HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/22/2014 - RegularJuly 22, 2014 557
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 July 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
Darryl Crim of North Roanoke Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by
all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:01 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
Mr. Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney added the following closed session
item. Section 2.2-3711.A.1 to discuss and consider the employment, performance,
demotion, disciplining or resignation of specific public officers, appointees or
employees. There were no objections.
558 July 22, 2014
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Paramedic/Firefighters Jonathon Wacek and David
Jones of Fire and Rescue for having each received a Western
Virginia Emergency Services Regional Award for Outstanding
Contribution to EMS (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and
Recue)
Mr. Rob Logan, Executive Director of the Western Virginia Emergency
Medical Services Council, provided the recognition. Recognition was given. Several
individuals from the Fire and Rescue were in attendance. All Supervisors offered their
thanks and congratulations.
2. Recognition of Roanoke County receiving a First Place Ranking in
the 2014 National Digital Counties Survey (Bill Hunter, Director of
Communications and Information Technology)
Recognition was given; Mr. Hunter stated this was basically a County -wide
award. All Supervisors offered their congratulations.
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator, upon his retirement after more than five (5)
years of service (Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator)
The Clerk read the resolution. All Supervisors offered their thanks and
congratulations.
RESOLUTION 072214-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO B.
CLAYTON GOODMAN III, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, UPON
HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN FIVE (5) YEARS OF
SERVICE
WHEREAS, B. Clayton Goodman III began as Roanoke County Administrator on
March 16, 2009, and served in that position until his retirement on July 31, 2014, after
five (5) years and four (4) months of steadfast, capable, and professional service; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure, Mr. Goodman successfully guided Roanoke
County through a prolonged period of economic turbulence, when national, state, and
regional conditions created unprecedented challenges; and
July 22, 2014 559
WHEREAS, despite a difficult fiscal situation, Mr. Goodman strongly supported
economic development, helping recruit major employers, such as Ardagh Group, to
Roanoke County, and encouraged cooperative projects among localities, namely the
Roanoke County Criminal Justice Academy, the Western Virginia Regional Industrial
Facility Authority, the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority, the Regional Center for
Animal Control and Protection, and the Emergency Communications Center with the
Town of Vinton; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Goodman represented Roanoke County, often in a leadership
role, on various committees and boards, including the Roanoke Valley Broadband
Authority, the Regional Center for Animal Control and Protection, the Western Virginia
Regional Industrial Facility Authority, the Community Development Authority, the
Roanoke Regional Partnership, the Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional Commission,
the Roanoke Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau, and the Western Virginia Regional
Jail Authority; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a strong infrastructure is necessary to provide
quality services to citizens, Mr. Goodman supported numerous school renovation
projects, the inauguration of the Fleet Service Center and the North County Fire and
Rescue Station Number 1, and the construction of the South County, Glenvar, and
Vinton libraries; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Goodman made issues directly affecting citizens a priority, as he
endorsed and promoted the expansion of the Roanoke Valley Greenway System,
helped negotiate a long-term lease to renew and revitalize Explore Park, and proactively
addressed federally mandated stormwater management requirements; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Goodman worked tirelessly to resolve the concerns of individual
residents and to assist groups of citizens with more ambitious efforts, helping to
establish the Catawba Sustainability Center in cooperation with Virginia Tech and the
Bent Mountain Community Center; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Goodman consistently provided thorough and open
communication with all members of the Board of Supervisors, sharing the information
and insights needed for thoughtful decision making; and
WHEREAS, throughout his years as County Administrator, Mr. Goodman never
wavered from his commitment to ethical behavior and acting in the best interests of
citizens.
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 B. CLAYTON GOODMAN III for more than 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 McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
560 July 22, 2014
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance appropriating up to $200,000 for the construction of
the water spheroid design for the tower to be located at the Green
Ridge Recreation Center from the Minor Capital account (Richard
L. Caywood, Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. Caywood outlined the request for the ordinance; provided a
PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors. He advised Bob Benninger with the Western Virginia Water Authority
was also in attendance to answer any questions.
Supervisor Church asked for clarification. The information is talking about
the cell tower design, or the leasing authority. He stated he wanted to be clear about
this. The Lease says the Water Authority, but the County is working to become the
agent. Should the cell towers be looked at, etc. would the County be the negotiating
agent, not the Water Authority? Mr. Caywood advised today the way the lease is
written it envisions that the Water Authority would be the lessor, directly. Roanoke
County has final control over the aesthetics of the tank, which would essentially give us
the veto over any change to the design or appearance. Since staff feels like the County
is in a better position to both market that tower for any potential leasing and then
manage that lease since it is on County property, staff has been talking to the Authority
about amending the lease and let us do everything. The balancing act there is the
tower itself will belong to the Water Authority, which is why the lease was originally
crafted. In either case, we would split any revenue fifty-fifty (50/50). He stated he
thinks what Supervisor Church is suggesting is where we would like to modify the lease.
When this was first done, we did not know how desirable this site would be from a cell
prospective; it was just something we envisioned might happen, but did not know it was
likely to happen quickly. He personally would like to see the lease modified and we are
working with the Authority to do that and if we do modify the lease, it would be brought
back before the Board. Supervisor Church stated from his perspective, we are in the
best position to do that. He would really be in favor of not going forward if we are not
going to be the controlling factor. The bottom line is that everything belongs to the
citizens of Roanoke County. We talked about a potential cost for the Roanoke County
logo? Do you have an estimate to share with the public? Mr. Caywood responded staff
has tried to come up with some estimates for that but it is difficult to do. The best
ballpark was somewhere in the $15,000 range just to do the logo itself and as he stated
in the work session and in the report, the way he would prefer to handle is once we pick
a design and we have a detailed design done then staff could come back with a
concrete estimate on exactly what a logo would cost and look like and bring before the
July 22, 2014 561
Board before a logo was done on the tank. These renderings are very accurate, they
are somewhat conceptual because we have not done geotech work to see exactly what
it would look like on the final design product and would be another step. Another issue
is there are a couple of ways to do it, but in all cases the logo is not likely to last nearly
as long at the tank and it is something you would have to do on a recurring basis to
repaint or if a wrap, replace. If you want to keep that logo, it is going to be an ongoing
additional expense over a plainly painted tank.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if the height was one hundred and twenty-five
feet (125') with Mr. Caywood responding in the affirmative on an approximate basis.
Supervisor Bedrosian then stated so they are both the same height and on the cylinder
one is how wide. Mr. Caywood responded thirty feet (30') in diameter for the standpipe
design and the ball is about sixty feet (60') in diameter. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so
on the ball one, staff is talking about wider than this room and the standpipe smaller
than this room. Mr. Caywood advised the standpipe holds slightly more water, but the
water in the bottom is really not that useful from a pressure standpoint, but the ball
holds all of the capacity in the air. Supervisor Bedrosian asked in reference to the
pictures we saw there, is part of it hidden. Mr. Caywood went through several slides.
He stated it is pretty exposed when you see it on ground level Green Ridge view. A lot
of the tanks in the area are kind of hidden in trees or they are intentionally put where
you cannot see them. Since we are on the highest ground in the County, except on the
mountains proper, the whole tank is going to be exposed; both designs are going to be
very visible from the ground. Supervisor Bedrosian stated when we talked about the
cell towers in work session and we started looking at adding towers and the wires, it
started to look ugly. What further do we have on that? When you add things to this,
what happens? Supervisor Bedrosian stated he is looking all over the place for towers
to see how they are done and a lot of them have "things" all over them, everybody
seems to have the same idea. Mr. Caywood showed the Board a picture of what Mr.
Bedrosian was referencing. He stated staff will be soliciting for proposals for cell
providers that may be interested at the Green Ridge property. They may or may not
want to be on a water tower, but we are in the process of looking at what interests the
industry would have at this site. Large fixed objects are obviously desirable because
they are already there so they avoid the cost of a tower. He stated he thinks you can do
aesthetically better than the one picture he has of a tower in Blacksburg. In all cases, if
you put cell towers on a water tank or anything you will have to have a line of sight and
you will not be able to conceal them totally. The only reason why the ball shape is a
little more desirable for that you can lease space at the top for a couple of providers and
using the widest part for different providers and it gives them vertical separation. There
is more real estate up high to work with. You can certainly put cellular equipment on the
standpipe, you just don't have as much area up high to work with. Supervisor
Bedrosian stated when he looks at the two, and he sent out a note to the citizens in his
district, approximately 345 emails and this is the probably the largest return of emails he
has received, even Chick-fil-A. He received fifteen percent (15%) responded back
562 July 22, 2014
overwhelmingly for the cylinder because of the cost. Most people are oblivious about
the design and he had sent them pictures of both, but one of the things, and he is
inclined to believe, the cost. They are both towers that serve a function and will both fit
into the landscape, but one is going to cost Roanoke County citizens $200,000 and the
Water Authority; they are also going to be spending $200,000 that will somehow trickle
down to the citizens. So, besides putting up cell towers on it, which one would be better
if you put more on it and if you put more on it, the uglier it is going to look. If you put
more than one or two. Then it starts to look like something very different and that is the
advantage. It seems like in our County there are so many other needs for things that he
is inclined to do the cylinder.
Supervisor Peters asked Mr. Caywood to confirm the reason that we are
pursuing this is for the purpose of water pressure in the Gander Mountain area. Mr.
Caywood responded in the affirmative. His question is when you have the cylinder you
lose what you are trying to achieve and with the possibility of more development out that
way, the sphere would give us more water pressure because of the gravity. He wants
to make sure that we get "the most bang for the buck." Mr. Caywood advised that both
designs from a functional standpoint, would function identically. The sphere in this case
is smaller in capacity, but they both have the same usable capacity. So, from a water
systems standpoint, the water system would know which design is there. It is truly a
question of aesthetics. If not for the cell tower issue, he would not have made this
recommendation. It comes down to cell towers, cost and aesthetics Supervisor Peters
then asked in looking at the sphere, we have determined that if we look a cell towers,
we would be able to put more on that one. Mr. Caywood responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Peters stated this would alleviate the concern that citizens have brought up
about spending extra money and also a possible future income stream of more than
what we would get on the standpipe. Mr. Caywood indicated the one in Blacksburg
generates approximately $200,000 revenue a year. He does think that the future
revenue potential for the sphere is probably better based upon what we know now; but it
does cost more. Supervisor Peters stated his point is that we could recover those costs
and a long-term revenue stream that we could appropriate money elsewhere.
Supervisor Peters then moved approval.
Supervisor Moore asked Mr. Caywood to confirm whether Roanoke
County is a lessor or not, we will have final approval on what goes on top of the tank,
which Mr. Caywood responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated in talking about Blacksburg have seven (7)
on one tower, so how many can the standpipe model have on one tower. Mr. Caywood
advised he would get a definitive answer. Supervisor Bedrosian stating with this being
only the first reading, he has no problem approving, but has questions, i.e. Is it likely we
can get seven or eight or how long did it take Blacksburg to get there, what is the history
of actually getting those on there? If you are going to make back the money, he does
not have a problem. The bottom line for him is the numbers, it is a good decision to
spend the extra money and not get any return at all. Mr. Caywood advised he would
July 22, 2014 563
bring information back to the second reading.
Supervisor Church stated he concurs with the Supervisor from Hollins. He
has a point of order, with all due respect to all Board members, this is in the Hollins
District and historically the sitting board member has made the motion.
Supervisor McNamara stated he intends to support the motion. He thinks
the spherical tower looks a lot better. It is a gateway from Roanoke County as people
are traveling down Interstate 81. When you couple that with potential revenue, he
thinks it makes good sense. We do have another reading, so we have plenty of time to
discuss this between now and then. He does not know if he wants the tower, the main
entrance of Roanoke to have as many cell providers as we can to put on a tower and
set any type of records. We do have an opportunity to review any cell providers added
to that tower. He would personally like to see three or four (3 or 4) around the top, and
the same color of the tank. He does not think that looks terribly awful. The tower as
represented in Blacksburg with the cables going up the side and the providers around
the middle of the tower he is not real sure he is interested in doing that personally in the
Hollins District or any other district of the County. He thinks the Board is doing the right
thing by moving it forward, we do have some time to evaluate it between now and then.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he knows when we talk about it being the
gateway and we want it to be something that looks nice. He thinks that is fine, but also
thinks we have to live within our means and he thinks we could say this about
everything that we do. We always want the best. Like in a family, you may always want
the thing that is the nicest, but you have to look at your income. The thing that hit him
this week, for the last three weeks he has had to go to two (2) homes that were
basically flooded with water from the rain. He started thinking about what a lot of people
in Roanoke County are still fighting with, we have a backlog of ten (10) years and $3.5
million projects around Roanoke County that need to be done for citizens and when he
looks at that he thinks why are we spending a couple of extra thousand dollars for
something because we want it to look pretty when we have people that have real needs
that we have not been able to get to for ten (10) years. Having said that at the second
reading, if it is a quick payback and we can actually start making money that we can put
aside to help citizens he is all for it, but if we are just spending money because
something looks good or we perceive looks better than something else, he has a hard
time with that.
Supervisor Peters' motion to approve the first reading to appropriate
$200,000 for the construction of the water spheroid design for the tower to be located at
the Green Ridge Recreation Center from the Minor Capital account was approved by
the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
564 July 22, 2014
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $120,377 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and the Virginia Department of
Emergency Management for reimbursement of expenditures as
related to the June 2012 Derecho Storm (Anne Marie Green,
Director of General Services)
Ms. Green advised there were no changes from the first reading held on
July 8, 2014. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 072214-2 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
$120,377 FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY AND THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENDITURES
RELATED TO THE JUNE 2012 DERECHO STORM
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke declared a state of emergency on June 30,
2012, and operated the County Emergency Operations Center until Friday, July 6, 2012;
and
WHEREAS, the emergency declaration request from Virginia was approved and
a federal declaration approved; and
WHEREAS, the County has submitted over $350,000 of expenditure
reimbursements for three (3) separate projects under federal requirements; and
WHEREAS, partial payment was received on all three of the submissions to date;
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 July 8, 2014, and the
second reading was held on July 22, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
July 22, 2014 565
1. That the sum of $120,377 is hereby accepted and appropriated from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency and Virginia Department of
Emergency Management as reimbursement to the various departments as
follows-
Fire
ollows:Fire and Rescue 8,265.86
Police 1,664.58
ECC 448.49
Comm/IT 1,289.34
General Services 108,708.73
Total
$120,377.00
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
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 072214-3 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
ollows:That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 22,
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 4 inclusive, as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. Approval of minutes — June 10, 2014
2. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke Valley Convention & Visitors
Bureau Board of Directors; Roanoke Broadband Authority; Roanoke Regional
Partnership; Roanoke Valley -Alleghany Regional Commission; South Peak
Community Development Authority; Western Virginia Regional Industrial
Facility Authority; Western Virginia Regional Jail
3. Resolution approving the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton providing for
566 July 22, 2014
stormwater management facilities post -construction inspection services to the
Town of Vinton
4. Resolution approving the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton providing for
stormwater management plan review
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 072214-3.b APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN
ROANOKE COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF VINTON PROVIDING
FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES POST -
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES
WHEREAS, Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton desire to work
cooperatively to provide an optimum level of customer service to the development and
construction community and to streamline the review and post -construction inspection
process; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 081313-4 approved the execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton providing for
stormwater management facilities post -construction inspection services; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County recognizes that, in order to maintain a high quality
level of customer service to its development/construction community and to comply with
federal, state, and local requirements for the stormwater management regulations, a
close working relationship with the Town of Vinton is desirable and will be made
possible through the re-execution of the above-mentioned Memorandum of
Understanding extending this service for a two-year period ending August 12, 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. That the Memorandum of Understanding for providing stormwater
management facilities post -construction inspection services to the Town of Vinton is
hereby approved for a two (2) -year period ending August 12, 2016.
2. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized to
execute the Memorandum of Understanding and any other necessary documents to
accomplish this action, all to be upon a form approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
July 22, 2014 567
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 072214-3.c APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ROANOKE
COUNTY AND THE TOWN OF VINTON PROVIDING FOR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN REVIEW
WHEREAS, Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton desire to work
cooperatively to provide an optimum level of customer service to the development and
construction community and to streamline the review and post -construction inspection
process; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 081313-5 approved the execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton providing for
stormwater management plan review; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County recognizes that, in order to maintain a high quality
level of customer service to its development/construction community and to comply with
federal, state, and local requirements for the stormwater management regulations, a
close working relationship with the Town of Vinton is desirable and will be made
possible through the re-execution of the above-mentioned Memoranda of
Understanding extending this service for a two (2) -year period ending August 12, 2016
for providing stormwater management plan review services to the Town of Vinton.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. That the Memorandum of Understanding for providing stormwater
management plan review services to the Town of Vinton is hereby approved (Exhibit A)
for a two-year period ending August 12, 2016.
2. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized to
execute the Memoranda of Understanding and any other necessary documents to
accomplish this action, all to be upon a form approved by the County Attorney.
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
I_QitN��iC1cro
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Moore moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
568 July 22, 2014
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 2014.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore congratulated all of the Fire Academy Number 17 who
graduated a few weeks ago.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated four weeks ago, this Board voted to give itself
a raise and this has always been an issue when we did that because we really should
not be giving ourselves raises. He asked the County Attorney, why are we doing that.
He has only been here for six months and the Board is voting on a raise for themselves
and he stated that is just the way it is done. The State legislators voted it that way. He
still feels very uncomfortable that we would be voting ourselves raises. So, today he will
be giving a check for $347.60, which is the amount of the raise, back to Roanoke
County. He stated he thinks because we now are legislators, and when we see
something that is not right that we should make a change. He has contacted all of our
State legislators in the Roanoke Valley and asked them to bring this up the next
session. If that is the way they do it, he is not really sure of the logistics or how you go
about doing that. We need to change this to a referendum. He stated when he thinks
about giving ourselves a raise, the only people he knows that gives themselves raises
are owners. If you own a company, you can give yourself a raise if you want. So, we
are implying that we are the owners of Roanoke County and we are not. We work for
Roanoke County; we work for the citizens of Roanoke County and he knows we all get
caught in a bind every time this comes up. He is sure everybody on this Board feels
very uncomfortable, but you always justify it by saying what else do we do. If we don't
give ourselves a raise, then the value never goes up. He can understand that. If the
Board was making $5,000 forty (40) years ago, it has to go up but somebody else
should be doing it. He thinks a referendum to the people on a November election would
be the best way to do it and let the people decide. Is the value of what we give to
Roanoke County worth what you are paying us? If you don't think it is, then don't vote,
but we really need to change that. He has emailed the County Administrator and asked
how we do this. Some people have said why don't you take the money and give it to a
good organization, an organization you really like. He stated that is not his role either.
He should not be taking money and giving it to some private organization. He does not
have the right to do that. He voted against every time we give money to private
organizations even though he thinks they are good organizations, but he does not think
July 22, 2014 569
that is his right to take money from the citizens of Roanoke County and give it to
somebody that deserves it. His thing is just to give it back. It is up to us on this Board
to be accountable with the money. He would like to put the money toward debt service,
if we can. He knows it will make a very little dent in the debt service of Roanoke
County, it would also show people that if he is willing to give up money that he would
love to have, then he is going to be very serious about how he spends the people's
money on all the things that we do.
Supervisor Peters requested that a work session be conducted during the
month of August on the 2015/2016 budget.
Supervisor McNamara stated you may have seen in the newspaper a few
days ago that Roanoke County and Botetourt County have chosen to not participate in
the Broadband Authority or the newspaper article would imply that is the case. He did
have an opportunity to talk with the reporter the day that article came out and relayed
his concern that he does not think it was a decision that was made on this Board that
we would not participate in the Broadband Authority. There was subsequently another
article that would suggest that Roanoke County was not intending to participate in the
Broadband Authority that was in the paper yesterday or today. He would like to say that
he has surveyed all the Board. There is not a single person on the Board that has
determined that we will not participate in the Broadband Authority. There are five (5)
people on the Board, myself included that believe we should be thoroughly and
completely evaluating the potential benefits of the Broadband Authority, evaluating it
against the costs in determining whether it is a service that the private sector can or will
provide and in the absence of private sector, it is something we can afford. We will
continue to go through the evaluation process. We will have a work session continuing
to discuss this at our next meeting and we will try to make intelligent decisions. The
suggestion that off of a thirty or forty (30 or 40) minute presentation on the benefits of
the Broadband Authority, that as a Board we would all put our names and put
checkmarks next to that activity he thinks without doing further due diligence, which we
have done very little at this point, would not be right. He did want to clarify that the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is continuing and will continue to thoroughly and
completely evaluate the potential benefits of the Broadband Authority for the Roanoke
County citizens as well as the citizens of the Roanoke Valley. When we have the
necessary information to make a good decision, we will vote and then everyone will
know where this Board collectively and individually stands as far as the creation of a
Broadband Authority.
570 July 22, 2014
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING.
At 4:06 p.m., Chairman McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
pursuant to State of Virginia Code Section 2.2-3711.A.1 — to discuss and consider the
employment, performance, demotion, disciplining or resignation of specific public
officers, appointees, or employees. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 4:10 p.m. until 4:31 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION
At 4:31 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 072214-4 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 .
nowledge: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
July 22, 2014 571
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 4:32 p.m.
Sy�mitted by: Approved by:
Deborah C. Ja~ckg
Deputy Clerk to the Board
ph P. McNamara
rman
572
July 22, 2014
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY