HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/25/2014 - RegularMarch 25, 2014 187
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of March 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: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by Pastor
Scott McLucas from Orchard Hills Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all
present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
was taken.
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Al Bedrosian,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, 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; Amy Whittaker,
Public Information Officer; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; and Deborah C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to the Board
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Roanoke County police officers and employees of
Valley Gateway Kroger for the apprehension of a bank robber on
February 7, 2014 (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police)
Chief Hall reviewed the event. In attendance for this recognition were
Officers Poindexter, Pascoe and Westchester. Several individuals from Kroger were in
attendance. All Supervisors offered their thanks.
88 March 25, 2014
2. Recognition of Chief Richard E. Burch, Jr. of Fire and Rescue for
receiving a Fire Services Board Lifetime Achievement Award (B.
Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the recognition. All Supervisors offered their
congratulations and thanks.
3. Recognition of Division Chief Dustin Campbell of Fire and Rescue
for receiving a Governor's Award for Excellence is Fire Service
Management (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Hall outlined the recognition. All Supervisors offered their
congratulations and thanks.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to adopt a resolution setting the allocation percentage
for personal property tax relief for the 2014 tax year (Laurie
Gearheart, Assistant Director of Finance)
Ms. Gearheart outlined the request for the adoption of the resolution
relating to personal property tax relief for the 2014 tax year. Supervisor Bedrosian
inquired what happened in the event $12 million was not utilized with Ms. Gearheart
responding in the affirmative and stating that any small amount that is remaining is used
toward any new bills that come in at a later date.
RESOLUTION 032514 -1 SETTING THE ALLOCATION
PERCENTAGE FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF IN
ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE 2014 TAX YEAR
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 58.1 -3524
(C) (2) and Section 58.1 -3912 (E) of the Code of Virginia, as amended by Chapter 1 of
the Acts of Assembly and as set forth in item 503.E (Personal Property Tax Relief
Program or "PPTRA ") of Chapter 951 of the 2005 Acts of Assembly and qualifying
vehicle with a taxable situs within the County commencing January 1, 2014, shall
receive personal property tax relief; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution is adopted pursuant to Ordinance 122005 -10
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 2005.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That tax relief shall be allocated so as to eliminate personal property taxation
for qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,000 or less.
March 25, 2014 189
2. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $1,001 420,000 will be eligible
for 60.40% tax relief.
3. That qualifying personal use vehicles valued at $20,001 or more shall only
receive 60.40% tax relief on the first $20,000 of value; and
4. That all other vehicles, which do not meet the definition of qualifying (for
example, including but not limited to, business use vehicles, farm use vehicles, motor
homes, etc.) will not be eligible for any form of tax relief under this program.
5. That the percentages applied to the categories of qualifying personal use
vehicles are estimated fully to use all available PPTRA funds allocated to Roanoke
County by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
6. Supplemental assessments for tax years 2005 and prior shall be deemed
non - qualifying for purposes of State tax relief and the local share due from the taxpayer
shall represent one hundred percent (100 %) of the assessed personal property tax.
7. That this Resolution shall be effective from and after the date of its
adoption.
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
2. Resolution urging the Governor of Virginia and the Virginia
General Assembly to timely pass a clean budget (Joseph P.
McNamara, Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors)
Chairman McNamara outlined the resolution stating he has removed the
section regarding Medicaid. Chairman McNamara stated that he does have a request to
speak on this issue and if there is unanimous consent, he will allow.
Supervisor Church raised a point of order stating adding an item to the
agenda is the only unanimous vote; thinks it should be roll call.
Chairman McNamara stated he believes it is the prerogative of the chair
and requested that Mr. Mahoney confirm. Mr. Mahoney replied in the affirmative.
RoxAnne Christley stated Medicaid expansion is the reason why our
Commonwealth budget is not being passed. Delegate Sam Rasoul stated in a Town
Hall meeting this past week that the budget is their leverage to get Medicaid expansion
passed. She stated she wrote or called the majority of this Board at the closing of the
General Assembly encouraging them to join with other localities in urging our Governor
to stop holding our Commonwealth's budget hostage for the expansion of Medicaid that
will not only continue to increase our debt, but increase our government. She urged
that this resolution include the language urging the Governor to leave Medicaid
expansion out of the budget negotiations.
Chairman McNamara noted that Roanoke County as well as Roanoke
190 March 25, 2014
County schools both use Commonwealth funds for a significant portion of their budgets.
He stated that it is his believe that the primary, number one job of the General Assembly
and the Governor is to pass a budget. He thinks it is a sad state of affairs when we do
not have a budget and it is impacting localities all over the Commonwealth. The
resolution that is prepared addresses those issues. It does not talk about Medicaid
expansion. It certainly can be added if there an interest on the Board in amending this
resolution. It was removed because he would like to see unanimous approval on this
Board to encourage the General Assembly to do their job, the Governor to work with the
General Assembly and sign a budget so that we can put together our budgets and we
can be out of limbo. Chairman McNamara then moved approval of this resolution.
Supervisor Peters remarked if you take the resolution that is presented, it
does not state why we are really doing this. So, based on what is in the agenda packet
versus what the Board was handed last week and is this going to be an annual thing
that we are going to send, because it is not saying why. He commented this was not
about politics, but about money. We have to keep everything working seamlessly. His
concern is why is this being taken out since it is the "heart" of the matter.
Chairman McNamara stated his objective was to have unanimous
consent. He stated it was his intention not to tell them how to do their job, but to do
their job.
Supervisor Church stated the language that was presented in draft form at
the March 18, 2015, meeting is solely the reason why the State does not have a budget.
The issue of Medicaid expansion is the sticking point and thinks most Americans
believe if this item was explained fully, it would never have passed.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated for clarification to the people watching at
home, the draft copy of the resolution contained the following paragraph, "RESOLVED
FURTHER, that the issue of Medicaid Expansion under the Affordable Care Act should
be decoupled from budget negotiations and considered in a separate legislative session
to facilitate prompt passage of a State budget; and, be it." Supervisor Bedrosian then
amended the original resolution to include this language. The budget is not being
passed before of this issue and they need to put it aside. He stated he feels it is critical
that the Board put the language back in.
Supervisor Moore commented this is one party versus another party. This
is partisan politics. We represent every citizen of Roanoke County; we were not elected
to represent a party; no matter what that party it. She stated she thinks it is a good idea
to encourage people to move forward and especially our legislators to pass the budget,
but when we allow partisan politics to interfere she feels it is crossing the line. It is not
our role in government to play partisan politics; we were elected to represent our
citizens. If this is added to the resolution, she will have to vote no.
Supervisor Peters stated his response is that this is not about politics to
him. This is about the fact that we have a General Assembly and whether or not the
boys and girls want to play nice it does not matter. The issue at hand is this is what is
going on. We are instructing them that we do not want to be held up. We need our
March 25, 2014 191
economy to keep going here, we need everything to keep going seamlessly. It is not
about politics. It is about what is best for Roanoke County.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he thinks this is important, we are elected by
the people with different points of view. He ran against two other individuals that had
different points of view and we allowed the citizens to listen to different points of view
and then to the best of their ability elected a person that met their point of view the best.
So, when we start using the words partisan politics, it makes it sound negative. It is
different points of view and he thinks we should have different points of view. We
should be able to discuss them and whatever view wins out needs to be the law or the
resolution. In Virginia, they have a different point of view, that is good, that is healthy.
We need now as our Board here, we all have different points of view, but we need now
to make sure that this issue that a lot of people in Virginia and America do not like be
removed so that we can pass a budget.
Supervisor Church stated he also does not think this is partisan political
issue. We are not robots. We are not elected to be robots. We were elected to do the
best we can to represent the views of the people in our area of Roanoke County, our
constituency. Therefore, when we see something as gregarious at this particular item,
albeit coming down from the Federal government to the State, it does adversely impact
the making of a budget in Virginia. We need to stand up and he believes the Country
has stood up and thinks it is our duty to speak our mind, even if it is 5 -0, 4 -1, 3 -2
regardless. We need to just take a stand for what we feel is right for our people.
RESOLUTION 032514 -2 URGING THE GOVERNOR OF
VIRGINIA AND THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO
TIMELY PASS A CLEAN BUDGET
WHEREAS, each year the foremost duty of the Virginia General Assembly is to
pass a budget or budget amendments that serve as Virginia's financial blueprint for
each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, Virginia is consistently recognized for its sound fiscal management
and budgetary practices as illustrated by its AAA bond rating and the strong bond
ratings of many local government divisions throughout the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is currently in the process of developing and
adopting its budget for the upcoming fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors relies on the timely
passage of a budget to allocate funding to local government services and make policy
and hiring decisions for the upcoming fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, 92,000 residents of Roanoke County depend on county government
to provide critical services such as education and public safety; and
WHEREAS, failure to pass a timely budget will result in uncertainty for the
County of Roanoke, as a significant amount of its funding is received as direct aid from
the Commonwealth; and
192 March 25, 2014
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County School Board relies on the timely passage of
the State budget in order to set its budget and make staffing decisions, which includes
teacher contracts; and
WHEREAS, interruption of the provision of educational services to County
students will have a significant negative impact on students and families; and
WHEREAS, the interruption of public safety services would likely result in the
loss of property, serious injury, or loss of life for County citizens; and
WHEREAS, critical mental health services to County residents are provided via
funds that flow from the State budget through Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly adjourned sine die on Saturday,
March 8, 2014, without adopting a budget for the two year biennium beginning July 1,
2014, be it
RESOLVED by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, that the Governor of
Virginia and the Virginia General Assembly are urged to pass a budget as soon as
practicable to ensure the continued functioning of state and local governments; and, be
it
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the issue of Medicaid Expansion under the
Affordable Care Act should be decoupled from budget negotiations and considered in a
separate legislative session to facilitate prompt passage of a State budget; and, be it
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors shall
transmit copies of this resolution to the Honorable Terence R. McAuliffe, Governor of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the members of the Virginia General Assembly so
that they may be apprised of the sense of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in
this matter.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Moore
Supervisor Moore commented she does think we can all make fair
decisions when we base our own individual opinions and likeminded opinions and not
think about everyone who is likeminded and that is why she is voting no.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of State Central Bank to amend the proffered conditions
and Planning and Design documents for Loblolly Mill by amending the
sections dealing with trails and lighting. The Loblolly Mill Planned
Residential Development is located on Sterling Road and is
approximately 104.4 acres in size, Vinton Magisterial District
March 25, 2014 193
There was no discussion. Supervisor Peters moved to approve the first
reading and set the second reading and public hearing for April 22, 2014, and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Corporate Properties Services, Inc. to obtain a special
use permit for a restaurant, drive -in or fast food in a C -1, Low Intensity
Commercial, District, on approximately 1.3825 acres located at 3814
Challenger Avenue, Hollins Magisterial District
Supervisor Bedrosian commented he was at the Community Meeting for
this, which is Chick- Fil -A, which a lot of people love. However, there was a lot of issues
with this and as looking at it today and passing it along, he is uneasy to approve it or
bring it up. There are a lot of issues that need to be revolved and is afraid it will keep
going further and further until it gets to a point where there is a lot of animosity because
certain things have not been looked at.
Supervisor Peters advised the purpose of this, as former Chairman of the
Planning Commission, is for us to move forward. The issues that Supervisor Bedrosian
is talking about will be resolved before it gets to the Board of Supervisors. It needs to
go through the process. If the Board does not like the final product, we will get to it later
down the road.
Supervisor Peters moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for April 22, 2014, and the motion was carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
Supervisor Church commented that he understands Supervisor Bedosian,
but it is a way to put it on track. When the Board does something on the first reading, it
is simply something to get it on the "boxcar," to get it rolling. We have a lot of chances
to make amendments, to reject it, to approve it, proffer it, but would like for the
gentleman from Hollins to make the motion.
Supervisor McNamara stated he did have a request to speak on that
agenda item, but because it is first reading that was the reason the request was not
honored.
3. The petition of McDonald's USA, LLC to obtain a special use permit for
a restaurant, drive -in or fast food in the CVOD, Clearbrook Village
194 March 25, 2014
Overlay District, on approximately 1.0 acre located at 5347 Franklin
Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District
There was no discussion. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first
reading and set the second reading and public hearing for April 22, 2014, and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
4. The petition of Richard and Nancy Koplow to obtain a special use
permit to operate a bed and breakfast in a R -1, Low Density
Residential, District, on approximately 2.35 acres located at 864 Dexter
Road, Hollins Magisterial District
There was no discussion. Supervisor Bedrosian moved to approve the
first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for April 22, 2014, and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a Stormwater Management
(SWM) Program grant in the amount of $949,200 from the Department
of Environmental Quality for restoration of Glade Creek Natural Stream
— Water Quality Improvement Project at Vinyard Park — Phase I (Tarek
Moneir, Deputy Director of Development)
Mr. Moneir outlined the ordinance. He noted Doug Blount, Director of
Parks, Recreation and Tourism and Mark Courtright, Assistant Director of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism were in attendance to answer any questions as they will also
be a part of the process. Mr. Moneir then gave a PowerPoint Presentation, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Peters marked there has been some concerns we will be
losing one of the fields. Mr. Blount responded the parking lot and two soccer fields will
need to be reconfigured. The reconfiguration is not an issue as there is enough space.
The issue may be to remove a soccer field for a baseball field to continue to meet the
demands for baseball in East County.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired as to why the field would need to be
moved. Mr. Blount responded the plans that the engineering consultant put together
March 25, 2014 195
requires the stream bank to be able to be widened and reinforced because of the
erosion and in doing that because of the close proximity between the parking lot and the
soccer fields, will encroach into the fields. All they need to do is go in and reconfigure
the field in the existing space. Next, Mr. Bedrosian inquired if the $500,000 match to
this grant is in an account somewhere. Mr. Moneir responded in the affirmative adding
when they apply for these types of grants, it has to be shown that we have enough
funds to do our portion. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked, just out of curiosity, how
many other projects are there like this in Roanoke County with Mr. Moneir responding
he could not answer that question right now, but would be happy to obtain the statistics
on the creeks that are in the same condition. Mr. Monier added there was a report from
the Department of Environmental Quality stating the majority of the creeks in Roanoke
County are in need of repair, reconditioning. This particular project is impacting a lot of
people that use this park for their active and passive recreation. Supervisor Bedrosian
then asked based on this report, is this stream the worse one in Roanoke County or has
it been chosen because of the soccer fields and the quality of life? Mr. Moneir
responded when the evaluations were done three or four years ago, Vinyard Park and
Glade Creek were identified as one of the worse conditions in the County and it is
something that can be accomplished due to the grant that is available.
Supervisor Church then inquired what the balances were in the major and
minor capital accounts with Mrs. Owens responding $3.1 million and $1.3 million,
respectively.
Supervisor Peters stated he knew that the bridge renovation took place
down there a couple of years ago and was it in conformance of what we need to be
moving forward in this project. Mr. Moneir responding he would like to respond in the
affirmative, but the rules are being changed every time they turn around. Supervisor
Peters then asked if this would take care of everything in Vineyards, One and Two, with
Mr. Moneir responding negatively stating only this one.
Supervisor Peters moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for April 22, 2014, and the motion was 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 donations in the amount
of $325 from citizens donating in the memory of Mr. Michael H.
Farris for the purpose of purchasing medical supplies for
Fire /Rescue Station 7 (Clearbrook) (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of
Fire and Rescue)
Chief Steve Simon advised there were no changes from the first reading
other than a copy of the last $50 check. There was no discussion.
196 March 25, 2014
ORDINANCE 032514 -3 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
DONATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $325 FROM CITIZENS
DONATING IN THE MEMORY OF MR. MICHAEL H. FARISS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING MEDICAL SUPPLIES FOR
FIRE /RESCUE STATION 7 (CLEARBROOK)
WHEREAS, the family of Mr. Michael H. Farris requested in lieu of flowers that
donations be sent to the Clearbrook Rescue Squad to support the mission of providing
Emergency Medical Services to the community; and
WHEREAS, the individuals making the donations did not realize that the
Clearbrook Rescue Squad dissolved in April of 2006 and prior to that date the Fire and
Rescue Department had initiated 24/7 staffing of an ambulance which continues now;
and
WHEREAS, the donated funds of $325 will be used to purchase medical supplies
for Station 7 (Clearbrook) as intended in the memory of Mr. Michael H. Farris; 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 March 11, 2014
and the second reading was held on March 25, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $325 is hereby appropriated from citizen donations in
memory of Mr. Michael H. Farris; and
2. These funds are to be allocated to the Fire and Rescue Department for
the purpose of purchasing medical supplies for the ambulances assigned to Station 7
(Clearbrook); and
3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$89,600 to Fire and Rescue for a non - matching grant from the
Virginia Department of Health (GRANT #WV- C11/01 -14) for the
purchase of computer hardware for posting EMS records to the
Virginia Pre - Hospital Information Bridge (VPHIB) (Richard E.
Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Simon advised there were no changes from the first reading. There
March 25, 2014 197
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 032514 -4 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,600 TO FIRE AND RESCUE
FOR A NON - MATCHING GRANT FROM THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (GRANT #WV- C11/01 -14) FOR THE
PURCHASE OF COMPUTER HARDWARE FOR POSTING EMS
RECORDS TO THE VIRGINIA PRE - HOSPITAL INFORMATION
BRIDGE (VPHIB)
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has been awarded a non - matching grant from the
Virginia Department of Health (Grant #WV- C11/01 -14) in the amount of $89,600; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Health will provide funding in the amount
$89,600 to the Fire and Rescue Department; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of these funds is to purchase computer hardware for
posting EMS records to the Virginia Pre Hospital Information Bridge (VPHIB); 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 March 11, 2014, and the
second reading was held on March 25, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $89,600 is hereby accepted and appropriated from the
Virginia Department of Health (Grant #WV- C11/01 -14) to the Fire and
Rescue Department; and
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant in the amount of
$83,114 from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
for the Roanoke Valley Regional Drug Unit (Howard B. Hall, Chief
of Police)
Chief Hall advised there were no changes from the first reading. There
was no discussion.
198 March 25, 2014
ORDINANCE 032514 -5 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $83,114 TO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FROM THE HIGH INTENSITY DRUG
TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM FOR THE ROANOKE
VALLEY REGIONAL DRUG UNIT
WHEREAS, The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program ( HIDTA), created
by Congress with the Anti -Abuse Act of 1988, provides assistance to Federal, State,
Local and Tribal law enforcement agencies operating in areas determined to be critical
drug- trafficking regions in the United States;
WHEREAS, the purpose of the program is to reduce drug trafficking and
production in the United States;
WHEREAS, all of the jurisdictions within the territorial boundaries of Roanoke
County were accepted into the HIDTA Program;
WHEREAS, HIDTA will provide financial support in the amount of $83,114 to
support this initiative; and
WHEREAS, the use of these funds is intended to improve communications
amongst criminal justice agencies and enhance the ability to disrupt and /or dismantle
drug trafficking organizations within the Roanoke Valley; 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 March 11, 2014, and the
second reading was held on March 25, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $83,114 is hereby accepted and appropriated from the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program to the Police Department;
and
2. 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
4. Ordinance providing for refunding of the 2004 Lease Financing
with Virginia Resources Authority (Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the ordinance advised there were no changes from
the first reading.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated ten (10) years ago, Roanoke County did a
March 25, 2014 199
bond issue for $22 million and it was for twenty (20) years and ten (10) years into it, the
principal dropped from $22.1 million to $18.6 million. So we have paid $3.4 million in
principal. Just to clarify, a lot of this interest is front - loaded. So, we take the $18.6
million and we are going to finance that for another ten (10) years. We will go from an
interest rate of somewhere between five point one percent (5.1 %) to four percent (4 %).
In order for $18.6 million to be totally done away with within ten (10) years, how is that
going to happen? He just needs to understand. We have done $3 million in ten years
and have $18.6 million left and we are going to stretch that out over ten (10) years and
do away with the balance.
Supervisor Peters pointed out it is thirty (30) years. Ms. Owens stated no,
it was twenty (20) years. She advised back in the spring of last year, we had the
opportunity to refund the maturity but the market was as such that the older maturities
just did not make sense to refund those at that particular time. She stated she is now
taking care of the remaining $5 million that is still out there, but in the spring, there was
$13 million that made sense for us to refund and basically all they did was refund them
for the remaining life of the original time period. We just got a lower interest rate. It
allowed us to take up front interest savings. In this situation, we are putting this toward
the financial system. It just made sense at the time for us to refund the bonds and we
took that opportunity to take upfront interest savings, while still in keeping with our plan
to pay the bonds off and still have scheduled principal and interest payments within our
joint capital agreement.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated when you do this, do you pay upfront costs?
Ms. Owens stated any type of transaction like this contain upfront issuance costs. In
this particular one, staff is estimating those costs will be in the neighborhood of $35,000
to $45,000 just for the attorneys to do their work and the financial advisors to do their
pieces of the transaction.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented so we pay that upfront and then we
finance. Just for clarification, we take that remaining balance of $18.6 million and we
are refinancing that for ten (10) years. Ms. Owens responded in this situation, what she
provided was the original amortization schedule. There is yet another schedule that
even complicated it more last year when we did the refunding, we also merged it in with
the financing for the library for today's purposes. There is about $5 million of
outstanding maturities and that is what staff is seeking approval to actually refund. Staff
is not looking to add any additional years to the life of the bonds. These were 2004 and
were originally twenty (20) years for at 2014 there should be ten (10) years remaining.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked for clarification stating we are not
refinancing $18 million, we are only taking $5 million of that with Ms. Owens advising
that is the only available amount for us to refund. We did the bulk of them last year and
now what staff is seeking approval on is the refund of the remaining maturities, $5.3
million. Supervisor Bedrosian reiterated so we are refinancing $5.3 million, getting a
lower interest rate for ten (10) years and it is going to cost approximately $30,000 or
$40,000 upfront to get a savings of $400,000. Ms. Owens stated in the neighborhood of
200 March 25, 2014
$400,000 to $600,000 depending upon how the market is between now and when the
bonds are actually sold, which will be May 6 -7, 2014. Hopefully, interest rates will hold
where they are. If they were to increase and we would not generate the savings that we
have talked about, staff would come back to the Board and let them know it is not
something they would want to do at this time.
Supervisor Peters advised the amortization schedule that Ms. Owens
included in the packet shows a thirty (30) years term; originating in 2004 and a payoff in
2033. Secondly, he would hope that this is not preloaded (interest upfront), the interest
is usually calculated on the balance. Ms. Owens stated this bond is structured with a
variety of maturities and each maturity has different coupon interest rates ranging from
three point eight percent (3.8 %) and the interest calculation is much like your house,
you are only going to pay the interest calculated based on the principal, so you can
actually see the loan balance declining. Supervisor Peters stated his more pointed
question is are these simple interest loans, so you are only going to be charged interest
on what the balance is; no different than a thirty (30) year mortgage. The interest is not
preloaded. Ms. Owens advised they try to do almost level payments; that is how our
financial model is built. It does appear this one originated in 2004 and is through 2033,
so it does appear this one is a thirty (30) year loan. Supervisor Peters reiterated it
would be refinanced for twenty (20) years.
Supervisor Church inquired where the savings of $400,000 to $600,000 is
going toward with Ms. Owens stated she would like to do because the savings will be
upfront and we do not have the appropriate funds for the integrated financial system,
which was a top tier capital project. In the spring of last year, when staff refunded the
first grouping of the 2004 bond, we yielded about $1 million and she would like to use
these funds for that project. At this point, since staff does not know the exact amount,
they will put into the 2014 -2015 budget ordinance to this Board for approval when the
refunding occurs in May. Supervisor Church advised would this not be appropriate time
to take this money and pay down the debt. If you are going to recover this kind of
money, it makes sense to take care of debt.
Supervisor Peters interjected the financial system is defunk.
Supervisor Church stated he thinks it would do things, take care of our
debt ratio that a lot of people nationally and statewide are concerned with but also
recognize the savings.
Supervisor McNamara inquired of Ms. Owens what else besides Public
Safety was in these bonds and weren't there other bond issues about a year later. Ms.
Owens advised this one was solely the public safety building. In 2008, we did a lease
revenue bond on $58.1 million for thirty (30) years and funded the South County Library,
the Multigen Center, North County Fire Station, Fleet Service Center and the Radio
System. He commented if the Board stays to its capital plan we are limiting maturities
to twenty (20) years. It does not make the ordinance to refund bad, it is good. What we
decide to do with the funds after the fact will be up to the Board to decide, but this action
is sound.
March 25, 2014 20
Supervisor Bedrosian stated since we just got into a discussion as to what
could be done with the money there are a couple of things he wants to make sure of. If
there is a savings on this, that would be something we would vote on as a Board to
maybe put towards the debt. Ms. Owens advised she would be happy to bring the item
back to the Board after the sale and appropriate at that time. Supervisor Bedrosian
then stated for clarification purposes, we are in April of 2014 and the balance is
$18,000, but what we are doing is taking part of this that has already matured, $5
million. Ms. Owens advised back in the spring of last year, everything except this
remaining $5.3 was refunded. Mr. Bedrosian stated the $5.3 million would be done for
twenty (20) more years and with all the fees upfront and everything is $40,000. Is there
something else we are paying upfront? Ms. Owens responded the $40,000 is an
estimate from the Virginia Resources Authority. Because we will be participating in a
pool, they are estimating the number. If some the participant numbers change, it could
be a little bit more or less, but could report to the Board after the sale. The best
estimate they can provide is $35,000 to $45,000 range. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so
with regard to the interest rate, we do not know what it is, but is there a trigger that says
do not do this. Ms. Owens responded in the affirmative stating currently the remaining
maturities are at the highest, five point one percent (5.1 %). Currently, the market is
around four percent (4 %), the ordinance actually has a component in it that talks about
net present value savings less than three percent (3 %) and that would be the trigger.
ORDINANCE 032514 -6 PROVIDING FOR THE REFUNDING OF
2004 LEASE FINANCING WITH VIRGINIA RESOURCES
AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2004, the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "Local
Government ") entered into a Financing Lease (the "Original Financing Lease "), with
Virginia Resources Authority ( "VRA "), and VRA acquired the Original Financing Lease
pursuant to a Local Lease Acquisition Agreement dated as of June 16, 2004, between
VRA and the Local Government; and
WHEREAS, VRA acquired the Original Financing Lease with a portion of the
proceeds of one of the series of VRA's Virginia Pooled Financing Program Bonds (the
"VRA VPFP Bonds "); and
WHEREAS, VRA has advised the Local Government that the credit markets are
currently favorable for the refunding of a portion of the VRA VPFP Bonds (the
"Refunding Transaction "), which may enable VRA to pass on annual debt service
savings to the Local Government; and
WHEREAS, VRA will effect the Refunding Transaction through the issuance and
sale of a series of refunding bonds issued under VRA's Virginia Pooled Financing
Program (the "VRA Refunding Bonds "); and
WHEREAS, VRA has indicated that if the Local Government participates in the
Refunding Transaction the most significant modifications required to the terms of the
202 March 25, 2014
Original Financing Lease will be to reconcile the Rental Payments and redemption
provisions of the Original Financing Lease with the debt service payments and
redemption provisions of the VRA Refunding Bonds and such modifications will be
embodied in amendments to the Original Financing Lease or in replacements thereof
(the "Local Refunding Documents "); and
WHEREAS, unless otherwise defined each capitalized term used in this
Ordinance shall have the meaning given it in the Original Financing Lease; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 11, 2014, and
the second reading of this ordinance was held on March 25, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. Agreement to Participate. The Local Government's participation in the
Refunding Transaction is hereby approved provided that (i) the minimum savings
threshold to be realized by the Local Government shall be not less than three
percent (3 %) savings on a present value basis compared to the existing and
outstanding Rental Payments under the Original Financing Lease or portion
thereof to be refunded and (ii) the term of the Original Financing Lease as
amended or replaced in the Refunding Transaction shall not be extended past
the end of the fiscal year in which occurs the current final Rental Payment under
the Original Financing Lease.
2. Authorization of Local Refunding Documents. Each of the Local
Government's Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, County Administrator and
Director of Finance (each a "Local Representative ") is authorized to execute and
deliver the Local Refunding Documents in such form as will reflect and facilitate
the Refunding Transaction within the parameters and intent of this Ordinance.
The Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is authorized to affix the Local
Government's seal on any such documents and attest or counter -sign the same.
3. Official Statement. The Local Government authorizes and consents to the
inclusion of information with respect to the Local Government in VRA's
Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement, both to be prepared in
connection with the sale of the VRA Refunding Bonds.
4. Other Actions. Each Local Representative is authorized to execute and
deliver all certificates, documents, agreements and instruments and to take all
such further action as they may consider necessary and desirable in connection
with the refunding of all or a portion of the Original Financing Lease and the
consummation of the Refunding Transaction, including the execution and
delivery of such documents and the making of such elections as may be
reasonably requested by VRA to maintain or establish a tax - favored status for
the VRA Refunding Bonds.
5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
March 25, 2014 203
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 032514 -7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for March 25,
2014, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 3 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — February 19, 2014
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Pam Beason, Risk Management Specialist, upon her
retirement after more than twenty -six (26 years and 11 months) years of
service
3. Confirmation of appointments to the League of Older Americans; Ninth
District Development Financing, Inc.; Roanoke Regional Airport Commission;
Roanoke Valley Detention Commission; Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional
Comprehensive Economic Development Commission
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
RESOLUTION 032514 -7.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO PAM BEASON, RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST, UPON
HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWENTY SIX (26 YRS;
11 MONTHS) YEARS OF SERVICE.
WHEREAS, Pam Beason was hired on April 6, 1987, as an Accounts Clerk III
and was promoted to Insurance /Fixed Asset Clerk and then to Risk Management
Specialist; and
204 March 25, 2014
WHEREAS, Mrs. Beason retired on February 28, 2014, after twenty -six (26)
years, and eleven (11) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County;
and
WHEREAS, she was responsible for providing excellent customer service to our
employees, clients and citizens; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Beason was instrumental in establishing appropriate processes
and procedures for insurance, reporting and workers compensation claims; and
WHEREAS, she proved to be an exemplary employee and represented the Risk
Management Division of Finance and Roanoke County in a very positive manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to Pamela Beason for twenty -six (26) years and eleven
(11) months of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
A- 032514 -7.b
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
Supervisor Peters stated his request is not necessarily a work session, but
as things have unfolded over the last several months with the McDonalds and the
Chick -fil -A and looking back over what the Planning Commission has on the books,
which has triggered the special use permit, he would like to direct back to the Planning
Commission to review the Clearbrook Overlay District and also to look at the 460
Corridor why one side of the road is core and the other side is not core. Chairman
McNamara asked if there was a time frame with Supervisor Peters responding in the
negative. Chairman McNamara asked Mr. Goodman to coordinate with the Planning
Commission and apprise the Board as to when it might be appropriate to do.
Supervisor Peters stated he is looking at the McDonalds and after serving on the
Planning Commission, there is a Clearbrook Overlay District that should encompass
what we want someone to do coming to town; whether it be architectural (which is not
included) and trying to look at ways we become business friendly so that if we want an
overlay district with certain restrictions someone walking in the door on day one needs
to know that. He advised that has been an issue when talking to business people that
they would rather go to Roanoke City, or anywhere else, than to come here because
March 25, 2014 205
they are not sure what they are going to be required to do. The more upfront we can be
as to what is required will put us in a better position.
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he and a number
of people are concerned with the consequences of the proposed petitioner's plan to
develop a fast food restaurant at Challenger Avenue. To appreciate their concerns, he
will highlight the overall traffic situation in this area in NE County and how this
development impacts on the already serious traffic situation. He will be followed by one
or more speakers who will describe the situation and several recommendations in more
detail. This development is made the backdrop of one of the most congested corridors
in the entire County. This is Rt. 460 coming from the Roanoke City going towards the
Botetourt /Roanoke County line and Blue Ridge. There is a bypass that goes out to
Cloverdale and 181 and Rt. 11. The street in question is West Ruritan, which terminates
at a red light. There is another road that can go to the property, which can access into
this property. This is the owner of both sites. The gentleman owns the drycleaners
there. The right turn mentioned is located (shows on the map). This is the main access
and entrance to a 200 family /house or more subdivision here; environs of Summerville.
This is the only one with the exception of East Ruritan about a mile down the road here;
no red light and also the same kind of road that has houses located all along it. This is
the only one and development still continues. Right now, there are several
developments of single - family dwellings going in. The commercial development in the
past thirty (30) years has created high density traffic. It is a highly urbanized
environment with stop and go /bumper to bumper traffic resulting in frequent
occurrences of "rear- enders ", "fender- benders" and all you have to do is look at the
Police Reports to find out how bad it is; almost one a day. The business plan is
deficient in addressing this problem. Despite the obligatory traffic survey, the petitioner
focused on the site's internal traffic plan rather than the egress and exit from the
property. Accept for the need and recognition for a right -hand turn lane off West Ruritan
Road, there are no plans other than signs to enhance the access road. That lane is
needed now, even without the post development. Most of us there are not against
development. Most of us are not against the commercialization on Rt. 460. What we
want to do is implore the Board to take measures to improve the traffic concurrently with
development. He does not think that is unreasonable. The citizens are caught between
the developer, Roanoke County, who wants to improve economic growth, which we are
not against, and VDOT, which they have very little control and very little influence. The
Board of Supervisors is the only body that we can look to for relief. We implore that you
ensure that the appropriate road and traffic improvements are made concurrently with
the development of the property.
Ron Roop of 1431 West Ruritan Road about fifty yards from the proposed
Chick -fil -A project, which is on the West corner of the intersection on West Ruritan Road
206 March 25, 2014
on Rt. 460. He stated he would like to begin by stating he has no problem with Chick -fil-
A as an entity or with their product or with the architecture of the restaurant; likewise he
does not have a problem with most any other commercial businesses that may want to
build on that property. What he does have a problem with is any heavy traffic business,
which is classified as a heavy traffic business with its primary business on West Ruritan
Road, which will contribute to the burden of traffic at rush hours. Additionally, he has a
problem with any such situation such as the necessity to require West Ruritan to
conform to site distance requirements. He stated he does not know if you remember
and some may not have been on the Board, but they got into this when Arby's wanted
to build on that site. It would entail closing off West Ruritan for a length of time during
construction or effect ingress and egress to his driveway or would add any slope to the
entrance to his driveway. His driveway has already been lowered by fifteen foot
(VDOT). He would like to present a drawing to the Board that shows the problems with
having a proposed entrance for any heavy traffic business on West Ruritan Road.
Based on the plans submitted by Chick- fil -A's justification letter. He stated he
understands some of that has been changed. (The drawing was distributed to the
Board.) He has made a drawing that shows what the situation is now and how it is
going to be. If you look up in the top right hand corner, the red, presently backs up
behind the second driveway at 1440 West Ruritan during the morning rush hour and
that is considerably up the street from what this drawing will show. This is a typical rush
hour in the morning. The blue cars represent people that want to go to work. The
green cars represent (based on Chick- fil -A's) 230 some cars will be there in the morning
at rush hour. If you look at the green cars coming in and the blue cars trying to get out
you will see several pinch points. One is right down on Rt. 460, west, the right -turn lane
going into West Ruritan. There is no way that those people can turn into here when
they are blocked up at the entrance into the Chick -fil -A parking lot. The reason they are
going to be blocked up is because these people in the blue cars are wanting to get to
work and they are not going to let the people in the green cars in just to get their
chicken. The other pinch point, is vehicles in the left -hand turn lane of Rt. 460 heading
east, they cannot get in because of the green cars already on West Ruritan Road. This
drive -thru they are proposing is only like six or seven cars that you can get between that
driveway and a stoplight down at Rt. 460. So, there are your pinch points and plus
these cars that you see in the drive -thru lane in the Chick -fil -A restaurant are going to
be blocked by the green cars above them trying to get out. That is the situation if the
road is left the way it is today. The right -hand turn lane down here on Rt. 460 going into
West Ruritan Road will hold about two (2) cars. He has another drawing that has
another solution (second drawing was provided to the Board). Mr. Roop stated he was
rushing through this trying to get the basic information. This is a photograph and if you
look up at the top right hand corner there is a parcel directly across West Ruritan Road
from the Chick -fil -A parcel. He advised that parcel has been on and off the market and
he is pretty sure it was advertised at $800,000 for commercial use and it will be sold for
commercial use and does not have a problem with that other than the fact that if you
March 25, 2014 207
look at where that entrance is directly across from the Chick -fil -A entrance and it is his
understanding that VDOT has already said they are not going to allow any more
entrances off of Route 460. So, that guy is very limited as to where he can put his
entrance, but it is still going to be across from Chick- fil -A. Some people have said that
we need a left turn lane going up West Ruritan Road to go into the Chick- fil -A; you can
only get about six cars in that left -turn lane but you are talking about a heck of a lot of
road work to do that. So, you are still going to have jam ups between the right -turn lane
off of Route 460 West and the left turn lane off of Route 460 East. You are going to be
spending money foolishly. Also, on the other side of West Ruritan they are talking
about a turn lane for people coming down West Ruritan, so it would be a right -turn lane
to get onto Route 460 West. Again, this is his understanding and they may have
changed their plans by putting a right turn lane right down where the entrance to their
parking lot is going to be. Again, that is only going to hold six or seven cars so if you go
back to the other drawing where it shows the blue cars stopping up way back here to
1140, which is across the street from his house and if you look on the second drawing,
his house is the one in the middle of the picture with the swimming pool cover on it. So,
they are talking about putting a right turn lane all the way back to there; all that is going
to do is double up the problem for the people trying to get out of Chick- fil -A.
At this point, Chairman McNamara advised this is excellent information;
very well thought out and thinks that any Board member would be happy to sit and meet
with Mr. Roop for a period of time so that you do not have to rush through as we are at
six minutes and we could go to nine minutes, but that is not going to be enough time to
understand it well. He stated he did not want Mr. Roop to be rushed and wanted him to
have full opportunity to share with the Board. These are the types of things the
Planning Commission will look at and the Board of Supervisors will get very involved
before they cast a vote on this particular property, but thinks to air this any further when
we are only at first reading and thinks it is more appropriate and the objective can be
accomplished if you could meet with the Board members. He advised he would be
more than happy to meet with him and thinks the other Board members would as well.
This is much more than citizen comments and Mr. Roop cannot do justice in three
minutes, six minutes or nine minutes. Let's set up a time and meet. The same thing
needs to be done with the Planning Commission because they will be reviewing it
before the Board does; they need to be in the loop as well. Chairman McNamara asked
if Mr. Roop felt this was fair with Mr. Roop responding he was trying to explain there is a
more economical way to do this without effecting West Ruritan Road at all. When the
Arby's thing was done, VDOT said they would have to pay to tear the road up and
Arby's withdrew. He would be glad to discuss this with the Board. Supervisor Church
suggested having a work session where all five Board members can hear the same
information. Chairman McNamara stated there is already a process in place and the
Planning Commission is going to review it first. He thinks it is very appropriate to share
this information with the Planning Commission; they may come through with all the
recommendations exactly as Mr. Roop thinks they should be. At which point, he can
208 March 25, 2014
call and talk to individual Board members and advise them to look at the Planning
Commission recommendations because they make sense. If the Board is in
disagreement with that, then Board members can then meet with Mr. Roop. Chairman
McNamara reiterated he did not think the Board should be setting up work sessions for
rezonings as there are too many. His suggestion is to make copies and forward to the
Planning Commission members; reach out to the Planning Commission members and
try to meet them. Mr. Peters added he should be here for the Public Hearing with the
Planning Commission. Mr. Roop advised he was in agreement. He added the big
question he had was since we had all this problem before and went through the process
and to VDOT last and VDOT was the one that said you needed to change the road and
that is when they threw up their hands. Why doesn't VDOT get involved in this thing at
the beginning?
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Moore moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
February 28, 2014
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of February 28, 2014
6. Accounts Paid — February 28, 2014
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss Disability Insurance renewal for budget
fiscal year 2014 -2015 (Joe Sgroi, Director of Human Resources;
Anita Hassell, Assistant Director of Human Resources)
March 25, 2014 209
Mr. Sgroi and Ms. Hassell provided the Board with a PowerPoint
presentation reviewing the disability insurance renewal for fiscal year 2014 -2015. A
copy of the presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
After the review, it was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the staff
recommendation and bring this item forward at the next Board meeting for final
consideration. The work session was held from 5:15 p.m. until 5:45 p.m.
2. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2014 -2015 budget
development (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; W.
Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
In attendance for this work session were Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget, Jimmy Lyon, Budget Analyst and B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator. An overview of the following items were discussed: current year
and fiscal year 2014 -2015 revenue projections; a copy of the PowerPoint presentation is
on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors; an overview of departmental
operating budgets; a review of contributions to Human Service, Social Service, Cultural,
Tourism and other outside agencies and the tentative schedule for budget adoption. It
was the consensus of the Board to bring back the contribution list for discussion at the
next work session. Additionally, it was the consensus of the Board not to charge a
stormwater fee for fiscal 2014 -2015. The work session was held from 5:46 p.m. until
6:20 p.m.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:58 p.m., Chairman McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A Section
2.2.3711.A.1.Personnel, namely discussion concerning appointments to the Roanoke
Valley - Alleghany Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Commission
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 6:29 p.m. until 6:31 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
210 March 25, 2014
RESOLUTION 032514 -8 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: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF TAX RATES
1. Public hearings for citizen comment on the following items: (W.
Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
(a) Real estate, personal property and machinery and tools tax
rates
Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public hearing. The
following citizens spoke:
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated he was
not here to complain, but several years ago, he thought that the Board was not
complimented enough for doing the job that they do on tax rates and he spoke thanking
the Board and he is again thanking the Board for the very serious job and he
appreciates it.
Dr. Greg Jamison of 6235 Mount Chestnut Road stated he wanted to
express some concerns as it is his understanding, correctly or incorrectly, that the
March 25, 2014 211
County is in debt to the tune of about $184 million, if he is not mistaken. Just speaking
personally, if he were to take his portion of that it would be approximately $50,000 and
with his wife $100,000 and that number is staggering if he could say. He advised the
indebtedness of the County strikes him as a problem we all have, but he will speak
personally. If he had a debt of that caliber, he would want to make sure he was working
it down. He would want to make sure that he was doing whatever he could to stop
spending where it was not necessary and also to honor his indebtedness. The principal
is the borrower is considered the slave to the lender and if that is the case, he would like
to know who we are borrowing from so that he knows who his master is. Another way
to put it is he does not want to be a slave to anyone; he does not think any of his fellow
members of the County want to be a slave. He stated he does not think any of the
Board want to be a slave to anybody. He then asked if the County is addressing this
$184 million debt; are we working it down. Additional thoughts he has on the matter is
are we intending to pay that back, it is that our intention and if so, how are we doing
that. A thought would be a borrower who does not intend to pay back his debit, first of
all has broken his contract and is a liar. He does not wish to be classified in the
category of being a liar to the borrowers. Secondly, if he does not intend to pay back
that makes him a thief. He does not wish to be classified in that category either. So, as
his representatives, he hopes the Board will consider these thoughts and show restraint
and perhaps even say "no" occasionally.
Chairman McNamara stated he would just like to make one comment. If
you use $184 million and to make the number simple, with 92,000 per capita in
Roanoke County, it would be about $2,000 per capita; not $100,000.
(b) General comment on the upcoming annual budget for fiscal
year 2014 -2015
Supervisor Bedrosian commented he would hope that the Board and the
County would look seriously at reducing the tax rate. He advised that is one of the
things that he hears a lot about from County citizens. He stated he knows the County
provides a lot of services, but any change that we can lower the real estate tax rate
would be like giving every citizen of Roanoke County a little bit of a raid and thinks it is a
valuable thing to do.
2. Request to adopt the following tax rates for calendar year 2014:
(W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
(a) Real estate tax rate of $1.09 per $100 assessed valuation
ORDER 032514 -9 SETTING THE TAX RATE ON REAL ESTATE
SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR
2014
212 March 25, 2014
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that
the levy for the twelve -month period beginning January 1, 2014, and ending December
31, 2014, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $1.09 per one hundred dollars of
assessed valuation on all taxable real estate and mobile homes classified by Sections
58.1 -3200, 58.1 -3201, 58.1- 3506.A.8, and 58.1-3506.B of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, situate in Roanoke County.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the order, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
(b) Personal property tax rate of $3.50 per $100 assessed
valuation
ORDER 032514 -10 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON PERSONAL
PROPERTY SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 2014
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the levy for the twelve -month period beginning January 1, 2014, and
ending December 31, 2014, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $3.50 per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property,
excluding that class of personal property generally designated as machinery and tools
as set forth in Section 58.1 -3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and
excluding all those classes of household goods and personal effects as are defined in
Sections 58.1 -3504 and 58.1 -3505 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, but
including the property separately classified by Sections 58.1 -3500, 58.1 -3501, 58.1-
3502, 58.1 -3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service
corporations based upon the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation
Commission and duly certified.
2. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal
property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1-
3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and adopted by Ordinance No.
121592 -11, and generally designated as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans.
3. That the levy for the twelve -month period beginning January 1, 2014, and
ending December 31, 2014, be, and hereby is, set at fifty (50 %) percent of the tax rate
established in paragraph 1 for the taxable, tangible personal property as herein
established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully defined by
March 25, 2014 213
Section 58.1 -3506 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated
as Motor Vehicles for Disabled Veterans.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the order, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
(c) Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.00 per $100 assessed
valuation
ORDER 032514 -11 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON A
CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY - MACHINERY
AND TOOLS - SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR THE
CALENDAR YEAR 2014
BE IT ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That there be, and hereby is, established as a separate class of personal
property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Section 58.1-
3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery
and tools.
2. That the levy for the twelve -month period beginning January 1, 2014, and
ending December 31, 2014, be, and hereby is, set for a tax rate of $3.00 per one
hundred dollars of assessed valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property as
herein established as a separate classification for tax purposes and as more fully
defined by Section 58.1 -3507 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally
designated as machinery and tools.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the order, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution appointing Deborah C. Jacks as Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors (Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Supervisor)
Mr. Paul Mahoney, County Attorney advised this resolution would do
several things. First it would rescind a previous resolution adopted by the Board on
January 28, 2014, which appointed the County Administrator as Clerk. Second, this
214 March 25, 2014
resolution would appoint Ms. Jacks as Clerk to the Board serving at the pleasure of the
Board effective immediately. Third, it deals with the general powers and duties of the
Clerk. Fourth, things like time sheets, general recordkeeping matter would be through
the County Administrator.
Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public hearing. Chairman
McNamara also advised those speaking to keep personal comment issues out of the
discussion and focus on the structure. The following citizens spoke:
RoxAnne Christley of 7259 Willow Valley Road stated she was here to
speak on the issue of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. She stated she has
several concerns over what has taken place to date on this issue and why it has taken
place. She advised her initial concerns speaks to the question of why the Cave Spring
Supervisor felt the need to make this one of the first items of business for the new
Board at this time. She stated she called into question the motive behind this action,
but as the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Now that the Board has gone
through several resolutions to fix it, why not now pay attention to those you represent.
She advised she has a petition with signatures on it from the recent Republican mass
meeting asking that the Clerk serve at the Board's direction and pleasure. The
importance of the Clerk to the Board will be undermined in several ways if that position
is not directly answerable to the Board and yes, the County Administrator as Clerk is
answerable to the Board, but does the County citizens really want a proxy service
provided through the County Administrator? As a citizen she says, "no." There have
already been some troubling issues about this with respect to one recent FOIA request
that she personally made. This FOIA request came back noticeably incomplete, which
she immediately brought to the attention of the County Attorney. She advised she did
not believe this would have happened until the prior change. The Clerk to the Board
has been a balance between the citizens of the County, the Board and the County staff
and she believes it should remain that way.
Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane and Roanoke County resident stated he
stands to speak up for our Board of Supervisors here in Roanoke County. It defies any
common sense for this important position of our governance to be so poorly funded; all
five positions should be funded as if a full -time position. Our governance today is so
complicated it should be so with non - government organization coming at them with
deception of all sorts. Our Board of Supervisors are themselves so underfunded, it is
humanly impossible to avoid stumbling blocks of these non - government deceptions. He
stated it is purposely designed that way so they may be taken advantage of. They will
cave in to these oppressive deceptions as we all cower in fear of such as has been said
the "Dillon Rule." It is a rule that in fact to subjugate them and local governance. It is a
tyranny of federalism. All governance begins at the local level. He says this because
our Board of Supervisors need all of the assistance possible at their disposal, especially
personal assistance. Not only should that have a personal secretary, but they should
have the Clerk of and by and for the Board of Supervisors. They should keep the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors as it has always been in the past. It is an eye opener that
March 25, 2014 215
this is something problematic; seems to have never been a problem in the past. It is a
problem of late after three new Board of Supervisors have been elected. If this is some
personnel funding issue, it should be solved. Taxpayer money spent to fund over a
million of County debt was bragged about at the last meeting. Could be spent — not.
Bragged about ever increasing debt, but in support of our County Supervisors and other
worthy County issues. Their very own Clerk to the Board and their very own secretary
to manage their ever burdensome stacks of ink on paper. Their personal staff would
free their attention for the path ahead for Constitutional Library vigilance in our County
and to avoid non - government tyranny that tries to Trojan horse them in.
Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane in Roanoke stated any
government: federal, state, or local needs accountability, transparency and checks and
balances. These elements are vital to a properly functioning government. We have seen
that more bureaucracy leads to less efficiency and a more convoluted path for citizens
to receive information and to participate effectively in their government. This is true on
every level. Roanoke County government and all departments of this Government
should seek transparency in all their actions. The public should be fully and impartially
informed on issues that affect them. Only then will the trust of County residents in their
government be restored. County residents have a right to expect full accountability of all
aspects of their government. You, our elected representatives, should expect full
accountability and should have an independent source for information. Checks and
balances are perhaps the most vital aspect of all. Without proper checks and balances,
and good oversight government too often becomes politics where the most vocal gain
control whether or not it is in the best interest of those they serve. One of the duties of
the Clerk to the Board is to act "as a liaison with constituents ". It is a direct link to you.
With the Clerk position under your direction, there is a greater checks and balance
because this position is free from any internal influences and pressures. You have a
copy of a Resolution passed at the Roanoke Republican Party Mass Meeting on March
20, 2014. Although not a unanimous vote, it was clear that many citizens are concerned
about this issue. In part it states: "Resolved, the Roanoke County Republican Mass
Meeting attendees believe the Clerk to the Board position should serve at the pleasure
of the Board and be independent of the County Administrator to insure necessary
oversight, security of citizen communication with Board members, and maintenance of a
system of checks and balance of accountability." Remember: transparency,
accountability, and checks and balances. We expect this from our government and from
you. I urge you to return the Clerk position to the Board's oversight.
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke County stated he has a
few questions concerning the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors change with them trying
to keep this within the Board of Supervisors here. The first question is will this really
make things more transparent? If so, how, it will it make it more transparent? Does it
improve or diminish the system of checks and balances between all stakeholders and if
so, how?
216 March 25, 2014
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he guessed it was no surprise where he
stands on this issue. He stated he definitely thinks we need to bring the Clerk position
back to where the Board appoints that position and also oversees that position. Just for
clarification to everybody that is here and those watching, because he did not realize
this before his was appointed or elected to the Board is we have three positions that
serve at the pleasure of the Board, the County Administrator, the County Attorney and
the Clerk to the Board. The five Board members if we have any difficulties could
remove that person and appoint somebody else. Those are very, very strong powerful
positions: County Administrator, County Attorney and Clerk to the Board. The Clerk to
the Board is a unique position because at least over the last several years the Board
has appointed that person and has direct oversight over that person in that position.
That person resides in the County Administration building, but is not accountable to
anybody else except the five Board members. They do not have to say anything to
anybody else, answer questions, etc. except for the five of us. It is almost like each one
of us having our own Clerk to help us, except we cannot as that would be too expensive
so we all have one that is only account able to us and at our appointment. That is
necessary, absolutely necessary. So what has happened now is a 3 -2 vote that was
made to take that position and make that position the County Administrator. The
County Administrator became our Clerk. Now, of course the County Administrator is not
going to all of the work, so that County Administrator appoints somebody as the Deputy
Clerk or whatever you want to call the position, but it still put that approval process and
oversight to the County Administrator. He stated he has always told people that he
looks at government and this whole great system that we have in government as really
a balance. You have a County Administrator, led by the County Administrator and
roughly 900 employees in that Building and throughout the County and the County
Administrator is the head of that group. Then you have the five Supervisors that are
elected officials. We both watch each other and that is good. Sometimes, there needs
to be a little distrust, skepticism is good. People say we should all get along. No, that is
not good. It has never been that way in our County and it was not founded that way.
We should have this great balance, oversee each other and he thinks by removing the
Clerk to the Board and moving it to the County Administrator, he just does not
understand because that definitely tilts the balance and he does not think that is good
for anybody. It is definitely not good if people are talking about accountability and
making things more transparent. It will definitely not do that, in fact, it will tilt the power
more towards County government, i.e. County Administration and really the power
should be balanced and as Supervisors we are elected by the people and that is very,
very important. So, again, he ends his comments with he is strongly, strongly opposed
to what has already been done in terms of moving this position and making it the
County Administrator. He strongly supports bringing this position back under the Board
to have direct authority over that position.
Supervisor Church stated there will be a lot of discussion among all five
Board members tonight and hopefully, we will have good interchanges and expressions
March 25, 2014 217
of our opinion where we think we have been and where we think we should be going.
He stated he is in agreement with Supervisor Bedrosian in returning this position back
to what it was since 2010. In looking at his notes, one must really wonder how did we
get to this point. Where and how did this item suddenly come before our Board? Why
is this item being considered? Things have been going fine. Citizens have been kept
informed; there have been no problems mentioned. Again, how did this begin?
Transparency was in place. The Clerk works at the pleasure of the Board, but more
importantly, that puts her working for 96,000 people. We five Board members are
elected by 18,000 registered voters, but really 96,000 in Roanoke County. So, the
position takes on a greater importance; it is not just reporting and working at the
pleasure of the Board. It is your voice. This is not about personnel. It is about the
critical balance for those of you here and at home, you are losing a seat at the table if
this goes the way it has been. Since 2010, we have operated just fine. So, he wants
you to ask yourself, what happened? Surely, something had to have happened? You
must be shaking your head and thinking something drastic must have taken place, but
no. There are three new Board members and suddenly this is a priority. Prior to 2010,
we had the County Administrator overseeing the Clerk, we went south pretty quickly and
it was so far south that it took our Board a long time to get back on track. We were told
what we wanted to hear, facts that they thought we should know. We were given
information at the last minute \; he stated he is talking from experience, not heresay.
Some items County administration had for three weeks and were given to us at 4:00
p.m. and needed an answer by 5:00 p.m. In his area, he had citizens calling him stating
that things are not what they were told they would be from community meetings, staff,
administration, whatever, they were told x and it was y. We got a polished version, the
citizens got a changed version. Now, let me take you forward just a little bit and he
hopes they come to the conclusion that he has come to. Don't you wonder if someone
other than we five Board members are involved, he does. You will hear stories about
things becoming more transparent; he is not a gambling man, but he would bet against
that happing. The argument has been made that the Clerk will have an evaluation, and
he thinks that one really jumps so far off the line because we have a County Attorney
and County Administrator and the Clerk prior to this change. We have routinely done
an evaluation for the County Administrator and County Attorney. Are you telling me we
do not have fifteen more minutes to do an evaluation for the Clerk? Now, there are
Board members and citizens saying you are not there all the time, you are part -time and
you cannot possibly do a good evaluation. Well, the County Administrator, with all due
respect is somewhere doing his job and he is not there all the time. So, where is the
logic here? More importantly, an evaluation is easy and a lot of you folks know exactly
what he is saying is true. Every piece of paper, phone call, agenda, email, trust him, the
Board will know if there is a malfunction way before anyone else will. This is something
more important than anybody sitting out here in this audience can even imagine or
those sitting at home because it effects your life more than you can even think about it.
You might say how can it really be so uneven with the Administrator as Clerk. Mr.
218 March 25, 2014
Goodman if we told you that you had to do the Clerk's job in fifteen minutes, you would
probably run for the door. The fact is he cannot be the Clerk, he would not have a clue
and he probably would have a heart attack and we would not want that to happen.
Now, another thing that is pretty obvious to anybody that has been here a long time and
he has and the Chairman has been here and seen some of the things he is going to
speak to right now. How many times have you ever read in the paper and looked back
whether it be a doctor, lawyer, business person and you see things happen and it
normally can be traced back to a bad beginning, something happens in your life,
unfortunate circumstances. We had without dispute some real problems prior to 2010.
You might say, "Well that is history, Mr. Church, that Administrator is not here." Let me
tell you something that no one has mentioned. Something is still here, he is not trying to
say they are bad people, but you have employees and directors and management that
grew up if you want to use that terms at home that grew up in a style and environment
that the "Board will only know what we want them to know." After twenty to twenty -five
years, it is hard to change. That is the tip of the iceberg about what this is about and it
is all about transparency. It is obvious to him that out of the 930 employees, that's quite
a number that does not like the word accountability. Because if that were no true, no
one would have a problem with turning in your records, Board reports, whatever, we
would like to do it right. Everybody likes to do a good job and he thinks we have a lot of
people who want to do a good job; but keep in mind when you have been brought up in
an environment, where and this is fact, the previous administrator, whether it be closed
session, executive session that no one is involved in, only the Board, not the media on a
routine, regular basis, the previous administrator held a meeting with the entire staff,
many of them told him that everything was discussed in closed session whether it was
personnel, negotiations on property, everything. It was routine. It was so egregious
that the new administrator has shared with him, he was even asked, how come you are
not telling us about the closed session. This man said no. He advised he just wanted
the people to think of what he is saying. Think of the mentality and the twenty to twenty -
five year when you have been brought up to do one thing and all you see is something
over here. No -one every questioned that previous administration. Hey, you are not
giving the Board only half of the report. You are only giving them part of the
information. What about this other $200,000; whatever the item may be. That
administration was never challenged. So, now we have a situation where you stand to
lose your very seat at the table of local government. This is from his heart, his
experience of what has gone on. Open and transparent government should be
welcomed by employees, Directors, by Administration and especially by our Board.
Why should we want anything less? He advised he will spend more time objecting to
going into closed session. Every time we meet in closed session, we give you less of
an opportunity to be involved is his opinion. There are things that we legally have to do
sometimes, but there are sometimes we have items that do not have to be done in
closed session.
March 25, 2014 219
Supervisor Peters stated he is the new kid on the block as Mr. Church like
to constantly tell everybody and he does not really have an opinion of why it came to
this Board meeting and why it came to the first Board meeting, but he will make one
thing clear. All 900 employees answer to the five (5) of us ultimately. Let's make that
clear. The County Administrator, Mr. Church has sat here on numerous occasions and
made the statement that there was not honesty from the Administrator and they knew
that and now we are taking issues of the prior administration and placing it on someone
else and if we have another administrator in the future he would guess we would shift it
to that person as well. That is wrong. What is the job of a Board of Supervisor? The
Board of Supervisor member is to be a legislative, executive and quasi - judicial power.
The important difference between the County and the Administrative Division of the
State whereas the City is a municipal corporation. Therefore the County will implement
and if necessary to file local applications of State law and public policy. What is my job?
My job is to govern. My job is to set policy. My job is to talk to my 18,000 plus citizens;
ultimately to make the right decision for my citizens and ultimately the County. My job is
to not be in personnel and that is way that I view this and I've had conversations with
many in the room. The only thing he found interesting as Mr. Tickle made a statement
that it has been like this all along and the answer is no it has not. It was like this in 2010
under the Administrator prior to that as far back as he could find. The other thing he
thought was interesting is that he has talked to other jurisdictions and he cannot find
another City, Town or County that the Clerk reports directly to the City Council, Town
Council or the other Board of Supervisors. You are correct that you do and should
expect full accountability. My other issue, and he brought this up before is that while
(without giving names) our Clerk has done a fantastic job; before he has had a chance
to think about what he needed prior to coming on the Board, it was there. He does not
know how it got there, but it was there. So, it is not a question of responsibility or lack of
follow through or while this is being wrong up again, he does not have a history. It's
here, it's before him and he has to make a decision. The transparency issue, that is
what FOIA's are for. Why you are not getting information. We need to find out why.
Again, these are his comments and he does not feel our job is to be involved in
personnel.
Supervisor Moore stated she would just like to add to what Mr. Peters
said, it is our job to govern and to inform our citizens on what is going on. Her door and
phone number is always open to anyone who wants to call, who has a question, a
concern as she is sure the other Board members on this Board feel the same way. So,
you will get the information that you need whenever you need it, if you will just call and
ask if there is something you are not getting. We have great employees working for
Roanoke County. Nobody is perfect. Sometimes we lapse in making mistakes in
everything we do, but we have great employees and we do depend on our employees
and we need to depend on them.
Chairman McNamara thanked everyone for not making this personal.
220 March 25, 2014
Supervisor Bedrosian stated that he did hear twice now this comment that
we do not want to be in the personnel business meaning that we don't want to write
reviews, but he is also hearing that we do write reviews of the County Administrator and
the County Attorney. So, we are in the personnel business. Is that correct? It does
sound like we do their reviews so that really cannot be an issue, it is just one other
person. The other thing he finds interesting is the position of the County Administrator
serves at our pleasure, the five of us. We hire him, and he serves at our pleasure and
now we are telling the person who serves at our pleasure that he has the power to
appoint somebody that is going to be our Clerk. That just seems very strange to him.
Again, the County Administrator works at our pleasure and he now has the power to
appoint the person that is going to be my Clerk. He stated he thinks he should have the
power, along with the five of us to appoint that person and to have authority over that
person. Why would he give that up to the person who serves at his pleasure? This
boggles his mind. So that piece and the whole piece that we don't want to be in the
personnel business; well we are in the personnel business, we already write reviews of
two positions already and that does not seem like it should really be an issue. Having
said that, he again is strongly concerned that we are doing something that is not in the
best interest of Roanoke County.
Supervisor Church stated he will refer to Supervisor Peters as such from
now on. He advised the Board is going to get along tomorrow and the next meeting no
matter how this vote goes. Disagreement is healthy, when it is done in the proper
channel, but two or three things jumped out at him. First, he does not think he has ever
referred to Supervisor Peters as the new kid on the block; never. I said what is obvious,
the new supervisor. You should have heard what they called me the first two or three
meetings; just comes with the territory. He has to take exception to a couple of things.
Keep in mind, our Administrator is our Clerk and we had a FOIA come in. It was
botched worse than he has seen in years. We did not have accurate information, not
disclosed, client attorney relationship. He stated he knows Supervisor Bedrosian
relinquished his and he wants to also, publically. He did not talk to the County Attorney.
It just make one wonder why is there discussion with the County Attorney about the
Clerk's position. He just does not see it. If it is about the wording in the ordinance he
will go out on a limb and state he does not think the other Board members would have
guessed there was a 1989 ordinance, probably not even know where it is. So, it has got
to be from somebody, either in this room or this administration; it is common sense.
None of us would care about a 1989 ordinance. The bottom line was that everything
was working copasetic. People were being served and again with all due respect to his
colleague, he knows he has mentioned personnel and again in the same token said all
900 people work for him. I understand how you mean this. We did have three pinch
points, Administrator, Attorney and Board Clerk. He would never discourage employees
from calling him; he has had plenty of calls. They call from home because they do not
want to use a County phone. He does not act on every statement that he gets, but
when he hears it six, seven, eight, nine times, he just says he will keep it in mind.
March 25, 2014 22
Everybody can't be wrong about certain items. Now with all due respect again,
Supervisor Peters in a work session was talking a lot about the hiring of two engineers
from Community Development; that is personnel. He stated he is not saying he was
wrong to talk about it in work session; it was a real burr in his saddle so to speak. We
were talking about the hiring of new engineers in Community Development; he is
probably right on target. But what he is trying to point out is this Board can do more
personnel work by accident than they are really required to do with the Clerk. It is like a
machine that you kind of push the button and get out of the way. We would know if
there was a problem. As far as any other area in the State of Virginia, with all due
respect, he does not know what that says for us or does not say for us. He can say one
thing and he hopes the others that are set up this way don't get hit with a tsunami like
we did because if that happens it is too late. Here we are four, five or six years later
and we are still trying to find out where the skeletons are and what is going on. He
repeated, he has had more than half a dozen employees say this to him either with a
phone call or privately. There is an Eteam meeting that happens after every Board
meeting and on more than four or five occasions people have said, "watch out what you
say, the Clerk to the Board is in the room and you don't want the Board to know this."
That is a fact. You do what is right when nobody is looking at you. That is always a
test. He advised he just cringed to say if this does not get reversed, you will not
recognize until it is too late. He added you always say you don't want to put the fox
guarding the hen house, but ironically, we now have the Clerk that is already working at
the pleasure of the Board and now he is working at double our pleasure. Can we fire
you as Clerk and keep you as Administrator. Do you see my point? We have a
multitude of contradictions here. We might say we like you as our Administrator, but
you are a crummy Clerk. Do you see my point here? We are giving the combination to
the safe, the key, the alarm code, why when we do not have to. Nothing was broken.
Ask yourself over and over. Why when there is no reason. With all due respect to my
colleagues, he is not trying to point fingers, but somebody has to have talked about this.
This did not show up on our agenda magically. Because if that is the case, he would
like to go "poof' and make it disappear. It is not that easy. Something is doing a real
zigzag and it is not a drunk driver. He does not know what is going on, but he
challenges the citizens, don't let this go. This is your government and we are only as
good as the citizens, but we cannot share with you what we do not know.
Supervisor Peters stated he gets the feeling as the new kid on the block,
he does not know why it is here, but has to take it as he sees it. As he stated several
times before, they knew there was dishonesty with the other administration, but they
failed to do anything. He does not know who he is throwing under the bus when he
says this, but they did not do anything. It is a prior Board issue, it has nothing to do with
the Clerk. His other statement and he has made this before, he has a problem with this
position being an at will employee. Being an at will employee means that if the three
new board members walked in here on January 1 and said you are gone, there is no
grievance process, no way to fight it. It is what it is. He has a real issue with that with
222 March 25, 2014
someone who is doing a great job, who has done everything requested of them, he
thinks that is wrong and he publically say that and that is why he sees how that position
being under the Board is not entitled to the same benefits as other employees and they
are not granted that protection of other employees.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated we keep bringing up other things, we are
talking about this employee being an at will employee, but isn't the County Attorney and
the County Administrator an at will employee. If three of us decided that we did not like
the County Attorney and what he was doing, if he is not mistaken, three of us could vote
to remove that County Attorney. If three of us did not like the County Administrator,
three of us could vote to remove the County Administrator. He stated he thinks the real
issue here that we are talking about is that we have three individuals the County
Attorney, the County Administrator and the Clerk to the Board that really need to have
an equal footing. It needs to be three separate positions that are at will employees to
us. That is the way it works very well. So the issue here really is that we are trying to
take one of those positions and move it under the other one and he thinks that is where
we have an issue and that is where it is dangerous.
Chairman McNamara commented for the viewing audience the big
difference when the Supervisor from Vinton is talking about an at will position; the
County Attorney and the County Administrator have special provisions in the Virginia
Retirement System that will accelerate their benefits due to termination. So, the Virginia
Retirement System recognizes the volatility of those positions and the danger of those
positions from the perspective of changing and it does not have that same protection for
the Clerk. He also added that some years ago, there was a resolution to take the Clerk
at the time reporting to the Board of Supervisors that failed about six or eight years ago
and knows that the Clerk at that particular point in time was very, very happy that
resolution failed because she would have lost a lot of the protection she had. Just from
a clarification point so it makes sense what Mr. Peters was saying. Chairman
McNamara asked for everyone to wrap up their comments as everyone had spoken at
least once.
Supervisor Church stated he cannot sit there and pass on statements that
his man said. He is not saying that he is saying something that is an untruth, but
something that he knows the answer to. He made a statement just a moment ago that
the prior Board did nothing about the County Administrator. Yes, we did and with all
due respect you know that. Yes, we did do something. Ask yourself why did it take us
so long? It is a lesson that is facing you in a mirror. Sometimes, you just don't know
what is going on. His point made, but well taken by mistake. You cannot correct what
you do not know. You cannot correct what is behind the shell, but we did do something
and that is a fact. He is not going to mention personnel, but this has been brought up
too. If any three Board members walked in here, keep in mind all of us are very pleased
with the performance of that position. If we were to say we are going to let you take off
and get out of here, the citizens would string the Board up as well they should. When
the performance is great, everything is clockwork and any three Board members did this
March 25, 2014 223
it would be political suicide to make that move. Now, he advised he wanted you to
know something because we are all interested in the situation and the occupant or the
position, the Clerk position, is saying, "Hey, don't do this, let my job performance speak
for me.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the resolution to appoint Deborah C.
Jacks as Clerk to the Board. The motion was denied by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
NAYS: Supervisors Moore, Peters, McNamara
2. Resolution authorizing the County Administrator, B. Clayton
Goodman III to appoint a Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
(Joseph P. McNamara, Chairman, Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors)
Mr. Mahoney explained this resolution would ratify and confirm the
appointment of the Clerk from the last meeting in January of this year. Secondly, it talks
about the powers and duties set out in the State code and third it ratifies and confirms
the delegations, duties and responsibilities to and appointment of Ms. Jacks as Clerk
and that Ms. Jacks would serve under the administration of the Administrator and finally
the Administrator my appoint such deputies and assistance and delegate powers and
duties to those individuals so delegated.
Chairman NcNamara explained this resolution effectively takes the current
situation and verifies that the existing Deputy Clerk is elevated back to the Clerk
Position with no change in reporting structure.
Supervisor Church stated he is in total confusion because at the last
meeting or the meeting prior, we distinctly asked can there only be one Clerk and we
were told yes, there can only be one clerk. Now, poof the magic is gone again and we
have a clerk, clerk. He is not trying to be funny. This is really not right. He does not
know how else to say it. There cannot be but one Clerk unless we change the whole
concept of what's going on and maybe that can be done. Somebody please explain to
me and he is sure there is going to be some sort of legal description, but somebody
please explain to me how we can have two clerks. Does that mean the Administrator is
not the Clerk?
Chairman McNamara requested that Mr. Mahoney address that question.
Mr. Mahoney responded the intent of the resolution is to grant authority to
the administrator to delegate those duties and responsibilities.
Supervisor Church stated that is not his question. His question is how can
there be two clerks? Mr. Mahoney stated the resolution grants that power to the
Administrator to make that delegation of power and authority. Supervisor Church stated
that is not really an answer.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated so legally we are saying he is allowed to
224 March 25, 2014
convey his title or position. We gave him the position with a three to two vote. So, now
we are saying that we can allow him to just give his position title to someone else. Mr.
Mahoney responded in the affirmative under delegation of authority. Supervisor
Bedrosian asked any title, with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative. Supervisor
Bedrosian then asked if he could delegate his title and position to someone else. Mr.
Mahoney advised Mr. Bedrosian is an elected official. Supervisor Bedrosian stated
could someone else not an elected official do that? Mr. Mahoney responded in the
affirmative stating under delegation of authority. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if Mr.
Mahoney could make someone else the County Attorney. Mr. Mahoney stated he does
not have that power, the Board has not delegated to him. Supervisor Bedrosian then
stated, so, if we gave you the ability to make someone else the County Attorney you
could just give that to whomever you wanted. Mr. Mahoney responded if you authorized
me, granted me that scope of power, yes. Supervisor Bedrosian then stated so we are
saying that our County Administrator is no longer the County Clerk. Mr. Mahoney
responded no, you have appointed him Clerk, but you have also authorized to him
certain powers. Supervisor Bedrosian stated once he does that he is no longer the
Clerk to the Board. Mr. Mahoney stated he would still be Clerk, but has the authority to
make a delegation. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so he would still be the Clerk to the
Board. Mr. Mahoney responded he is still responsible to the Board. Supervisor
Bedosian responded that he did not ask that question. Is he still the Clerk to the Board.
Mr. Mahoney responded he believed so because you have made that appointment, but
you have also granted him some authority to delegate. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so
he is the Clerk the Board and the person that he appoints or delegates is also the Clerk
to the Board, so we have two Clerks to the Board. Mr. Mahoney responded in the
affirmative. Supervisor Bedrosian inquired if the Board was voting on having two Clerks
to the Board, because that is a change of a whole lot of stuff. Are we saying that we as
a Board are voting tonight that we want two clerks to the Board? Is that our vote? Mr.
Mahoney responded the Board is voting on the resolution that is before you under item
S -2. Is that saying we have two Clerks to the Board? Mr. Mahoney stated you have
done two things with that resolution. You have appointed the County Administrator as
Clerk and you have also granted the County Administrator to delegate and make an
appointment of a Clerk. Supervisor Bedrosian reiterated so the Board in essence voting
that Roanoke County Government will have two Clerks to the Board. Mr. Mahoney
advised you are voting on resolution S -2 that does several things, yes.
Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public hearing with no one
signed up to speak on this item.
Supervisor Peters advised there are people in this room that thought this
was the best thing since sliced bread Friday, but he does not read it that way. He reads
it that he is the Clerk and then it says that he can now delegate that to whomever he
wants, but they report to him. Supervisor Peters stated so he disagrees that we would
have two Clerks. Mr. Mahoney stated he guessed he is looking at it Mr. Peters in the
sense of what the Board has done, if it adopts the resolution. It takes an action, with
March 25, 2014 225
respect to that action, it expands that authority to the Administrator to do certain things.
Ultimately, who is the Board going to hold responsible for any action and who is the
Board going to hold responsible for any delegation. So, he agrees with Supervisor
Peters as he is correct in terms of the delegation action, but if something goes wrong
who will the Board hold responsible for that. Supervisor Peters states that Item 3 states
that the Board ratifies and confirms the County Administrator's delegation of duties and
responsibilities to and appoint Deborah C. Jacks as the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors. Ms. Jacks will serve under the direction of the County Administrator. To
him, that says he has delegated all the duties, responsibilities and appointing her as
Clerk. So, he has relinquished himself of that, but she still reports to him. Mr. Mahoney
responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Peters stated so we do not have two Clerks.
Mr. Mahoney stated he understands and if we were playing word games you are
correct. His point is that if something goes wrong, who would the Board hold
responsible? Supervisor Peters stated the Administrator with Mr. Mahoney responding
in the affirmative.
Supervisor Church stated the wheel just keeps spinning and we are not
getting a clear answer Mr. Mahoney. We deserve a clear answer. You are the County
Attorney. We can only have one Clerk. He stated that he is looking at a resolution
062309. He stated he wanted Mr. Mahoney to tell him what sense this makes.
"WHEREAS, Ordinance #62789 -4 adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County on June 27, 1989, provides that the Board may appoint a County Clerk who
shall serve at the pleasure of the Board and under the direction of the County
Administrator, and who shall have the duties and responsibilities as set out in said
ordinance and in the State Code." Now listen carefully, "That the Board hereby ratifies
and confirms the appointment of ... as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors effective
Monday, June 15, 2009, said appointment having been made by the County
Administrator." That is a fact. Does that mean we can just about do anything? The
rules keep changing and you need consistency. Citizens need some sort of guidelines.
We can stay here to midnight, but you are never going to convince me or anybody else
in this room, maybe a few, that you can have two Clerks. Back in 2009, a Clerk was
hired by the Administrator. Do you want to know the story behind that, it is not
personnel but simply the Board made a decision and that Clerk lasted four hours. What
is going on here? We cannot have two clerks, we cannot. If we are going to appoint
Mr. Goodman as clerk and give him the duties then he is going to be Clerk. Once he
appoints, Deborah Jacks as Clerk then she is the Clerk and he is no longer the Clerk.
But, you have a duck here, a duck there and this duck goes over there and no ducks
here and two ducks here. You cannot have one on each side, I am sorry. Our
illustrious attorney has said several times in a courtroom, "if it looks like a duck, quacks
like a duck" he says it is a duck that is his famous story. This looks like a duck, a duck
that he is not happy with. Nobody can buy this duck.
Chairman McNamara stated at the current time, Mr. Goodman is Clerk to
the Board, which is what the majority of the Board has voted on. There was never,
226 March 25, 2014
never an attempt to change the pay classification or pay grade of the person in the
existing Clerk's job. Supervisor Church remarked Mr. McNamara was getting into
personnel. There never was an intention to do that. What this does and what a prior
resolution tried to do is to make sure there is no change in Classification. This will allow
the person serving as a Deputy Clerk to serve as a Clerk. So, we can talk about ducks
quacking here there and wherever, but let's simplify the entire discussion. The entire
discussion is a reporting structure. The way the Virginia Code is set up it was
necessary for Mr. Goodman to be the Clerk in order to change the reporting structure of
the existing Clerk to the Board. At the end of the day, that is what we are voting on.
Supervisor Church stated with all due respect to the Chair, you told this
Board that we cannot talk about pay scales, pay grades. You told me this as recently
as this morning. Now, you did this. If that can be open for discussion, he wants to
discuss it. The Chairman opened this up for discussion. He advised what they are
talking about is not only pay, but that is not the issue here. By a Deputy Clerk by
County rules, puts you into a pay level, grades, etc. Let's say our Clerk is at the top of
that level and is not very high, then that person cannot go anywhere. If that is not a
demotion, he will eat your hat. He is sorry, he was not trying to make jokes about
ducks, he is trying to make a point that this is not even close to being local government.
He is sorry, but he feels the Board is making a mockery of local government here today.
Supervisor Peters stated he disagrees with what Mr. Church just said
because if this resolution fails, this would not allow the Deputy Clerk into the position.
There has been a concern of people in this room about pay issues and what have you.
This allows everything to stay as it was as concerns have been voiced to so. So, if this
resolution fails, it essentially is the pay cut Mr. Church was just talking about.
Supervisor Church stated not to put this on him. Supervisor Peters stated it is what it is.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he first wanted to say that the Board voted
against voting her in the last vote that we just did three to two allowing her to be the
Clerk and to go back to the position she had. So, he stated he thinks it is unfair to say
that if we don't adopt this now she will have a cut. We just did a resolution that was
voted against that would have rightfully put her back at the Clerk. In looking at this
resolution, it says, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the Board hereby ratifies and
confirms the appointment of B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator, as Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors." We are reiterating by this vote tonight that we are making
Mr. Goodman the Clerk. We are not making Deborah Jacks the Clerk. He is then
delegating some duties to her as a Clerk. It seems like what this should say is we are
confirming Clay Goodman is the County Administrator and that Deborah C. Jacks is
now the newly appointed Clerk to the Board. We are not saying that in here and he
does not know why we are not saying that. If you are really wanting to do this, he would
still be opposed because it would be under the County Administrator but if this was
written correctly it should be written that he is the County Administrator and he appoints
Deborah Jacks as the Clerk working under him, but for some reason we are not saying
March 25, 2014 227
it like that which bothers him. Why can't we say it in English? Why do we have to
reaffirm making him the Clerk? He thought we all wanted Ms. Jacks to be the Clerk, but
we are saying it in some language that it does not say that. He added if nothing else, if
the Board wants to pass this it needs to be rewritten to clearly state Mr. Goodman is the
County Administrator and that he appoints Ms. Jacks as the Clerk and the only Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Peters added and she serves at his discretion.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated even though he does not like that, he knows that is what
three of you want, but it is not written like that here even for what you are trying to do; it
is ratifying and confirm that Mr. Goodman is the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Why
is that there?
Chairman McNamara moved to approve the resolution.
Supervisor Bedrosian moved to amend. He stated he is uncomfortable
with the language here even though he is uncomfortable with the entire thing, but if the
rest of the Board will vote on it and it seems like that is the bent of the Board to do that,
need the verbiage to be changed in number one that ratifies, confirms the appointment
of B. Clayton Goodman as County Administrator as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
should be out, should be removed and it should just state that Deborah Jacks is the
Clerk to the Board.
Chairman McNamara then called for discussion on the secondary motion.
Supervisor Church stated anything less than correcting this comedy of
errors, he cannot support. He stated he could not in good conscience for the people his
represents he cannot make two wrongs make a right. With all due respect to the
Administrator, he has no business being Clerk no more than Ms. Jacks needs to be
Administrator, it does not fit. How does common sense prevail? How does logic
prevail? He advised he cannot support anything; the way it was worded before it was
messed up and he is sorry you can quote him on that even though the media is not
here. By the way, where is the media? They have taken a hiatus on this one. He does
not think that is by mistake either. He stated he failed to mention that earlier, but not a
word. After several weeks, even they do not want to touch it. His point is if we are
going to take a situation that gives the citizens a say, he cannot agree to an amendment
with all due respect to Mr. Bedrosian because he is then compromising what he feels in
his heart is wrong.
Supervisor Peters then made a substitute motion. Chairman McNamara
asked Mr. Mahoney if they could have a substitute motion when an amended motion is
on the floor. Mr. Mahoney stated that he believes under Robert's Rules you are only
allowed to have two. Chairman McNamara stated the primary motion and the
secondary motion.
Supervisor Bedrosian then removed his amended motion.
Supervisor Peters amended the resolution to remove item one, two and
that line three will state, that the Board ratifies and confirms the appointment of Deborah
C. Jacks as the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and that Ms. Jacks will serve under
228 March 25, 2014
the direction of the County Administrator and number three, there are two number
threes, and number four will move to number two.
The motion was denied by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church
Supervisor Church commented he is voting no on this situation and if it is
left to the imagination by anybody in this room or watching that by our vote meaning
Supervisor Bedrosian and myself does pay harm to the Clerk is really out of line. Do
not put that on this Supervisor because he is trying to correct something. So, he asked
to state on the record, but he is not causing any lock in on the pay.
Supervisor Peters reminded Chairman McNamara that the original motion
had not been voted on. The motion was denied by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisor Moore, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian, Church, Peters
Supervisor Bedrosian commented this is disturbing tonight not only in the
fact that a legal document was put in front of us that was fraught with errors, totally not
understandable, two three's lined up but also reaffirming that someone is a Clerk and
that person makes another Clerk. This concerns him that this is done so hastily and we
are not thinking this thing through. This really concerns him that from the very
beginning this has just been botched, one after another and brought up every time
because something is not right about this. As we are discussing it, he thinks Supervisor
Church made a good point about trying to fix something that is broken. He stated he
feels like the federal government with a very big piece of legislation confronting all of us.
We just try to fix it, fix it, fix it; it is a mess. It is broken. This should never, ever be
passed and thought of. We just need to go back the other way and really think this
thing through.
Supervisor Church commented it is funny how things just keep jumping
out at him. In the haste that Supervisor Bedrosian just brought forward, he asked for
some help when he was proposing this resolution, and Mr. Mahoney was kind enough
to send out he guessed some generic resolution. It may sound small to you folks, but
he is a stickler for details. Normally, your resolution has a date, a month date and year;
that is how we identify it. By resolution 012281414; yes it is a clerical error done by the
County Attorney's office that hereby rescind 012281414, there is an extra 8 in there. Is
this something that he could go into a crystal ball and say this would have not gotten
past our Clerk? He stated he thinks history says it would not have gotten and it would
have been sent back. I have seen it done. He has been in this building, contrary to the
Roanoke Times, a couple hours a week and have seen things brought in and the Clerk
working for our Board say, "this is not complete, take it back."
March 25, 2014 229
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Dan Crawford of 2311 Ripling Street in Roanoke stated he would preface
his remarks with a comment. We participate often in the difficult process of democracy,
the easy way, the convenient way, the effective way, the efficient way, by dictatorship,
consulting technicians, economists and engineers, we get answers and get it done. We
do it a different way, we do it the best way he knows of, in a way that he would give his
life to the fans, democracy, you have to listen to people, listen to people like me. Once
again, ICLEI, he is getting tired of hearing about it. He is sure the Board is tired of the
years of obstructive, time killing input by ICLEI opposition and you have lots of
company, but to you and you alone falls that task of protecting the democratic process
those that provides our greatest hope for a healthy society. You must decide when
public contribution crosses the line to become obstructive, disrespectful tactics.
Disrespect for you, the democratic process was clearly demonstrated in the January
meeting when we opened for public comment on ICLEI. Public comments on ICLEI
consumed hours, about 2/3 in favor of maintaining membership. At some point, you
had heard them all, you heard enough it was decided and clearly indicated that we
would change our focus and it is very obvious. In spite of this and in blatant disregard
for your intent and for where we were going that night a gentlemen who he will not
name, stepped up to comment once again on ICLEI, climate change and alternative
energy. Even after Chairman McNamara pointed out his abuse of privilege, even in this
he persisted. Ignoring authority and forcing Chairman McNamara into that awkward
position; either have the Deputy haul him out or tolerate his abuse of his privilege and
let him speak. He was conflicted. He felt two things, on the one hand he was pleased
he felt good that the Board of Supervisors did not resort to force. On the other hand, he
was disappointed that our precious process of democracy was violated, was abused.
What do we do with this? Difficult, difficult, but democracy is difficult we know that.
Upon reflection, this erodes the sacred trust in elected leadership to protect our system.
In return for this trust, we obey laws, we pay taxes and we respect the leadership of
people like Chairman McNamara and the Board of Supervisors. Do you really think this
will last? Do you think is behavior, this abuse of power is going to end if you abandon
ICLEI? Is this going to serve public confidence and the public good in positive ways?
The Board faces difficult choices and understand these issues are far from over. In fact,
Virginia is just warming up. There are over 47,000 industrial scale wind turbines in the
County right now cranking out the equivalent power of sixty (60) traditional or nuclear
power plants. Virginia is not there yet, but here it comes. These issues are far from
over. We have a long way to go. It is going to take among other things a lot of patience
and public trust, public confidence and respect in the system. He respects the Board
and appreciates them listening to him.
230 March 25, 2014
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to invite everyone to go by the
Greenbrier Nursery from Thursday through Saturday. They just opened up a new
farmers market. It is incredible, fresh fruits, fresh tea, bread, it was just incredible.
Please try and go by.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he is very thankful for everyone who came
out tonight. He stated he loves hearing discussion and back and forth and thinks that it
what this is all about. He knows this is kind of a mute point, but we do live in a
representative republic, which makes a very big difference to a democracy. He always
likes to point this out, just to point out a representative republic is the views of the
people, but then somebody has to make the decision and it is not the majority rule. We
have to be careful how majority rules. We do not want that, that is not what we want in
this County because you can have the majority wanting something very evil and being
perceived of that. So he thinks that is important, we were set up very distinctly as a
representative republic, a constitutional representative republic and that to him makes
all the difference in the world.
Supervisor Church stated tonight you saw something that we do not
understand. He does not know how else to say it, but it is better than any place on the
face of this earth that we have. Would you like to be on an airplane in Malaysia? No
matter how bad, we are really still trying and it is because of you folks out here tonight.
Thank you to the ones that come all the time. We have been trying to get people like
Mr. Crawford to take a part in this grand government of ours. When this room is filled
up and transparency and common sense and logic prevails, maybe we can all walk out
of here and pat each other on the back, have a good night see you tomorrow, etc. Until
then, we have a lot of work to do, a lot of work to do. We are right back to square one.
We have a comedy of errors here and thinks it is very apparent. May the the good Lord
help us get these corrected.
Supervisor McNamara wanted to comment that earlier today we went on
record as a Board requesting that the General Assembly and the Governor come up
with a budget. We see it as core to their responsibility; to prepare a budget. We, as
Roanoke County and Roanoke County School Systems rely on those budgets in the
formulation of our budget. We did take a resolution to ask, to prod to otherwise
encourage the General Assembly to move forward with what we feel is one of their key
responsibilities. Secondly, we had a couple of budget meetings ourselves upstairs. In
those budget meetings, not only on regularly scheduled Board meetings, but oftentimes
in the weeks in between. We as a County are fairly close to pulling together a budget.
We will do our job as we were elected to do to pull together a budget that supports the
needs of our citizens. The difficult thing and that is where there is disagreement is
trying to figure the appropriate way, the appropriate intersection of the tax versus
services line and where that intersection should be. Everybody has a different opinion
on that, but we understand that. We also understand it is our job and we are going to
March 25, 2014 231
do that. He also stated we are at this point not going to be implementing a stormwater
management fee. He knows several people have said to him during the election
campaign that they would hope we would not be going down that route. We may go
down that route at some point in the future, but at least for this budget year and it is
certainly the hope of the majority of this Board, probably everyone on this Board that we
do not get into the stormwater management fee structure going forward. We would
rather fund and accomplish our objectives required by law out of our general fund over
time. So, this coming year we are going to allocate roughly $400,000 to $1.7 million
that is already allocated in our budget toward stormwater management outside of a fee
structure. What does that mean? Churches, landlords, homeowners, anybody that has
an impervious surface is not going to have another hidden tax tacked on to their tax
bills. We are pretty proud of that, we are not there yet but we are making real good
progress. He also thanked everybody who came out to the meeting today. Thank you
for supporting all of us as we try to make decisions to the best of their ability to better
enhance the lives of the people we serve.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 8 :51 p.m.
Submitted by:
Ddborah C. Jd s
Deputy Clerk t64h6 Board
Approved by:
J h P. McNamara
irman
232
March 25, 2014
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY