakes are caused by Rumple Stiltskin stomping his foot when he disappears into the earth." The Green Globalists believe people are sheep people and will drink their cool -aid endlessly. Confronted by an endless avalanche of such nonsensical drivel, it seems almost fool -hardy to argue facts. There has been no increase in mean global temperature for 15 years. Drought is not increasing, nor are wildfires. Tornadoes are not increasing in frequency or intensity. Routine hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina have been offered as evidence of climate change, but worldwide hurricane activity is near a 40 year low. Over the past 20 years, the sea level has risen by about five centimeters "an ominous trend" unless you're aware that since the end of the last Ice Age, the global sea level has risen 120 meters. At the end of March, the aerial extent of sea ice in the Arctic was three percent (3 %) below the 30 -year average. Sea ice in the Antarctic, however, was elevated twenty -four percent (24 %). Global sea ice was " "above "" the 30 -year mean and higher than it was in March 1980. Only the naive can be so logical as to reason that "global" warming ", or lack thereof, should be evaluated in terms of "global" conditions rather than local. A study published in Nature Geoscience on March 31 concluded that the increase of Antarctic sea ice is caused by, you guessed it, "global warming ". With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that 80 May 14, 2013 global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is "ironic" that skeptics are called "deniers" when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial. So, "WHY" are we still funding UN Agenda 21 ICLEI? The "International" Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. Ms. Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane in the Cave Spring District stated property rights are fundamental to America. Former President John Adams thought so when he said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." Another President, Calvin Coolidge, joined in by saying, "ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing." Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders of Washington state in 1997 emphasized, "property is a thing consists not nearly in its ownership and its possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment and disposal. If the value of property is annihilated, ownership is rendered a barren right." When the Board voted to continue membership in ICLEI there was much discussion and concern about the future protection of property rights. One of you stated, "you know, I've heard a lot about personal property rights, but I haven't heard anyone say what we as a Board have done that has interfered with property rights, but I know there has been people who have said thank you protecting those rights." She advised she does not think they will be saying that anymore. Another said, "This County is so strong in its belief of freedom and liberty that I cannot believe that the general public will ever give up that right to anyone." She stated you are correct about that. As new regulations come out from the federal and state government and more NGO's with a vested interest in reducing these rights come about and UN suggestions appear through such organizations as ICLEI, these rights are gradually being eroded. Local governments must show leadership and strength in preserving these rights for their citizenry. No one knows what new regulations and suggestions will be made in the future. So, the time for localities to act is now and more and more localities are recognizing this. Utah thought it was so important; they have a complete state agency to protect private property rights. Other localities have introduced resolutions very much like the one that was here. You say the words, but you do not follow through with your actions. Today is the day that you made clear to the citizens of this County that you will not look for any way that you can seek additional protection for them. We notice these things. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None May 14, 2013 181 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Elswick stated Saturday before last at the Salem Civic Center, some of the local sports car enthusiasts, primarily the BMW Club and some of the Porsche people and other ones were involved had a training session for youth. They took them through all kinds of different maneuvers, wet roads, going around curves, negotiating s's and showing young people the kind of situations that they were not ordinarily exposed to so they can see how their vehicle handled and everybody had a lot of fun. The event started at 7:00 a.m. and finished about 8:00 p.m. A number of local counties participated, the Sheriff's Departments, the Police Departments and the instructors were experienced, qualified at VIR, some of them drove from as far away as West Virginia and Alexandria, Virginia and North Carolina to help our young people learn how to acclimate themselves to dangerous situations and he thinks we need to recognize people who make that kind of contribution to the area and donate their time to it and there were forty (40) youngsters who participated; there is a waiting list with forty some more on it and he thinks to the extent young people learn how to react in some road situations it would benefit us all. He stated he really appreciated what those instructors did and the Salem Civic Center for allowing it to be conducted in their parking lot. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:09 p.m., Chairman Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A 1, Personnel, namely discussion concerning an appointment to the Clean Valley Council; Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT); the Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board; the Roanoke Valley — Alleghany Regional Commission and the Roanoke Valley Regional CATV Committee and Section 2.2 -3711 A 3, namely acquisition of property for use as public park and recreation purposes, where the discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 82 May 14, 2013 The closed session was held from 7:05 until 7:20 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session on the County's Legislative Program and preparation for the 2014 session of the Virginia General Assembly (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Eldon James, Roanoke County's Legislative Liaison) The work session was held from 4:25 p.m. until 4:57 p.m. In attendance for this work session was Paul Mahoney and Eldon James. Mr. Mahoney went through the 2013 legislative agenda items and Mr. James provided the Board with a brief overview of 2013. Mr. Mahoney then brought forward the following suggestions for 2014: BPOL (based on gross receipts) and machinery and tools will need a replacement if the governor eliminates. This would mean a $8 million replacement for Roanoke County. Mr. James remarked it is the same tax payer. Other suggestions were the comprehensive services act and stormwater. Mr. Mahoney asked that the Board advise of any issue they would like staff to pursue. 2. Work session to present staff recommendations for first tier projects of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) (Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) The work session was held from 4:59 p.m. until 6:52 p.m. In attendance for this work session were B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Rob Light, Purchasing Manager; Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance; Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services; Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services; Patience O'Brien, Assistant Director of Social Services; Division Chief Steve Simon; Daniel O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Joyce Earl, Director of Social Services; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget; Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. A PowerPoint presentation was presented, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. The staff recommendations were the replacement of the aging fuel tanks at the Kessler Mill facility; replacing emergency generators at Hollins, Fort Lewis, Clearbrook, Bent Mountain fire stations with an additional unit at Mt. Pleasant pending the result of competitive bids; replacing sports field lights at Darrell Shell Park and Arnold R. Burton Softball Complex and installation of additional lights at the Merriman Soccer Complex; making necessary repairs and future "pay as you go" renovations to the Department of Social Services Building located at 220 East Main Street in Salem and constructing a new Vinton Branch Library on S. Pollard Street in downtown Vinton. May 14, 2013 183 Ms. Owens presented a funding strategy that maintains as much capital reserves as feasible and minimizes borrowing. A part of this strategy is sharing costs with the Town of Vinton and the City of Salem. Supervisor Church remarked it is important not to extend financially and stay within its boundaries, especially with the issue of Stormwater Management coming. Supervisor Elswick questioned the kilowatt rating on the generators for fire and rescue and asked if it was possible to overhaul. Chief Simon explained it would not be cost effective to overhaul and also want to move from diesel to natural gas. It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with all of the outlined projects and to bring back before the Board on June 11 and June 25, 2013. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 7:15 p.m., Supervisor Flora moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. RESOLUTION 051413 -3 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies; and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None • IN RE: ADJOURNMENT May 14, 2013 Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Approved by: Michael W. Altizer Chairman Submitted by: