HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/10/2017 - Regular
January 10, 2017
1
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of January 2017. Audio and video recordings
of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 2:01 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Supervisors George G. Assaid, Al Bedrosian, Martha B.
Hooker, Joseph P. McNamara and P. Jason Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Daniel R.
O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Amy Whittaker,
Public Information Officer, Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County
Attorney; and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the
Board
IN RE: ORGANIZATION OF COUNTY BOARD
1. Election of Officers
a. Chairman
Supervisor Assaid nominated Supervisor McNamara to serve as
Chairman. Supervisor Hooker seconded the nomination.
Supervisor Bedrosian nominated Supervisor Assaid to serve as Chairman,
.
which nomination Supervisor Assaid declined
Supervisor McNamara was elected by the following recorded vote:
January 10, 2017
2
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Peters
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
ABSTAIN: Supervisor McNamara
b. Vice Chairman
Supervisor Assaid nominated Supervisor Hooker to serve as Vice
Chairman. Supervisor McNamara seconded the nomination.
Supervisor Hooker was elected by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Hooker
Chairman McNamara recessed the meeting at 2:04 P.M.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by Pastor
Greg Irby of Temple Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all
present.
Chairman McNamara called the meeting back into session at 3:03 p.m.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of appreciation to P. Jason Peters for his service as
Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in 2016
RESOLUTION 011017-1 OF APPRECIATION TO P. JASON
PETERS FOR HIS SERVICE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN 2016
WHEREAS, P. Jason Peters served as Chairman of the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors during 2016; and
WHEREAS, during Mr. Peters’ term as Chairman, the County achieved a variety
of accomplishments, including:
Sale of the 419 Library to Heritage Roanoke, LLC for the redevelopment
of the property into corporate offices for American Healthcare
Sale of the former Roland E, Cook School to Old School for the
January 10, 2017
3
redevelopment of the property into 16 loft apartments
Sale of the former William Byrd High School to Waukeshaw Development,
Inc. for the redevelopment of the property into 80 market rate apartments
Sale of the former Vinton Library for a full-service Macado’s restaurant
Sale of Tanglewood Mall to Blackwater Resources
Acquisition of the 106 acre Woodhaven Road properties through the
Western Virginia Industrial Facilities Authority
Launching the Reimagine 419 Town Center Study and community
visioning process
Completion of Roanoke County’s first-ever Community Strategic Plan
Completion of the Explore Park Master Plan
Expansion of the broadband network into Roanoke County, adding 25
miles of open-access fiber to primary commercial corridors
New construction, renovation and expansion projects representing more
than $20 million in new investment, and the creation and retention of more
than 400 jobs
WHEREAS, Chairman Peters chose a positive approach to governing by
encouraging transparency and prompt responses to citizens; and
WHEREAS, Chairman Peters worked diligently throughout the year to represent
the citizens of Roanoke County by emphasizing sound financial strategies and practices
and promoting regional economic development and initiatives to benefit all the residents
of the Roanoke Valley.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby extend its deepest appreciation to P. Jason
Peters for his service as Chairman during 2016 and for his belief in democracy and
championing of citizen participation in local government.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the progress of
the I-73 Corridor (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; John
T. Stirrup, Alcalde & Fay)
Briefing was given by Mr. Stirrup with a PowerPoint presentation.
4 January 10, 2017
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to approve an extension of a contract among the
Counties of Franklin, Henry and Roanoke and the Cities of
Martinsville and Roanoke and the Interstate 73 Coalition,LLC for
pursuit of construction of Interstate 73 in the Commonwealth of
Virginia (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator)
A-011017-2
Mr. Gates presented the request. There was no discussion.
The motion of Supervisor Assaid to approve an extension of a contract for
the pursuit of construction of Interstate 73 was seconded by Supervisor Peters and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters
NAYS: Supervisor McNamara
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$921,970 for the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian and
Streetscape Improvement Project (Richard Caywood, Assistant
County Administrator)
Mr. Caywood outlined the request for this ordinance. There was no
discussion.
Supervisor Bedrosian's motion to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for January 24, 2017 was seconded by Supervisor Peters and approved
by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisor Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
1. Ordinance to accept and appropriate $29,680 from Franklin
County for the reimbursement for logging recorder services and
site use at Crowell's Gap (Susan Slough, Assistant Director for
Communications)
January 10, 2017
5
Ms. Slough outlined the request for ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Peters’ motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for January 24, 2017, was seconded by Supervisor Assaid and approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Supervisor Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 21, Article III, Section 21-39 of the
Roanoke County Code, requiring tax exempt entities to
reestablish eligibility for tax exempt status of real property on
a triennial basis; and enacting a new Chapter 21, Article II,
Section 21-23, requiring tax exempt entities to reestablish
eligibility for tax exempt status of personal property on a
triennial basis (Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck outlined the history of this ordinance and advised there were
no changes since the reading on December 20, 2017.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired concerning the letter that was sent to the
Board clarifying some things. It is true that what we have on our books does not match
what the State Code has, however, nothing says that we have to match, we just cannot
be stricter, is that correct. Mr. Lubeck responded in the affirmative.
Chairman McNamara advised the Board there were two speakers on this
issue.
Pastor Irby stated his concern is not with the leadership he sees in front of
him. He knows most of the Board and that is not his concern. His concern is the future
and some of the things that concern him about this is what about people outside our
churches that want to rent the church for a wedding; how does that fall under this?
What about someone who wants to use the facility for a funeral? That is one concern
he thought as he was sitting there. He does not mean any disrespect. He thinks those
of you that know him understand that, but he will be honest in saying he does not think
we need more government involvement, we need less government involvement,
especially in churches. When he first moved here fourteen years ago, he learned some
things that he was not aware of. It was a bookkeeping nightmare. When he first moved
here, he learned that any paper used inside the building was tax-exempt; any paper
that he sent outside his building, i.e. bulletin to a church member outside our building,
January 10, 2017
6
he had to pay tax on that paper; it is a bookkeeping nightmare. He also learned when
he had to buy tires for the bus that they pick children up in each week that he had to
pay tax on his tired because the bus sits outside the building. Again, his concerns are
not this group, his concerns are who follows. If we open a door, it could create some
issues. Again, he learned something else; they do not have a church sign right now
and part of the reason is the County charges $50 to put a sign up and he said to the
County and he did not say it disrespectfully, it may appear that way, but he said to
them, “until you start charging political candidates who put up signs, why do we have to
pay $50 to put a sign up.” Ms. Hooker knows where we are; we are not visible and he
tells folks all the time, if you are in our church you are either here on purpose or
severely lost. We have not way of letting people know where we are unless we pay a
$50 signage fee. Again, he does not know where this is going to go; if we open a door,
his recommendation would be to table it and maybe talk to some of the local churches
in the County, the pastors. Again, he does not distrust any of the Board, but he doesn’t
know who is coming behind them. Who is to say that someone does not take this and
run with it? He talked to an attorney today, a Christian attorney, and she made the
statement to him that it could become our worst enemy. He agreed with her, some of
the things we do as churches are stupid and certainly he does not endorse any of that.
Churches that function as a church, he would like to see some caution.
Daniel Palmer stated he is the Pastor of North Roanoke Baptist Church;
you can find them as they are located at 6402 Peters Creek Road in North County. He
is a new Pastor there; has been there about thirteen months. It has been a great year.
He has taken a particular interest in the issues of governance and its relationship to
churches, in part because he is a Baptist and our Country owes its religious liberty to
Baptists, in particular John LeLand who was a Virginian and Issac Backus who was
from Massachusetts and was ordered to be a Congregationalist, but came to saving
faith in Christ in a cow pasture and gave his life to the Lord and understood that you do
not baptise people just because, you do it for authentic faith in Christ. He wanted to be
a Baptist, but he was made to be a Congregationalist. He came down to Virginia to
meet a man named James Madison and shared his story with him and that is how we
got the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. So, he is an heir of that
heritage and for that reason he is here today. Really, he has come questions for the
Board and for the County Attorney. He appreciates the Board coming into alignment
with the State and being less strict on the timing, three years versus two, but he does
want to clarify what will be intended or meant by personal property in terms of our
requirement to document what we own as a church. Could someone speak to that,
please? Supervisor McNamara stated generally speaking the Board does not have
interaction with the speakers during the actual speaking. Pastor Palmer then asked if
he could state his questions and then be allowed to have a follow-up. Chairman
McNamara stated, “No, but you can certainly state your questions and we can respond
January 10, 2017
7
to them after.” Pastor Palmer stated assuming that it is comprehensive, how would you
then determine what purposes are religious and which are business because the
scriptures tell us, “To do all things for the glory of God,” in First Corinthians 10:31 and is
the County prepared to become an arbiter of what is a substantial business purpose
versus a religious purpose? Are you prepared to tell him that selling a hot latte at cost
and compensating a student worker who does that but makes no profit on that does not
facilitate fellowship and worship in our congregation and are you prepared to defend
that in a Court of law? Are you saying that all nonprofit assemblies that met in Roanoke
County must provide an itemized list of their property and its purpose to gather and
worship as they choose in Roanoke County and are you prepared to defend that
statement in a Court of law? These are important questions because we sell t-shirts at
North Roanoke Baptist Church, the proceeds of which go to underwrite mission trips
right here in the City of Roanoke, the County of Roanoke and around the world. Every
dollar that we generate at North Roanoke, we generate for the purpose of blessing
others in Jesus’ name. We do it to serve meals at no charge to teachers at Burlington
Elementary School. We do it to do backpack buddy programs. We do it to be a
blessing to our neighbors and we are convinced that giving a cup of cold water in Jesus’
name is what we have been commanded to do and he does not know what all that
entails but he does know that providing an itemized list to the County of what we own
and what we do with it is not the County’s purview and not the County’s business and it
will provide substantial limitations on our ability to fulfill our God-given mandate and
mission and he knows that to the extent that he knows what property means, which is
why he would love to be able to respond. He urged the Board to not only if the answers
to these questions are as he suspects them to be, he urges the Board to not only to
table this, but to dismiss it and to vote in the portion that brings in your policy in
alignment with the State on the timetable, but to get out of the business of knowing how
many t-shirts we own and how many reams of paper and how many computers we
have and how many church buses we have to go visit the nursing homes and sing
Christmas carols. It does the County no benefit and it certainly does not benefit your
churches, which are trying to do their best to serve this community the best they can
and to raise the flag and banner of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Supervisor Hooker stated she thought there were some good questions
raised there and she guesses what she wants to know is have there been any
substantial changes in that portion of this documents that says itemizing what is a
business and what is a non-profit. Has any of that really changed through this process
or is it just the timeline that has changed? Mr. Lubeck advised that there is a change in
that the prior ordinance that allowed the County to give taxpayers notice, an opportunity
to fill out the application was only going to address real property it did not address
personal property. So, the changes do encompass the taxpayer needing to fill out
information about all personal property as well. Supervisor Hooker stated that is not
January 10, 2017
8
getting in line with the State and is something that we make a decision on at the County
level. Mr. Lubeck responded affirmatively and added the State Code also provides for
the County to do that.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked for clarification when we are saying the
taxpayer, we are saying for tax-exempt entities. The language is pretty specific. How
is it determined what is religious and what is not, how would we determine? Mr. Lubeck
responded that is governed by the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3606, which is a long
statute that details what is exempt by classification by the General Assembly, i.e.
churches and property exclusively owned by churches for religious purposes is tax
exempt by classification. The issue is when churches get into the other businesses by
doing things for profit. From time to time, we understand that churches are beginning to
do that. In speaking with the Commissioner of Revenue, after the last hearing with the
Board of Supervisors, he spoke with the Commissioner about her intentions with regard
to this new ordinance if adopted by the Board. The Commissioner is of the opinion that
she would not send this out to any churches. This application renewal would be sent
out only to churches that she has received information that would justify sending out
this notification. Supervisor Bedrosian stated you mentioned the State has definitions
for what is tax-exempt. Churches are classified as tax-exempt, correct. Mr. Lubeck
responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so if they are classified as
tax-exempt why are we going into a tax-exempt entity and now saying you are tax-
exempt, but we need a list of all your personal property and give us your specific use.
The push back he would get is that we do not intend to do that. It is his contention that
it needs to be stated exactly. He is looking at the verbiage right now and again we go
back to the same thing that we are giving the authority “may or shall” for the
Commissioner of Revenue to ask for an application on personal property. We are
saying that the Commissioner has the authority to do this, no matter what we intend.
He stated he thinks that is a very good discussion about churches opening up café
bars, gymnasiums and charging, he gets it and one of the speakers said we need to
talk about it. He thinks that is a great discussion. We should talk about it. We should
bring pastors and churches in and talk about this before we put something on the books
in Roanoke County. He could see a very good discussion on should you really be
operating a gym and charging and competing as a private sector. The other side could
say that is how they outreach to the community. He understands both those
arguments.
Supervisor McNamara requested that a motion be on the table before
discussion and concentrate on any questions about understanding the ordinance at this
point.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated that is what we are doing. Why are we doing
this? They are classified as tax-exempt. Mr. Lubeck stated they are tax-exempt when
January 10, 2017
9
they use the property as allowed. Supervisor Bedrosian stated no one has a problem
with real estate and the problem we are now having is why are we taking it to the
second level asking “may or shall” to itemize personal property.
Chairman McNamara stated we are asking the County Attorney why we
are doing this when it is the Board that decides and asked for a motion.
Supervisor Assaid moved approval of the ordinance; Supervisor
McNamara seconded the motion and opened the floor for discussion.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated you are correct the County Attorney does not
state what we can or cannot do, it is true that it is our business. We need to have a very
good discussion here because what in front of us today has been put together without
our input. It was just presented and is not sure who on this Board initiated the fact that
we should now ask churches and tax-exempt organizations for their personal property.
He did not bring it up and does not know of who on this Board brought it up. If we are
saying we are the body that makes these decisions, why were not involved in this
decision? Why did we not round table this discussion before it is in front of us to vote
on/
Supervisor McNamara stated we have turned this into something that it is
not. This is not a witch hunt to go after churches that are selling t-shirts for $10 to go on
mission trips; that is not what this is all about. It is really about bringing Roanoke
County in line with the State of Virginia. Why was this not discussed before? We
oftentimes have items that he would consider as housekeeping issues that bring our
ordinances in line with the Commonwealth of Virginia. He does not view this as anti-
church. Why personal property? We want to be fair to all taxpayers. So, as an
example, we have quickly turned this into a church issue, but it is also any type of entity
that the State or the Board of Supervisors has granted they can be tax exempt. As an
example, what if there is a nursing home that is by statute of the State tax-exempt gets
into and there is talk of this, the pharmacy business because one they can supply their
existing residents, but also make it available to the community. Should we not have
tools to identify what properties that are being used for a pharmacy/for profit business
as opposed to what tools and products that are being used for the nonprofit business,
which are appropriately tax exempt as based on the Commonwealth of Virginia. He
thinks this is turning into something that it is not. By the way, the Commissioner of the
Revenue is also an elected position and is not a bureaucrat per say, but one that
answers to the people every four years. He thinks there is plenty of protection there
that this is not all about a witch hunt. He thinks it is about having the tools to effectively
and fairly leave tax-exempt property, which should be tax-exempt personal property that
should not be tax exempt because it is being used for profit and is being taxed
appropriately.
Supervisor Peters commented he understands that this is trying to bring
us back into State Code and appreciates Mr. Lubeck’s work, but he has a problem
January 10, 2017
10
moving to a three-year for the real estate, but he shares some concerns over what is
the personal property and how is that laid out. He does not believe that just because
the State does it does not mean we have to. There are two different issues to be
discussed: first, the timeline which would bring us in line and secondly as we examine
the personal property there needs to be a greater discussion.
Supervisor Hooker stated she thinks another stumbling point is the word
“profit.” So, when churches get into the business of trying to turn a profit, they may be
turning a profit by selling t-shirts for another mission or something, but is that really for a
business or is that to further the mission of that church. She feels that is where it gets
tricky because she understands and appreciates what Mr. McNamara saying regarding
making it a level is playing field for businesses and churches. Somehow they are
competing with gyms use, etc. She does struggle with that word “profit” because they
may be making money on an item and at the same time going for furthering the mission
of the church. She is struggling with that.
Chairman McNamara asked Supervisor Assaid if he wished to modify his
motion to require the triennial application of real property without including the personal
property. Supervisor Assaid responded in the negative.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he thinks that is good point when bringing up
what these entities are selling and could it be construed as personal property. Under a
church, there are a lot of things they sell and do go back into the church for the
furtherance of the church rules and becomes a very sticky issue. He has heard the
folks that have spoken today and has not heard anybody say let’s not discuss this
further, which he thinks is a good thing. We are representatives of the people and he
would like at a further time for us to really discuss this issue, because he thinks there
are some legitimate things. He is very open to having a work session and bring in
people from our community, hear what they have to say and let them tell us. Also as
you look through some of this stuff we are proposing to say yes to, there are three
items, A,B,C and basically A & B talk about what we are trying to do here, but C says
that any entity failing to comply with all and singular terms and provisions of this section
shall lose his entitlement to personal property tax exemption. We are a government
trying to govern and that kind of language that would punish people for not complying
with one or all of these things, right away they lose their tax exempt status. He thinks
this needs a lot of work to make it something that is fair and equitable and something
that is reasonable and thinks that we ought to concentrate on. He could offer a motion
that we table it and have a work session.
Supervisor McNamara removed his second thereby removing the motion
from the floor.
Supervisor Peters stated this is not just a conversation about churches,
but about all nonprofits and how this will affect everyone. A great conversation would
January 10, 2017
11
be warranted. He does support bringing the real estate into the triennial cycle and
moved to adopt the ordinance with only the triennial information.
ORDINANCE 011017-3 AMENDING CHAPTER 21, ARTICLE III, SECTION
21-39 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, REQUIRING TAX EXEMPT
ENTITIES TO REESTABLISH ELIGIBILITY FOR TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF
REAL PROPERTY ON A TRIENNIAL BASIS
WHEREAS, Section 58.1-3605 of the Code of Virginia, which was last updated in
1995, authorizes a locality to adopt an ordinance requiring tax exempt entities to file
applications, triennially, to reestablish their eligibility for tax exempt status for real
property; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Code, which was enacted in 1983, is
inconsistent with the Code of Virginia because it requires tax exempt entities to file
applications, biennially, to reestablish their eligibility for tax exempt status for real
property; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2016;
and the second reading was held on December 20, 2016 and on January 10, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Section 21-39 of Chapter 21, Article III of the County Code is hereby
amended as follows:
Triennial reestablishment of exempt status.
Sec. 21-39
(a) Any person, firm, corporation or other legal entity, except the commonwealth,
any political subdivision thereof or the United States, owning real estate situate,
lying and being in the county, which real estate is exempt from local taxation
pursuant to chapter 36, title 58.1 (§ 58.1-3600 et seq.), of the Code of Virginia,
shall file triennially an application with the commissioner of revenue as a
requirement for retention of the exempt status of the property. .
(b) Each person, firm, corporation or other legal entity subject to subsection (a)
above shall be given sixty (60) days' written notice, by the office of the
commissioner of the revenue, of the requirement to reestablish exempt status,
and thereafter shall file an application, on a form obtained from the office of the
commissioner of the revenue, listing each piece or parcel of real estate claimed
to be exempt. Such application shall contain, among other information, the
exact legal name of the owner of such property and the precise usage of the
pieces or parcels of real estate claimed to be exempt. The application shall be
January 10, 2017
12
filed on or before December 31 of the year immediately preceding the triennial
period for which such exemption is sought to be reestablished.
(c) Any person, firm, corporation or other legal entity failing to comply with all and
singular the terms and provisions of this section shall lose his or its entitlement
to real estate tax exempt status for the triennial period for which such
reestablishment does not occur as herein provided.
(Ord. No. 83-83, § 1,5-12-83; Ord. No. 011017-3, 1-10-2017)
State Law reference
– Authority for above section, Code of Virginia, § 58.1-3605.
2. That any provision of the Roanoke County Code not specifically amended
above shall remain in full force and effect as adopted.
3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Assaid
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 011017-4 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 January
10, 2017, 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 8 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – December 6, 2016
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to James E. Bowles, Combination Code Compliance
Inspector, upon his retirement after over thirty-one (31) years of service
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Victoria A. Webb, Security Specialist, upon her retirement
after over forty-three (43) years of service
4. Request to accept donation of Ballistic Vest for Police Department K9
January 10, 2017
13
5. Request to accept donation of Ballistic Vest for Police Department K9
6. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $5,000 from the
Virginia Commission for the Arts (VCA) for the Local Government Challenge
Grant for fiscal year 2016-2017
7. Confirmation of appointment terms on the Western Virginia Regional
Industrial Facility Authority
8. Confirmation of appointment to the Planning Commission (District)
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 011017-4.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO JAMES E. BOWLES, COMBINATION CODE COMPLIANCE
INSPECTOR, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN
THIRTY-ONE (31) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, James E. Bowles was employed by Roanoke County on February
10, 1985; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Bowles retired on January 1, 2017, after thirty-one years and
eleven months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, during Mr. Bowles tenure in the Community Development, he has
served as Building Inspector-Engineering & Inspections; Assistant Building Official;
Building Inspector-Construction; Combination Code Compliance Inspector; and as
Acting Building Commissioner with professionalism and dedication in providing services
to the citizens of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, during Mr. Bowles time with Roanoke County, he was certified by
the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development as a building official;
and certified by the Department of Conservation and Recreation as an Erosion and
Sediment Control Inspector.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
JAMES E. BOWLES
of Roanoke County to for more than thirty-one (31)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, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
January 10, 2017
14
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 011017-4.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO VICTORIA A. WEBB, SECURITY SPECIALIST, UPON HER
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN FORTY-THREE (43) YEARS
OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Victoria A. Webb was employed by Roanoke County on June 11,
1973; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Webb will retire on January 1, 2017, after forty-three years and
seven months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, during Ms. Webb’s tenure with the County, which began with the
School Board, then moved to the then Data Processing Department as County staff.
Over the course of her distinguished career she has served as a Key Punch Operator,
Computer Operator, Computer Operations Supervisor, and Security Specialist with
professionalism and dedication in providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, during Ms. Webb’s time with Roanoke County she served in two
major areas in Information Technology - Computer Operations and User Security.
Managing both a daylight and evening shift, she supervised the efficient processing of
all printing of products for the critical business systems such as staff payrolls, and
citizen Personal Property and Real Estate tax statements. Serving as the System
Administrator for the County mainframe computer she was responsible for all data
backup and recovery. As technology advanced she was instrumental in the
establishment of the County Technical Contact Program, putting power into the user’s
hands and preventing the need for additional staff on a traditional Help Desk. She
managed the County’s work order system for tracking computer issues and assets,
providing positive control on approximately a million dollars in assets. Ms. Webb was
key to the successful migration of the legacy mainframe to client-server computing. As
the County’s first IT Security Specialist she implemented the County's first security
awareness program, critical to the prevention of cyberattacks. She also established
processes, policies and guidelines to improve efficiencies and enhance many of the
County's security processes.
WHEREAS, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the
VICTORIA A. WEBB
appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to for more than
forty-three (43) years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
January 10, 2017
15
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, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
A-011017-4.c
A-011017-4.d
A-011017-4.e
A-011017-4.f
A-011017-4.g
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports.
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he appreciates when we have folks come to
speak on issues. We are not a democracy and we need to discuss and talk about these
things. He looks forward to the New Year. For those that may be watching on television
or here for the first time, it is so important to him that everybody make it a new year’s
resolution that you at least attend once a year. If everybody in Roanoke County
attended one time a year, we would have the place filled every time. We have 95,000
citizens; bring your children and just come one time. Make that your obligation and it will
be a wonderful thing as hearing from people is awesome. Finally, as he always does, he
would like to strongly urge the United Way to stop funding Planned Parenthood. He
hears this a lot from citizens with whom he interacts with because he is strong pro-life.
As a government we help support United Way, which in turn helps and supports Planned
January 10, 2017
16
Parenthood and the only way that will stop is if the people of Roanoke County and us,
government, put a little pressure on. Do all the wonderful other things that you do, but
stop giving money to Planned Parenthood.
Supervisor Hooker noted appreciation to Mr. Peters for a good year,
thanking him for his work.
Supervisor Peters expressed his appreciation to the Board for their support
this past year as they accomplished many things. His wife and two children were here
earlier and he failed to recognize them when the resolution was being presented. When
you are in the position and have a lot going on and a lot of events to attend, they are the
ones that are left behind. He appreciates their support actually the last two years. Also,
as he ended most of his meetings and cannot help but look at the consent agenda where
we have two people retiring from the County and those two people alone have 74 years
of service and thinks that is wonderful. We had a long weekend, a lot of snow and ice
and there is a lot still out there, but appreciates all of our public safety, sheriff’s
department, parks and recreation. Thanks to all of our employees for everything they do.
He is looking forward to a great year.
Supervisor McNamara apologized for not noticing Mr. Peters’ wife and
children because he would have definitely welcomed them up at the podium and the
picture would have been far better with them in it.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:07 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A .3.
To discuss the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, where discussion
in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating
strategy of the public body and Section 2.2-3711.A.1. To discuss and consider the
performance of specific public officers or employees, namely the County
Administrator and Section 2.2-3711.A.1. To discuss and consider the performance
of specific public officers or employees, namely the County Attorney.
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Assaid and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 5:28 p.m. until 8:22 p.m.
January 10, 2017
17
Chairman McNamara recessed to the fourth floor for work session and closed meeting
at 4:08 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss transportation funding issues
with the Board of Supervisors (Tori Williams, Planner II)
The work session was held from 4:27 pm until 5:13 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Gates, County Administrator gave a brief introduction and
turned the meeting over to Mr. Williams who provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Gates gave a wrap-up and called attention to page 43, with regard to
the Woodhaven property and 419 that will require new investment. These are long-
term funding efforts. He asked the Board to keep that in mind as they talk about
transportation funding and transportation needs. Transportation dollars are limited, it
becomes the case of who can best position themselves. Important to understand the
complexity and associate that with the needs that we expect to have to sustain and
grow our economic base.
Supervisor Assaid inquired as to the threshold for our own Transportation
Authority. Mr. Williams advised it is based on population, DMV numbers and transit
ridership numbers, however, even combined with the New River Valley and
Martinsville, we are nowhere close to meeting the threshold and the Code section
would need to be changed.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 8:22 p.m., Chairman McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution and was seconded by Supervisor Peters.
RESOLUTION 011017-5 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.
18 January 10, 2017
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
,, NAYS: None
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m.
ubmitted by: Approved by:
i
, ,1144 , ,or),c,,o„_.____
,...
Ieborah C. 1 . - Fph P. McNamara
Chief Depu erk to the Board rman