HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/14/2014 - RegularJanuary 14, 2014
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 January 2014. 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
Vice Chairman Moore called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. The roll
call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Supervisors Al Bedrosian, Joseph B. "Butch" Church,
Joseph P. McNamara; Charlotte A. Moore and P. Jason
Peters
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: ORGANIZATION OF COUNTY BOARD
1. Election of Officers
a. Chairman
Supervisor Moore nominated Supervisor McNamara to serve as
Chairman. Supervisor McNamara was elected by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor McNamara
b. Vice Chairman
K
January 14, 2014
Supervisor Bedrosian nominated Supervisor Peters to serve as Vice
Chairman. Supervisor Peters was elected by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
discussion.
2. Resolution establishing a meeting schedule for the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County for calendar year 2014
Ms. Jacks, Clerk to the Board outlined the proposed dates. There was no
RESOLUTION 011414 -1 ESTABLISHING A MEETING
SCHEDULE FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2014
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows
1 . That for calendar year 2014, the regular meetings
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are set forth below with
scheduled for 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise advertised.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, April 22, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, June 10, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, July 8, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, August 26, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, October 14, 2014 at 3 pm
Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
of the Board of
public hearings
January 14, 2014 3
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 3 pm
2. That the organizational meeting for 2015 shall be held on Tuesday,
January 13, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
Chairman McNamara then recessed the meeting at 2:08 p.m.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by Pastor
Robert Mullen of Shenandoah Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by
all present.
Chairman McNamara then called the meeting back into session at 3:00
p.m. advising all Board members were present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would like to move R.2 to an open
discussion; that was an item that we were going to "discuss and consider the
appointment and performance of specific public officers, appointees or employees of the
Board of Supervisors" that was going to be held in closed session. Since we are not
specifically talking about somebody and their performance, but more about switching
who that role would be under and changing some structure he thinks that should be
brought out in an open session. Chairman McNamara stated there must be unanimous
agreement and he does not see unanimous agreement and is inclined not to remove
R.2. He thinks it is appropriate to be discussed in closed session.
Supervisor Church stated respectfully concerning the R.2 item, by the
statute itself we are talking about the Board Clerk for the Board of Supervisors and it is
not naming an individual person. He stated he has always felt that the Clerk to the
Board is our layer between citizens, 96,000 people and has always been important and
thinks the 96,000 people, even though it has been ruled on, should have a say.
Supervisor Church then proceeded to ask that item F.2, Transfer $75,000
from the Vinton Library Project back to the Glenvar Library Project under New Business,
request to pull this from the agenda. He does not understand the sequence. He met
with the senior architect at the Library this past Friday; he was in from Ohio and had not
planned to come but was able to make it in. Supervisor Church stated they talked at
4 January 14, 2014
length about the project and the installation that we had problems with on the floor and
the outside work and not knowing if we have possible litigation or probable with
contracting problems. After that discussion, he stated he felt comfortable that we
should be okay financially to continue to finish the stages of the project. This discussion
took place after the agenda was issued. It is important to note that he made this
decision on Saturday afternoon and of course the media has been going crazy about it.
He stated he even advised Supervisor Bedrosian during a Saturday call that he was
pulling the item well before the Roanoke Times put an article in and he tried several
times as Mr. Peters can state to contact him to tell him that. The Roanoke Times, in his
personal opinion, wants to drive a wedge where there is no wedge. He stated he was
looking forward to a brand new Board this year; positive thinking. He congratulated the
people who won their elections. It is just sad to begin 2014 under this unnecessary
issue. This was a nonissue, he simply did what any Board member would do to look
and protect a possible finishing of a project, the Glenvar Library. A couple of other
items that were misstated in the Roanoke Times, the items in November he had
reservations about it when the work session was held. The new business item included
about nine (9) items totaling $1.2 million, all kind of important things, so he did not vote
to pull it off there because he saw no point because in the work session it was already
taken care of. The Roanoke Times is right, he does not return their calls and they like
to make it appear that he is hiding something. This is a wide -open issue so he does not
return calls because of obvious past history.
Chairman McNamara advised this requires unanimous consent of the
Board, there were no objections.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Roanoke County Police Department for receiving
the Award for Excellence from the Virginia Crime Prevention
Association (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police)
Chief Hall gave a brief outline concerning the award mentioning Rick
Crossier and Eric Orange and Project Lifesaver. Supervisors Moore, Peters and
McNamara, offered their congratulations.
2. Recognition of Officer Tim Knicely for being named the Roanoke
Chamber of Commerce Roanoke County Police Officer of the Year
(Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police)
Chief Hall gave a brief outline explaining why Officer Knicely was named
Roanoke County Police Officer of the Year. All Supervisors offered their
congratulations.
January 14, 2014 r J
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing on Resolution 111312 -3 Policy regarding opening
Invocations before meetings of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney stated that Mr. Bedrosian had requested a briefing regarding
opening Invocations. This began when the County received a threat of a lawsuit letter
in May of 2012 from the Freedom from Religion organization. Roanoke County did not
have a written policy, but an unofficial practice. Clerk would attempt to find priests,
ministers, rabbis, religious leaders to say the invocation. The Board held at least three
public meetings and consulted with several individuals, one of which was Richard Mast,
Liberty University and the Alliance Defending Freedom. The resolution that the Board
considered is in large measure modeled from the Alliance Defending Freedom. This
resolution went before the Circuit Court who said they have a good resolution. The
County is currently adhering to this policy. The legal landscape has changed and the
Supreme Court has not rendered its decision. What the Court does will give us
direction; he is hoping on a unanimous vote. At that time, he will come back to the
Board.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he just wanted to make sure a couple of
things are clear. We are talking about private citizens coming in to this establishment
and praying; we are not talking about government officials praying. Mr. Mahoney
confirmed that was correct. Supervisor Bedrosian stated what we had before we
actually put government in the middle of this was we did not have a policy. Private
citizens could come and pray and lead our sessions in prayer and they were not
restricted and we allowed anybody. Is this correct, or was there any limitations? Mr.
Mahoney stated we allowed everyone. Mr. Bedrosian stated so everybody had the
freedom to come in and they are all citizens; not a government dictated prayer so there
must have been a catalyst that somewhere somebody from this Freedom of Religion
group that said we need to do something about Roanoke County. Was there a catalyst
because you jumped from yes we were doing x and then all of a sudden we have a
lawsuit pending. Mr. Mahoney explained the catalyst is from a legal analysis point of
view that yes, he may be a citizen speaking here, but one of the arguments among the
lawyers is that is this deemed to be government speak because it is part of a
government meeting, it's a government meeting, it's part of the process of governing.
The argument is on the one hand just like at the end of your agenda there are citizen
comments. Citizens come in for three minutes and pretty much say anything they want;
that is not entirely true as he guesses if you had some libel or slander or pornographic
material; there is a way to cut that speech off. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if they could
go against our prayer policy. Mr. Mahoney stated yes, any person could come in and if
you believe the newspaper that is essentially occurring in Pittsylvania County because
Pittsylvania County currently has litigation pending and they have an injunction against
6 January 14, 2014
them so they do not have an invocation period. His understanding is that people are
coming in under the three - minute citizen comment period and proceeding to speak at
that point.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated the reason he is trying to get to this point too
is that he is a firm believer in limited government and he is also is a firm believer that we
do not put policies in place that we do not enforce because we see that on all levels of
government that there are things put in as policies or rules or regulations or laws that
are subjectively enforced. So he stated he thinks as a good governing body that we
would only put things in place that we would be willing to enforce. When he looks
around and hear pastors pray, he does not see anybody adhering to the policy; he does
not think they think about the policy when they come in and pray. He hopes they do not
and when they do not, we do not do anything about it. So, in a sense of lean
government and removing things we do not need, why we even have the policy even in
place. First of all, no one is going to adhere to it and secondly when they don't that we
do not enforce it.
Mr. Mahoney responded that he would recommend to the Board that we
keep the policy in place because he views the policy as a shield, a shield that defends
the County and its taxpayers hopefully from some litigation. He stated he thinks Mr.
Bedrosian is correct in that the problem that the County faces is classic mythology and
gave an example from Homer. What we are trying to do here is on the one hand not
infringe upon a citizen's first amendment right to speak, but at the same time not go so
far to the other extreme that we open ourselves up to the litigation threat. Mr. Mahoney
stated this was not a perfect solution, but we at least have a shield that he hopes and
Mr. Mast and others have recommended that will help protect us.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated its saddens him that we are always living our
lives based on that we are not going to get sued and there are going to be other issues
that the County, the second amendment right, if that also comes under fire, do we give
in on those rights. Do we give in on every single right that is Constitutional? He is not
saying make things up, obviously, it is a Constitutional right that government would
never infringe on a private citizens religious freedom; never infringe on it and here we
are. He would assume that the second amendment and every other right that we have
as citizens could also be a "fear of litigation" and that we would buckle. He stated he is
bringing this to the Board right now that is his fear. It may start off with this issue, which
people may or may not be concerned about, but he does not see why you would not go
to every other issue and every other freedom that we have.
Supervisor Church stated for a point of clarification because he may have
missed it. Don't we have a hearing, is it in Rome or Greece, New York. Mr. Mahoney
stated it is the Town of Greece in upstate New York. He stated he happens to believe
in our freedom of religion and he fought alongside Liberty University in fighting Freedom
from Religion in Wisconsin. Does he agree with everything that we have, he would like
to have it as the believer believes, but with Mr. Mahoney and legal counsel from other
areas we felt like this could be the best possible option. Is it, he does not know. He
January 14, 2014 7
saw in a restaurant and believes it was wonderful. On a t- shirt, it says "prayer, the
world's greatest wireless connection." He stated that Mr. Bedrosian is not far off the
base, and he will close his comments with the Roanoke Times, October 24, 2007,
"Church has distinguished himself over device and meaningless issues like prayer in
public buildings."
Supervisor Peters requested two clarifications. Roanoke Times does
have it right for him, he does support prayer. The reason we moved it outside of the
actual business, when the Chairman drops the gavel, we moved it beforehand as a way
to eliminate the threat from the Freedom from Religion. Is that correct? Mr. Mahoney
responded that was one of several strategies. Supervisor Peters stated have we also
had from Liberty University and others who have stated they would represent us free of
charge as far as the County. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Supervisor
Peters stated but also in that litigation and he is trying to make sure everybody up here
understands, the precedent has been set that when you lose that case you are paying
and assuming about $500,000 of taxpayer money towards a penalty. Mr. Mahoney
responded if you pay the case, you pay the other side's attorney's fees. He stated that
he thinks the $500,000 is a high estimate and that is if you would go all the way to the
US Supreme Court. Again, relying on newspaper articles, he thinks Pittsylvania County
has been hit with approximately $150,000, but that case is still not over. Supervisor
Peters reiterated that is taxpayer funds, with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative.
2. Briefing regarding past Board of Supervisors actions regarding
the Vinton Library project as well as a project overview and status
update (Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. Caywood advised this briefing was requested by Supervisor Bedrosian
as an example of a CIP project and how it came through the CIP process. How money
is appropriated, when it starts, how it builds and what is the end result. Mr. Caywood
gave a PowerPoint presentation with an overview of the project from start to current
status. A copy of the presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors.
Supervisor Church commented he has voted yes on the Vinton Library
every single time. He stated it is important to note did the Vinton Library ever reach
priority number one. Mr. Caywood stated he was not here at the time and cannot
answer that question and does not know where it ended up in the CIP process.
Supervisor Church thought it was number five.
Chairman McNamara recognized Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance.
Chairman Church then explained the CIP process and stated it is his recollection that
the highest the Vinton project got was number five (5) on the CIP Committee. Ms.
Owens responded if she could just backup to the work session that we did in May of
2013, County staff did bring to the Board a listing of all of the Tier 1 priority projects and
through the CIP process during that particular year they were broken out into Tier 1, 2
8 January 14, 2014
and 3 projects. She stated she did not have that particular paper, but the Vinton Library
was one of those top Pier 1 projects along with several others, social services, fuel tank
at Kessler Mill and we were actually able at that particular time fund through cash most
all of those Tier 1 projects. His point for the viewing audience, we publish a Capital
Improvement Project booklet, and before they were numerical and there was a reason
for that because we wanted the group that we appointed and staff to find out the items
that are most important. Is that a true statement? It is important that if the Board has
guidelines and rules, we need to look at things as a whole and what is best for the
County, but he knows what a labor of love Glenvar was. Glenvar was number one on
the list for four or five years, but we finally got it. So, we need to make a concentrated
effort on our CIP that when we evaluate and prioritize we do so for a reason. It is
going to be a wonderful project. He just hopes that we can get into a more detailed and
chronological way of prioritizing. We either use it or get rid of it.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented that he thinks we throw around these
millions of dollars like we have the money, but we don't really have the money we go
out and borrow the money. He stated he is 52 years old and has worked hard all of his
life and lives in a beautiful neighborhood and there are actually 52 homes in that
neighborhood on 65 acres of land and the entire value of our entire development is a
tad over what this Vinton Library is costing today. So, he just brings that up to think,
things just don't seem to be done reasonably anymore. It just seems like every project
becomes much larger and he did not realize we were up to $10 million. He was at a
meeting where it was $6 plus million, but he guesses in looking at all the costs it is now
$10 million. Is this the end, or will the next briefing be at $11 million?
Mr. Caywood responded the project is currently out to bid so until we get a
project price by the private sector that is a difficult question to answer. He stated staff
believes based on the estimate that is prepared by our architect and also through
review by staff that we have a solid estimate for the project. If our bid comes in over our
estimate, we have a number of choices to make. We can either reduce the scope of the
project; bring it before the Board to see if they wanted to put any more funds into the
project. Right now, we have roughly $500,000 in contingency in the project that we
would hope not to spend.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked of the $9.2 million, there is $500,000 in
contingency with Mr. Caywood responding that is correct. It is a four percent (4 %)
contingency and for a project of this size that is actually a pretty conservative number
for your project contingency. This number includes an estimating contingency which is
not going to be perfect and also construction contingencies if you were to encounter
unforeseen conditions, etc. He stated the history as a County has been they are
generally conservative with budgeting for these projects and typically they do have
remaining funds at completion, which those funds have been historically moved to other
projects. He advised the bids are due back first week in February and staff will report
back to the Board when they have those in hand.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked what is the deal with libraries? He brings this
January 14, 2014 9
up because it seems we are going from district to district building new libraries and they
are all going to be $10, $15 $20 million. SW County set the benchmark with cafe's and
auditoriums and now we are in Vinton, which has climbed up from being just a
renovation now to $10 million. He is just curious what is it about libraries that have to
build starting at $10 million now.
Mr. Caywood advised the best answer to that question, certainly the entire
CIP process is a collaborative effort between the Committee that the Board appoints
and the Board as a whole. He thinks the public has shown they are very interested in
new libraries; our usership certainly rises. As to what you might want to do in the future
is at the discretion of the Board. There is always more demand for capital projects than
there are funds. All of the projects are discretionary actions of the Board. We try to
make recommendations, but ultimately the choices that are made in the Capital process
belong to the Board.
Supervisor Moore stated she would just like to add that with the Vinton
Library, we have to look at every aspect. It is not just a beautiful building; it is also an
economic driver for Vinton. The Board has to look at every situation and see what it is
going to do. There are other funding mechanisms put into that area to help the library.
When South County was completed in 2012, the remaining funding was put into the
Glenvar Library back in 2010. If we know what the CIP costs and the architectural plans
and the scope of the work needs to be and then we can plan accordingly.
Chairman McNamara asked if the A & E fees comes in over budget and it
becomes necessary for them to rebid, is it at their cost and not the County. Mr.
Caywood advised in the affirmative. Chairman McNamara then asked if value
engineering was a part of this contact. Mr. Caywood advised based on the experience
on the past two projects, staff did not think it was a wise expenditure based on what
they saw out of the last two projects to procure that separately and go through the
formal process. Instead, they have hired an independent AE from the one that we are
using for the design to essentially do a plan review, which they will do at two different
stages during project development. This tailors the scope of the project.
Supervisor Peters inquired how much of the money has already been
spent and when you give the estimate of $10.8 million, part of that money that came in
is money that the Town of Vinton also paid for the land acquisition. Mr. Caywood
advised in the affirmative that the Town will pay over time, a little over $600,000; which
the County paid for up front. He was trying to be as conservative as possible with that
number because it did represent the full amount the Board appropriated for the project.
Per the agreement, they will pay us back for that so that would reduce the overall cost
of the project. It would not change the estimate of the $9.5 number. Supervisor Peters
asked again how much has already been spent on this project. Mr. Caywood
responded just a little over $500,000 for the A & E fees to date, not counting the land.
Supervisor Peters advised in answer to Supervisor Bedrosian, in his opinion the library
could not be renovated, it was the oldest in the system and the third most used. The
current land in the system would not allow the renovations that were needed.
10 January 14, 2014
Supervisor Church commented that he agreed that the Vinton Library was
important just as the Glenvar Library was important and wanted to let everyone know
that when they bought a new book, they had to remove one.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated just to bring this back to point, the reason
that he asked for these things is that he wants an understanding and as we proceed in
the future how can we keep a cap on these things from becoming so large. Would it
take a Board vote to add more money to this? What projects are there on the CIP
project list right now that have to deal with public safety that have not been done
because we are doing projects at this level of money. The reason he asks this
question, he is a firm believer in the role of government and public safety and those
types of things are very important to him so when he looks at some of these CIP
projects, he sees a bunch of things that do not get done and he is just curious on how
we do decide and the money we spend obviously means we do not do other things,
they get pushed to the side.
Mr. Caywood responded in order to be better prepared he would have had
the CIP list with him. He stated we do have needs and costs, some of those are in fire
and rescue and police. One that you are familiar with is the substation in SW County
that does need a lot of work. Staff is pursuing public safety projects with the current CIP
package, part of which includes replacement generators at our fire stations so there is
always a mix of projects, some of which will always public safety related project. Again,
just like the work we are doing now at our Social Services building, he never likes to
look at it as one being more important that the other. They are all needs that we have,
again, while staff will certainly make recommendations, we also look to the Board for
guidance on which projects they would like to see and in what order. Also, the
questions raised about the scope of the project, as you suggest each change in the
dollar value of the Vinton project, Board action was required. So, it is a process
between staff and the Board and one thing you will see as the Vinton project unfolds, if
there are any financial changes in the project whatsoever, staff will be back to brief the
Board and seek direction.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated so the project grew from $1 million to $10
million from renovation at $1 million to a new building at $10 million. Mr. Caywood
responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Peters stated in reviewing the CIP, there are public safety
issues regarding new fire stations and upgrades to the Police Department, but he stated
he thinks if you want to address the needs for public safety it is going to be more
staffing. He stated he knows there are renovations that need to be done, but staffing
needs are the main concern with public safety
Chairman McNamara gave a brief explanation of what CIP means; a
group of citizens appointed by the different magisterial districts to try to evaluate
different projects; potential capital projects within the Roanoke County system. This
group changes every year and the listing of projects may change drastically every year.
It is another source document and input for the Board of Supervisors to utilize in their
January 14, 2014 11
decision making process. It is not binding on the Board of Supervisors in any way
shape or form. It might have dollar estimates and suggestions but it is not binding on
the Board of Supervisors. Those projects have to be approved by the Board of
Supervisors. Any funding has to be approved by ordinance, which requires two
readings and any changes to those fundings has to be approved by ordinance as well.
3. Briefing on Roanoke County's Involvement with ICLEI (Anne
Marie Green, Director of General Services)
Ms. Green introduced Jessee Freeman who is the current Chairman of
RCCLEAR and is here to answer any questions. Ms. Green proceeded to give a brief
history of the County's involvement with ICLEI.
Supervisor Moore commented ICLEI is a non - profit organization. When
we went to the conference, we learned so much and continue to learn with ICLEI. It is
an informational tool for us also. There were mayors, governors and elected officials
from all over the world that gathered information and we were able to sit in on the
breakout sessions and learned a lot.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he had a concern with ICLEI providing a trip
for free with lodging. Ms. Green remarked this was before the recession. Supervisor
Bedrosian stated he was surprised ICLEI took government officials on a trip. Could
anybody any Roanoke County could go for free. Ms. Green explained no, two people
and they wanted the elected officials. Supervisor Bedrosian stated that concerns him.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked what ICLEI stands for. Mr. Freedman responded, the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. It is an international group, but
the United States version is Local Governments for Sustainability. Supervisor
Bedrosian asked if there is a connection between the two? Ms. Green responded ICLEI
is the umbrella organization and ICLEI USA is the one we specifically belong to.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he worked for a global company, so it is a fair assessment
to say that we are involved with Local Governments for Sustainability but it is part of a
global organization. Is that correct? Ms. Green responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian remarked about all the benefits of it, and the benefits that are
mentioned all sound great. We all want to reduce our consumption and all that. There
are a couple of things that he has read; he read through a fifty -two page document,
which he thinks was the document that was done after 2009. It said that some of the
benefits of undertaking this project that were significant was reducing the local
community's contribution to global warming. Now, the reason he stated he brings this
up is to make sure why we are involved in this organization and what is it that we are
actually trying to accomplish. His question to both Ms. Green and Mr. Freedman was
do either of one of you or both of you believe in man -made global warming. Mr.
Freedman responded "absolutely, and so do 97% of climate scientists. Ms. Green
advised she is a local government official and she does not believe one way or the
other. She stated what she does believe is those carbon emissions make the air dirty.
12 January 14, 2014
If they also led to global warming, whatever, but she does believe that they contribute to
pollution in the Roanoke Valley and she also believes that being in a bowl, the Roanoke
Valley does have poor air quality. Interstate 81 does not help us. The fact that our
electricity comes from coal does not help us. We do have a problem with our air quality.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated that it does say that the number one benefit
is reducing the local community's contribution to global warming. Ms. Green inquired
what Supervisor Bedrosian was reading from. Supervisor Bedrosian stated a Roanoke
County milestone report. His question is the number one thing is reducing our
contribution to global warming. He stated he does not believe in manmade global
warming and that is why he is bringing this up. He stated we all have our difference of
opinion and his question whether you believe in global warming because it is our
number one thing we are doing in ICLEI. He asked Mr. Freedman if he believed that.
Mr. Freedman responded climate change is the framework by which we attack these
activities so climate change is the driving force but all of the things have other
environmental and economic benefits; benefits for the entire community. So, whether or
not you believe in climate change, it will still benefit the Roanoke Valley.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if climate change and global warming
are the same thing with Mr. Freedman responding in the affirmative. Supervisor
Bedrosian stated so what we are saying we think and this is the reason we are into this,
is that we feel that our activities that we are doing are making our earth warmer and if
we could just reduce those activities then we would not have global warming or we
could reduce it. That is the premise that we are all involved in this organization.
Ms. Green stated she thinks that is ICLEI's main driving force, and does
not think that it is Roanoke County's driving force. If you look at the SavATon campaign
that is really aimed at giving people ways to save money by saving energy. People do
disagree; they have different sides for global warming.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he wants to make sure he is understanding
the reasons we are involved, clearly, the reasons why we are involved. So, when he
looks at a document that says Roanoke County Board of Supervisors voted
unanimously... and here is the benefit. That is the number one and he personally does
not believe in manmade global warming. He stated he thinks climate changes all the
time. For the last seventeen (17) years from what he is hearing, the temperature has
gone down versus up. So, he just wants to make that point. The other thing was that
part of the benefits were that it would encourage the creation of new, green jobs in our
communities. Do either one of you believe that is the role of government, to create any
kind of job in Roanoke County. Is this his job to go out and create a certain type of job?
Ms. Green responded we have the Department of Economic Development. Supervisor
Bedrosian asked but are we pinpointing a certain type. This document says specifically
green jobs, so he agrees that our County should promote all types of jobs and we
should not be zeroing in because he is afraid when we say this that means we are going
to give preference to people who come in with certain levels and because we want
green jobs that we will be giving money to those people and he does not like that
January 14, 2014 13
because it is not the role of government; for any kind of job. So, those are two very,
very important points. He wants to understand why we are in it. One other thing, as he
read through this report, we had all kinds of graphs, not just about the County but about
residents and how residential areas are using energy. He does not think that is
anybody's business how residents use energy. Could they come to where he lives, his
development, and see how much energy our development is using. Is it the County's
business to know how much energy he uses? He used to get an audit; actually AEP
came in and did the audit. He could agree or not agree with it. Now, the County
actually has tools and has access to Roanoke Gas, AEP to find out the energy
consumption of residents.
Mr. Freedman stated it was not individual residents. Ms. Green advised it
is the entire County. They release it as a large block.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired if it could be parts of SW County versus
North County? Ms. Green responded she does not think AEP would be willing to share
that type of information nor would she imagine Roanoke Gas would. VDOT possibly if
they keep the statistics would have to as it is a public organization, but does not know if
they keep the statistics that way or not. Ms. Green stated that was never designed to
look at individuals. It is designed to look at the community as a whole and see if you
are meeting the goals. The green jobs, to go back to that, she does not think you are
paraphrasing exactly what RCCLEAR was talking about. It was encouraging green jobs
by encouraging people to get energy audits for example to create jobs to do that type of
thing. It was not that there was any financial support for creating those kinds of jobs.
Supervisor Bedrosian responded he is reading specifically from the document, to create
new, green jobs in the community. Ms. Green stated it meant encouraged by the
citizen's actions. She stated she thinks if he reads the entire sentence it will be clearer.
She stated she has not looked at that report for quite a while, obviously. Supervisor
Bedrosian stated it is just one of the items.
Supervisor Church inquired if the County can do these programs without
ICLEI? Ms. Green responded we cannot. ICLEI software is the only software that
allows you to calculate what a community is using in energy and if you are not going to
calculate that you are not going to find out if what you are doing is making a difference.
She advised she can find software that will calculate how much Roanoke County uses
and Mr. Freedman could find software to calculate how much Hollins uses, but there is
no other software out there that calculates what a community uses, i.e. will take the
VDOT information, AEP, Roanoke Gas and the Highland Propane and say guess what
the majority of your emissions come from electricity, which is what the statistics show
here, followed by transportation. So, no. Supervisor Church then asked the cost of the
software. Ms. Green responded just the dues, which is $1,200 a year. When are they
due or paid? Ms. Green responded in the fall, September. Supervisor Church then
asked have we solicited bids for other software and have we been told that there is not
any other software available. Is that still true, with Ms. Green responding in the
affirmative. She advised you can do it for an operation, like a manufacturing plant or
14 January 14, 2014
University, that software is definitely available as well as software for your house, but
not for the community. Supervisor Church then asked if we had every solicited with Ms.
Green responding that she has gone online searching for it and she has never been
able to find it. Supervisor Church stated he was not aware that there was a trip
involved. When was this? Ms. Green advised 2007. Supervisor Church asked where
was it to with Ms. Green responding in New Mexico. Supervisor Church then asked
what was the cost with Ms. Green responding she did not know because we did not pay
for it. If we did not have an elected official on that Board would ICLEI have picked
another Board member to go? Ms. Green stated Ms. Moore is the Board's
representative. Mr. Wray had been and then the Board appointed Ms. Moore to be that
representative so she is the person. ICLEI is very interested in involving local
government officials, elected officials; in fact ICLEI is driven by elected officials; that is
most of the people who were at the conference. Supervisor Church reiterated that he
did not know about it. He stated this Board voted for this in 2007 and he has openly
admitted in open session that he voted yes for it and he has said over and over that he
did not understand it. He stated he did not know if any of the previous Board really
understood it, but once he realized it comes under the United Nations and
internationally he has voted no in every subsequent vote. Does that make him right or
wrong, it is just his feeling that we have capable people, very capable people in
Roanoke County and he is amazed that we cannot do this program or better with the
people we have employed. We have some brilliant people working for Roanoke
County, without an international outfit.
Ms. Green then stated there is no affiliation between ICLEI and the United
Nations despite what you hear and despite what you read; there is no affiliation between
them.
Supervisor Moore stated she just wanted to reiterate ICLEI is a non - profit
organization and cannot tell us what to do. Whether climate change or global warming
is manmade or not, we are making a difference out in the community. Our citizens have
called and she believes we had over one hundred (100) applicants for the residential
audit and then we did business applicants. A lot of people keep calling and want those
audits but with the $300,000 grant, we were able to give some. It is a huge need and if
we can save someone some energy, which means saving them money by putting
weather stripping in or tightening their windows or other things that they did not realize
they could do to make a difference in their household or business. She stated she
thinks it is the government's intention to try to save our citizens money.
Supervisor Peters inquired with regard to the audits that were done are
they done annually or is it a one -time event. Ms. Green responded we only had the
money to do it one time. Most of the people that took action did see a reduction in their
energy bills. So, other than the software on a yearly basis what other impact has taken
place. Ms. Green advised by using the software we showed that we had a decrease in
our greenhouse gas emissions of four point six percent (4.6 %) from 2007 to 2011; that
is what the software is really for so you can calculate that. Otherwise you would not be
January 14, 2014 15
able to know if you making any type of difference. Supervisor Peters then stated to
piggyback on Supervisor Church's comment, we do have wonderful staff in Roanoke
County, but we do not have another program that we can purchase to do what we are
doing. Is that correct? Ms. Green responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated we received a $300,000 grant, with Ms.
Green advising it was part of the stimulus funds. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if we
received the stimulus funds for this program. Ms. Green responded the stimulus funds
came to Roanoke County based on our size, we were the tenth largest County in
Virginia so we automatically got the stimulus grant providing that we had a shovel -ready
program and she states she believes it was around a million dollars, most of that was
used for performance contracting for County buildings. We had a company that looked
at all the County buildings and guarantee that you will recoup all of your costs over a
period of time. We retrofitted lights, did things to air conditioning, things to plumbing
and that type of thing and that was the vast majority of that money. The rest of the
money was used for RCCLEAR for things such as the energy audit, the SavATon
campaign, outreach to citizens, the money that was used to be at the energy expo and
things like that including publications so that people could take it home and see where
to go on the website. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if RCCLEAR has a bank account
with Ms. Green responding it was in her environmental line item budget. RCCLEAR
does not get to spend it, it comes out of general services budget. Supervisor Bedrosian
then asked to have this item put this on the agenda as a new business item for the next
time we meet.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked this to be added as a new business item for
next meeting.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution adopting standards of conduct for the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
A- 011414 -2
Mr. Mahoney explained back on November 12, 2013, the Board adopted a
resolution that established the standards of conduct. As that time, Supervisor Church
asked that this item be placed on this meeting's agenda for the Board's consideration.
He has outlined three (3) different alternatives: do nothing, second to amend the
standards of conduct policy and third repeal it.
Supervisor Church stated the reason he wanted this brought forward was
that it came out of the blue; our Board has operated without a so called Code of
Conduct for many years. He stated the timing was not adequate, he thought to have
been done three weeks before a new majority took a seat on this Board. So, more than
ever he wanted the new members to have a look at what we are proposing. This was
16 January 14, 2014
passed, he thought in November, but wanted Mr. Mahoney to check and verify. In
preparing his amendments and changes that he thought should be pertinent to this, he
looked at the online playing of the Board of Supervisors meeting. Supervisor Church
then reminded the listening audience they can watch every meeting that the Board
does. If you have a question about what is said. He also gets a DVD and he looked at
this DVD over and over making his comments. After maybe ten times, he noticed that
we really do not have anything in effect. Our members had a long discussion on this
new business item in November. Supervisor Moore and Elswick had comments at
1:08.15 into the meeting in case you look at it online or at the DVD; Supervisor Flora
had some comments, which asked about some friendship comments. He asked Mr.
Mahoney if he remembered him making some comments if he had a close friendship
and asked if he should be voting on something that he brings for appropriation and you
responded, "Legally it is not a conflict of interest" but he told Mr. Mahoney that he would
abstain because he did not think it would be proper. This went on to the 1:11 and 1:12.
He still had questions and spoke to Mr. Mahoney from 1:09 to 1:11. He wanted to make
additional comments when Supervisor Flora made some more comments to the Chair
and he wanted to comment again to Supervisor Flora's comments. Chairman Altizer at
that time said, and this is documented on the record, "no, we have had enough debate."
Then, Supervisor Church stated he wanted to discuss this some more and stated we did
not have a motion to stop debate. Immediately, Supervisor Flora called for the question
at 1:13.06. Supervisor Church then asked Mr. Mahoney if the call for the question was
a motion with Mr. Mahoney responding he did not recall. Supervisor Church stated as a
matter of parliamentary procedure, it is a motion and must be voted on. Chairman
Altizer then directed the Clerk to call the roll and the vote was three to two with
Supervisor Church and Elswick dissenting. Chairman Altizer then continued to the next
new business item E -3. Supervisor Church suggested that we never voted on the Code
of Conduct. We do not have anything in effect, and it can be verified. So the Code of
Conduct is nowhere that we can be able to put a finger on. The call for the question,
which means it is a motion to end debate. When can it be called, anytime, roll call and
two - thirds vote. It is in fact a motion. We never really and he even thought we had one,
but we never had a vote so we are back to square one. We can either leave it as is, but
that means zero. Once this is verified, does not know where the minutes, he was
looking at the video. Sounds do not lie and that is what he loves about television and
not printed media. What you see is what you really said. Now, with that being said, Mr.
Mahoney, assume for a moment that he is correct. Where do we stand? Do you need
to verify this, which will be fine, but right now we have nothing.
Chairman McNamara stated he thinks a point of order could have been
called at that point because they were not following parliamentary procedure.
Supervisor Church stated but no one knew it and that is his whole point. The rules are
there for us to go by; we cannot pick and choose which rules to follow. All of us in the
room missed it that night. We had a call for the question and that is in our rules.
Mr. Mahoney stated he is going forward on the belief and assumption that
January 14, 2014 17
the Board adopted that resolution and that resolution is in place. If that is incorrect, then
a point of order should have been raised at the November 12 meeting. Point of order
was not made. He looks at this as a Board action and it is the Board's call at that point.
His assumption is that it is a valid resolution and adopted by the Board. No challenge
was made at that time, but it is at the pleasure of the Board if that is where you want to
go.
Supervisor Church stated using that analogy, if we made a monetary
mistake and no one caught it are we going to keep spending the money just because
nobody caught it. This affects Roanoke County. It was an issue that nobody
challenged and we went on. He does think you can go back and pull the horse back out
of the barn when he is running down the pasture. If a point of order was not called on
any item are you saying no matter how gregarious or how it may have been we are
going to stay with it. Is that what he is hearing? Mr. Mahoney responded what he is
suggesting is that we have certain rules, those rules hopefully are followed. As
Supervisor Church indicated earlier, how can we pick and choose what rules we want to
follow and which ones we don't? If we are not following the point of order to call the
question, then he does not know where we are. Supervisor Church stated the citizens
and more importantly a brand new Board should not be bound by something that is not
in effect. There is no harm whatsoever to revisit with full new Board member input. It is
the only logical and fair thing to do.
Chairman McNamara asked for clarification, it is a new business item, as
such if you want to make a motion to repeal it, it can be repealed. If you want to make a
motion to amend, it can be amended or you do not need to make any motion and it is a
new business item that will lay on the table. A point of order should have been done in
that meeting. He does not think that invalidates the actions that occurred after that.
Supervisor Church responded he was sorry but he respectfully disagrees.
He cannot repeal something that is not in effect. He cannot legally do that. He thinks a
legal opinion from anywhere would say he cannot do that. He stated he had hoped
before he found this was to take a look at brand new items that we can get the newly
elected input. He values their input. We should not have something that was done at
the third week from your election. It is not fair or logical and he cannot repeal
something that is not there. He guesses he can make a motion to begin anew.
Supervisor Moore stated on that night we had the discussion, she made a
motion to approve the Code of Ethics and added Supervisor Elswick's two items on
there and then she remembered Supervisor Church asking the Chairman if he could
continue the debate and the question was called by Supervisor Flora and we took the
vote so it was passed three to two. She stated she thinks it is in force, we took the vote
that night and then Supervisor Moore made the motion to approve the resolution with no
action required and that it remains in fact in effect as is.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he thinks the Board should discuss whether
this thing is in place or not, but actually what was discussed that evening about these
things that were put on, eight items. The question he was going to have today before all
18 January 14, 2014
this came up was as he looks through our parliamentary procedures there are some
things that address when someone is talking what you should do and some decorum
things. It seems like if we are saying nothing is out there about how we should all deal
with each other seems incorrect. It seems we already have something there and as we
go through these there are a couple of them that he is skeptical about because they
become subjective and as he tries to reiterate today in government he just feels that are
either subjective and really not enforceable, why are they there. There was one area
about courtesy, fairness and respect, and he thinks we have it and that is in the
decorum section in our parliamentary procedures. There is also the members agree to
focus on what is best for all of Roanoke; it is ambiguous to him. We are five different
people, representing five different parts of the County with our constituents and it makes
him nervous. Is it enforceable? So does someone say, "Mr. Bedrosian we don't think
what you are bringing up is best for Roanoke County ?" He worries that this just
becomes very ambiguous. How do we follow this? He thinks the marketplace of the
Board, meaning as we interact with each other and somebody is rude or steps over this,
he thinks we are going to figure that out and we will vote according to what we think is
best, but having that just makes me feel like it is very subjective. How do we follow
something that is subjective, so why have it. It is just another couple of sheets of paper
here that we do not follow.
Supervisor Peters asked Supervisor Church, could you go back and read
the very beginning, because I thought when you started your comments you said Ms.
Moore made the motion. Supervisor Church stated it is exactly clear. Ms. Moore made
a motion and Mr. Elswick had a couple of amendments and then another motion was
made by Mr. Flora and that was the call for the question and that is what we voted on
and did not vote on anything else.
Supervisor Church stated he respectfully challenged this Board voting on
something that is not in fact in force. Are we setting a dangerous precedent, especially
when it your government out here. He was ready to add simple amendments, nothing
earth shattering, i.e. do we vote on an item if we have a personal friend or relationship
should we vote on that. He then asked Chairman McNamara if this is to be continued to
be voted on which is not in effect what would keep him at the next meeting to bring up a
new business item as a Board member to be able to get his presentation, which he is
entitled to on the agenda?
Chairman McNamara stated between Board comments and discussion,
we can bring up and revisit anything on the agenda. Supervisor Church stated he just
wanted to be sure. Chairman McNamara stated that is what we have right now, so at
some point if we are impeding the progress of the Board if we revisit something that we
just revisited at this meeting.
Supervisor Church reiterated that he respectfully disagrees with the
Chair's decision. It is not in effect so he has a real problem and if he votes no it is
because of that. We do not have anything.
Supervisor Peters stated under new business it is asking for a resolution
January 14, 2014 19
for adopting standards of conduct for the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. It is
not saying we are trying to amend. Chairman McNamara stated the motion that the
Supervisor from Cave Spring has on the floor is to take no action relative to the Code of
Ethics Policy as it exists in Roanoke County. The Code of Ethics Policy as it was
approved by a prior Board. The minutes of those meetings were approved at a
subsequent meeting. A yes vote in this scenario would say yes, I think the resolution
should remain in effect and makes sense and a no vote says that we are right back to
no action being taken.
Supervisor Peters stated the minutes of that meeting will not be voted on
until tonight. Supervisor Church agreed. Supervisor Peters stated the other part is
directed to Supervisor Moore if she retracted her motion could she not make a motion
for the resolution that is in front of us. The action is about the resolution, not that we
are amending or appealing.
Chairman McNamara stated the lady from Cave Spring could have
withdrawn her motion and offer a substitute motion or Supervisor Peters could offer a
substitute motion as well. However, he thinks you are both trying to accomplish the
same thing.
Supervisor Peters stated he is just asking the question, because if Mr.
Church is correct then we need to vote on the item as a new item, not as an
amendment or an appeal.
Supervisor Church stated that is correct and it can be verified.
Chairman McNamara asked Mr. Mahoney by not following parliamentary
procedure in a prior meeting does that invalidate a resolution that has been passed. Mr.
Mahoney stated he did not believe so but he would have to go back into Roberts Rules
and review. Chairman McNamara stated the Board would go on that assumption that
we have a resolution in place.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve that no action is required and the
Code of Ethics Policy resolution remains in effect. . The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
Supervisor Church commented he wanted to repeat what Supervisor
Peters said. He was wondering where the minutes were because he was looking at a
third place to verify. He does not know what supersedes, but if the minutes show
something and the video shows something different then the video would be what we
have to go by.
Chairman McNamara commented he did not want to argue prior Board
actions.
20 January 14, 2014
off
„
.
...
This agenda item was removed.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of three (3) parcels of land
located between the Spring Hollow Dam and the Roanoke River to
the Western Virginia Water Authority (Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired why this was not done at the time. Mr.
Mahoney stated it was just an error; failed to include it in the laundry list of all the
different parcels that were being conveyed to the water authority back in 2004.
Supervisor Bedrosian reiterated that this is property of Roanoke County that we are
giving to another entity, the Water Authority with Mr. Mahoney responding in the
affirmative.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for January 28, 2014. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $15,000 from the U. S.
Marine Corps Reserve Unit and the Marine Corps League to Camp
Roanoke from the 18 annual Marine Mud Run (Doug Blount,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if this was the fact that the Marine Corp
raised money and want to give it to Camp Roanoke. Mr. Bount responded in the
affirmative stating we host the event in Green Hill Park, issue a permit, incur
approximately $2,000 in staff time that is used to support the event and that time is
charged to Camp Roanoke. In return, the Marine Corp league makes a donation to
Camp Roanoke based off of the proceeds from the event. They split the proceeds with
Toys for Tots and Camp Roanoke.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for January 28, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
January 14, 2014 21
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance declaring property located at 3060 Ivyland Road,
Roanoke, Virginia; Vinton Magisterial District as blighted
property. As a result of this action, Roanoke County may repair,
demolish or remove the structure to cure the cause(s) of the
blight (Joel Baker, Building Commissioner)
Mr. Baker outlined the request for the ordinance. He further advised all
parties have been properly notified.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if this was a piece of property that has not
been kept up with. Mr. Baker responded in the affirmative stating this was a double -
wide manufactured home with both halves sitting there not connected and not secured.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if the owner knew we were going to remove or demolish
with Mr. Baker responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Bedrosian stated since this
was a property rights issue he wanted to make sure. He then asked if the County has
ever done this before with Mr. Baker responding in the affirmative and he considers this
a "last- ditch" effort. Even at this point, if the owner comes to him before the public
hearing and advises he has a plan he would recommend not moving forward.
Supervisor Peters noted this has now become a safety issue and moved
to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for January
28, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
4. Ordinance authorizing the lease to the School Board of Roanoke
County for one (1) year (plus option to extend for additional one
(1) -year periods) of an 11.335 acre portion of the old William Byrd
High School site (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request for the ordinance and stated that one
area of concern is that the Schools want to shift environmental responsibility to County if
we decide to sell the property. As the County's attorney, he would have some
"heartburn" about that but the School Board feels very strongly.
Supervisor Peters commented that he shares Mr. Mahoney's concerns as
up until a year ago it was a school property so any environmental issues probably
occurred on their watch.
22 January 14, 2014
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired how would this effect the thing that we are
trying to pass with Mr. Mahoney explaining if the Board tells him they are uncomfortable
with that language then he goes back to the Superintendent and says that he has
discussed with the Board of Supervisors and strike out those lines. Supervisor
Bedrosian asked if that would be a no vote today. Mr. Mahoney stated he would ask
the Board to vote yes today, but give him some direction that you want that clause
stricken from the lease.
Supervisor Church stated it gives the Board time to review with Mr.
Mahoney before the second reading. Mr. Mahoney responded by stating it also
provides an opportunity to give notice to the citizens.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked how long the property has been for sale with
Mr. Mahoney responding for a long time the School Board had used the properties for a
variety of other uses. Since then it has been basically mothballed and for the past two
years the School Board and the Board of Supervisors have been talking about what is
the best approach to put the properties back into the taxpaying private sector.
Supervisor Peters explained it was surplused to the County last summer
so that allowed us to be able to begin looking at buyers or economic development.
Supervisor Bedrosian remarked he is trying to get a sense of how long the
school board holds on to something and not use it. Supervisor Peters responded that
school was vacated in 1989, but it has been used for other smaller purposes since then.
Supervisor Bedrosian then inquired how much the dollar amount in the
lease with Supervisor Peters responding a dollar.
Mr. Mahoney explained the hope is if we are able to find an excellent
economic development, the Board's commitment to the School Board was to share or
split any income derived from the sale of the property and it would go back into the
Board's major capital and the School Board's major capital fund.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if we ever put these properties up for auction,
there is a minimum bid and just get them out. Mr. Mahoney responded the Board has
followed a variety of steps and procedures for selling surplus property and that is one
way that it has been done. In other instances, the County Economic Development
Authority owned a substantial amount of acreage in West County and a lot of time we
might not necessarily sell that property to an industry if it is the pleasure of the Board
the Board may negotiate a different kind of transaction to lure a business or industry
there.
Supervisor Peters commented that whatever revenue we do receive we
do split it with the School system, therefore, he feels like the Schools have been there
since the 1930's and any environmental issue would have occurred on their watch. So,
he made a motion to approve and asked Mr. Mahoney to remove the language.
Supervisor Peters moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for January 28, 2014. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
January 14, 2014 23
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
5. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant in the amount of
$9,888.17 from the U. S. Department of Justice's Bulletproof Vest
Partnership for the Roanoke County Police Department (Howard
B. Hall, Chief of Police)
Chief Hall outlined the request for the ordinance. Supervisor Bedrosian
inquired if we apply for these grants. Chief Hall responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if the County has to do anything to get the funds.
Chief Hall responded in this particular grant the only requirement is that we match fifty
percent (50 %) of the cost of the vests. We are getting $4,900 from the federal
government and we have to commit to spend that much on vests. In this case, we will
far exceed that from the Police Department budget in our normal course of replacement.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if we have to buy them from a certain place, how do
we buy them. Chief Hall responded they follow Roanoke County's procurement process
in terms of purchasing any equipment that we buy. They do not require us to buy from
a particular company. Chief Hall explained we buy sixteen (16) vests and they
essentially pay for eight (8) of them and we pay for eight (8) of them.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for January 28, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
6. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant in the amount of
$348,250 from the Virginia Attorney General's office for the
Roanoke County Police Department (Howard B. Hall, Chief of
Police)
Chief Hall outlined the request for the ordinance and explained this grant
requires no match and has no other conditions other than what we have agreed to fund
with this money with the Attorney General's office is in -car cameras, radar units and a
contingency for the construction project of the new academy.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked what Chief Hall's budget is with Chief Hall
responding $11,000,000.
Supervisor Peters moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for January 28, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
24 January 14, 2014
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
7. Ordinance accepting the conveyances to Roanoke County of a
drainage easement from John M. Thomas, Sarah G. Thomas,
Steven T. Bratcher, Sr. and Tammy P. Bratcher, a right -of -way and
temporary construction easement from the School Board of
Roanoke County, and a right -of -way and temporary construction
easement from Shirley S. Boon, Farmington Drive Highway
Project, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request for the ordinance in support of a Virginia
Department of Transportation highway project for a culvert replacement. There is no
cost to Roanoke County. Supervisor Bedrosian asked what does conveyance mean
with Mr. Mahoney stating it is a legal term where if I own a piece of property I would
convey that piece of property to you. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if you are giving to
me. Mr. Mahoney stated in this instance these citizens are donating or conveying to us
at no cost their portions of their property.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading and public hearing for January 28, 2014. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
8. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $18,322.50 to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for fiscal
year 2013/2014 (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the request for this ordinance.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if we are getting money back with Ms. Owens
stating we are getting it back and it is specified in the Code that the money has to go
back to the Circuit Court to be used. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if we do this
every year with Ms. Owens responding this one comes around semi - annually; at least
annually and are at the mercy of the State for disbursement of those. Supervisor
Bedrosian then asked if any application is filled out or if it just comes back with Ms.
Owens responding there is paperwork that is required from the Court system to
document those civil cases and the State then disburses the funds back to the Circuit
Court.
January 14, 2014 25
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading and public hearing for January 28, 2014. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
9. Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of a waterline easement to
the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) on property owned
by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No.
026.16 -02- 14.05 -0000) for the purpose of interconnecting a
waterline (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request for the ordinance. There was no
discussion.
Supervisor Peters moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for January 28, 2014. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant in the amount of
$7,500 from the Governor's Agriculture and Forestry Industries
Development Fund (AFIDS) for a planning grant for the Catawba
Sustainability Center (Jill Loope, Director of Economic
Development)
Ms. Loope outlined the request for the ordinance and advised it does not
require any new County money from the general fund budget.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked in order to get the funds, what do we
have to do. Do we write anything up for this grant? Ms. Loope stated she has to sign an
agreement saying that the Board has accepted the grant. Supervisor Bedrosian asked
if we filled out an application with Ms. Loope responding they had written a grant
request with Virginia Tech to request the funds from the Department of Agriculture.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if there is anything we have to do because we are getting
money. Supervisor Bedrosian commented he is asking these questions because he
sees so many grants. Ms. Loope stated we outline the goals and the project
deliverables in the application and in this case, the goals were to provide collaboration
opportunities with this Center to create awareness and enhance opportunities for locally
26 January 14, 2014
grown and produced food. Deliverables include completion of focus group studies and
the Virginia Tech Department of Economic Development is going to help with the
implementation of the plan and a summary report will be provided to stakeholders as to
the recommendations that we will ultimately implement. In addition, infrastructure will be
identified that exists on the property. It is 377 acres located in the Catawba Valley, a
beautiful property owned by Virginia Tech and the County has been in collaboration and
partnership with the University for several years. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so our
thing is we work together to find out how to grow locally grown food. Ms. Loope
explained there is a farmer's market there and it has become very popular for some of
the local growers. We also have been working with land leases there through the
University. There is actually a manager of the Center on site who does the land leases
for the University for locally grown food. Ms. Loope advised the Board would get a
presentation on this next month. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he just wondered why we
are involved.
Supervisor Church commented Virginia Tech has done a great job and
feels we have a great partnership.
Chairman McNamara commented he feels it is a neat program and to
keep up with the good work.
ORDINANCE 011414 -3 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500 FROM THE GOVERNOR'S
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
FUNDS FOR A PLANNING GRANT FOR THE CATAWBA
SUSTAINABILITY CENTER
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has been awarded a planning grant from the
newly established Governor's Agriculture and Forestry Industries Development Fund for
the Catawba Sustainability Center; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant is to explore strategies to increase the
connectivity of the Catawba Sustainability Center with the local food system; and
WHEREAS, the grant will be implemented in partnership with the Virginia Tech
Office of Economic Development; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on December 10, 2013, and
the second reading was held on January 14, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows
1 . That the sum of $7,500 is hereby accepted and appropriated from the
Governor's Agriculture and Forestry Industries Development Fund; and
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
January 14, 2014 27
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a Stormwater
Management (SWM) Program grant in the amount of $99,242 from
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to the
Community Development Department (Tarek Moneir, Deputy
Director of Development)
Mr. Moneir outlined the request for the ordinance and advised there was
no change from the first reading.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked by taking the money what do we have to do,
what do we have to align ourselves with. Mr. Moneir stated prior to the new rules and
regulations for Stormwater Management, the responsibilities were split between the
County and the State. The State used to do their own plan reviews and issued certain
permits. The County reviewed the plans for any kind of development. In 2012, the
State said they would not longer do their part and starting July 11, 2014; Roanoke
County will conduct all different kinds of reviews and report to the State what is done.
So, because the State downloaded that responsibility to the localities, that requires a lot
of preparation and work. So, the General Assembly stated they will have some money
available here for all the localities that need help with the preparation and their process.
The County prepared a proposal and felt it would cost about $99,000 and prepared a
grant application that spelled out how we are going to spend the money. They accepted
the grant and a contract is prepared pending Board approval. Supervisor Bedrosian
asked if we have seen the contract with Mr. Moneir advising he would be glad to provide
the Board with a copy. Supervisor Bedrosian stated it is his understanding in Roanoke
County now; we do not have a Stormwater Management Policy. Mr. Moneir responded
we do, but not to the full extent of what the State is asking us to do. There are
additional things we have to take care of. Very soon we will have a Stormwater
Management work session with the Board and give you all that data. Supervisor
Bedrosian asked if the Board would be voting on the direction we want to go as a
County. Mr. Moneir advised they would not do anything without the Board's direction or
approval. Supervisor Bedrosian stated his only thing as we get ready for that and
everybody thinks it is a big issue that by taking money from the State that is not putting
us in a position that we have to do in a certain direction. Mr. Moneir responded that was
a correct statement.
ORDINANCE 011414 -4 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING A
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $99,242 FROM VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
28 January 14, 2014
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) TO THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Roanoke County will become the local Virginia Stormwater
Management Program (VSMP) Authority on July 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, becoming the local VSMP Authority will result in the need for:
(a) A new SWM Ordinance
(b) DEQ required training for the VSMP staff
(c) Increased efforts for reviews
(d) Additional office coordination with DEQ prior to permit issuance
(e) Increased post construction inspections; and
(f) Increased recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997, the
Virginia General Assembly created the Water Quality Improvement Fund to provide
funding for point and nonpoint source water quality improvements throughout the
Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, these funds are made available with a 50/50 match rate to assist the
local authorities in preparing for the increased responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the County's Community Development Department applied for
$99,242 and received approval from DEQ to help defray the cost of AMEC
Environmental Consultant in assisting the County with providing peer review of the new
SWM ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the grant period is December 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriate by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 10, 2013
and the second reading was held on January 14, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as
follows
1 . That the sum of $49,621 is hereby accepted from the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, and is appropriated to the Department of Community
Development.
2. That matching funds of $49,621 are hereby appropriated from in -kind
contributions as well as from the NPDES Phase II compliance account.
3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
January 14, 2014 29
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the vacation of a portion of an existing
fifteen foot (15') public utility easement and acceptance of the
relocated fifteen foot (15') public utility easement on property of
Lois M. Ashby, remaining Lot 8, Farmington Place (Plat Book 18,
Page 89, tax map number 076.20 -09- 08.00- 0000), Windsor Hills
Magisterial District (Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development)
Mr. Covey outlined the request for the ordinance advising there were no
changes from the first reading. He advised Doug Wilson, the attorney for petitioner was
in attendance to answer any questions.
Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public hearing as there
were no citizens to speak on this item.
ORDINANCE 011414 -5 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A
PORTION OF AN EXISTING FIFTEEN (15) FOOT PUBLIC
UTILITY EASEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE RELOCATED
FIFTEEN (15) FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ON
PROPERTY OF LOIS M. ASHBY, REMAINING LOT 8,
FARMINGTON PLACE (PLAT BOOK 18, PAGE 89 TAX MAP
#076.20 -09- 08.00- 0000), WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, a plat entitled "Plat of Farmington Place" dated December 8, 1995
and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, (Plat
Book 18, Page 89) dedicated a fifteen foot (15) wide public utility easement across a
parcel identified as remaining Lot 8, Farmington Place (Tax Map #076.20-09-08.00 -
0000); and
WHEREAS, the house constructed on remaining Lot 8, Farmington Place,
encroaches into the fifteen foot (15) public utility easement and the current owner of
said lot, Lois M. Ashby, has requested the vacation and relocation of the dedicated
fifteen foot (15) wide public utility easement; and
WHEREAS, the relocation of the public utility easement with Appalachian Power
Company has been completed and recorded as Instrument #2013 - 14244; and
WHEREAS, County staff has reviewed and approved the vacation and relocation
of this fifteen foot (15) public utility easement as shown on the exhibit (Exhibit "A ")
attached hereto and entitled "Easement plat for Lois M. Ashby showing hereon an
existing 15' public utility easement to be vacated and creating hereon a new 15' public
utility easement crossing T.M. #076.20 -09- 08.00- 0000" prepared by Balzer and
Associates, Inc.; and
30 January 14, 2014
WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of this public
utility easements, and this vacation will not involve any cost to the County, and the
affected County departments and public utilities have raised no objection; and
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.2 -2204 of the Code
of Virginia (1950, as amended); and
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows
1 . That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on December 10, 2013, and a
second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on January 14, 2014.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the subject real estate, a fifteen foot (15) wide public utility easement, which
was dedicated by plat of Farmington Place (PB18, PG89) is hereby declared to be
surplus and the nature of the interests in real estate renders it unavailable for other
public use.
3. That the subject real estate, a fifteen foot (15) wide public utility easement,
which was dedicated by plat of Farmington Place (Plat Book 18, Page 89 and as
modified in Plat Book 20, Page 57, Plat Book 22, Page 130, and Plat Book 25, Page 22)
be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2 -2270 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended.
4. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to
publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner.
5. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be
necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and
a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2 -2270 of the Code of
Virginia (1950, as amended).
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (appointed by Catawba
District)
January 14, 2014 31
Supervisor Church has recommended the appointment of Keith Garman
and Dennis Nalley to four -year terms to expire on December 31, 2017. Confirmation of
these appointments have been added to the Consent Agenda
2. Roanoke County Planning Commission (appointed by District)
Supervisor Peters has recommended the appointment of Rick James to fill
the unexpired term of Jason Peters. This appointment will expire June 30, 2014.
Confirmation of this appointment has been added to the Consent Agenda.
3. Roanoke County Economic Development Authority (appointed by
District)
Supervisor Church recommended the appointment of Dan Toti. This
appointment will expire September 26, 2018. Confirmation of this appointment has
been added to the Consent Agenda.
Chairman McNamara inquired why this appointment was not listed as an
open appointment. Supervisor Church responded it has been open for some time;
however, he just received his consent.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
Supervisor Bedrosian stated with the recent incident over at South Peak,
he would like to have a work session on South Peak and find out what actually went on.
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke:
Linda LaPradd stated she is from Will Carter Lane in the Cave Spring,
District. Ms. LaPradd congratulated the new Board members. Those of you who have
been here know that she is here to speak about ICLEI today. For the past two and one
half years, we have heard speakers, including staff, and including today a statement
made that there is no affiliation between ICLEI and the UN. Well, that is simply not true,
we have provided those statements in the past that ICLEI USA is a subgroup of ICLEI
Global which is a partner of the UNEP, which is a part of the UN but she stated she has
found something which she thinks the Board cannot deny and she found this on the
Roanoke County government website. It is on the RCCLEAR page, progress reports.
The milestone one report from February of 2009, page 13 of the 54 page report about
mid -way down that page. The talk about the programs for ICLEI, one is of course the
32 January 14, 2014
milestones, which you should be very familiar with but she would like to read the
sentence to the Board. "The second program, Communities 21, was developed in
accordance with the United Nations Division for Sustainable Development Agenda 21.
The mission is to improve the ecological health of communities around the world, while
promoting economic vitality and social justice." Now, several things should be apparent
from that, you have been given this ingenious and incorrect statement. Secondly, it is
connected to the United Nations, you own documents state it, and thirdly, ICLEI is about
more than the environment with the statements of their own. Another thing that she
would like to bring to the attention of the Board is a FOIA, and she will provide this for
the Board, that she requested in December of 2011. She stated she asked what was
reported to ICLEI and how four hundred (400) tons of carbon emissions had been
saved. Two hundred (200) tons were saved by handing out flyers; this is what the
invaluable software stated. Is that even in the realm of possibility, that handing out
flyers saved two hundred (200) tons of carbon emissions? Also in the report that you
received it says that paper consumption was reduced from thirty (30) tons to eighteen
(18) tons. She stated she did not know about the Board, but she does not think that had
anything to do with ICLEI. She stated she thinks it has to do the world of texting, with
emails. She stated she has saved paper at home, haven't you; haven't our viewers
saved paper at home. Another thing was that the mileage has improved. Of course it
has improved in cars from 2003 to 2011. This has nothing to do with ICLEI either.
Membership in ICLEI is declining. It was 600 and 500 and it is now down to 450. She
stated you need to ask yourself, why? She advised she has included some information
from localities for that reason. No one wants to harm the environment of this locality.
We can do it. We can protect it without ICLEI.
Mike Bailey of 7516 Deerbranch Road in the Hollins area. He asked
Supervisors Church and Moore to excuse him if was redundant. Two years ago when
he was the Chairman of the Roanoke County Republican Committee, he submitted a
short resolution before this Board. Because we have three newly elected members, he
would like to remind this Board of this resolution and also congratulate you on your
victories. He is no longer the Chairman of the Committee and is not trying to represent
the Committee at this time concerning this matter. He simply wants to remind the Board
of the resolution and point out that ICLEI has been opposed by citizens for over two -
years. This resolution has not been rescinded by the Committee since that time. The
resolution reads as follows, "WHEREAS, Roanoke County is a dues paying member of
"ICLEI -Local Governments for Sustainability," previously known as the "International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives "; and WHEREAS, ICLEI's agenda conflicts
with private property rights and is at odds with our community's beliefs and values; now,
therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Republican Committee opposes
Roanoke County's membership in ICLEI and urges the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors to formally withdraw from ICLEI and review any policies that may have
been adopted because of the County's association with ICLEI. And be it further resolved
that the Secretary of the Roanoke County Republic Committee prepare a copy of this
January 14, 2014 33
resolution to be presented to the Board of Supervisors." This was done January 24,
2012. He stated he wanted to thank the Board for their attention this evening. It is his
hope that you will see that this is not an issue that has gone away, but it is an issue that
is still a concern to the citizens that elected you to represent them today.
Congratulations again to the new members.
Chairman McNamara stated the reason he asked for his address is that it
is part of our Board organizational procedures. He stated that might be something we
may want to look at. Supervisor Church stated the Board has for the last couple of
years routinely, for privacy, has let the citizens state the district. They sometimes have
a good, valid right not to provide their exact address. Chairman McNamara stated right
now under Section 218A of our Board organizational procedures require a name and
address. Chairman McNamara then asked Mr. Mahoney for the following meeting could
we modify Section 218A to not require a statement of an address.
Noah Tickle stated he was a Roanoke County resident since 1956;
Catawba Magisterial District. Here we are all American Carbon life forms fat and
happy allowing non - government organizations out of the UN to walk around our laws of
governance telling lies about carbon namely Co2 elemental molecular carbon dioxide to
carbon tax by their ungodly lies. God's natures uses carbon dioxide to keep life alive on
earth "the flame eternal." Plants die with low levels of Co2 and are in a state of
starvation right now. We die if plants die. Agenda 21, ICLEI, the International Council of
Local Environmental Initiatives, all UN socialist Trojan horses promote their lies. Our law
plus Freedom, which is our liberty, violated by the world socialist party is the source of
it. Incorporated into our local documents. We've allowed it by the dollar signs in our
eyes. How can this happen? Why has this been allowed to happen? Because this is
illegal, unconstitutional and we have been told by so- called elected, not to worry, it is
not legal. Legislatures have not acted on it. What that means is let them do the dirty
work and we'll do the taxing from their deceptions and pretend like nothing ever
happened. We'll just make the foot fit the shoe. It is unconstitutional, illegal, in fact
under Article One Section ten of The United States Constitution, states are prohibited
from implementing foreign political initives through its prohibition of states to engage in
treaties, alliances or confederations. Many governments have already recognized the
error of their ways and have eliminated ICLEI from their documents of Governance.
Even steps have been taken against Agenda 21 being used to violate landowner rights.
No sane sentient life form is opposed to environmental stewardship. "NONE" Roanoke
County and the National Republican Committee have all presented resolutions against
the evils of ICLEI proper. To bring European socialism modeling into our Christian,
Constitutional Republic is illegal and opposes all founding documents that our
Constitutional Republic is formed on. This should not be allowed. ICLEI must go along
with all of the unconstitutional Agenda 21 agendas.
Albert Gibson of 1142 Ridgecrest Drive just across from Hollins College.
He will even invite you up there if you want to come. He stated he promised Mr. Church
he would bring this thing forward. He provided a chart that he indicated was the number
34 January 14, 2014
of times the water authority has visited his property. This problem started in 2008 and
the problem is a health problem. That means if he keeps eating this rust that they keep
feeding him he is not going to have any health. The potential is serious. This operation
that they are going through as you can see every ten days requires two hours of flowing
water through a three -inch pipe. Do you know how much water that is? It requires
equipment to get into the hole with. It requires a truck for the guy to come out every ten
days. This is becoming a real burden on him, because it is potentially a health problem.
We are eating more rust than we are drinking water. He has presented this way back
when and he is tired of it. He presented this to Elmer Hodge. You remember that guy
that went to work for the water department. He stated he has some comments to say
about that too. Mr. Gary Robertson was there that day. He stated he gave them a
gallon of this water right on their desk and said, "Would you drink that ?" They looked at
it and they could not even see through it. The thing is he has worked with the water
department; has tried to be fair to them. They come onto his property. He has called
the water regulation department in Richmond. They gave him a solution to it too and
hopes to get it soon. The one problem that he sees is that nobody has a solution. He
lives exactly one mile from the plant, the separation plant at Hollins; one mile and he
cannot get decent water. Why is that? He has a suggestion to make. He stated that
the Board recapture the old County water system department and get rid of the one you
have. The guys who built the Spring Hollow system and the processing system up
there knew what they were doing, but they have gone astray. There is pollution in the
water and they admit it. So he wanted to recommend to the Board that you recover
your water department.
Chairman McNamara requested Dan O'Donnell to meet with Mr. Gibson
and take a look and provide the Board with a memo as to the outcome.
RoxAnne Christley of 7259 Willow Valley Road stated she is a gun owner
so you know where she lives. First she stated she would like to welcome the new
Republican Board Supervisors. Roanoke County has long been lacking in conservative
leadership and she will be clear about that reference as it is directed to the two outgoing
Republican members of the Board. She stated it is her hope that our County will be
greatly improved with the principles of conservatism that you should demonstrate as
residents of our County. With that said she will also admonish you to stay true to those
principles to which you were elected and she stated she can assure that she will remind
you and hold you to those principles if the need arises. Almost exactly two (2) years ago
as mentioned by Mike Bailey, the Roanoke County Republican Committee read in this
chamber a resolution urging this body to discontinue its membership in ICLEI. The
reason behind that resolution was clearly stated, that ICLEI is a United Nations affiliated
organization and has no place in Roanoke County government and she might add in
any other form of United States government . You have heard from other proxy UN or
ICLEI organizations such as Cool Cities Coalition or the Sierra Club touting the benefits
of being an ICLEI member. The first question should be what are the tangible benefits
of being in ICLEI; unless you think as Americans we should be subordinate to the
January 14, 2014 35
whims of an UN organization as one sitting Board member apparently does. She does
not and sees no benefit. RCCLEAR, ICLEI's local arm, which infiltrated Roanoke
County government in 2009, has yet to provide a single provable metric of carbon
emission reductions, yet they continue to throw these estimates of what they might have
done assuming that it has some value of true. The true is they do not have a clue.
Getting Roanoke County out of ICLEI is a good start to stopping the lie before it grows
any larger. Every lie in reality in two lies, the lie that you tell others and the lie that you
tell yourself to justify it.
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in Labellvue stated he wanted to
wish everyone a happy New Year and to congratulate the new members of the Board.
He stated he is speaking about ICLEI and the question before you is can the staff get
along without ICLEI. They have provided you a lot of information here about the
benefits. The first point he wants to make is that staff has misplaced justification for
belonging to ICLEI to a defense of RCCLEAR. RCCLEAR is a very vital organization
appointed by the Board and does very good work as a volunteer organization. It spends
a lot of time and does good work in the County and should certainly be continued or
something like that continued by volunteer citizens. He volunteers in other aspects of
Roanoke County operations himself. Citizen participation is critical. The existence of
RCCLEAR has nothing to do with membership in ICLEI. It can go on. Many of the
achievements that RCCLEAR and the County have made have nothing to do with
ICLEI. So, the justification that was presented to you combines both of them and again
to justification in ICLEI. There is one element that has been stated that ICLEI provides
software and technical assistance that is vital and may be of a monopolistic or sole
source. He stated he finds that very difficult to believe as one member of the Board
also finds that way. He stated he just thinks with modern technology that we can find
some other way to replace that. One point in the justification that he finds objectionable
though is that membership in ICLEI is symbolic of our commitment to a quality of life.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Membership in ICLEI is symbolic really as an
indication of a commitment of and allegiance to higher authority; authority outside the
County, outside the Nation. It gives the perception that world citizenship has a
presence over national or County citizenship. While world governance is a noble
human goal, we are far from achieving that and he would personally ask for many more
guarantees of personal liberty before relinquishing his rights to some kind of universal
body. So, he recommends that the County Board again consider this issue and would
recommend they direct the County Administrator to conduct a thorough investigation of
sources of software and other technical assistance, which they could provide. Do that
prior to the renewal of the contract in the fall. There is plenty of time to have a thorough
investigation and find out whether the only value ICLEI is essentially providing is the
software and he thinks that is a bogus issue.
Chairman McNamara recessed the meeting at 6:13 p.m. for five minutes.
The meeting was called back into session by Chairman McNamara at 6:20 p.m.
36 January 14, 2014
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Church moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
November 30, 2013
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of November 30, 2013
6. Accounts Paid — November 30, 2013
7. Report from the Roanoke County Sheriff's regarding Ballistic
Vests
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 6:42 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A.1
Personnel, namely discussion concerning appointments to the Roanoke Valley Cable
Television Committee, Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional Commission (Regional
Stormwater Management Committee); Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional Commission
Water Supply Policy Committee; Roanoke Valley Sustainability Consortium (Steering
Committee); Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional Commission, Roanoke Valley -
Alleghany Regional Commission Metropolitan Planning Organization; Roanoke Valley -
Alleghany Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee,
Virginia Association of Counties (Liaison Board Member) (Legislative Contact); Section
2.2- 3711.A.1, to discuss and consider the appointment and performance of specific
public officers, appointees or employees of the Board of Supervisors and Section 2.2-
3711.A.7, consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to
possible litigation, namely, Hollins Station 5 volunteers
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Church, stating he opposed regarding the Clerk to the Board,
do not find in legal definition.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
January 14, 2014 37
Supervisor Church stated he was going to start with the most important
items first and that is to congratulate Northside football Vikings, go Vikings for their
State championship. Under the direction of Principal Frank Dent and a very capable
staff; Coach Burt Torrence. They completed a Cinderella season and he is quite sure it
is 14 -1. He knows they lost one time so it is either 13 or 14 to 1 for the year; defeating
some excellent teams from all around the State. In the rain and ice in Lynchburg,
Virginia and he is out on the sidelines with the players because he loves to get down
there every game in the ice, rain and snow in Lynchburg's Liberty University stadium.
They beat an absolutely great team from Fredericksburg, Virginia, James Monroe and
brought home the division three Virginia State football championship to our district.
Now, this is the second time as they won the State title in 2009 and what is important is
that they are the only Roanoke County High School period in history to win a State
football championship. We have some great teams, but what a great group and Mr.
Chairman he looks forward to soon bring the entire team in here and honor them as
State champions. They are a wonderful group; they don't know how to quit. They have
such teamwork and such a great group of players and one thing that will impress you
that when the Coach asks them in the locker room, "what is number one." They all say
"God." Next, he went to another item and before he gets off track since he was asked
by the Chair he wants to make a request to Mr. Goodman to put on the Code of
Conduct for the next meeting and would encourage fellow Board members to send
suggestions into Mr. Goodman for the next meeting. Now we are going to go to
something he could talk about forever, but he is not. Hopefully, you folks know and the
people who are watching our meeting understand he does not communicate very well
with the Roanoke Times. As a matter of fact, he does not return their calls and have not
for a long time. It makes no difference because he is going to use the most current item
the Glenvar library. Our agenda comes out on Friday, the writer is calling himself, which
he did not return, County staff asking for information that they should not have on a
Thursday. It has not even been published. We have a problem with media either live or
written that think they come before our citizens; they do not. In hindsight looking back
at it, and by the way is he surprised to see anything in the newspaper about Glenvar,
sure. The writer knows that he does not return calls and it is okay that he still calls, it is
his choice and for good reason. He does not recognize what is in the article. Too many
things are left unwritten; truthful items omitted. They change the whole story. He stated
he hates to see what happened in the paper, which he does not take, about already in
2014 we have a wedge being driven about the Glenvar library situation with our Board
members; a brand new Board that he looked forward to in anticipation of good things
happening all year. So what do you find out, something about the Glenvar library. They
put in there that he does not return their calls and that is true. They will have three
things true in there, spell my name right, they will say Supervisor Church did not return
their calls and they will use the worse photo they "can't they change your photo" and he
tells him that is on purpose. He has been here fourteen (14) years, they probably have
38 January 14, 2014
a hundred photos but they want to choose, that is their style to put one in there that
looks like an alligator wrestler or whatever. Don't worry about it, he is used to it. What
can they do to him that they haven't already tried? He thinks they must be looking for
him to cross the street in the middle of the block instead of the corner. We have
important items; the Glenvar library was not one. It was a non -issue and should have
never come this far. The important people were contacted. It is just something that a
Board member, any Board member would do to take a look and see if we are going to
be okay fund wise because we have some problems up there. But, instead of taking a
non - returned phone call with maybe a statement saying, "I am sure Supervisor Church
had a reason." He is not a gambler, but he bet someone that there would be something
in the editorial page today and he is told there is because they called his house and
even emailed. This is about a simple, Glenvar item that means nothing in the big
scheme of things. They did not dictate for me to drop this, they haven't been able to do
that in twelve (12) years, you don't think he is going to drop it because of them today do
you? No way, it was a good item when he put it on and it was a good item when he
pulled it off for good reason. This is not political correctness here. He is just tired of
anyone on this Board and County government feeling like they are going to give an
interview or talk to the print media, the Roanoke Times and seeing where it will go. The
Roanoke Times, by any stretch of the imagination has tried to dictate their opinion and
views on this Board member for over a dozen years. If you don't agree with them and
don't like what they say then you are not going to get very good press. Well, he has
news, he is not sure he cares about the good press because the people most important
to him are the ones in his area and for fourteen (14) years they do not pay attention to
this stuff, they know better. There are still some people who are going to say "geez."
They call him and he takes their call and says, "Really, do you believe that; let me tell
you a real story." Trying to sway a Board member is not good. The Roanoke Times
thinks they are the only show in town. He has thought about this many times and you
know what, they are not. They have a print media that is losing leadership by the day.
In talking to you folks at home, the citizens, God bless you that stayed today; they are
not the only show in town. Yes, the buy their ink by the barrelful, but you the citizens,
96,000 of you have a chance to recognize what Paul Harvey used to say is the rest of
the story because our Board is televised live on RVTV Channel 3 and is replayed
almost every week on Thursday at 7:00 p.m. and again Saturday at 4:00 p.m. So they
have three chances to see what happened at our Board meeting and in video. Does it
jive with the Roanoke Times; is there something omitted, something left out. When you
read something that looks like it cannot possibly be, then you are right, it cannot
possibly be. 772 -2005, sorry madam clerk that is your number and the citizen can order
any DVD of any meeting, free of charge. If you have a question, you do not have to
accept the print media. The bottom line is you are not going to be charged; this is your
government. So you can request that and verify what really happened. He repeated he
is not a gambler, but he bet people before the editorial staff wrote their article and by the
way, let me make another crystal ball, he would bet that you will see Mr. Casey writing
January 14, 2014 39
another article because they pile on. They have a group that they for whatever reason,
we have problems in the Middle East, Benghazi burned down and he is on the front
page. That is not right, that is crazy. So, let's try to work on things that we can do good
around this County, let's try to look at positive items that happen in this Roanoke
County. This spin on the Glenvar library is nothing but a spin. They create the news,
not report the news; there is a big difference. They want you to see, and by the way,
this is not a political campaign, they have never endorsed me and he is not up for
reelection, so he does not have to bow down to these people and never will. So, people
this is your government, you can get copies. You can watch online and contrary to the
control room, he hopes you can make sure that you don't have to pay $5 because he
does not believe Mr. Tickle has had to pay $5. He is at the end of his comments and
they are very important to everybody who has the opportunity to consider running for
public office, because if we let this go on what it does is one very important thing. It
discourages good, honorable people from seeking public office and that is shame and is
something we cannot lose.
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to welcome all the new Board
members, she is glad to have them here. She would also like to take a moment to
thank all of our citizens, our staff and employees with the anti - litter campaign. She is
hoping it will be a big success and all of our communities will see a difference.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated the experience is not over, but it has been a
good experience and appreciates everybody being patient and would like to tell the
department heads that come up that it is important that we all understand that we all
work for the people. If he is questioning and really going after something it is because
he has been elected by the people to do just that job and thinks it is very, very important
that he understand as much as he can. One thing that he has noticed coming into
government, there is a lot coming at you at once. The train is moving a thousand miles
an hour and you are jumping on very quickly and he intends to slow it down a little bit
because he needs to understand. He just cannot say yes to everything and move it
along. You will find and you need to hold him accountable and thinks it is fair game. He
is a person that believes in limited government and he is in government now, but he still
believes in it. Actually, that is probably for his own selfish interest. He does not think
we should be doing a whole lot of stuff, more stuff than we need to. The citizens need
to be doing that. A lot of the votes he does and the things he says will go right down
that line. He does think as he watches out in the community is that we have a lot of
people coming, but we may want to think about allowing people to speak earlier. He
does not know if we have every thought about that and it is a long day and if we say
3:00 p.m. and people come and they have to sit around to 6 o'clock (three (3) hours)
before they can say three (3) minutes worth, we may want to allow them to speak and
we may need to talk about that, but he hates to see people leave because it is their
government and a lot of great ideas, he is learning a lot from people that have a whole
lot more knowledge than he does on topics and he thinks is important. So, he thinks we
should change that up a little bit. ICLEI obviously was a big issue today as we had
40 January 14, 2014
several speakers speaking on it. It is a contentious issue and one that is out there and
does not think any Board member can pretend that it is not. It is. So, he would like to
put on the next meeting as new business. We need to deal with that issue; a lot of
people do not like what is going on. Finally, is that he definitely believes all of our
meetings should be open and he knows there are six (6) or seven (7) reasons why we
would have a closed meeting. We are actually going to work on an item today, which
he brought up earlier a discussion that we are putting to a closed session that in his
mind does not pertain to any of these six (6). We are talking about a structure change
and who reports to who; not personalities, nothing confidential and so when he looks at
item number one and it says the only time we go to closed session regarding personnel
is for discussion or consideration of the employment and that is not what we are talking
about, assignment, that is not what we are talking about appointment, promotion,
performance, demotion, salaries or disciplining or resignation, we are not talking about
any of those items and yet we are taking this particular item to a closed session which
bothers him. He stated he thinks we need to look at every possible angle to have the
meetings open and we should really look at these items and say do we absolutely have
to have a closed meeting; everything should be open in his opinion. He stated he would
also like to suggest that any work sessions that we do instead of moving to another
floor, which have been done in the past should stay right here. He stated he thinks it is
very nice and open, it is not cramped, people can sit down and we can have our stuff
here, keep it here and it is inviting to the public. We need to make this place a lot more
inviting to the public. We need to make this place more inviting so that instead of going
up to the fourth floor and into some room that is not as big; there is no reason not to
unless there is something that he is not aware of, the lights are already on and we could
just continue working in this session. He closed by stating it is a good experience to be
on this side and is looking forward to a good year with everyone.
Supervisor Peters thanked the Chairman for the meeting today; it has
been a little long, but wants to touch on the Vinton Library. He knows that this has been
a hot topic of conversation and will leave you with this thought. Think about the Vinton
Magisterial District, when was the last time the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors,
not the School Board made a significant investment in the Vinton Magisterial District,
including Bonsack, Vinton, East County and Mt. Pleasant. Think about that. Definitely
not political, but he is going to say something in regards to the newspaper articles over
the last couple of days. He stated to Mr. Church that he believes communication begins
with us, that when the item was put on the Consent Agenda more than a week ago, he
knew nothing about it. So he thinks the Board needs to have an open communication
with each other so that it does not get to the Roanoke Times and they are calling staff
and they are calling me and he is saying what are you talking about. So communication
begins with the five Board members because as he has shared with Ms. Moore, the
bottom line is we are moving this entire County forward and we should be working
together to move the entire County forward.
Supervisor McNamara thanked everyone and believes the opening
January 14, 2014 41
comments were not televised. He wanted to thank his fellow Board members for
electing him chair and wants to make a commitment to all fellow Board members and
people out in the county. We are all elected and represent a number of people and all
of our opinions are important and all of our opinions in our minds are in the best interest
of Roanoke County and Roanoke County will best move forward by some collection of
all of our opinions being assimilated and look forward to being a part of that and look
forward to fair and accurate representation of all of us on this County Board of
Supervisors. Thank you very much for a vote of confidence.
Chairman McNamara stated with regard to Reports and Inquiries of Board
Members, we will start at the far right and rotate the Chair one position every meeting
thereafter and that is the order we will do that.
Supervisor Church stated with all due respect that he wants everyone to
know that he has been trying to talk to Mr. Peters as he thinks he knows, since right
after the election and he wants him to know we could have discussed it, but he never
got a call back. He does not want people to think he is just running about.
At 6:45 p.m. Chairman McNamara recessed to the 4 floor for work
session and closed meeting.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss the Partnership for a Livable Roanoke
Valley (Jake Gilmer, Partnership for a Livable Roanoke Valley)
Mr. Gilmer gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Partnership. A copy of
the presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked Mr. Gilmer to explain what his group is and did they work in
conjunction with or overlap local governments. Mr. Goodman explained the funding
comes from local governments on a per capita basis.
The work session was held from 7:25 p.m. until 7:50 p.m.
2. Work session on the Plantation Road Bicycle Pedestrian and
Streetscape Improvement project (Megan Cronise, Principal
Planner)
In attendance for this work session were: Megan Cronise, Principal
Planner, Melinda Cox, Manager, Existing Business Program, David Holladay, Planning
Administrator and Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator.
42 January 14, 2014
A PowerPoint presentation was given; a copy is on file in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Chairman McNamara advised this was a good use of revenue sharing
funds.
The work session was held from 7:50 p.m. until 8:16 p.m.
3. Work session on preliminary revenue projections and the State
budget (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson provided the Board with a PowerPoint presentation on
preliminary revenue projections. A copy of the presentation is on file in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
The work session was held from 8:16 p.m. until 8:36 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 9:58 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 011414 -7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge
1 . Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
January 14, 2014
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Approved by:
43
ose P. McNamara
airman
January 14, 2014
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY