Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/8/2014 - RegularApril 8, 2014 233 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of April 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 a moment of silence was observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was taken. 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; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to the Board IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS Supervisor Bedrosian requested a reconsideration of the request to adopt the real estate tax rate of $3.50 per $100 assessed valuation that was held on March 25, 2014. Chairman McNamara advised this did not require a unanimous vote and would be considered immediately following this agenda item. IN RE: RECONSIDERATION OF VOTE ON THE REAL ESTATE TAX RATE 234 April 8, 2014 Supervisor Bedrosian stated the reason he was bringing this back up again. The Board voted on this on March 25, 2014, and a couple of items at the time that made him think he was voting a certain way on this item. He had printed out the agenda a few days before the meeting and his agenda specifically had an error of 2015 tax rate. He advised it looked funny, but thought we were looking that far ahead. After that agenda was finalized, he had not printed out a copy that was changed to reflect 2014 instead of 2015. In addition, we have talked a lot about the rates would be no more than $1.09. So when he was voting, he was voting no more than $1.09. He has been a great proponent of reducing our tax rate and obviously if he had known it was for this year, he would have voted with a no vote and stated his opinion that now is a good time to reduce our rate. Supervisor Bedrosian moved to reconsider this item. Supervisor Church asked if the Board was voting on the reconsideration or the tax rate. Chairman McNamara stated the motion on the floor is the reconsideration. If the motion for reconsideration should pass, then the underlying motion, which is the currently adopted order stating the tax rate is $1.09 per hundred would be on the next Board meeting for discussion. Supervisor Peters started by stating he would begin with statements made by a member of this Board that he feels needs to be clarified. The first is that Roanoke County has the third highest tax rate of all the Counties in Virginia. But, if you do deeper investigation, it shows that other areas may have a lower real estate tax rate, but they also have other fees outside of the real estate tax. Such fees are Fire and Rescue Fees, Sanitation Fees, Stormwater Conservation, Recycling, Street and District improvement and Commercial Industrial Fees. All this information is provided to us by the Virginia Department of Taxation. Also keep in mind that Roanoke County offers services such as trash collection that none of our adjoining counties offer and that includes Botetourt, Bedford, Montgomery, Franklin and Floyd. So, in talking about reconsideration are we saying we are going to cut things like trash collection to our 93,000 residents over 251 square miles. In the services provided, we are more in line with our cities. By comparison, there is at least a dozen higher tax rates than ours that includes Roanoke City and the City of Salem. The other statement that needs to be dealt with is that Roanoke County has forecasted $3.2 million in revenue. The key word is forecasted and projected. That money is not in the bank and one year of surplus does not set a new standard. Anyone that remembers 2008 and the recession would know that things change dramatically in a very short period of time. In 2005, 2006, 2007 the Board did reduce tax rates because of multi -year, multi -plus revenue gains and that is when we reduced our tax rates from $1.12 to $1.09 to reduce the tax rate after only receiving a projection would be irresponsible and show a lack of leadership on our part. Mr. Peters stated he felt that this input needed to be added so people understand what this reconsideration entails. Chairman McNamara asked for the Treasurer, Kevin Hutchins to step forward and advise where we are in the process of printing the tax bills, delivery time and April 8, 2014 235 what impact, if any, this item might have for his office. Mr. Hutchins advised there is a two major part process to bill printing. We have a job, which is run that creates the AR files, basically it goes out there, takes your assessment and your tax rate all your information and is posted into our system in the Accounts Receivable System. At this point in time, that has been done based on the Board approving the rates on March 25, 2014 for both real estate and personal property. There is then a second job that takes place that actually puts the bills on paper. That job has been done for personal property, but not for real estate. He would make a clarification that if you did go back and revisit rates, while we would not have to do the second job, we would have to go back and reverse everything that posted to the Accounts Receivable and there is a time tag between both of those jobs because you have a whole bunch of data entry that has to stop when we get to a certain point and we wait for the Board to adopt the rates. Once the rates are adopted, the Commissioner of Revenue's office starts entering corrections and supplements and changes that have occurred to the real estate parcels themselves this year that were not in the initial land book, so the Commissioner's office is finished entering all those changes as well or if they are not finished they will be finished by Thursday. Chairman McNamara then asked when the real estate tax bills will be mailed. Mr. Hutchins responded the real estate tax bills will actually be printed this coming Monday and are mailed out the following Friday. Chairman McNamara asked if there was a reason why you mail them so far in advance of the due date? Mr. Hutchins stated we have probably been doing this for ten to twenty (10 to 20) years before he became Treasurer. Basically, it is a measure of professionalism and courtesy to the citizen for customer service. Since the mid 1980's, we have been mailing them out forty to forty five (40 to 45) days in advance. Actually, they already have phone calls from people starting last week wanting to know where the bills were. Chairman McNamara asked if we are to reconsider this item and have a new order with a tax rate that is revisited on our meeting of April 22, 2014, would there be any way you could send the bills out by mid -April as you have in the past. He is assuming the bills would have already gone out and then you would have to send them a new bill that says this is the new tax rate, if it is changed. Mr. Hutchins advised they would probably insist that we halt the process. We would have to look into running the reversals of the AR to basically undo everything that has been posted in the book. Real estate makes up about $87 million of the $170 million, so we have already posted all of that. We would probably insist that we would have to reverse it all and his best guess is that he has no idea if that would turn out nice or not because they have never reversed a job like that before. Supervisor Church reiterated the questions concerning the tax rates. He wants to make sure that any sitting Board member can ask for reconsideration. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he just wanted to make sure that everyone was clear on this too. His asking for reconsideration is only so that he can clarify where he stands on this issue. It would be an amazing thing on the 22nd of April, if we did a reconsideration and the majority of this Board actually thought we should lower tax rates. Then we probably should; it would be a significant matter if we had a majority. This has 236 April 8, 2014 nothing to do with that; not the debate of the issue. He considered reconsideration is to revisit his vote so that he probably put the vote that he would have done on that day. He would right now think that a majority of the Board does not feel that way. All we have to do is wait until the April 22nd and run it. I think we would be missing a few days. But, if on the 22nd, if the Board voted with a three to two (3 to 2) that we should change tax rates, then we would have an issue. But if the majority thought we should, then maybe that is something we should do and would think taxpayers probably would not mind getting their bills a little late if the taxes went down. Again, all he is asking for is reconsideration of the vote. Supervisor Peters commented it is not a debate over the tax issue. His grandfather always told him, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." To even reconsider what the Board has looked at when we have a forecasted revenue of $3.2 million more. It is not in the bank, we do not have that money, it is just a projection and thinks it would not be a good move of this Board this year. He will say for the record he is all for cutting taxes, but to do it this year would not be a wise decision. Supervisor Moore stated she would like to reiterate what Mr. Peters and Mr. Church have already said, if we would have to cut services would be a very difficult decision so she is not in favor of a change in the tax rate; it is not the responsible thing to do this year. Chairman McNamara stated he thinks a reconsideration because we are not familiar with what we are voting on when it impacts so many of our citizens and the timeliness of their billing processes is inappropriate and as he hears it relayed it is not so much the tax rate will be changed, but to have your vote changed relative to the tax rate is not justifiable in his mind. Supervisor Bedrosian at the time he was voting, he was familiar with what he was doing based on the information he had. The document he had showed 2015, which is clearly an error someone had made prior to it being corrected. So, it was honest mistake that was later remedied, which is basically the same thing he is asking for because you vote on something thing thinking you are voting a certain way. He would not have voted for something he was unsure of. He was sure at the time that he was voting for that, it just happened not to be the thing he was voting for. That is very different than voting flippantly. It is not about the actual tax rates. He thinks everybody on the 22nd upon reconsideration should vote their conscience as they normally would. He is not asking anybody to change their vote and from what he is hearing everybody would keep their votes the same, which is perfectly all right. This has nothing to do with the debate on our actual taxes. Supervisor Church was only concerned with a Board member having his say; he does not support this item but wants to go on record to say that any Board member should be able to ask for reconsideration. He understands the process, he cannot vote yes on this right now. On motion made by Supervisor Bedrosian, the motion was denied based on the following recorded vote: April 8, 2014 237 AYES: Supervisor Bedrosian NAYS: Supervisor Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Department of Social Services employee, Shannon Brabham, recipient of the 2014 Golden Halo Award (Joyce Earl, Director of Social Services) Ms. Earl explained the recognition and introduced Shannon Brabham. All Supervisors offered their congratulations. 2. Proclamation declaring April 13 through 19, 2014, as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week in the County of Roanoke (Bill Hunter, Director of Communications and Information Technology) The proclamation was read by the Deputy Clerk. Each Supervisor offered their thanks. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to accept a donated K -9 ballistic vest valued at $950 from Vested Interest in K9s, Inc. for use by a Police Department K -9 (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police) I_QoZ1114C51 Chief Hall outlined the request to accept the donation. On motion of Supervisor Moore to approve the staff recommendation to accept the donated K -9 vest, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None 1. Resolution approving the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission budget for fiscal year 2014 -2015 (Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance; Jacqueline Shuck, Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission) 238 April 8, 2014 Ms. Owens outlined the resolution. Ms. Shuck was in attendance to answer any questions. RESOLUTION 040814 -2 APPROVING THE ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 -2015 UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHEREAS, Section 24.13 of the Regional Airport Commission Act and Section 17.(a) of the contract between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission provides that the Commission shall prepare and submit its operating budget for the forthcoming year to the Board of Supervisors of the County and City Council of the City; and WHEREAS, by report dated March 28, 2014, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, the Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission has submitted a request that the County approve the fiscal year 2014 -2015 budget of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the fiscal year 2014 -2015 budget and proposed capital expenditures for the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission as set forth in the March 28, 2014 report of the Commission Executive Director, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval. AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None 1. Resolution approving the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA) budget for fiscal year 2014 -2015 (Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance; Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services; Daniel Miles, Chief Executive Officer, RVRA) Ms. Green outlined the request and advised Ms. Owens is Treasurer. The Authority has approved the budget. Dan Miles outlined the budget and explained the $1 per ton increase in tipping fees. Supervisor Peters inquired the amount in the contingency with Mr. Miles advising $1.2 million. This was the Financial Management plan that the Authority Board has adopted that utilizes the contingency reserve fund to effectively stabilize the tipping fee for any year -to -year adjustment. Mr. Miles added they have been using that fund for a number of years to balance the budget. It is now at the bare minimum of the financial April 8, 2014 239 plan approved by their Board. This keeps from charging the entire tipping fee, which is $51.00 a ton. Supervisor Church called for a point of order stating we cannot legally from the Chair change our method without a motion being adopted Chairman McNamara stated we are not changing our method. Supervisor Church stated the Chairman had stopped his talk in the middle and told him that he had to have a motion first. Section 2.101 of the Charter of the County of Virginia provides that the Board of Supervisors may determine its own rules for procedures for meetings, the following set of rules shall be effective from the date of their adoption (adoption means their vote) by the Board until such time they are amended or new rules adopted. Also, at the end, because we have already started to do this and thinks it is illegal. These rules may be amended or new rules adopted by a majority vote of all members of the Board provided the proposed amendments, (which we received an email this morning with four of them) and provided that new rules shall be introduced into the record at a prior Board meeting. That is section 2.127. We cannot arbitrarily, any one member including the chairman, change our entire operating procedures that has been effect for 30 -40 -50 years. What is going on here? RESOLUTION 040814 -3 APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 -2015 WHEREAS, Section 5.9 of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement provides that the Authority shall prepare and submit its operating budget for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of the County, the City Council of the City of Roanoke and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, by report dated March 27, 2014, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board, the Chief Executive Officer of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has submitted a request that the County approve the fiscal year 2014 -2015 budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA that the fiscal year 2014 -2015 budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the March 27, 2014, report of the Authority Chief Executive Officer, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval. On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None 240 April 8, 2014 2. Request to approve the Health Insurance Plan and rates for Roanoke County and School employees for fiscal year 2014 -2015 (Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance) U1111114 C 1V Ms. Owens outlined the request. Supervisor Church inquired asked about Marathon and if she had received any feedback. Ms. Owens responded Marathon did a survey, employees are very satisfied. There have been some concerns relating to get in and additional time has been added. Supervisor Bedrosian stated staff had compared the plans to the private sector, is that correct? Ms. Owens responded our insurance consultant provided staff with a study, The Mercer Study, that actually surveys the private sector companies and basically that study did show our best benefit plan was in line with plans offered to the private sector, however, the in- network deductible for us was actually lower and the office visit and co -pay out of pocket maximums were actually higher. Supervisor Bedrosian stated in government we hear they are getting such great plans and the private sector does not have. Basically, the County plans are pretty similar to an average, private sector plan to what people pay in premiums. Ms. Owens stated what they looked at with the Mercer study was more from a benefit standpoint and not in terms of the premium and contributions the employer was making towards the plan. From the government sector and was able to see that we are in line with the surrounding municipalities. Chairman McNamara inquired if an employee wants to use Marathon, is there any cost to the employee with Ms. Owens responding there is no cost. Supervisor McNamara stated if employees and their families go this route, it saves them money, but overall saves the County money as well. Ms. Owens responded that is what staff is seeing. Chairman McNamara stated with regard to Attachment A — Key Care 1000, if he looks at current year 2013 -2014, it has the cost of $498 and the employer is picking up part. Ms. Owens responded the employer is paying $41.68 (HRA). The employer is paying $41.68, which is the HRA, add the two together. ($428 and the 41.58 as the contribution in total that the County is making towards a participant only. $428 is what they are actually paying toward the cost of the premium and the $41.68 is the HRA component of that. Chairman McNamara reiterated that is going into an account for an employee. The total for the employee is $500 and employee and spouse is $1,000. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to approve the staff recommendation to approve the Health Plan and rates, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None April 8, 2014 241 3. Request to approve the Dental Insurance Plan and rates for Roanoke County and School employees for fiscal year 2014 -2015 (Rebecca E. Owens, Director of Finance) A- 040814 -5 Supervisor Church inquired what are the reserves in the dental with Ms. Owens responding $120,000. Supervisor Church then asked if staff would be willing to ask for an extra benefit amount to $2,000. Ms. Owens responded that she has made a note in her file for renewal time but cautioned it must be unanimous with the entire consortium. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to approve the staff recommendation to approve the Dental Plan and rates, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None 4. Request to approve changes to the Roanoke County Alcohol Policy to allow use of alcohol at the Bent Mountain Center (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator) A- 040814 -6 Mr. Goodman outlined the request. Supervisor Church asked for a point of order with regard to Section 2 -112, does not understand why the Board needs a motion before discussion. He advised his vote may depend on what is being spoken, information that he is getting from the presenter, the petitioner and what we are doing is stopping communication and says again it is wrong, it is not in our code. Chairman McNamara responded stating the point of order the rules, most of them, were voted on in 1999. In those rules and procedures, Section 2 -112 states in the absence of being covered in the Board's rules or organizational procedures, we in the absence of being covered we follow Robert's Rules of Order — 1990 Edition. The Robert's Rules of Order specifically stated there is a motion on the table prior to debate. What our conversation has been and what the letters that he has communicated was in the interest in improving the flow of our meetings, we will ask questions of staff to try to understand but we will not debate an issue until we have a motion to debate. It is not changing the rules from years and years, it is simply following the rules as adopted in 1999. Supervisor Church stated he appealed the decision of the Chairman stating that he is changing the method that has been in force; it may not be written but we have 242 April 8, 2014 been going by these for thirty - years. All of sudden, January of this year, things change. This is wrong. You are cutting the people out from having a discussion. A no vote would allow the chairs ruling. The appeal to the chair was denied based on the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Peters, McNamara NAYS: Supervisor Church Supervisor Bedrosian asked the County Attorney to come forward because something has come up that he has no idea. Are we doing something different today than we did two weeks ago when we met in terms of this process? The gentleman of Catawba is saying we are doing something different. Mr. Mahoney advised he believed the gentleman from Catawba is saying that it is his belief that previously the Board debated and discussed an issue before there was a motion made. The Chairman is saying under Robert's Rules of Order, which is part of the Board's rules before the Board should begin debate you need a motion to start that process. Secondly, the Board has always asked questions of staff or whoever is standing at the podium in presenting an item. There are two pieces. Mr. Bedrosian stated that he thought putting a motion on the table means that you have some idea of what it is you want to vote on. Mr. Mahoney stated he was correct. In order to have a motion to put on the table, do we need to discuss something to figure out what it is we want to put on the table. Mr. Mahoney responded hopefully you have explanatory materials in your agenda, i.e. Board Report, background information, an ordinance or resolution. Secondly, you have people standing up and making a presentation to the Board. Most of the time that is a staff person, but in some instances you have citizens, i.e. with a land use issue when an applicant comes forward. He or she may make a presentation to the Board so you will have written materials in your agenda and then you will have somebody standing up here at the podium explaining something or answering questions that are asked by different Board members. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so like today we are just looking at this thing about the alcohol on Bent Mountain and if he was looking at this and he has read it and now he wants to ask a question of Mr. Goodman who is up there. What has changed from two weeks ago? Before he would have said he has a question and asked Mr. Goodman a question. So what has changed about today on the same issue? Mr. Mahoney responded he does not know if there is a significant change. A Board member still asks questions of whomever is standing here making the presentation and he thinks the Chairman is saying. "Let's have a motion, are you in favor of this item or not, yes or no." Then, when the motion is made then the Board amongst themselves begin your debate. The theory is that you have discussion with whomever is here is one part of the process and that ends and then among yourselves you have your debate. Well, you need something to debate about. What you are debating about is your motion to approve the request or deny the request. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he knew coming in today that we would either vote yes or not for this. In his packet, he April 8, 2014 243 sees something request to approve changes, number six. So, he already knows that is what we are doing, voting either yes or no. Mr. Mahoney stated he cannot motion something for you to vote on only one of the five (5) Board members can do that. So, one of you needs to make a motion to either yes, they want to change the County policy... or no, they do not want to change the policy... When the yes or no motion is made, then you begin your debate. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so you are not taking anything away from him; he does not have any less rights than he did two (2) weeks ago. Mr. Mahoney responded he did not believe so; you still have your debate amongst yourselves. Supervisor Church stated this is not concluded; there are extra items on this Mr. Mahoney, there is a ten (10) minute limit on this. Supervisor McNamara stated this is not debatable. If you have questions about the question on the floor, it was the ruling of the Chair. The ruling of chair has been appealed. A no vote will uphold the decision of the Chair, which essentially states that Robert's Rules of Order allows questions of staff, but not debate prior to a motion. A yes vote would uphold the appeal to the Chair, in which case we will allow debate and discussion prior to a motion. The motion of the ruling of the Chairman was upheld by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Church NAYES: Supervisor Moore, Bedosian, Peters, McNamara Supervisor Moore stated that she knows our alcohol policy for Roanoke County is very stringent and asked Mr. Goodman if he knew what the cost would be to add the addendum to the liability addendum for the petitioner on $1 million. Mr. Goodman responded he does not have this information at this time. Mr. Coffey is attempting to secure that. Supervisor Peters stated with regard to the liability policy; that would be their responsibility to have in place prior to getting approval to have an event. Is that correct with Mr. Goodman responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Peters stated that would really have nothing to do with what we are looking at today; to add this facility into the already numerous facilities that we allow this activities to take place with Mr. Goodman responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Church stated he did receive a copy of the questions from Supervisor Moore. We have Green Hill, Explore Park, Camp Roanoke, South County, Glenvar with Mr. Goodman responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Church inquired in the spirit of transparency and openness, did we do all of this for each one of the others. Mr. Goodman responded in the negative; advising those were developed under the policy we had at the time when we reviewed the item back in 2013 and that did not come up, but the request came from Supervisor Moore and staff looked at and is responding in answer to his bosses. Supervisor Church stated he is very cautious about the alcohol situation and stated staff needs to keep a close eye on it and 244 April 8, 2014 hopefully we will not have a problem. He advised he does not want to give them the impression that they have more hoops to go through than the others. Do not want to send the wrong signal, that is his purpose. Are we being fair and maybe these things are fine, but we are talking about more than alcohol. He just does not want to send the wrong signal to Bent Mountain. Mr. Goodman stated the people on Bent Mountain have done a tremendous job of pulling things together and spoke with Mr. Coffee yesterday and he is checking into it. If Mr. Coffee comes back and it is too onerous, too difficult, he would come back before the Board and discussion. He stated he thinks this is a perfect example of a public /private partnership where we have our citizens working with the County to provide benefit to the citizens of the whole area of Bent Mountain. He stated he thinks that is a great example of working together trying to get something done in a positive way and he advised he can assure the Board that Mr. Coffee, the President and the other leadership on the mountain do not want to create a problem. Mr. Coffee was very plain about that. This is going to be done right or we are not going to do it. Supervisor Church stated he just wants to make sure that they feel they are having a separate ten or eleven rules to go through that the others. Supervisor Peters stated he need clarification. In reading the materials that was sent to us by Mr. Goodman's office, he was under the impression the reason why this specific facility was not listing with the other facilities because the other are County- owned, County -run properties and this is not. Even though the County owns the property it is leased out. He was taking it as why this was adding the extra hoop. Mr. Goodman stated he thinks there would be two steps. First, especially in the lease there was a prohibition for the use of alcoholic beverages on the property, which was a Board action in December of 2012. He stated he thinks the reason the Board did this, because he was involved in this, was give the citizens an opportunity to get started up and see how things went. Things are going very well. The second thing is the property is leased, but we still own in; control it. We have control of that facility through the lease in his opinion and we work very closely with those citizens because he likes working with citizens and doing something like this because it is a positive thing. They are raising the money and doing a lot of the work. They are still providing a great benefit in his opinion to the citizens on Bent Mountain. Supervisor Bedrosian stated before December 10, 2013, no Roanoke County facilities had alcohol in them. Mr. Goodman responded that Supervisor Bedrosian was correct. Mr. Mahoney responded not exactly. Mr. Mahoney stated before that period of time, if the County wanted to allow the use of alcohol on a County Park, it would be a specific request back to the Board and the Board would vote specifically on that use, that unique activity. When staff came to the Board last year, they requested a change in policy and the Board in effect upfront agreed to allow use of alcohol with certain limited conditions, which are shown in the policy for those five or six different locations. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he finds that more preferable to this. Supervisor Moore stated she is in favor and very pleased to know that the Bent Mountain Center is doing well. The reason for her request, it is totally different April 8, 2014 245 from the alcohol policy because it is a tenant. The reason she asked about the financial aspect is because there will be additional charge or fee for the $1 million policy that they have to add. In the past, whenever people have asked to do concerts where they serve alcohol and had loud music they have hired an off -duty police officer and in this situation and also in our County buildings we have staff, a staff member will be there after the approval of alcohol being served to monitor what does not; the separation of the children, checking ID's, etc. so that was the question that she had, "who will officiate that." The questions were legitimate and asked that they be sent to everyone so that everyone would know. It was not a bad thing and was in no way shape or form a bad thing, just something that she feels we need to take that extra step to make it safer. Chairman McNamara stated with part of — the Bent Mountain Community Center would be nice to be self- funding. He stated he thinks we need to give them the tools to try to make this Center more attractive. He can appreciate the concerns being raised. He stated he is not so worried about the $1 million insurance policy because that is fairly typical for a renter. So, he thinks that is part of their cost of doing business. He would rather take a wait and see approach on requiring police officers to be in attendance when they have a wine tasting, etc. or give it back to staff and let staff monitor it. So, we are not going to codify it by statute, but we will allow staff to evaluate those decisions as they come forward. Supervisor Bedrosian stated this property is a Roanoke County facility being leased to them with Mr. Goodman responding in the affirmative. Is it an extended lease with Mr. Goodman responding it is a year -to -year lease and hopes it will be extended; that they will be very successful and continue to use the facility for a long, long time. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked what other kinds of things do we lease to organizations. Mr. Goodman responded there is not a similar lease to this one at Bent Mountain, to his knowledge. He stated we do have some homes we lease out that were bought over a period of time that we have leased to individuals for private, single - family homes. We do have people who will lease Green Ridge on a temporary basis, i.e. reserve a room. Supervisor Bedrosian stated with this one we are kind of a landlord. Mr. Mahoney advised the Catawba Center, an old school where we allow the Ruritans and another group that is very similar as they help run it too. It is much smaller than Bent Mountain. They have their civic meetings. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if this was considered private enterprise with Mr. Goodman explaining he would consider it a public /private partnership between the citizens of Bent Mountain who incorporated so they could raise funds legally. They are a registered 501 c3 organization, which is why it took them a while to get the lease done. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if we give them money with Mr. Goodman advising we budget $15,000 a year, which is comparable to what we budget for Catawba. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to approve the staff recommendation to approve changes to the Roanoke County Alcohol Policy to allow use of alcohol at the Bent Mountain Center, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: 246 April 8, 2014 AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian U1111114 C &l 5. Request to approve Short -Term and Long -Term Disability Plan and rates (Anita Hassell, Assistant Director of Human Resources) Ms. Hassell outlined the request. Chairman McNamara advised he would be happy to meet with anyone who has questions. There was no discussion. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to approve the Short -Term and Long - Term Disability Plan and rates, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None A- 040814 -8 6. Request to revise the Roanoke County employee handbook with elimination of annual and sick leave plans (Anita Hassell, Assistant Director of Human Resources) Ms. Hassell outlined the request. There was no discussion. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to revise the Roanoke County employee handbook to eliminate the annual and sick leave plan, the motion was carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None Chairman McNamara recessed until 4:53 p.m. IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance repealing Chapter 23. Stormwater Management in its entirety and adopting a new Chapter of the Roanoke County Code — Chapter 23. Stormwater Management Ordinance (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development) April 8, 2014 247 Mr. Covey outlined the ordinance and advised the May 15, 2014 deadline has been moved to June 15, 2015; however the implementation deadline is still July 1, 2014. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for April 22, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None 2. Ordinance Adopting a New Chapter of the Roanoke County Code — Chapter 24; "Illicit Discharge" (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development) Mr. Moneir outlined the ordinance. Originally contained in the old Stormwater Management Ordinance. This has been done in order to maintain compliance with MS4 to take effect on July 1, 2014. Mr. Moneir advised there is no fiscal impact. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for April 22, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None 3. Ordinance amending Ordinance 121112 -7 and approving an amendment to the lease of the Bent Mountain Community Center to allow the use of alcohol on the leased premises (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator) Mr. Goodman outlined the need for the ordinance advising this was to remove specific language and to add alcohol will be allowed on the premises. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for April 22, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian 4. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant in the amount of $8,040 from the Foundation for Roanoke Valley to the Roanoke County Police Department for the support of the Project Lifesaver program (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police) 248 April 8, 2014 Chief Hall outlined the request for the ordinance. Also in attendance was Alan Ronk, Executive Director of the Foundation for Roanoke Valley. He advised this was part of the fun being able to do these grants. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for April 22, 2014. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a 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 advised there were no changes from the first reading. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 040814 -9 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $949,200 FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) FOR RESTORATION OF GLADE CREEK NATURAL STREAM -WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT VINYARD PARK -PHASE I WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Board approved resolution number 111213 -7 which authorized staff to apply for a grant from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for a Water Quality Improvement project at Vinyard Park; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County was awarded a competitive grant through Virginia's Stormwater Local Assistance Fund for a fifty percent matching grant; and WHEREAS, this project will improve water quality and assist the County in meeting its total maximum daily load requirements to lower sediment discharges to the Roanoke River; and WHEREAS, the estimated costs of the project are $949,200, excluding staff time for administration; and WHEREAS, the County accepts grant funds from DEQ in the amount of $474,600 and appropriates to Community Development; and April 8, 2014 249 WHEREAS, the County's match of $474,600 is available in various capital project accounts; 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 25, 2014, and the second reading was held on April 8, 2014. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $474,600 is hereby appropriated from the Department of Environmental Quality for the restoration of Glade Creek Natural Stream - Water Quality Improvement Project at Vinyard Park -Phase I to Community Development. 2. That matching funds for the grant in the amount of $474,600 be appropriated from the following accounts: $26,699.19 Glade Creek Watershed (102630- 5850) and $447,900.81 NPDES /Phase II Compliance (103109- 5850). 3. 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 IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 040814 -10 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I- 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 April 8, 2014, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 7 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — February 25, 2014 2. Resolution of appreciation to Susan Decker, Data Analyst — Fire and Rescue, upon her retirement after more than five (5) years of service 3. Observance and Proclamation of Friday, April 18, 2014, as National Arbor Day in Roanoke County 4. Acceptance of the donation of a public drainage easement on the property of Kathy C. Croft located on Westmoreland Drive (Tax Map No. 077.13 -04- 250 April 8, 2014 35.00), Cave Spring Magisterial District 5. Request to approve a fiscal agent agreement between the County of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority 6. Request to approve a fiscal agent agreement with the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 7. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Commission On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 040814 -10.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO SUSAN L DECKER UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN FIVE YEARS (5) OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Susan L. Decker was hired on April 14, 2008, and has worked as a Data Analyst for the Fire /Rescue Department during her tenure with Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Decker retired on April 1, 2014, after five years and (11) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Decker was instrumental in supporting multiple technology services for the Fire /Rescue Department; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Decker was the project leader on establishing electronic reporting of fire /EMS incident reports for both career and volunteer personnel to include training of new personnel and submission of all reports to the Department of Fire Programs; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Decker streamlined the process of submitting patient care reports to the County's contracted ambulance billing service through automation which allowed for faster reimbursement to the County: and 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 SUSAN L. DECKER, for over five (5) years 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 Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: April 8, 2014 251 AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None A- 040814 -10.b A- 040814 -10.c A- 040814 -10.d A- 040814 -10.e A- 040814 -10.f IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS One citizen spoke. Jessee Freedman advised as the chair of the Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action Roundtable since January 2014 (and a member since early 2012), 1 have had the pleasure of presiding over Roanoke County's only environmentally - focused citizens advisory board during turbulent times. RC CLEAR is made up of community volunteers, trying to help the county meet its carbon reduction goals and to help county residents save money on energy. While we have made great progress over the past several years, the Board of Supervisors will soon likely decide they no longer desire our service. This action, while disappointing, is not the end of our work. RC CLEAR and ICLEI (note that the two are not one and the same) have been used as political punching bags for the past three years, and this latest decision by the board to sweep the manufactured controversy under the rug is an act of pure political cowardice. I will agree that the payment of dues to ICLEI, at a staggering $1200, has demanded more time and resources of both the Board and county staff than it rightfully deserved. But the solution to this is not to kowtow to the fringe political activists that live in fear of the UN marching its little blue helmets into Roanoke County to force them to live in cluster housing. (Note: That statement is not hyperbole. It is sadly the imagined conspiracy created by these few activists, and their misplaced outrage has created a false balance that ICLEI is controversial.) The solution is to stand up for what is best for the county, and to fight for policies and programs that benefit its residents. I hate to disappoint said activists (and their supporting members on the Board of Supervisors), but this is not the end our work at RCCLEAR. Instead, we will put our heads down and get back to work. In addition to keeping the award - winning Save A Ton website up and available to help save residents energy and money, we'll be working diligently in the coming months to bring energy efficiency to county residents. We know we can only do so much on our own, but that will not stop us from trying. If Roanoke County intends to drive away other young and talented residents by passing regressive policies and caving to the whims of a vocal and extreme minority, then they are certainly on the right path. But that is not the future that the majority of our citizens have voted for. We, as a region, have recently been on the short list for large and potentially game- changing economic development opportunities, but leadership like this is sure to knock us out of 252 April 8, 2014 contention indefinitely. If we are to continue moving forward, the Board and the citizens need to stand up to this demagoguery and fight for policies that move us towards a better Roanoke Valley. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Moore moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would like to say that he does appreciate everybody that comes out. We have a representative type of government and he always likes to reinforce that because the five of us have been elected by the people to represent them and we get input from the people, but then we have to make the final decision. It is up to us as five elected officials to make those decisions. He does appreciate that and appreciates his colleagues whether they vote together or separate. He thinks that is the right way to do things. Sometimes it is portrayed that if we all don't vote together that there is animosity or something between the five Board members. The reality is that ever since this Country was founded, people disagreed with each other. If you go back and read history, it was a whole lot worse than it is today. People would kill each other over disagreements. He stated he thinks we all do it in a very civilized way; we are all very passionate about what we believe as well we should be because this is a great Country that we have; a great community that we have. We all need to showcase our opinions and let them stand for what they are. He is very much okay with being in the minority or being in the majority, it is absolutely okay as that is the process of government. Supervisor Church stated he wanted to put in earlier a discussion about the email that was sent out to the Board regarding our procedures. The most important item and wants to make it part of our minutes and public record was sent out at 9:34 am this morning to all the Board members and it listed three items, we could question staff, we could vote yes, no or abstain and the key issue here in addition to being able to talk to the people that present is item 3, debate will be limited to ten (10) minutes. He does not know how everyone feels, but again we have another mandate. Does this mean ten (10) minutes per Board member, ten (10) minutes all together? He stated he has to ask April 8, 2014 253 a rhetorical question, he does not think things have changed since he has been on the Board for as far back as he can go. He stated he does have a copy of the 1999, there is nothing in there about Robert's Rules in that ordinance, and he has the whole package. His point is and more importantly not so much is it written in a book, but is it the right thing to do. Should we be putting a limit on elected Board members, as Supervisor Bedrosian says, we are an extension of the citizens. We bring forth the citizen ideas, wants and desires. He can think back when Chairman McNamara was on the Board and discussing Keagy Village. We probably had debate go on two (2) hours. He thinks the Board was here until 1:00 am in the morning that was not wrong. It was good, healthy discussion. We had two or three hundred people here. We exchanged back and forth. Nobody threw any objects at each other. We listened to each other. We truly represented our people. He can think back to many, many items, asphalt plant — 600 people. When suddenly this year and that is what he wants the citizens to think about those of you at home. But when we begin saying you cannot speak but a certain amount of time and you must do it in an order, we are losing sight of why we are here. We are not here for each other, we are here to represent the people and open and healthy discussion is very, very important. So the item he was not able to bring up was item 3, debate limited to ten (10) minutes. Not only is it unrealistic, it is really restrictive. He had a meeting with our Chairman who asked about input on his proposal that he sent out that the newspaper alluded to. We met for an hour and one half; we had a good discussion and he will relate to those listening what he said to him that morning. Respectfully, he had a difference of opinion, but goes back to something he made a relevant comparison to. It is not a secret that he used to referee college basketball. March final four has just gotten through being played with everybody watching it. He told our Chairman, he is across the Country, it is televised and it is played back in slow motion. If he called the game as the rules as they are written, the game would not be on television for two hours, it would be four and '/ hours, he would have been fired that night and run out of town. Keep in mind, he had every single rule correct. He did not miss a single call. The point is common sense and what is best for the people and that is what he hopes we do as Board. We are treading on some dangerous territory already in our third month. What is best for the people is what should be done. Already early, he suggests that the problems if you want to call it that, if there is friction is because there have been two or three items that have been off the wall controversial, i.e. Code of Conduct, by the way in the newspaper the Code of Conduct was violated four or five times. Why have it. He can site examples. Does the Code of Conduct only pertain when they are here in person? Does it pertain when Board members talk to the newspaper, etc? His point is we have a Clerk issue and he predicted this early on. There was nothing wrong, but we are starting that gradual slide of the domino effect as indicated by Supervisor Bedrosian. Folks, you at home, pay attention. This is not something for Supervisor Church. This is something for the people out there that the Board represents. We need to keep open communication; realistic limits without it being written down. He did not make up the statutes; they are clearly listed in our book. 254 April 8, 2014 It is okay if we change, please do not misunderstand him. Let's change with participation from all five (5) Board members. Let's don't get an email at 9:34 this morning with here is what we are going to do. That is unrealistic in anybody's viewpoint. What is wrong with discussing it in public? That is a great idea. Ask the citizens, how do you feel about ten (10) minutes and it is over with. How do you feel about waiting sometimes two and three hours to speak? He knows that he has asked for work sessions to be held in this room. Why, obvious reasons why. If you have a work session upstairs and we have twenty to thirty (20 to 30) some seats (he counted them one day) and sometimes there are seventeen to eighteen (17 to 18) staff members sitting there. Citizens say why even bother. They have to climb over four or five (4 to 5) knees to sit down, cannot see the presenter, and cannot hear. What is wrong with having it in the Board room? People can come and go as they please. We have rest rooms, we have comfortable seating, and they can see everybody. This is not rocket science. Why can't we have our work sessions here? We work for the public, not each other, but no, we are in a cramped room upstairs. He has comments that nobody cares because they don't come. Well, that is exactly right as they have told me why they don't come. Some have even said they feel like there is a sign on the door, "no need to bother." That is how they feel because they are hemmed in and you cannot hear and you cannot see. It is not citizen friendly. Why would we want to do that when we have a hundred and fourteen (114) seats in this room where people can come and go and not bother anybody? We are talking about using our facilities to accommodate our citizens. What is wrong with that idea? Think about this. He wasn't going to go on much because it does not really deserve a lot. He does not take the newspaper, but every time he sees something that is half -truth that is what the Roanoke Times is about. Mr. Purdy will write things like "government at a standstill." What a headline. Well, are we really, that is just to get your attention and buy the newspaper. He says otherwise, our Board has acted on and passed required items, budgetary discussions, proposed tax rates, first and second readings, grants, awards, stormwater management, proclamations, briefings, health insurance, appointments, work sessions, closed meetings and the list goes on and on. Standstill, really? That is because Mr. Purdy and the Roanoke Times has an agenda that they don't believe has been done. You cannot have it one way. It is notable that you pick it out. One of his citizens brought him a laminated copy where Mr. Purdy refers to a Mr. Landis. He thinks that it is worth noting that this was the campaign manager for one of his opponents in the last election. Has not been heard from or seen in years. Really, he is not really a Roanoke County citizen. He lives in Florida, but yet, Mr. Purdy has him as somebody giving input. Read between it folks. The only way to get their attention is to cancel. Let's don't just get half the truth. Let's get all the truth. They write about ICLEI. They write about whatever and it is just to simply get headlines and your attention. He does not enjoy opening the paper and reading we are the biggest circus in town. He does not consider we are a circus. He thinks the Board is five respectable, duly elected people that can disagree and agree to disagree. He believes in his heart, he does not believe in what he reads in April 8, 2014 255 the newspaper. So he has to believe that one is misquoted and the only time they pay attention is when you look at them and say, "It is wrong." When we stand by and let this go, week after week, they are going to continue. Every time he does this Mr. Purdy gets him another one hundred (100) votes. It does not bother him, his people does not pay any attention to it, but you know, it is just a stigma on Roanoke County. It portrays us to be something that we are not. We are respectable, we don't have criminal records, we are not in handcuffs, and we are not on narcotics. Come on, front page, when you have an airliner that is lost with 279 people and we are the front page, "Roanoke County at a Standstill" shows the desperation at trying to sell a newspaper. Open your eyes. Last comment, which he read in the paper so he does not believe it. He read where Mr. Church may change his mind and come over to a certain side about Glenvar High School. With all due respect, he has been in favor of Glenvar High School before anybody was elected on this Board, except for Mr. McNamara. So, thinks that was misquoted, but it is something that the School Board knows he is in favor of, citizens know he is in favor of and one of his campaign promises years ago; fix Glenvar Middle, fix Glenvar High School. So to the public who hasn't been paying attention, it is written to give the notion that Supervisor Church may not like Glenvar High School. Ask a few thousand people up there. This is point he is trying to get to; little sideline comments that does not have the research and the factual information in it. So, as he has said before they buy their ink by the barrel. So what, it does not bother him, they cannot do anything to him that they haven't done for twelve to fifteen years (12 -15); that is how long they have been on his case. It does not mean you have to stand by and let it happen. Because there is maybe five or ten or hundred people that believe some of this stuff and that is scary. Hopefully you did notice in this article, normally he puts in there that Supervisor Church did not return a phone call. This is right, he does not because his attitude is silence cannot be misquoted and it cannot be repeated. He did get a phone call, he was not there at a couple of minutes to 5 on Friday. Of course, the article was already written, he knows the routine. He did get a call and he did not return it. There is no future in it. What you say and what you read is not the same. Supervisor Peters stated he has not hidden the fact that he does share concerns with the way things are going on the Board. This is not pointed at anybody, but does not want his next comments to be taken that way. But the Roanoke Times did print that a Supervisor stated that governance through disagreement may be the best path forward for our County. His only thoughts on that are how is that working for us in Washington. Every day they are in disagreement they are putting us back one more day. Economic Planning is for the citizens, so local governments should not pursue companies like Ardaugh, who has made one the largest investments in Roanoke County to bring quality jobs and again investment to our region. There are a lot of people and businesses in this valley who are economic drivers, but we need to continue to pursue outside employers and help them locate to our valley. Supervisor Church has made a statement many times, this is the citizen's government. He is absolutely correct, but the citizens also, in his opinion, deserve a deeper leadership. We should be 256 April 8, 2014 running Roanoke County as a business, focusing on ways to make it more effective and efficient. Corporations report to their shareholders and we as your Board members report to the taxpayers, who are our shareholders. He believes that we need a strategic plan. We need a vision. What should be in this plan? First, we need leadership and we need to recognize that all of us play a role in the success and it will take all of us working very hard to accomplish the end result of this plan. We need to identify our strengths and weaknesses. We must share the vision of what we want our County to look like in the future. He does believe there are three principle objectives; economic development, cost savings initiates and thirdly as Mr. Bedrosian has talked about and he believes is important is tax reduction and debt retirement. To further explain, yes, he would love to see real estate taxes reduced, but after a continual and sustainable revenue growth. We as a County need to be reviewing cost saving options and he knows this is a bad word right now, but things such as outsourcing, maybe consolidating services with other localities. We need to be promoting, reviewing zoning ordinances to make sure that we are business friendly and when that next project comes to town we are ready and we have a seamless process for them instead of red tape and bureaucy. We need to continue to promote and pursue the regional economic authority that was created last year to facilitate regional cooperation and revenue sharing for businesses looking to relocate to our region. We need to make it a budget priority to place money aside for each of our facilities so that when money is needed for repairs and renovations we do not get caught in a situation like we are now in for subjects like Glenvar High School. If money had been set aside throughout the year for that project or for any of our facilities, we would not be in the position of going further in debt. Last, and goes hand in hand with comments that he has heard and Mr. Church's raised in prior meetings, he believes that we need to have performance measurements. This is the structure for annual reviews of our employees so that our management knows the strengths and weaknesses of our employees. Again, he believes that is about accountability and the five of us owe it to our taxpayers, our shareholders. At the end of the day, he has said it before but to achieve the tax cuts, we do need to focus on economic development. He hates to put Ms. Loope on the spot, but we have to press harder for our economic development because that is how our revenues will increase and that is how we are going to cut taxes and that is what is going to make a better place to live. As a side note, on April the 26th we are having our annual Vinton Dogwood Festival, which actually goes on that Wednesday through Saturday with the package on Saturday and we would love to have you come out. He received in his packet and he is really glad to see this, Doug must be behind it, there is going to be some activities going on at Explore Park on Saturday, May10th. He hopes that people will put that on their calendar. We look forward to seeing that take off as well. Supervisor Moore stated she would like to invite everyone to attend a social media class this Thursday, April 10th at Northside Middle School. If you are a parent of a high schooler or middle schooler, please try and come and bring your student. Officer Crozier with the Roanoke County Police Department and other law April 8, 2014 257 enforcement will be talking about social media and its dangers. If your child uses a computer or a smart phone, they need to know how they can be getting themselves into a dangerous situation without even knowing it. The middle school students are helping to sponsor this. They will have booths set up and it is from 7 until 9 p.m. this Thursday, April 10, 2014, at Northside Middle School. Please try to attend. Chairman McNamara stated he just wanted to comment on a few things. Thank you all for working so hard as a Board. Today, we have done some changes as a Board in the way we are orchestrating our meeting. We are not changing laws, we are just following our rules and procedures. Our rules and procedures due reference Robert's Rules, Section 2 -112. There is not an intent to limit debate, overall debate to ten (10) minutes. Roberts Rules under Section 43 under Rules of Debate says each member can debate for ten (10) minutes. The amount of time they can speak is ten (10) minutes. Additionally, each member can also speak and address an item twice. Whomever is the maker of the motion, has the privilege of closing that motion. He guessed the majority of the Board, himself included, believe that ten (10) minutes should be enough time to make a point and he would venture to say there are some on the Board, himself included that think things were broken. When we are talking thirty (30) or forty (40) minutes before a motion is on the floor then in his opinion something is broken. So, that is why we have made these changes. He stated he thinks all things considered it went very well today and thanked the Board. One other thing, in accordance with our Board Rules and Procedures, Section 2 -115 (h) currently reads nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any member of the Board from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meeting of the Board. He advised he would like to prepare to review an amendment that would add the following language, "provided that the same or similar motion has not been acted upon by the Board in the preceding twelve (12) months." The reason for that which we certainly can discuss at the next meeting, the reason is that when he was on the Board in 1999 and thinks Mr. Church was when we first adopted these rules, he has the history of why that was put into the Board's rules and organizational procedure and he believes that is something right now that would be a detriment to the Board moving forward. The Board does not need to agree, but that is what our discussion will be. At 5:38 p.m. Chairman McNamara recessed to the 4t" floor for work session and closed meeting. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work Session on the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Comprehensive Roadside Maintenance Program and proposed landscaping projects at the Merriman Roundabout and along Williamson Road near Hollins University (Megan Cronise, Principal Planner) 258 April 8, 2014 In attendance for this work session were Megan Cronise, Principal Planner, Wendy Jones, Executive Director of the Williamson Road Area Business Association; Jason Snell, General Manager of TJS Enterprises, Inc.; Kerry Edmonds, Vice President for Finance and Administration from Hollins University and Brian Blevins, Area Land Use Engineer with VDOT. Megan Cronise went through a PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed roundabouts; a copy is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Bedrosian inquired how a company was chosen with Ms. Cronise advising these companies contacted Roanoke County. She indicated it took a long time for the first project and they are becoming easier with each one. Ms. Cronise also remarked that there are no County expenditures with these projects. Supervisor Peters inquired what will happen after five (5) years with Ms. Cronise advising they can be renewed for an additional five -year period. At this point in time, staff has not determined what will happen after ten (10) years, but the hope is that someone would maintain. This work session was held from 5:52 p.m. until 6:01 p.m. 2. Work session to discuss the CORTRAN program and an updated contract with the Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. to provide the CORTRAN services for Roanoke County July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 (Laurie Gearheart, Assistant Director of Finance) In attendance for this work session were B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Laurie Gearheart, Assistant Director of Finance; Terri Cochran, Executive Assistant; Curtis Andrews, Executive Director of RADAR- UHSTs, Inc. and Jim Adkins, Director of Finance for RADAR. Ms. Gearheart went through a PowerPoint presentation explaining the program. A copy of the presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Church inquired if the nursing homes were still taking advantage with Ms. Gearheart responding the recertification process has curtailed some of the nursing home riders. Mr. Goodman inquired of Mr. Andrews if the funding is still okay with Mr. Andrews responding in the affirmative for next year. Mr. Goodman explained this program covers the entire County. He advised the program was established so citizens could stay in their homes longer. In a survey of needs, transportation ranks in the top five. April 8, 2014 259 Supervisor Moore remarked that Mr. Andrews has an awesome facility. Supervisor Peters inquired about the fuel surcharge with Mr. Andrews explained how the number is arrived and that it is in all their contracts. He advised if this was removed from the contract the rates would need to increase. The work session was held from 6:03 p.m. until 6:34 p.m. At this time, Chairman McNamara broke for a break and to Closed Session advising the Board would return at 7:15 p.m. 3. Work session for presentation of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2014 -2015 (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Mr. Robertson went through a PowerPoint presentation and gave a brief synopsis of the budget as it currently stands. Supervisor Peters stated he has a problem with no layoffs if the position is no longer needed. Mr. Goodman then explained how the County has handled layoffs. Supervisor Peters advised he would not like to have no layoffs as one of the priorities He then asked if debt reduction or tax reduction is a priority. Mr. Goodman explained this Board had not instructed staff with a set of priorities and suggested that the Board have a retreat in the fall to discuss ideas for next year's budget The work session was held from 7:15 p.m. until 7:58 p.m. 4. Work session to discuss contributions to Human Service, Social Service, Cultural, Tourism and other outside agencies (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) It was the consensus of the Board to restore St. Francis to level funding at $4,700. Chairman McNamara inquired why is Roanoke County sponsoring ads for Miss Virginia and an Art Museum at Hollins College? There was no response. Supervisor Moore inquired if RCCLEAR will be funded. Supervisor Peters inquired as to why RCCLEAR is not brought into the picture on new buildings, etc. What is our vision for RCCLEAR; should be part of the zoning process. Ms. Moore advised they do not have the expertise to be a part of that process. It was the consensus of the Board to hold a work session with RCCLEAR. The work session was held from 7:58 p.m. until 8:20 p.m. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 5:37 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 1. 260 April 8, 2014 Discussion of the terms or scope of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County, namely, an amendment to the performance agreement with Edward Rose Properties, Inc. and Section 2.2.3711.A.1 namely discussion concerning an appointment to the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara NAYS: None The closed session was held from 6:43 p.m. until 6 :55 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 6:55 p.m., Chairman McNamara moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 8 :20 p.m. S itted by: Approved by: Deborah C. Jack J h P. McNamara Deputy Clerk to t e Board m